Reading Note

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ragn20

Agenda

ISSN: 1013-0950 (Print) 2158-978X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ragn20

Beyond equality and difference: the politics of women's citizenship

AMANDA GOUWS

To cite this article: AMANDA GOUWS (1999) Beyond equality and difference: the politics of women's citizenship, Agenda, 15:40, 54-58

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.1999.9675737

Published online: 20 Apr 2011.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 544

View related articles

Beyond equality a n d difference: t h e politics

f w o m e n ' s citizenship AMANDA GOU WS examines the tensions

between formal equality and difference in liberal

democracies. She argues that by reducing equality to a legal solution we may wrongly believe that power relations have been resolved

C itizenship is a contested concept that The question lays claim to equality but the construction of citizenship is very is not often the cause of unequal treatment of

who is a certain classes of people living in divided societies. The divisions can occur along

but racial. gender, class, ethnic and other lines. also how Inherent in the difficulty of coming to grips

with the concept of citizenship is the problem is of solving the tension between equality and

constructed difference. Should people all be treated the same to make them equal, although they may differ significantly in terms of acquired and achieved characteristics, or should they be treated differently to make them equal?

With increasing globalisation and the migration of people between countries, these questions become more pressing as the exclu- sion of certain categories of people t?om cit- izenship leads to violent conflict, costly court cases and political destabilisation. The ques- tion is not only who is a citizen, but also how citizenship is constructed even for those who are included in the definition of citizenship.

Since the fall of the Berlin wall democratisation has taken off globally and many democracies conform to the definition of liberal democracy, where the extension of rights to previously excluded groups of people dominates the discourse of

democracy. Extending rights to all citizens equally is, however, fraught with problems because of the difficulty of incorporating difference into the definition of liberalism.

Citizenship is therefore more than the limited notion of voting, lobbying and mobilising to elect candidates to public office. It also includes participation, representation and access to power for people differing horn each other in many respects. In the case of liberal democracy the focus is on form. As Fraser and Lacey (1993:99) point out:

... libeml indiuidualbrn ... tends to focus on questions of form rather than substance: the status of citizenship, the holding of rights, rather than access to power or the worth of political rights to particular persons and groups of persons.

Extending formal equality rights to all people provides them with equal treatment and equal opportunities regardless of their previous disadvantage. The latter often confines them to positions of powerlessness and an inability to utilise their rights and opportunities. Substantive equality, however, takes into account the social and economic conditions of people.

In some liberal societies where substantive equality is absent, the experience of citizenship has become so meaningless that

54 AGENDA 40 1999

BEYOND EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCE: M E POLITICS OF WOMEN'S CITIZENSHIP I l { l : l : l l i m

the majority of the population feels alienated from the political process and identifies only weakly with the political society in which they live (Fraser and Lacey, 1993). How to extend substantive equality (through which people are treated differently to make.them equal) to citizens of democracies is at the heart of the debate about difference.

Difference is a complex concept which means more than merely 'natural' difference but is constituted through asymmetric power relations. Flax (1992) argues that formal equality becomes very appealing as a way to deal with the problem of difference. However when difference is based on domination, the inability to recognise and appreciate difference and to accord everyone the same dignity and respect is an expression of the problem, not a solution to it. To clearly understand this debate we need to look at the criticism extended to liberal democracy.

Liberal democratic citizenship Inherent in the liberal democratic theory of cituenship is the acceptance of all people as abstract, ungendered individuals who can lay ctaim to certain (natural) rights. Furthermore, there is the acceptance of a separation between the public and the private or domestic sphere and their gender ascriptions. Liberal political theoristsbelieved that men were associated with rationality and reason and women with passion and emotion. Sexual difference translated into political difference (Frader, 1996). Citizenship became constructed according to male norms which constructed women as inferior inhabitants of the private sphere, while men were associated with the rule of law and justice of the public sphere. Men were associated with freedom and women with subordination.

Qualities of women were dealt with through exclusion or homologisation. Homo- logisation refers to the inclusion of women in the male norm (the abstract model of equality) and therefore risking the erasure of sexual difference (Cavarero, 1992). As Pateman (1992) points out, women were excluded from

citizenship but had a political contribution to make and a certain political obligation which came about through their capacity for rn&erhood. Motherhood therefore became a political status and a vehicle through which women became incorporated into the political order. Women as mothers nurture the next generation of citizens, yet motherhood does not make women equal citizens. The values of care, nurturing and responsiveness are not included in the values of citizenship (Sevenhuijsen, 1998).

Citizenship in the liberal democratic state is therefore premised on the divide between the public and the private. Citizenship embo- dies sexual difference and as Gaidzanwa (1993:40) points out 'men's citizenship is contingent upon the domestication of women within households'. Citizenship

Social welfare rules and practices show the differential quality of citizenship for men is therefore and women. Women are more likely to be premised 0" poor and to negotiate with welfare agencies on behalf of themselves and their families. the divide They are less likely to participate in the between the making of legislation and policy and are not found in decision-making positions in public and executive posts (Fraser and Lacey, 1993). the private Beyond equality and difference Feminists call for the integration of women's distinctive contribution into the concept of citizenship (Pateman, 1992). The feminist notion of access to citizenship demands:

erpansion of formal rights, multiplication of participatory arenas of empowerment, and challenges to the asymmetries of institutional power relations (Sarvasy and Siim, 1994:250).

Yet, there is no 'feminist consensus' on the interpretation of the concepts of equality and difference.

Nancy Fraser (1997) distinguished four different types of feminism and shows how adherence to any of them leads to different interpretations of equality and difference.

Equality feminism is associated with earlier feminist thinking which argued that

AGENDA 40 1999

1 ; 111 4 $ BEYOND E Q U A L I N A N 0 DIFFERENCE: THE POLllCS OF WOMEN'S CITIZENSHIP

How to extend substantive quolily to

citizens is at the heart of the

difference debate

The women's

movement

became only

one move-

ment among

many

contesting

some form

of subord-

ination

women are merely excluded from a male-dominated social, eco- nomic and political system. Male dominance and sexism are the main causes of women's inequality which is socially constructed. Gender differentiation is viewed as negative and

equality is perceived as including women in these male-dominant systems. The idea is to minimise gender differences. Equality feminism is a response to liberalism and the idea of the abstract (ungendered) individual. The problem of inequality could be solved through equal participation for women and fair distribution for all (Fraser, 1997).

Difference feminism is associated with greater radicalism which viewed the ideas of equality feminists as assimilationist and androcentric and gives a positive interpretation to gender differences which are viewed as the most fundamental human difference. It is viewed that the inclusion of women in male norms of equality would devalue femininity. In a very essentialist way it is argued that all women share a common gender identity as women. In this case equality is associated with the recognition of gender difference and the eradication of the negative qualities attributed to women.

Difference Among Women feminism has been articulated by lesbians and women of colour. The main argument is that differences among women are ignored. Lesbian women point out how feminist notions of equality still cover up assumptions of normative heterosex- uality, gender identity and reproduction. White

heterosexual women falsely apply their own experiences to non-heterosexual women and women of colour in ways that are unaccept- able and harmful. In this way women manage to reproduce racism, heterosexism, class hierarchies and ethnic biases. The essentialism and the false universalisation of women's gender identity diminish other aspects of women's identity such as race, class, and sexuality and do not contribute to a feminist solidarity. One result of these arguments was that the women's movement became only one movement among many contesting some form of subordination (Fraser, 1997).

Multiple Intersecting Differences or Multiculturalism also critiques the essentialist tendencies of difference feminism and focuses on anti-essentialism in a way that highlights group identity and cultural difference. Multiple intersecting difference supporters view identity and difference as negative in the belief that all identities are inherently repressive and difference is exclusive, while multiculturalists celebrate all differences as positive but fail to judge difference critically and to acknowledge relationships with power. The important contribution here is the view that identity is not pre-given but discursively constructed and created through cultural processes.

Fraser (1997: 107) makes the important point that both viewpoints fail to take into account the social politics of equality because they elaborate the cultural politics of difference in the abstract. As she points out:

cultural differences can only be freely elaborated and democratically mediated on the basis ofsocial equality.

Liberalism in South Africa South Africa has apolitical history in which difference has been constructed along racial and ethnic lines. Equality was interpreted as equal treatment for ethnic groups and rights were constructed as group rights. Liberalism was a resented and feared ideology among the political leaders of the apartheid regime.

AGENDA 40 1999

In order to eradicate the inequality constructed through apartheid, political leaders superimposed a liberal democracy on apartheid structures through which all people in South Africa became citizens.

I have argued above.that difference is not necessarily dealt with through extending equal- ity to all citizens. In liberal democratic societies equal treatment of citizens often results in un- equal outcomes. The construction of a liberal democratic society in the wake of the apart- heid regime was billed as a solution to prob- lems of inequality. Yet it is the interpretation of these concepts, as well as the construction of policies to give content to these concepts, that need to be evaluated and analysed.

With the introduction of a very advanced Bill of Rights, rights discourses were established in South Africa which prioritise the claiming of rights for the creation of.equality. The Bill of Rights presents us w~th 17 grounds on which no discrimination may take place, including sex, gender, sexual orientation, marital status and pregnancy which are very important from a gender perspective. Yet, at the same time the Equality Clause makes provision for different treatment to deal with disadvantage (read affirmative action). It is stated in the Constitution (1996: S 9) as follows:

To promote the achieuement of equality, legislative and other measures designed to protect or advance persons, or categories of persons, disadvantaged by unfair discrimination may be taken.

Here difference becomes entangled with disadvantage and legal mechanisms are used to establish the interpretation of these con- cepts. Goldblatt (1998:5) points out that the Constitutional Court has considered the right to equality more times than any other right. As she states:

This indicates the centrality of equality to our Constitution and highlights the difficulties of giving meaning to this complicated, and often contested right.

What is important is that the

Constitutional Court is interpreting equality as substantive equality rather than formal equality. Often, though, the Court has defined equality in terms of dignity rather than in its own terms and difference is often conflated with disadvantage (Goldblatt, 1998).

If citizens believe that inequality can be eradicated through claiming certain rights, equality becomes couched in a rights discourse through which claims get legitimacy. Smart (1989) convincingly argues that rights claims oversimplify complex power relations and create the impression that these have been resolved. There is often a conflict between rights which can result in men and women being treated as adversaries. (Schneider, 199 1 ).

Rights discourses are very difficult to abandon in a political culture that prioritise and emphasise certain types of rights such as first

Rights generation rights (political and civil rights), as claims is the case with South Africa. Power relations often stem from poverty and entrenched

oversimplify

structural inequality. This discourse is often complex blind to social and economic disparities between groups and therefore, access to

power

second generation rights (social and economic relations rights) also needs to be recognised. Recognis- ing and protecting social rights would respond to the intersection of race, class and gender which constitutes the nature of women's oppression in South Africa (Liebenberg, 1995).

Apartheid constructed a racial hierarchy with whites at the top and Africans at the bottom. Racial difference intersecting with gender is reflected in the socio-economic disparities of groups. In order to achieve equality in policies some racial groups receive differential treatment. The inclusion of African women in the child welfare benefit grant, for example, has led to a reduction of payments for coloured women. This has resulted in charges of anti-feminism against Minister Geraldine Fraser-Moleketi, even though she is a very gender-sensitive minister.

The universalist nature of the citizenship discourse of rights belies its exclusivist

AGENDA 40 1999

I ! I : ] I { I d a BEYOND EQUALITY AND DIFFERENCE: THE MUTICS OF WOMEN'S CITIZENSHIP

We need to

move

beyond the

debate about

equality and

difference

and begin to

engage

concepts of

gender

justice

nature. Women's claims to citizenship are still constituted through motherhood. As Fester (1997) and others have argued, 'motherism' formed a basis for women's solidarity in South Africa. Yet, the values of nurturing and care being derived tiom maternal politics have not been incorporated into the new citizenship for women in South Africa. Furthermore, 'motherism' is not enough to sustain a political identity. Through using motherhood as political status, the private sphere is reinscribed into citizenship.

While the political project of nation buil- ding in South Africa has benefited from notions of the 'mother of the nation' it has not seriously engaged identity construction constituted through difference in South Africa. The subjec- tive experience of the intersection of race, class, gender and other identity markers and the accompanying power imbalances are not accorded the necessary recognition. Difference becomes an uncritical celebration of multiculhualism. The 'rainbow' nation and its slogans of 'simunye' relies on cultural relativism which mystifies power relations.

Conclusion Feminists have argued that we need to move beyond the debate about equality and differ- ence and begin to engage concepts of gender justice. The need exists to deconstruct notions of self and the other on which difference is based. If equality means sameness and the annihilation of difference, not much is achieved to eradicate power relations on which domination is based. The rights discourse in South Africa needs to be critically assessed for a possible failure to transform gender relations and construct equal citizenship for women.

REFERENCES Cavarero A (1992) 'Equality and sexual

difference: amnesia in political thought', in G Bock & S James (eds) Beyond Equality and Difference, London: Routledge.

Fester G (1997) 'Women's organisations in the Western Cape: vehicles for gender struggle or instruments of subordiiation?', Agenda, 34.

Government of South Africa (1996) Constitution of South Africa, Act 108.

Flax J (1992) 'Beyond equality: gender, justice and difference', in G Bock & S James (eds) Beyond Equality and Difference, London: Routledge.

Frader LL (1996) 'Social citizens without citizen- ship: working-class women and social policy in interwar France', Social Politics, 2, 3.

Fraser E & Lacey N (1993) The Mitics ofComm. unify, New York: Ha~ester/Wheatsheaf.

Fraser N (1997) 'Equality, difference and democracy: recent feminist debates in the United States', in J Dean (ed) Feminism and the New Democracy, London: Sage.

Gaidzanwa R (1993) 'Citizenship, nationality, gender and class in Southern Africa', Alternatives, 18.

Goldblatt B (1998) 'The right to equality', Gender Research Project Bulletin, Centre for Applied Legal Studies, University of the Witwatersrand.

Liebenberg S (1995) 'Social and economic rights: a critical challenge', in S Liebenberg (ed) The Constitution ofSouth Afica from a Gender Perspective, Cape Town: David Philip.

Pateman C (1992) 'Equality, difference and democracy: recent feminist debates in the United States', in J Dean (ed) Feminism and the New Democracy, London: Sage.

Sarvasy W & Siim J (1994 'Gender, transitions to democracy and citizenship', Social Pofitics, 1, 3.

Schneider E (1991) 'The dialectic of rights and politics: perspectives from the women's movement' in KT Bartlett & R Kennedy (eds) Feminist Legal Theory, Boulder: Westview.

Sevenhuijsen S (1998) Citizenship and the Ethics of Care, London: Routledge.

Smart C (1989) Feminism and the Power of Law, New York: Routledge.

,--..---- d -------- 7

g Amando Gouws is an Associate Professor in I the Department of Political Science at the t 1 Universiv of Stellenbosch where she teaches r I Gender Politics 1 L--,,,,-----,,d

AGENDA 40 1999