Politics of Presence? Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation

• Author: Jennifer L. Lawless
• Published date: 01 March 2004
• Date: 01 March 2004
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/106591290405700107
• Subject Matter: Articles

Gender politics literature stresses the importance of

electing more women to high-level political office.

From a policy perspective, women are more likely

than their male counterparts to promote legislation geared

to ameliorate women’s economic and social status, espe-

cially concerning issues of health care, poverty, education,

and gender equity (Burrell 1998; Dodson 1998; Flammang

1997; Carroll 1994; Thomas 1994; Berkman and O’Connor

1993; Carroll, Dodson and Mandel 1991; Thomas and

Welch 1991; Okin 1989; Saint-Germain 1989). Some stud-

ies also suggest that women legislators are more likely than

men to conduct business in a manner that is egalitarian,

cooperative, communicative, and contextual (Rosenthal

1998; Kathlene 1995, 1994; Thomas 1994; Tolleson-Rine-

hart 1991; Eagley and Johnson 1990; Flammang 1985).1In

short, women’s presence in high-level elective office not

only decreases the possibility that gender-salient issues will

be overlooked, but it also brings a “different voice” to the

legislative process (Swers 2002; Dodson 1998; Rosenthal

1998; Kathlene 1995; Paolino 1995; Thomas 1994).

Another avenue of scholarship focuses on the re l a t i o n s h i p

between women’s numeric under- re p resentation and demo-

cratic legitimacy. From a normative perspective, many schol-

ars conclude that there appears to be something wrong with

a political system that produces governing bodies dominated

by men, when, in fact, women comprise the majority of the

population. At the very least, this dynamic offends our sense

of “simple justice” (To l l e s o n - R i n e h a rt 1994). As Thomas

(1998: 1) explains, “A government that is democratically

o rganized cannot be truly legitimate if all its citizens from . .

. both sexes do not have a potential interest in and opport u-

nity for serving their community and nation.” Other scholars

posit that a male dominated government suggests to women

citizens that the political system is not fully open to them

( B u r ns, Schlozman , and Verba 2001; Rei ngold 2000;

Thomas 1998; Carroll 1994; Taylor 1992; Leader 1977).

Scholarship, there f o re, tends to be concerned with women’s

re p resentation on two fronts: substantive re p re s e n t a t i o n —

the policy and procedural diff e r ences women may bring to

the electoral arena; and symbolic re p resentation—the attitu-

dinal and behavioral effects that women’s presence in posi-

tions of political power might confer to women citizens

(Mansbridge 1999; Darc y, Welch, and Clark 1994; Matthews

1984; Meier 1975; Pitkin 1967).2

81

Politics of Presence?

Congresswomen and Symbolic Representation

JENNIFER L. LAWLESS, BROWN UNIVERSITY

Gender politics literature stresses the symbolic importance of electing more women to high-level political

office. Despite references to the heightened legitimacy that women in politics bring to the political process, and

the manner in which they affect constituents’ political attitudes and behavior, little empirical evidence exists

regarding the actual benefits of symbolic representation. Using pooled National Election Study data from 1980

to 1998, I attempt to fill a void in the literature, exploring whether the presence of women officeholders affects

constituents’ evaluations of their members of Congress, levels of political efficacy and trust in government, and

propensity to participate politically. After controlling for party congruence between the representative and

his/her constituent, I uncover little evidence of the independent symbolic effects scholars typically ascribe to

women’s presence in Congress. Women represented by women tend to offer more positive evaluations of their

members of Congress, but this difference does not consistently translate into political attitudes or behavior.

The findings represent an initial attempt to use available survey data to explore the extent to which symbolic

representation independently affects citizens’ political attitudes and engagement.

1Not all studies uncover such differences: Dodson and Carroll (1991) and

Blair and Stanley (1991) find that both men and women state legislators

choose to employ “feminine” leadership styles. Duerst-Lahti and John -

son (1992) find few differences in the traits men and women public

administrators value. More importantly, they conclude that the most

valued traits (conscientiousness, reliability, and efficiency) are gender

neutral. According to Reingold (1996: 468), the one factor that distin-

guishes the studies that have found sex differences from those that have

not is the presence of strong institutional norms of behavior. The suc-

cessful rational actor is aware of the dangers of “ruffling feathers, step-

ping on toes, and burning bridges” (483).

NOTE: Thanks to Richard Fox, Sean Theriault, David Brady, Mo Fiorina,

Claudine Gay, Gingee Guilmartin, Hahrie Han, Simon Jackman,

Jane Mansbridge, Terry Moe, Jeremy Pope, Sue Tolleson-Rinehart,

and Erik Schickler for comments on earlier drafts. A previous ver-

sion of this article received the Sophonisba Breckenridge Award at

the 2003 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.

Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 57, No. 1 (March 2004): pp. 81-99

2The traditional literature distinguished between substantive and descrip-

tive representation, the latter defined as “mirroring” or “reflecting” vari-

ous socio-demographic divisions within the electorate (Pitkin 1967: 61).

Yet substantive representation often ensues from descriptive representa-

tion because socio-demographic divisions in the electorate frequently

align with ideological preferences. Another aspect of descriptive repre-

sentation is the symbolic component, which may be transmitted regard-

less of the extent of policy congruence between the representative and

the represented.

Although both substantive and symbolic representation

might influence women’s societal status and attitudes about

government and politics, empirical studies tend to focus

almost exclusively on the manner in which women in posi-

tions of political power affect the kinds of issues brought to

the forefront of the legislative agenda, the manner in which

these issues are discussed and debated, and the policy out-

comes that ensue as a result of that discussion. Recent analy-

ses suggest that women’s presence incorporates new values

and ideas into the political system, leaving men to respond

to women’s candidacies and agendas. In an attempt to

appeal to women voters, men often change the dynamics of

their own campaigns, as well as their legislative priorities

and styles (Fox 1997; see also Reingold 2000: 241).3In

terms of substantive representation, therefore, women’s

groups and feminists are often satisfied with male candi-

dates and legislators (Mezey 1994).4

This is not to suggest, however, that there are no benefits

that only women can bring to their constituents. Scholars

who emphasize substantive representation also mention the

“role model” or “symbolic” benefits women political elites

bring to their constituents, benefits that cannot be conferred

by men, regardless of their policy perspectives. Burrell

(1996: 151) notes: “Women in public office stand as sym-

bols for other women, both enhancing their identification

with the system and their ability to have influence within it.

This subjective sense of being involved and heard for

women, in general, alone makes the election of women to

public office important because, for so many years, they

were excluded from power.”

Despite references to the heightened legitimacy that

women in politics bring to the political process, and the

manner in which they affect constituents’ political attitudes

and behavior, little empirical evidence exists regarding

actual politically-related benefits of symbolic representation

(Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001).5Do women who are

represented by women feel better about government offi-

cials? If so, do these attitudes transcend the dyadic repre-

sentational experience and affect women constituents’ feel-

ings about the political system in general? Are women who

are represented by women more likely to participate politi-

cally? If women in politics serve as symbols and provide

cues pertaining to the political system’s legitimacy, then we

would expect to uncover quantifiable differences between

women represented by women and women represented by

men, even after controlling for party congruence between

the constituent and the member of Congress.

Using pooled National Election Study (NES) data from

1980 to 1998, I attempt to fill a void in the literature by

exploring whether the presence of women officeholders

affects constituents’ political attitudes and propensity to

engage in acts of political participation. More specifically,

building on “contextual effects” literature, as well as the

body of work on political representation, I examine whether

being represented by a woman affects constituents’ evalua-

tions of their members of Congress, levels of political effi-

cacy, competence, and trust, and propensity to participate

politically (Burns, Schl ozman, and Verba 2001; Nye,

Zelikow, and King 1997; Orren 1997; Verba, Schlozman,

and Brady 1995; Zaller 1992; Tolleson-Rinehart 1992;

Conway 1991; Finkel 1985). After controlling for party

congruence between the representative and his/her con-

stituent, I uncover little evidence of the independent sym-

bolic effects scholars typically ascribe to women’s presence

in Congress (Burns, Schlozman, and Verba 2001; Hansen

1997; Rosenthal 1995; Tolleson-Rinehart 1992). Women

represented by women tend to offer more positive evalua-

tions of their members of Congress, but this difference does

not consistently translate into political attitudes or behavior.

These findings represent an initial attempt to use available

survey data to explore the extent to which symbolic repre-

sentation independently affects citizens’ political attitudes

and engagement.

SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION—WOMEN’SDIFFERENCE

MAY MAKE A DIFFERENCE: RESEARCH HYPOTHESES

The symbolic importance attributed to women in posi-

tions of political leadership is routinely invoked as an expla-

nation for the need to elect more women, regardless of

whether men can represent women’s substantive interests.

This logic suggests that the inclusion of women at the elite

level confers some sort of benefit to constituents beyond

policy implications. While some research investigates the

ways in which being a woman affects the representative’s

experience, there is a lack of empirical evidence exploring

how these effects might play out for constituents. If the pres-

ence of women in positions of political power influences

82 POLITICAL RESEARCH QUARTERLY

3Bullock (1981) examines a similar question in terms of African Ameri-

can representation and the manner in which white representatives have

become more responsive to African Americans as black political activity

has increased. Although Bullock’s analysis is situated at the constituent

level, the same conceptual nexus applies: the in-group must change its

strategy and the attention it pays to the out-group when the out-group

increases its power, persuasion, or resources.

4It is premature, however, to conclude that we may have reached a point

in time when equitable policies for women can be attained regardless of

the gender breakdown in the two chambers of Congress. In light of crit-

ical mass findings, men may represent women’s interests because of

women’s presence in Congress. If women did not run for office and did

not win elections, men might not have an incentive to appeal to women

voters with “women’s issues” policy preferences and priorities. Women,

or any minority group, may need a critical mass if members of dominant

groups are to advance the minority group’s agenda (see Mansbridge

1999: 636).

5Benefits of symbolic representation may also manifest themselves in

terms of attitudes about the social structure in which women live and

work. Women’s presence in politics, for example, may instill more con-

fidence in women citizens to climb various career ladders or overcome

patterns of traditional socialization, economically and socially. Symbolic

representation may also simply be a normative good that produces no

concrete benefit. The focus of this analysis, however, is the tangible set

of political, non-policy related benefits that might ensue as a result of

women’s inclusion in high-level political office.