Finding A Place for Women in the World of Diplomacy
| Author | James M. Scott,Elizabeth A. Rexford |
| Published date | 01 April 1997 |
| Date | 01 April 1997 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/0734371X9701700204 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
31
Finding
A Place
for
Women
in
the
World
of Diplomacy
Evidence
of
Progress
Toward
Gender
Equity
and
Speculation
on
Policy
Outcomes
James
M.
Scott,
University
of
Nebraska
at
Kearney
Elizabeth
A.
Rexford,
Illinois
State
University
This
article
assesses
the
role
of
women
in
foreign
policy
bureaucracy,
focusing
on
the
Bush
and
Clinton
administrations
We
advance
three
arguments:
(a)
the
number
and
roles
of
women
in
the
foreign
policy
bureaucracy
have
expanded
since
the
Cold
War;
(b)
these
opportunities
have
been
concentrated
in
predictable
areas
of
the
foreign
policy
bureaucracy;
and
(c)
factors
at
the
international,
institutional,
and
societal
levels
combine
to
explain
the
increased
opportunities
.
Making
U.S.
Foreign
Policy
Histomcally,
Umted
States
foreign
policy
has
been
formulated
and
implemented
by
men.
Sigmficant
numbers
of
women
in
for-
eign
policy-makmg
positions
are
a
relatively
recent
development
m
America,
as
well
as
in
other
countries,
although
the
trend
is
toward
an
increasing
female
presence.
This
analysis
examines
the
most
recent
manifes-
tation
of
that
trend,
focusing
specifically
on
the
role
of
women
m
post-Cold
War
U.S.
foreign
policy.
The
focus
of
this
article
is
on
three
aspects
of
this
issue-the
numbers,
the
distribution,
and
the
trend.
Accordingly
we
are
able
to
conduct
a
relatively
straight-
forward
exammation
of
the
roles
and
as-
signments
of
women
in
U.S.
foreign
policy.
First,
we
(bmefly)
survey
the
years
prior
to
1989
to
establish
a
baseline.
Then
we
ex-
amine
the
number
of
women
and
the
types
of
positions
they
hold
in
the
Bush
and
Clinton
administrations.
We
explore
six
lev-
els
of
foreign
policy
positions
(secretary,
deputy
secretary,
under
secretary,
assistant
secretary,
deputy
assistant
secretary,
and
director,
or
their
eqmvalents)
in
the
State
Department,
Defense
Department,
Trea-
sury
Department,
Commerce
Department,
National
Security
Council
Staff,
Office
of
the
U.S.
Trade
Representative,
and
the
National
Economic
Council
(Clinton
ad-
mmistration
only)
in
both
the
Bush
and
Canton
administrations.
In
the
State
De-
partment,
we
add
an
additional
level
to
capture
even
more
career
policy
officers
in
the
major
bureaus
to
control
further
for
the
impact
of
presidential
appointments
and
party
affiliation.
In
these
positions,
we
iden-
tify
1,729
individuals-858
in
the
Bush
administration
and
881
in
the
Clinton
ad-
ministration-and
our
analysis
focuses
on
the
role
and
responsibilities
of
women
32
among
these
individuals.’
The
results
of
our
descriptive
foray
into
this
data
mdicate
a
long-term
trend,
recently
accelerating,
which
amounts
to
steady
growth
in
the
number
of
women
in
foreign
policy
posi-
tions,
along
with
a
diffusion
of
their
role
and
responsibility.
In
the
final
pages
of
this
analysis,
we
attempt
to
link
the
pattern
that
emerges
to
some
underlying
causal
forces
at
the
societal,
institutional,
and
interna-
tional
levels.
In
the
end,
we
believe
our
analysis
of
the
data
and
the
interaction
of
factors
at
these
levels
support
the
expecta-
tion
of
increased
access
and
wider
roles
for
women
beyond
the
Clinton
administration.
Women
in
Foreign
Policy:
An
Overview
Since
the
middle
of
the
twentieth
cen-
tury,
women
have
composed
a
significant
percentage
of
the
federal
work-force,
al-
though
less
so
m
professional
and
upper-
level
positions
(see
Tables
1
and
2).
How-
ever,
for
women
seeking
foreign
policy
po-
sitions,
access
has
been
more
restricted.
At
first,
this
exclusion
was
largely
a
function
of
U.S.
cultural
values,
traditions,
and
ste-
reotypes.
According
to
Calkin
(1978),
un-
til
the
end
of
World
War
II
most
women
m
foreign
affairs
served
in
clerical
or
other
staff
roles.
A
syndrome
of
stereotypes
held
by
society
in
general,
and
the
male-dominated
government
in
particular,
appear
respon-
sible.
These
include:
(a)
the
view
of
women
as
too
passive
and
conciliatory,
too
peace-
ful,
too
likely
to
concentrate
on
humani-
tarian
issues,
and
too
reluctant
to
use
force;
(b)
the
belief
that
without
military
training
and/or
combat
experience
women
can
never
really
understand
the
stakes
involved
in
making
foreign
policy;
(c)
the
belief
that
other
nations
would
not
accept
females
in
high-level,
visible
pohcy-making
positions;
(d)
the
belief
that
the
shortage
of
women
trained
in
international
studies,
political
science
and
international
economics
re-
flected
a
lack
of
interest
in
these
fields
(e.g.,
Enloe,
1989,
1993;
Jeffreys-Jones,
1995;
McGlen
&
Sarkees,
1993).
This
syndrome
constructed
a
wall
around
the
foreign
policy
arena.
Those
women
finding
a
place
in
the
for-
eign
policy
bureaucracy
found
themselves
channeled
by
their
male
superiors
into
two
kinds
of
roles.
In
the
first,
which
can
be
labeled
the
&dquo;token&dquo;
role,
a
few
individual
women
have
been
assigned
duties
in
agen-
cies,
bureaus,
and
offices
dominated
by
men.
Second,
women
have
been
channeled
mto
positions
that
fit
a
certain
stereotype.
For
one,
across
the
foreign
policy
bureau-
cracy,
women
are
more
likely
to
be
assigned
to
administrative
or
clerical
positions
than
policy-related
responsibilities
(Calkin,
1978;
Olmsted
et
al.,
1984;
McGlen
&
Sarkees,
1993;
Equal
Employment
Oppor-
tumty
Commission,
1992).
In
the
Defense
Department,
for
example,
most
civilian
women
have
occupied
staff
positions
m
personnel,
manpower,
law,
and
a
few
other
technical
staff
responsibilities
(e.g.,
general
counsels,
comptrollers,
etc.)
(Battle,
1976;
McGlen
& Sarkees,
1993,
p.
94).
Addition-
ally,
within
the
State
and
Defense
Depart-
ments
and
the
NSC
staff,
women
have
oc-
cupied
positions
in
environmental
affairs,
humanitanan
affairs,
developmental
issues,
legislative
and
public
affairs,
consular
affairs,
personnel
affairs,
and
cultural
affairs,
while
being
absent
or
scarce
in
positions
in
the
major
geographic
areas,
or
those
concern-
ing
political,
security,
and
military
affairs.
In
fact,
prior
to
the
1980s,
no
woman
had
ever
been
placed
in
charge
of
any
of
the
State
Department’s
five
major
geographic
bureaus,
International
Organizations,
or
Economic
and
Business
Affairs
offices
(Olmsted
et al.,
1984,
p.
15).
To continue reading
Request your trial