| |

Symposium

A Comparative Politics of Gender

This symposium is the culmination of work that began in October 2007, when fourteen scholars from Australia, the
United Kingdom, and the United States convened at Case Western Reserve University to participate in the research
conference Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender: Advancing the Discipline along Interdisciplinary Boundaries. The
conference was funded by a Presidential Initiative Grant from the University and further supported by an ACES
grant. Dr. Gregory Eastwood made available the Library of the Inamori Center for Ethnics and Excellence for our
conference meetings. Many thanks to Linda Gilmore, Tonae Bolton-Dove, Gail Papay, Shelley White, and Sharon
Skowronski for their expert administrative support. Professors Dorothy Miller (Women’s Studies), Rosalind Simson
(Philosophy, Law and Women’s Studies), and Kelly McMann (Political Science and International Studies) served as
discussants of the conference papers. To Theda Skocpol, who presented remarks at the opening dinner of the
conference, and to the scholars who participated in the CPG conference and whose contributions are included in this
symposium, I offer my deepest appreciation and gratitude.

Introduction: Comparative Politics

and the Logics of a Comparative
Politics of Gender
Karen Beckwith
䡬

What do we mean by a comparative politics of gender? How would a comparative politics of gender advance our understanding of
politics generally? What would it take to develop a gendered comparative political analysis? In the essays that follow, Teri Caraway,
Louise Chappell, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, and Aili Mari Tripp elaborate their understandings of a comparative politics of gender. Five
additional essays focus specifically on issues of democratization (Lisa Baldez, Georgina Waylen), political institutions and represen-
tation (Mili Caul Kittilson, Mona Lena Krook), and comparative sex equality policies (Mala Htun and Laurel Weldon). In this
introductory essay, I discuss what I mean by “gender” in the context of comparative politics. Briefly enumerating the advantages of
comparative politics as a subfield for a gendered analysis of political phenomena, I discuss how a comparative politics of gender can
serve to advance our understanding of politics generally, and I provide an example of subfield research—the study of political violence—
where gender as a metaconcept may be particularly useful. I conclude by considering what it would mean to our study of gender and
of comparative politics to place gender as a central concept in comparative political research and to move to a comparative politics
of gender.

hat difference would it make for comparative polit- ble. The presence of exclusively male state institutions,

W ical analysis if gender were central to our general

research project? A focus on comparative politics
in its cross-national emphasis shows that gender is so cen-
such as the military, in many if not most nations; the
gendered organization of political rights and liberties
(including political participation, individual mobility,
tral to the politics of countries and peoples as to be invisi- access to education and health care, among other political

Karen Beckwith is the Flora Stone Mather Professor in the written comments on an earlier and much longer draft
Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve of this article. She thanks them all and apologizes in
University. Her book Political Women and American advance for any omissions or errors that remain in the
Democracy, with Christina Wolbrecht and Lisa Baldez, argument. She also thanks Ashutosh Varshney, who was
was published by Cambridge University Press in 2008. generous in reading her critique of his work on ethnic
Colleagues who were instrumental in her thinking about a violence and gracious in his brief rejoinder. Finally, she
comparative politics of gender include Lisa Baldez, Teri thanks Jim Johnson and Jeffrey Isaac, former and current
Caraway, Pete Moore, Leslie Schwindt-Bayer, Sidney Tar- editors of Perspectives, for shepherding this symposium to
row, and Laurel Weldon, many of whom provided detailed publication.

doi:10.1017/S1537592709992726 March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 159

䡬
| |
䡬

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

protections); and the nearly universal dominance of male does not lead inexorably [or inevitably] to any particular
actors in governments worldwide—socially and politi- practices or meanings,” 8 the universal persistence of gen-
cally constructed and defended as a “male/female” der, with its content variations, underscores that gender is
cleavage—are strong evidence of the highly gendered constructed rather than natural. Gender represents both
nature of power and politics in comparative perspective.1 the outcomes and processes of human actors and institu-
This enduring and persistent cleavage is “not [the result tions in developing meanings about a range of feminini-
of ] short term policies introduced and withdrawn by ties and masculinities, and constitutes “a set of ideational
each incoming government but [of ] weighty tomes passed and social structural relationships that people move
from one generation to the next.” 2 As a result, what is through, rather than attributes they have attached to their
politically distinctive about women worldwide “is their persons.” 9
exclusion from the political process and their collective The constructed nature of gender and its variations across
status as political outsiders;” 3 what is politically distinc- states, regions, and nations allows comparative political
tive about men worldwide is their universal presence in scholars to identify intersections of gender with other polit-
national, international, and political institutions and their ically relevant categories and processes. Gender norms, prac-
disproportionate dominance in these institutions. tices, and identities vary “across groups of women and men
Given the universality of women’s presence, and the as well as across nations, regions, generations, and cultural
universality of men’s political dominance, it seem less than groups,” 10 and across age, race, and time, and have “mul-
extraordinary to ask that questions concerning gender be tiple logics.” 11 As a result, gender as a comparative political
placed centrally in comparative politics. A comparative pol- concept carries with it an intersectional appreciation that
itics of gender would take seriously the extent to which gender “male” and “female” are manifested as contextual, time-
is a major and primary constitutive element of political power. bound, socially and politically constructed expressions of
This does not mean that other meta-concepts are not sim- “masculinities” and “femininities” that are not perfectly con-
ilarly important (for example, class),4 but it does insist gruent with “male” and “female” identities. That is, even in
that comparative politics as a subfield have a theoretical a single context at a specific time, women will evidence a
understanding of gender as a meta-concept and that com- range of masculinities and femininities, as will men, and
parative political scholars raise questions about gender in these gendered expressions will vary according to other social
䡬 our thinking about our research, even if ultimately we do identities, constraints, and expectations, as well as to the
not explicitly employ gender in our research.5 actors’ institutional location.
These gendered intersectional meanings also reveal dif-
ferences in political power. As Iris Marion Young observed,
Gender and Gendered Comparative gender can serve to expose “the differentiations and con-
Research tradictions in the social experience of gender. . . . [high-
How does gender as a meta-concept contribute to com- lighting] the fact that not all men are equally privileged by
parative political research? Although much has been writ- gender. It also makes clear that some women are privi-
ten about women, gender, and politics, including the study leged in relation to some men . . . and allows the theorist
of women and comparative politics,6 it is worth reiterat- to look for race or class in specific gender interactions and
ing what is meant by “gender” for comparative political expectations without essentializing them.” 12 Variations in
research. Gender as a concept in political research is con- gender permit scholars to identify political inequalities
ventionally understood as sets of socially constructed and to analyze the extent to which—and how—such
meanings of masculinities and femininities, derived from inequalities are dependent upon gender differences and
context-specific identifications of sex, that is, male and practices.
female, men and women.7 These meanings emerge from How is gender conceptualized in the context of com-
stereotypes about male and female behavior; from charac- parative political research? Apprehending gender as a meta-
teristics and behaviors conventionally associated with concept, gender functions in comparative political research
women and men; from normative assumptions about as both an independent and a dependent variable. Insofar
appropriate behaviors of men and women; from assump- as gender is constructed by state and society, gender func-
tions about biological difference; and from social struc- tions as an effect or outcome of human agency and poli-
tures of power and difference. As a result, meanings of tics. Because gender also serves to construct political choices
gender are multiple and contextual in time and space; and outcomes, it can function as a determinant of such
hence, such meanings vary across nations and states. phenomena. Furthermore, gender can function both as a
No universal content emerges from “sex” that gives sin- categorical concept and as a dynamic process concept for
gle and universal meaning to gender. Nonetheless, gender comparative political research.
as a concept and gendered meanings mapped to “sex” have Gender as a category variable has utility in its classifying
universal persistence. Because “the existence of bodies masculine or feminine behaviors, preferences, and oppor-
imbued with male or female secondary sex characteristics tunities, and in identifying their impact on outcomes,

160 Perspectives on Politics

䡬
| |
䡬

such as military intervention, social movement success, ical stability? Is gender inequality responsible for the prev-
electoral choice, and public policy. Gender, conceptual- alence of dictatorship in the Muslim world? 15 Does
ized as a process, functions to identify how apparently gendered leadership gender public policy? —the subfield
gender-neutral structures and policies work upon women is nonetheless structurally open to these questions.
or men, and upon masculine or feminine actors, as well as Second, comparative politics is also open to a broad
on the interactions among individual women or men to scope of research questions concerning gender and
shape structures and policies to a specifically gendered women. Given the absence of a hegemonic research
outcome. Examples of such research include studies of the agenda, comparative politics—despite its own exclusion-
gendered impact of electoral rules, nomination proce- ary practices 16 —has no necessary structural substantive
dures, and policy-making and other decision-making pro- constraints that would deter research focused on women
cesses, as well as the gendered outcomes of democratic and gender. Comparative politics has no major shared
transitions and other regime changes, citizenship and immi- explanandum (or dependent variable); 17 recent “special
gration policies, and genocide. Gender as process is also issues” of political science journals concerning gender
evidenced, for example, in the strategic decisions and and comparative politics generally address a range of sub-
actions of women and men in constructing new political stantive concerns.18 The absence of a constraining center
systems, drafting constitutions, negotiating party alli- to the subfield is in contrast to the international relations
ances, struggling over party leadership, and organizing subfield where, as feminist IR scholars have argued, “the
transnational social movement campaigns. Gender boundaries . . . have been quite rigorously policed” and
employed as a process variable moves beyond differentiat- the subfield “can be defined substantively, theoretically
ing between, e.g., foreign policy preferences of male and and methodologically” 19 —a claim it would be difficult
female elites to a focus on the ways in which institutional to substantiate for comparative politics.20 This substan-
structures and practices shape the interactions, alliance tive inclusiveness is reflected in the range of research
formation and discourses available to and influenced by across comparative politics generally, and among women
male or female political elites in foreign policy decision- and gender scholars specifically, including, e.g., political
making.13 Therefore, gender has utility for analyzing insti- development, democratization and democratic transi-
tutions and political structures, their functioning and their tions, citizenship, revolution, mobilization, electoral sys-
effects, beyond its more conventional uses for examining tems, party competition, and political leadership, among 䡬
men’s and women’s political behavior and preferences, even other concerns.
cross-nationally. Third, comparative politics’ methodological pluralism
In short, gender functions as a meta-concept.14 Although is well-suited to a research subfield—women, gender, and
gender as a concept has universal presence, its meanings politics—that of necessity has relied upon qualitative and
and content are context-specific. Because gender is a con- small-n case analysis (as well as on large-n and quantita-
structed concept, its meanings vary across time and space, tive statistical analysis). Major fights over epistemology,
marking intersections and inequalities. Gender is evi- methodology, and methods that have characterized other
denced both at the levels of individual identity and of subfields have not resonated as strongly among compara-
institutions and structures; and it functions as a category tive women and politics scholars.21 The data deficiencies—
marker as well as a process variable. These components of or, put more gently, the data collection challenges still to
gender as a meta-concept fit well with the structure and be surmounted—of comparative political research have
foci of comparative politics as a subfield, underscoring required scholars of gender, women and politics to use the
gender’s utility for comparative political research. data available to answer questions that have only recently
been posed, and to employ single-case, primarily qualita-
tive field-based data to build a foundation of evidence for
Intersections of Gender and identifying further research questions, for purposes of gen-
Comparative Politics and the eralization, and for developing comparative political theory
Implications for Gendered (including feminist theory). The current debates in com-
Comparative Research parative politics generally have served more to emphasize
The defining criteria of comparative politics shape the the subfield’s acceptance of multiple methods than to crit-
possibilities for a comparative politics of gender, almost icize them,22 and comparative political research on gender
all of which are positive. First, comparative politics’ empha- and women has taken advantage of every one of these
sis on “real world” questions offers an openness to ques- methods.
tions concerning women or gender. Although the subfield Finally, the emphasis on field research in comparative
as a whole might be faulted for the tardiness with which it politics is particularly conducive to research on women,
has turned its attentions to these particular real-world gender and politics. Field research is not only a valuable
questions—Why are there so few female suicide bombers? data collection strategy but is crucial for a women, gender,
What is the relationship between women’s rights and polit- and politics research subfield that is still in the process of

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 161

䡬
| |
䡬

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

identifying the types of data that need to be collected. the gendered organization of violence that recruits men
Moreover, because comparativists share a focus on multi- exclusively, even in contexts where women’s clothing and
ple countries, including a subset external to our own, field gendered assumptions about women’s apolitical nature
research heightens the possibilities for increasing our aware- would position women strategically as potentially success-
ness of intersectionality issues,23 issues of particular impor- ful and very dangerous suicide bombers? Another ques-
tance for research on women, gender, and politics.24 tion concerns the absence of women as a precondition
In short, comparative political research is a particularly for the use of violence. Is the presence of women more
conducive location for research on women, gender, and likely to deter violence in social movements? Does the
politics. The subfield’s inclusive subject scope, its open presence (or absence) of women in collective action gen-
research agenda, a logic of comparison which embraces der the tactical decisions of social movement activists
multiple methods, and its structural advantages for inter- concerning the use of violence? Does women’s presence
sectionality, grounded in a tradition of field research, have gender the context in which state agents refrain from
positioned comparative politics as well suited to posing using violence against social movement activists and, if
the research questions, employing the methods, collecting so, under what specific conditions?
the data, and developing the models and theories appro-
priate and necessary for a comparative politics of gender. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life Engendered?
In his book Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society, Ashutosh
Varshney examines the role of civic associations in pre-
A Comparative Politics of Gender:
venting ethnic differences from developing into violent
What Does Gender Add to
confrontation. For Varshney, the issue is “that despite eth-
Comparative Political Analysis?
nic diversity, some places . . . manage to remain peaceful,
A comparative politics of gender can render visible a major whereas others experience enduring patterns of vio-
enduring cross-national political cleavage—male/female— lence.” 28 Although Varshney is generally silent on gender,
that is constitutive of political power, and comparative because organized violence is so highly gendered as mas-
political science is structurally and methodologically posi- culine and predominantly (and often exclusively) involves
tioned to incorporate gender as a central concept in the men, Varshney’s work can nonetheless be seen to address
subfield. Most importantly, a comparative politics of gen-
䡬 an implicitly gendered political research question.
der can reveal insights concerning several central concerns Varshney distinguishes two forms of civic engagement:
of comparative politics research that involve the mutually associational 29 and everyday. 30 These different types of
constituent workings of gender and politics. Two substan- engagement involve different network connections and
tive research foci illustrate this claim: 1) comparative vio- different numbers of connections. Although routine
lence and 2) comparative democracy and democratization. engagement (in everyday networks) often functions to bring
neighbors together to promote peace and to diffuse con-
Comparative Political Violence flict, Varshney argues that they are less effective than is
A comparative politics of gender might be particularly associational engagement. Civic associations are sturdier,
useful in elucidating issues of comparative violence. The more enduring, providing social links across anonymity
organization, control, and employment of violence are (beyond face-to-face association) and reaching a larger num-
all highly gendered, not only as masculine behaviors and ber of persons. In addition, Varshney argues, these con-
institutions, but as male-dominant institutions and as nections “constrain local politicians in their strategic
actions undertaken almost exclusively by male actors.25 behavior.” 31 Civic associations, especially cross-ethnic asso-
What is the relationship between political violence and ciations, recognize the benefits of “an institutionalized peace
gender? What sets of beliefs, cultural norms, and specific system;” 32 are positioned to identify, in the community,
masculinities (and femininities) underpin political vio- likely sources of violent conflict; and work with politi-
lence undertaken by men? What (other) gendered insti- cians to defuse possible violence. “A synergy emerges
tutions might support or impede masculinized political between the local wings of the state and local civic associ-
violence? How are men specifically mobilized for politi- ations, making it easier to police the emerging situation
cal violence—and women not so mobilized? Under what and preventing it from degenerating into riots and kill-
conditions are women mobilized to enact—or to be com- ings.” 33 Cross-ethnic civic associations are more likely to
plicit in—political violence? What political and social prevent the emergence of ethnic violence than are intra-
arrangements 26 (or tactical choices) might deter poten- ethnic civic associations, where information across ethnic
tial violence? groups is not shared (or easily sharable); they are also more
Specific gendered questions concerning violence may likely to succeed in preventing “small tremors (uncon-
deepen our understanding of political violence and of firmed rumors, victories and defeats in sports)” 34 from
the use of military force. These questions might include erupting into large-scale violence than are everyday asso-
why there are so few female suicide bombers.27 What is ciations, where the limited reach of everyday networks

162 Perspectives on Politics

䡬
| |
䡬

constrains their capacity to contact sufficiently large num- women in the Muslim and Hindu poor communities,
bers of persons, including beyond those networks, and to creating opportunities for discussion within each ethnic
provide the information, reassurance and solidarity neces- community. This discussion provided cross-ethnic infor-
sary to squelch rumors, discipline counter-productive mation that served to develop women’s trust and interest,
behavior, and defuse conflict.35 and, eventually, inter-ethnic mobilization among women
Varshney examined the role of peace committees among around common concerns and convening of inter-ethnic
several groups whose organizing purpose was the mitiga- meetings among women. Varshney claims that Disha was
tion of ethnic violence. He found such committees present instrumental “in stopping the national controversy over
in Calicut.36 Peace committees form at the city level (from the Baburi mosque from destroying local communal
above) and also develop from everyday engagement (from harmony.” 41
below), but those that emerge from below are more likely A second example is that of the Self-Employed Women’s
to be intra- rather than inter-ethnic associations and lim- Association (SEWA). An inter-ethnic poor working
ited in their reach. Nonetheless, even in Calicut, where women’s association, SEWA formed a series of associa-
citizens have been successful in resisting temptations to tions among women to improve their situation.42 In
ethnic violence, Varshney finds everyday associations under- Ahmedabad, women in SEWA organized across ethnic
pinning inter-ethnic interaction. In Calicut, Hindu and lines to promote peace. “In principle,” Varshney writes,
Muslim families eat together; their children play together; “the associational links between large numbers of Mus-
they visit each other and generally socialize.37 Calicut also lim and Hindu women should offer a bulwark against
has a distinctively high literacy rate and a history of social violence, at least in the neighborhoods where the female
clubs, such as reading groups, film and theatre groups, union members live.” 43 Although threats from Hindu
and science societies.38 nationalists were sufficiently intimidating to shut SEWA
Varshney recognizes, in his discussion of civil society, down in the early 1990s, Varshney argues that, despite
that informal everyday networks have organizational and the conditions SEWA faced, the organization nonethe-
political importance, including in defusing ethnic vio- less had some limited success in mitigating some ethnic
lence, and that women construct (some of ) these net- violence.
works.39 This suggests an unidentified (and unexamined) In short, Varshney’s research lends itself to a compara-
gendered relationship in regard to peace committees and tive politics of gender. Although Varshney’s research is not 䡬
to gendered inter-ethnic everyday engagements that might explicitly gendered, it nonetheless lends itself to further
support inter-ethnic civic associations. Varshney makes a analysis from the perspective of a comparative politics of
strong case that everyday associations are insufficient to gender. This is not a criticism of Varshney’s work per se;
withstand provocations to ethnic violence; he does not, indeed, his research is an important contribution to the
however, examine the extent to which inter-ethnic every- growing comparative (and gendered) 44 research concern-
day associations underpin inter-ethnic civic associations. ing socially diversity networks and the value of heteroge-
It may be that strong inter-ethnic civic associations are neous association, secular or religious, in developing
undergirded by strong inter-ethnic everyday engage- tolerance, generating social cooperation, and defusing vio-
ments that are gendered. In the case of Calicut, a gen- lent conflict.45 Nonetheless, there are missed opportuni-
dered analysis might consider the extent to which everyday ties in Varshney’s work, which raise additional questions.
socializing, among adults and among children, relies upon What is the relationship between women’s everyday engage-
wives; the extent to which play among children requires ment across ethnic lines and successful inter-ethnic civic
trust and cooperation among mothers; the extent to which associationism? Do women contribute to inter-ethic vio-
eating together, with knowledge of cross-ethnic dietary lence at the everyday level and, if so, how? Are women
restrictions and conventions, relies upon women cooking excluded from organized male violence and, if so, how
and negotiating and issuing social invitations. A gen- and why? How do women in homogeneous groups (intra-
dered analysis might also examine whether inter-ethnic ethnic) become violent—or stay peaceful?
everyday engagements, dependent upon (primarily) Furthermore, a gendered analysis might also examine
women, support and sustain inter-ethnic associations the extent to which women may be foreclosed from partici-
among (primarily) men, and whether the absence of inter- pation in civic associations (which involve businessmen
ethnic association at the everyday level deprives civic orga- and union members) 46 and the extent to which inter-
nizations of the connection and reassurance at the base ethnic associations may be more friendly to women than
necessary for inter-ethnic respect, tolerance and peace. are intra-ethnic ones. In his discussion of Aligarh, Varsh-
In Ethnic Conflict and Civil Society, Varshney offers a ney found intra-ethnic association in political parties, busi-
passing—but highly intriguing—set of examples of the ness associations, and in educational and social groups,
role of women in constructing cross-ethnic social, and concurrent with—or perhaps reinforced by—diminished
eventually political, cooperation. In Saharanpur, women experiences of inter-ethnic social contacts. Varshney con-
in Disha,40 a women’s NGO, organized separately among cludes that “everyday interethnic engagement may be

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 163

䡬
| |
䡬

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

enough to maintain peace on a small scale . . . but it is no policies in comparison with those democracies in which
substitute for interethnic associations in larger settings.” 47 women were among the last to be fully included as equal
While Varshney’s work does not address these questions citizens.51
that a gendered analysis would entail, it does position us
at least to ask such questions, including whether a pre-
dominantly male set of civic associations persuades women Conclusion: Toward a Comparative
not to engage in or to encourage violence—or how such Politics of Gender
associations might diminish women’s ability to do either. What would it mean for political scientists to move toward
Again, given men’s predominance in the political orga- a comparative politics of gender? First, a comparative pol-
nization, control, and use of violence, asking about the itics of gender would place gender as a concept central to
relationship between political violence and gender specif- comparative political research. Second, it would make vis-
ically focuses the research on the constitutive nature of ible a major enduring cross-national political cleavage that
gender in politicizing ethnicity and encouraging ethnic- is constitutive of political power.
based violence. Answers to questions about this relation- A comparative politics of gender could also encourage
ship would have enriched Varshney’s analysis and might scholars to broaden, extend, enrich, and correct our analy-
have revealed additional links among cross-ethnic every- ses and conclusions in regard to comparative political
day engagements, women’s civic associations and the prob- research and in regard to gender. A comparative politics of
ability of inter-ethnic political violence. gender discourages provincialism and could serve to cor-
rect US political science hegemony in gender and politics
Comparative Democracy research. In several areas of research, a comparative poli-
Sonia Alvarez, Lisa Baldez, Miki Caul Kittilson, Geor- tics of gender has recast and improved our understanding
gina Waylen, and many other scholars have written about of social policies and welfare states; 52 electoral systems;
the gendered nature of democratization and democratic democratic transitions; and social movements.
transitions; Baldez writes explicitly about a comparative Furthermore, a comparative politics of gender means
politics of gender and democracy in the second half of moving single-nation analyses of women and politics, and
this symposium, and hence I give less attention to a of gender and politics, to a comparative framework. Single-
䡬 comparative politics of gender in comprehending democ- country emphasis in political research on women and gen-
racy than would otherwise be the case.48 In addition to der would benefit by being informed by a comparative
the work of Baldez and other scholars, research on the context.53 As Mona Lena Krook reminds us, claims about
alternation of dictatorship and democracy, resulting from proportional representation and women’s candidacies are
military coups, would benefit from the recognition that only accurate for specific time periods and for specific
these are highly gendered transitions, involving as they parties.54 Similarly, first-past-the-post electoral systems
do the male and masculinized military creation of gov- function well in advancing women’s candidacies as soon as
ernments. The fact that the military, in a coup, replaces a political parties commit to nominating women for office.55
civilian government means not only that the transition is Claims about the role, for example, of personal and polit-
not democratic but that it is a distinctively masculinized— ical ambition as a precondition for access to election to
and hence gendered—transition. The mutual constitu- office 56 may be specific to political systems with high lev-
tion of military and political elites in many countries els of incumbency and candidate (self-) re-selection, or to
underscores the gendered nature of political rule—not parties where routes to nomination are informal, unclear,
just in terms of the explicit exclusion of women from and “structureless.” A comparative politics of gender would
political governance, but in terms of the reinforcing con- serve to reveal the conditions under which individual ambi-
gruence of military masculinities and governing mascu- tion and personal recruitment are essential preconditions
linities located in male actors. A comparative politics of for candidacies, as well as those conditions where individ-
gender leads us to examine military-created governments ual ambition is counter to the norms of nominating and
as gendered political institutions. selecting processes within parties.
In regard to democratic practice and participation, gen- A comparative politics of gender would contribute to
der is likely to have distinctive contributions yet to be the emerging research suggesting that the political oppor-
fully studied and understood.49 Research on women’s move- tunity structure for advancing specific issues varies not
ments suggests that political women organize in commu- only according to political system, “prevailing state strat-
nities in ways that are distinctively inclusive; 50 and that egies,” 57 or “configuration of power,” 58 but according to
women’s movement activism often involves the explicit the type of issue. For example, Htun found, for Argen-
practice of democracy. In addition, democratic political tina, Brazil, and Chile, that governments were more resis-
systems, established with women’s full citizenship, are gen- tant to mobilization around the liberalization of abortion
dered toward women at the outset, and are likely to exhibit than to political initiatives concerning other women’s issues,
distinctive (although not necessarily feminist) practices and including divorce.59 Similarly, for Algeria, Morocco, and

164 Perspectives on Politics

䡬
| |
䡬

Tunisia, Mounira Charrad found that these states were cal debates concerning gender is far beyond the
more favorable toward women’s mobilization concerning scope of this article.
women’s legal and citizenship rights, but thoroughly resis- 8 Beckwith 2005b, 130.
tant to issues involving reproductive freedoms and sexu- 9 Young 2005, 493.
ality.60 A comparative politics of gender has as much to 10 Weldon 2006, 238.
offer to our study of women, men and gender as it has to 11 Young 2005, 493; see also Mohanty 1991; Kantola
offer to our comparative political research. and Dahl 2005.
Finally, a comparative politics of gender could also have 12 Young 1994, 720.
the added benefit of encouraging comparative political 13 See Kenny 2007 for a summary and critical review
scientists to be modest in our generalizations when our of gender and institutions.
work does not take gender explicitly into account. 14 McConnaughy 2007, 380.
Moving toward a comparative politics of gender will 15 Michele Penner Angrist asks just this question in the
not be easy; paradigmatic developments rarely are. Such a APSA-CP Newsletter; Angrist 2008.
move, in comparative political analysis, would mean think- 16 See Tripp 2006.
ing about how masculinities and femininities travel across 17 See Laitin 2002, 631–3.
nation-states and regions; how conceptions of what con- 18 See, e.g., Randall and Lovenduski 2004, “Gender in
stitutes masculinity are employed differently and variably Contemporary British Politics,” which focuses on
(and constantly across) states and political actors; how women’s political participation; and Fiona Mackay’s
and under what conditions femininities accrue to states, “Gender and Political Representation in the UK:
specific leaders, public policies, and national discourses. A The State of the ‘Discipline’” (2004), which focuses
comparative politics of gender would also mean continu- on women’s political representation. See also the
ing to analyze, as many scholars currently do, the location “Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics” sec-
of presumably sex-specific persons, men and women, in tions published in Politics & Gender, on women’s
national legislatures, cabinets, executive positions (both political representation and “critical mass” (2006),
actual and symbolic), political movements, electorates, and state feminism (2007), and gender quotas (2005,
political communities. It would also require pushing fur- 2006).
ther to plot and to analyze coalitions between women and 19 Squires and Weldes 2007, 188. 䡬
men, among women, and among men, along lines of mas- 20 Squires and Weldes suggest that, in international rela-
culinities and femininities; and to identify cleavages orga- tions in the UK and the US, there is an identifiable
nized along lines of sex and gender. In the richness of center, both in terms of subject (a focus on “co-operation
comparative political research, a comparative politics of and conflict among states under anarchy”) and of per-
gender can lead us more clearly to the questions we want sons; see their discussion of academic audits of fem-
to ask about politics and power, and to more complete inist IR, gendered IR and mainstream IR; Squires and
answers to those questions. Weldes 2007, 194. See also Zalewski 2007.
21 Note, however, that Wibbels 2007 calls for just such
a fight, writing “the current peaceful state of affairs
Notes in comparative politics is not acceptable” (39) and
1 In 1994, Chowdhury et al. wrote: “in no country do that “explicit fighting is in order” (43). Squires and
women have political status, access, or influence equal Weldes 2007 note a different developmental trajec-
to men’s” (3; emphasis original), an assertion that tory for feminist international relations, which en-
continues to hold. gaged simultaneously with feminist critiques of
2 Htun 2003, 2. mainstream texts, recast conventional research ques-
3 Baldez 2002, 15. tions in terms of gender and feminism, and initiated
4 See Laitin 2002, 658. its own theorizing and concept-construction (196).
5 At the very least, this means taking seriously 22 See, e.g., the various contributions to this discussion
King, Keohane and Verba’s remonstrance to identify in Comparative Political Studies, including Bennett
the potential errors and uncertainties are in our and Elman (2007); Caparaso (2000); Clarke (2007);
research designs; King, Keohane, and Verba 1994, Gerring (2007); Taggart and Lees (2006); Mahoney
32–3. (2007); Munck and Snyder (2007b); and Wibbels
6 See, in particular, Nelson and Chowdhury’s out- (2007). In Politics & Gender, see also “Critical Per-
standing collection Women and Politics Worldwide, spectives on Gender and Politics: Moving to a Com-
especially the editors’ overview and methodological parative Politics of Gender?” (2006).
chapters; Nelson and Chowdhury 1994, 3–56. 23 Space constraints prohibit development of my argu-
7 I am in no way suggesting that these concepts repre- ment concerning the relationship between field
sent perfect binaries; a full discussion of the theoreti- research and intersectionality in this article.

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 165

䡬
| |
䡬

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

24 See “Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: 40 Disha stands for Development Initiative for Social
Intersectionality,” Politics & Gender, 3 (2), June and Human Action; for more information about
2007: 229–80. Disha, see www.dishain.org/index.html.
25 Anne Costain (2000) suggests that violent social 41 Varshney 2002, 292. He makes similar claims for
movement tactics are highly gendered; women’s SEWA (see 292–3).
movements almost never employ violent tactics, and 42 These included unions, cooperatives, banks and
Costain and her research team could find no in- educational institutions. See Varshney 2002, 253.
stances where a women’s movement organized vio- 43 Ibid.
lence as a means of advancing its goals. 44 See Gidengil, Harell, and Erickson 2007.
26 See the implicit suggestion of the impact of gender 45 See, however, Putnam 2007.
on the role of gendered civic associations in defusing 46 Varshney 2001, 386.
ethnic violence; Varshney 2002. 47 Ibid., 392. See also his brief history of the decline of
27 The presence of women as suicide bombers varies by inter-ethnic cooperation in Aligarh (383–4).
context; e.g. women among the Tamil Tigers in Sri 48 See, e.g., Alvarez 1990; Waylen 2007, 2003, 1994.
Lanka have acted as suicide bombers. 49 See again Baldez 2010.
28 Varshney 2001, 370. 50 Women’s movements themselves may constitute
29 Associational engagement involves networks of democratic participation. See Beckwith 2005a.
established groups and organizations, such as busi- 51 See Caraway 2004, although see also Htun 2003.
ness associations, sports clubs, and trade unions, 52 See Caraway 2010.
among others (Varshney 2001, 363). 53 See work on Britain (see, e.g., van Biezen and Cara-
30 Everyday engagement “consist[s] of simple, routine mani 2006 on “(non)comparative politics in Britain”).
interactions of life, such as whether families from 54 Krook 2010. See also Htun 2003; also Beckwith
different communities visit each other, eat together 1992; Roberts and Seawright 2008.
regularly, jointly participate in festivals, and allow 55 See the British Labour Party candidate selection pro-
their children to play together in the neighborhood” cedures for the 1997 parliamentary elections; see also
(Varshney 2001, 363). the debate between Childs and Krook, and Moran,
䡬 31 Ibid., 378. concerning the gendered nature of electoral nomina-
32 Ibid., 378. tions (Childs and Krook, 2006a, 2006b; Moran
33 Ibid., 378. 2006). See also “Critical Perspectives on Gender and Pol-
34 Ibid., 379. itics: Gender Quotas I and II (2005, 2006),” regard-
35 See ibid., 374–80. Note that Varshney defines con- ing the burgeoning research on gender quotas as
flict as the “institutionalized channeling” of de- a major mechanism for quickly and effectively increas-
mands and issue differences (366). His work is ing the numbers of women elected to parliaments—
concerned with the sudden emergence of ethnic but see also Baldez 2004 for the Mexican case.
violence (e.g., riots) and notes that other models 56 For the US case, see Lawless and Fox 2005.
may be more appropriate to understanding civil wars 57 Kriesi et al. 1995, ch. 2.
and large-scale, state-sponsored violence (365, 379). 58 Kriesi 1995.
36 Varshney (2002, 380–8) paired Calicut with Aligarh 59 Htun 2003.
in one of three paired-case comparisons. It is not my 60 Charrad 2001. See also Kantola 2006 on state poli-
purpose, nor would space permit me, to detail cies regarding childcare and violence against women
Varshney’s research design and methodology. I use in Britain and Finland.
here his discussion of Calicut and Aligarh simply as
examples.
37 Varshney 2001, 383. References
38 Ibid., 387. See also Varshney’s discussion of the Alvarez, Sonia E. 1990. Engendering Democracy in Bra-
“reading room” movement (387–8). zil: Women’s Movements in Transition Politics. Prince-
39 Ibid., 369. Note that Varshney identifies peace ton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
committees as important cross-ethnic associations Angrist, Michele Penner. 2008. Is Gender Inequality
that respond to tensions that might erupt into vio- Responsible for the Prevalence of Dictatorship in the
lence (375). Social movement scholarship suggests Muslim World? APSA-CP Newsletter 19 (1): 12.
that women may be over-represented or instrumen- Baldez, Lisa. 2002. Why Women Protest. Cambridge:
tal in peace movements. This raises the question of Cambridge University Press.
women’s involvement in peace committees and their _. 2004. Elected Bodies: Gender Quota Laws for
success in limiting opportunities for violent inter- Legislative Candidates in Mexico. Legislative Studies
ethnic conflict. See also Varshney 2002, 291–3. Quarterly 29 (May): 231–58.

166 Perspectives on Politics

䡬
| |
䡬

_. 2010. The Gender Lacuna in Comparative Poli- Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: Gender
tics. Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 199–205. Quotas II. 2006. Politics & Gender 2 (1): 101–28.
Beckwith, Karen. 1992. Comparative Research and Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: Moving to
Electoral Systems: Lessons from France and Italy. a Comparative Politics of Gender? 2006. Politics &
Women & Politics 12 (2): 1–33. Gender 2 (2): 221–63.
_. 2005a. The Comparative Politics of Women’s Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: Intersec-
Movements: Teaching Comparatively, Learning De- tionality. 2007. Politics & Gender 3 (2): 229–80.
mocracy. Perspectives on Politics 3 (3): 583–96. Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: State Femi-
_. 2005b. A Common Language of Gender? Politics nism Reconsidered. 2007. Politics & Gender 3 (4):
& Gender 1 (1): 128–37. 499–541.
Bennett, Andrew, and Colin Elman. 2007. Qualitative Gerring, John. 2007. Case Study Research: Principles
methods: The view from the subfields. Comparative and Practices. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Political Studies 40 (2): 111–21. Press.
Caparaso, James. 2000. Comparative Politics: Diversity Gidengil, Elisabeth, Allison Harell, and Bonnie H.
and Coherence. Comparative Political Studies 33 (6/ Erickson. 2007. Network diversity and vote choice:
7): 699–702. Women’s social ties and left voting in Canada. Politics
Caraway, Teri L. 2004. Inclusion and Democratization: & Gender 3 (2): 151–77.
Class, Gender, Race, and the Extension of Suffrage. Htun, Mala. 2003. Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce
Comparative Politics 36 (4): 443–60. and the Family under Latin American Dictatorships and
_. 2010. Gendering Comparative Politics. Perspec- Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
tives on Politics 8 (1): 169–75. Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminist Theorize the State.
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government: Feminist New York: Palgrave.
Engagement with State in Australia and Canada. Van- Kantola, Johanna and Hanne Marlene Dahl. 2005.
couver: University of British Columbia Press. Gender and the State: From Differences Between to
_. 2006. Comparing Political Institutions: Reveal- Differences Within. International Feminist Journal of
ing the Gendered ‘Logic of Appropriateness.’ Politics Politics 7 (1): 49–70.
& Gender 2 (2): 223–35. Kenny, Meryl. 2007. Gender, Institutions and Power: A 䡬
Charrad, Mounira M. 2001. States and Women’s Rights: Critical Review. Politic 27 (2): 91–100.
The Making of Postcolonial Tunisia, Algeria, and Mo- King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba.
rocco. Berkeley: University of California. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific Inference in
Childs, Sarah, and Mona Lena Krook. 2006a. Gender Qualitative Research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Uni-
and Politics: The State of the Art. Politics 26 (1): versity Press.
18–28. Kriesi, Hanspeter. 1995. The Political Opportunity
Childs, Sarah, and Mona Lena Krook. 2006b. Gender, Structure of New Social Movements: Its Impact on
Politics and Political Science: A Reply to Michael Their Mobilization. In The Politics of Social Protest,
Moran. Politics 26 (3): 203–05. ed. J. Craig Jenkins and Bert Klandermans. Minneap-
Chowdhury, Najma, Barbara J. Nelson, with Kathryn A. olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Carver, Nancy J. Johnson, and Paula L. O’Loughlin. Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyv-
1994. Redefining Politics: Patterns of Women’s Politi- endak, and Marco G. Giugni. 1995. New Social
cal Engagement from a Global Perspective. In Women Movements in Western Europe. Minneapolis: University
and Politics Worldwide, ed. Barbara J. Nelson and of Minnesota Press.
Najma Chowdhury. New Haven and London: Yale Krook, Mona Lena. 2010. Studying Political Represen-
University Press. tation: A Comparative-Gendered Approach. Perspec-
Clarke, Kevin A. 2007. The Necessity of Being Com- tives on Politics 8 (1): 230–40.
parative: Theory Confirmation in Quantitative Politi- Laitin, David D. 2002. Comparative Politics: The State
cal Science. Comparative Political Studies 40 (7): of the Subdiscipline. In Political Science: State of the
886–908. Discipline, ed. Ira Katznelson and Helen V. Milner.
Costain, Anne N. 2000. Women’s Movements and New York and London: Norton.
Nonviolence. PS: Political Science and Politics 33 (2): Lawless, Jennifer L. and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a
175–80. Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cam-
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: Do Women bridge: Cambridge University Press.
Represent Women? Rethinking the ‘Critical Mass’ Mackay, Fiona. 2004. Gender and Political Representa-
Debate. 2006. Politics & Gender 2 (4): 491–530. tion in the UK: The State of the ‘Discipline.’ British
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics: Gender Journal of Politics & International Relations 6 (1):
Quotas I. 2005. Politics & Gender 1 (4): 621–52. 101–22.

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 167

䡬
| |
䡬

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

Mahoney, James. 2007. Defining the State of Compara- Taggart, Paul, and Charles Lees. 2006. Politics—The
tive Politics: Views from Qualitative Research. Com- State of the Art. Politics 26 (1): 1–2.
parative Political Studies 40 (1): 32–8. Tickner, J. Ann. 2001. Gendering World Politics: Issues
McConnaughy, Corrine M. 2007. Seeing Gender over and Approaches in the Post-Cold War Era. New York:
the Short and Long Haul. Politics & Gender 3 (3): Columbia University Press.
378–86. Tripp, Aili Mari. 2006. Why So Slow? The Challenges
Mohanty, Chandra Talpade. 1991. Under Western Eyes: of Gendering Comparative Politics. Politics & Gender
Feminist Scholarship and Colonial Discourses. In 2 (2): 249–63.
Third World Women and the Politics of Feminism, eds. van Biezen, Ingrid, and Daniele Caramani. 2006. (Non)
Chandra Talpade Mohanty, Ann Russo, and Lourdes Comparative Politics in Britain. Politics 26 (1): 29–37.
Torres. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Varshney, Ashutosh. 2001. Ethnic Conflict and Civil Soci-
Moran, Michael. 2006. Gender, Identity, and the Teach- ety: India and Beyond. World Politics 53 (3): 362–98.
ing of British Politics. Politics 26 (3): 200–02. _. 2002. Ethnic Conflict and Civic Life: Hindus and
Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder, eds. 2007a. Muslims in India. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Passion, Craft and Method in Comparative Politics. Waylen, Georgina. 1994. Women and Democratisation:
Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Conceptualising Gender Relations in Transition Poli-
Munck, Gerardo L., and Richard Snyder. 2007b. Debat- tics. World Politics 46 (3): 327–54.
ing the Direction of Comparative Politics. Compara- _. 2003. Gender and Transitions: What Do We
tive Political Studies 40 (1): 5–31. Know? Democratization 10 (1): 157–78.
Nelson, Barbara J., and Najma Chowdhury, eds. 1994. _. 2007. Engendering Transitions. Oxford: Oxford
Women and Politics Worldwide. New Haven and Lon- University Press.
don: Yale University Press. Weldon, S. Laurel. 2006. The Structure of Intersection-
Putnam, Robert. 2007. E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and ality: A Comparative Politics of Gender. Politics &
Community in the Twenty-First Century. The 2006 Gender 2 (2): 235–48.
Johan Skytte Prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Wibbels, Eric. 2007. No Method to the Comparative
Studies 30 (2): 137–74. Politics Madness. Comparative Political Studies 40 (1):
䡬 Randall, Vicky, and Joni Lovenduski. 2004. Gender in 37–44.
Contemporary British Politics. British Journal of Young, Iris Marion. 1994. Gender as Seriality: Thinking
Politics & International Relations 6 (1): 1–2. about Women as a Social Collective. Signs 19 (3):
Roberts, Andrew, and Jason Seawright. 2008. “Can Elec- 713–38.
toral Laws Increase Women’s Representation?” Pre- _. 2005. Modernity, Emancipatory Values and
sented at the annual meetings of the American Political Power: A Rejoinder to Adams and Orloff. Politics &
Science Association, Boston, MA, August 28–31. Gender I (3): 492–500.
Squires, Judith, and Jutta Weldes. 2007. Beyond Being Zalewski, Marysia. 2007. Do We Understand Each
Marginal: Gender and International Relations in Other Yet? Troubling Feminist Encounters with(in)
Britain. British Journal of Politics and International International Relations. British Journal of Politics and
Relation 9: 185–203. International Relations 9: 302–12.

168 Perspectives on Politics