Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2xdlg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-07T23:46:12.408Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In a Different Parliamentary Voice?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 April 2012

Aude Bicquelet ,
Albert Weale  and
Judith Bara
Aude Bicquelet
Affiliation:
London School of Economics
Albert Weale
Affiliation:
University College London
Judith Bara
Affiliation:
Queen Mary University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One question at the heart of the analysis of gender and politics is whether women and men act and speak in different ways to significant political effect. In terms of political representation, this issue is particularly important. Arguments for increasing the number of women representatives in parliament, for example, are not about an abstract numerical parity, but rest on a claim about the distinctive voice and experience that women bring to political debate and decisions. For some, the difference turns on the view that women bring a more empathetic and less adversarial style to politics. A number of feminist scholars have suggested that the quality of deliberation is correlated with the presence of women in a group—for Mansbridge (1996, 123), for example, the process of persuasion is related to a consultative and participatory style that seems to characterize women more than men. For others, arguments for increasing the number of women representatives in parliament turn on a difference of values. Such views were particularly widespread in the 1980s, when psychological and social theories of gender differences claimed to have found evidence of parallel but different moral reasoning in women and men (Gilligan 1982; Ruddick 1989; Tronto 1993). Gilligan (1982, 57), among others, advanced in her seminal work, In a Different Voice, that female politicians are more likely to espouse an “ethic of care” concerned with responsibility and interpersonal relationships, while men are, by contrast, prone to embrace an “ethic of justice.”

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 8 , Issue 1 , March 2012 , pp. 83 - 121
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Abdela, Lesley. 1989. Women with X Appeal. London: MacDonald Optima.Google Scholar
Allum, Nicholas. C. 1998. A Social Representations Approach to the Comparison of Three Textual Corpora Using Alceste. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.Google Scholar
Bara, Judith. 2001a. “Tracking Estimates of Public Opinion and Party Policy Intentions in Britain and the USA.” In Estimating the Policy Positions of Political Actors, ed. Laver, Michael. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bara, Judith. 2001b. “Using Manifesto Estimates to Validate Computerized Analyses.” In Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945—1998, ed. Budge, I. et al. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bara, Judith. 2006. “Do Parties Reflect Public Concerns?” In Democratic Politics and Party Competition Essays in Honour of Ian Budge, ed. Bara, J. and Weale, A.. London: Routledge, 105–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bara, Judith, Weale, Albert, and Bicquelet, Aude. 2007. “Analysing Parliamentary Debate with Computer Assistance.” Swiss Journal of Political Science 13 (4): 577–605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bird, Karen. 2005. “Gendering Parliamentary Questions.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 7 (3): 353–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bochel, Catherine, and Briggs, Jacqui. 2000. “Do Women Make a Difference?” Politics 20 (2): 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broughton, Sharon, and Palmieri, Sonia. 1999. “Gendered Contributions to Parliamentary Debates: The Case of Euthanasia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 34: 29–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2000. “The New Labour Women MPs in the 1997 British Parliament.” Women's History Review 9 (1): 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2001. “In Their Own Words: New Labour Women and the Substantive Representation of Women.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations 3 (2): 1973–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2004. “A Feminised Style of Politics? Women MPs in the House of Commons. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6 (1): 3–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. “Gender and Politics: The State of the Art.” Politics 26 (1): 18–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowley, Philip 1998. “Conclusion.” In Conscience and Parliament, ed. Cowley, P.. London: Frank Cass, 177–95.Google Scholar
Cowley, Philip, and Stuart, Mark. 2010. “Party Rules, OK: Voting in the House of Commons on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.” Parliamentary Affairs 63 (1): 173–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. “From Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian politics.” Scandinavian Political Studies 11 (4): 97–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia, and Kelly, Rita Mae. 1995. Gender Power, Leadership and Governance. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilligan, Carol. (1982) In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women's Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenacre, Michael. 1994. “Correspondence Analysis and Its Interpretation.” In Correspondence Analysis in the Social Sciences, ed. Greenacre, Michael and Blasius, Jörg. London: Academic,3–22.Google Scholar
Kenny, Meryl. 2007. “Gender, Institutions and Power.” Politics 27 (2): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena, and Squires, Judith. 2006. “Gender Quotas in British Politics: Multiple Approaches and Methods in Feminist Research.” British Politics 1 (1): 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lahlou, Saadi. 1996. “A Method to Extract Social Representations from Linguistic Corpora.” Japanese Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 35 (1): 278–91.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Garry, John. 2000. “Estimating Policy Positions from Political Texts.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 619–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, Michael, Benoit, Kenneth, and Garry, John. 2003. “Extracting Policy Positions from Political Texts Using Words as Data.” American Political Science Review 97 (2): 311–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1997. “Gender Politics.” Parliamentary Affairs 50 (4): 708–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. “Gendering Research in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. “Women and Westminster: The Politics of Presence.” Political Studies 51 (1): 84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1996. “Reconstructing Democracy.” In Revisioning the Political: Feminist Reconstructions of Traditional Concepts in Western Political Theory, ed. Hirschmann, Nancy J. and Di Stefano, Christine. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Marsh, David, and Joanna, Chambers. (1981) Abortion Politics. London: Junction Books.Google Scholar
McBride Stetson, Dorothy. 2001. “Women's Movements' Defence of Legal Abortion in Great Britain.” In Abortion Politics, Women's Movements, and the Democratic State: A Comparative Study of Feminism, ed. McBride Stetson, Dorothy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 136–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishisato, Shizuhiko. 2007. Multidimensional Nonlinear Descriptive Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” In Women in Politics, ed. Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P.. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Overby, L. Martin, Tatalovich, Raymond, and Studlar, Donley T.. 1998. “Party and Free Votes in Canada: Abortion in the House of Commons. Party Politics 4 (3): 481–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pattie, Charles, Johnston, R., and Stuart, M.. 1998. “Voting without Party?” in Conscience and Parliament, ed. Cowley, P.. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1993. “Must Feminists Give Up on Liberal Democracy?” In Prospects for Democracy, ed. Held, D.. Cambridge, UK: Polity.Google Scholar
Randall, Vicky. 2002. “Feminism.” In Theory and Methods in Political Science, ed. Marsh, D. and Stoker, G.. Basingstoke: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Reinert, Max. 1983. “Une méthode de classification descendante hiérarchique: Application a l'analyse lexicale par contexte.” Les Cahiers de l'Analyse des Données 8 (2) : 187–98.Google Scholar
Reinert, Max. 2005. Alceste: Manuel d'utilitisation. Toulouse: Image.Google Scholar
Ross, Karen. 2002. “Women's Place in ‘Male’ Space: Gender and Effect in Parliamentary Contexts.” Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1): 189–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruddick, Sara. 1989. Maternal Thinking: Towards a Politics of Peace. Boston: Beacon.Google Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 2005. “Measuring Ideas More Effectively: An Analysis of Bush and Kerry's National Security Speeches.” Political Science and Politics 38 (4): 701–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 2006. From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas and Institutions in Historical Perspective. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 2008. “Does Deliberation Matter in FOMC Monetary Policymaking? The Volker Revolution of 1979.” Political Analysis 16 (4): 404–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schonhardt-Bailey, Cheryl. 2008b. “The Congressional Debate on Partial-Birth Abortion: Constitutional Gravitas and Moral Passion.” British Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 383–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tronto, Joan. 1993. Moral Boundaries. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weale, Albert, Bicquelet, Aude, and Bara, Judith. N.d. “Debating Abortion, Deliberative Reciprocity and Parliamentary Advocacy.” Political Studies. Forthcoming.Google Scholar