Discursive Dimensions

There are many reasons for the wide acceptance of gender mainstreaming, one of which, ironically, is the lack of conceptual clarity: Gender mainstreaming can mean all things to all people. Scholars characterize it as “hollow” (Subrahmanian Reference Subrahmanian2004, 90) or “elastic” (Daly Reference Daly2005, 439). Definitions of gender mainstreaming vary (Squires Reference Squires2005). Still, there are some commonalities. Usually, definitions refer to gender mainstreaming as “the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any planned action … in all areas and at all levels” (UN ECOSOC 1997/2). Moreover, definitions include the aim of “making women's as well as men's concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of policies and programmes in all political, economic and societal spheres …” (ibid.; cf. Council of Europe 1998, 15). Ultimately, definitions mostly articulate the goal to achieve gender equality. In a nutshell, such definitions convey that gender mainstreaming is about gender analysis and about incorporating a gendered perspective into all policies, programs, and projects.

None of the definitions, however, specifies what exactly gender equality is or what kind of equality is to be achieved. According to Squires (Reference Squires2005), is it equality of opportunity to be achieved through a strategy of “inclusion,” equality of outcome to be achieved through a strategy of “reversal,” or—as many feminists stress—a more transformative concept of equality that addresses institutionalized practices and norms that (re)produce gendered subjects and gender biases (through a strategy of “displacement”)? The formal commitment to implement gender mainstreaming does not bind actors to realize gender equality in any specific way, which makes gender mainstreaming attractive to international organizations; adopting gender mainstreaming gives the appearance of “modernizing” public policies (Daly Reference Daly2005, 440) without being committed to a clear agenda. It also gives rise to a technocratic interpretation of what gender mainstreaming is. Indeed, while there is a lack of clarity in regard to the content of gender mainstreaming policies, there is often considerable clarity in regard to the methods and instruments that are employed for the implementation of gender mainstreaming. Thus, Meier and Celis's (Reference Meier and Celis2011) analysis of Belgian gender mainstreaming policies since 1995 provides evidence of a strong technocratic bias; most gender mainstreaming approaches that were developed were formalistic and procedural in nature.

Some policy approaches offer openings for more substantive gender mainstreaming by compelling policy actors to define gender equality objectives and by requiring them to develop indicators for monitoring and evaluating the outcomes of their mainstreaming policies. Yet such requirements do not automatically lead to more substantive gender mainstreaming practices, as policy actors are often unable to define clearly gender equality goals due to a lack of expertise or simple unwillingness (Benschop and Verloo Reference Benshop and Verloo2006; Meier and Celis Reference Meier and Celis2011). Thus, the political operationalization of gender equality rests on lay knowledge and normative—mostly conservative—assumptions about appropriate gender roles and gender relations (Caglar Reference Caglar, Scherrer and Young2010). In practice, this translates into mainstreaming policies that are more integrative than transformative. Women's concerns are simply added to existing policies without fundamentally changing the policy frameworks from a feminist point of view (cf. True and Parisi Reference True, Parisi, Caglar, Prügl and Zwingel2013).

In fact, as feminist scholars show, the policy problem (gender inequality) that is to be solved is constructed and represented in different ways depending on the policy actors' interpretations of what the problem actually is (Bacchi Reference Bacchi2008; Caglar Reference Caglar, Scherrer and Young2010; Lombardo and Meier Reference Lombardo and Meier2006). Accordingly, different meanings are assigned to gender mainstreaming, which explains the variety of policy approaches. Gender mainstreaming is—as Lombardo and Meier nicely put it—“an open signifier that can be filled with both feminist and non-feminist meanings” (ibid., 161). Feminist scholars involved in the European research projects MAGEEQ (Mainstreaming Gender Equality in Europe) and QUING (Quality in Gender Equality Policies) have identified different mechanisms of meaning-making or “discursive politics,” namely shrinking, stretching, and bending (Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo Reference Lombardo, Meier, Verloo, Lombardo, Meier and Verloo2009). They show how the meaning of gender equality, and, thus, of gender mainstreaming, is reduced to issues of non-discrimination or equal opportunities for women and men (for example, in the labor market); how it is broadened to issues of intersectionality; or how it is bent to fit other policy goals (Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo Reference Lombardo, Meier, Verloo, Lombardo, Meier and Verloo2009, 3ff.).

As for the latter, there is ample evidence that gender mainstreaming has often been instrumentalized to meet other goals. For example, international development agencies, such as the World Bank, regard gender mainstreaming as a means to development rather than a means to gender equality (Moser and Moser Reference Moser and Moser2005; Razavi Reference Razavi, Miller and Razavi1998). Likewise, European Union (EU) gender mainstreaming policies are framed in ways that serve neoliberal labor market policy goals (see e.g., Stratigaki Reference Stratigaki2005; Wöhl Reference Wöhl2007). In this case, family policy and issues of work/family reconciliation are put at the center targeting the activation and flexibility of women for the labor market. Here, gender mainstreaming becomes a flanking measure shoring up the neoliberal policy paradigm rather than a tool to transform gender relations. Framing gender mainstreaming in that way, however, reinforces traditional gender roles wherein women are the main caregivers (Lombardo and Meier Reference Lombardo and Meier2006, 158).

Indeed, feminist scholars criticize that gender mainstreaming policies predominantly rest on heterosexist norms of gender relations (Bedford Reference Bedford, Caglar, Prügl and Zwingel2013), which is why women's roles as mothers and housewives are continuously reproduced (for the case of gender budgeting, see Caglar Reference Caglar, Scherrer and Young2010). Such narrow understandings of gender roles and identities lead to mainstreaming policies that exclusively focus on women and situate problems of gender inequality within the continuum of sameness/difference or equal treatment/special treatment (Lombardo and Meier Reference Lombardo and Meier2006; Squires Reference Squires2005). Questions of gendered power relations are not taken into account. Furthermore, this dichotomous thinking ignores the ways in which gender inequality intersects with other inequalities, like those associated with class, race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation (cf. True and Parisi Reference True, Parisi, Caglar, Prügl and Zwingel2013).

Processes of meaning-making are both intentional and unintentional. A certain meaning might be attached to gender mainstreaming unintentionally in the course of organization-specific discussions. But specific meanings might also be constructed intentionally either by political actors who are interested in depoliticizing and watering down the transformational potential of gender mainstreaming or by gender advocates who strategically frame issues of gender equality in order to ease resistance against gender mainstreaming within organizations (Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo Reference Lombardo, Meier, Verloo, Lombardo, Meier and Verloo2009, 6). This strategic framing, however, reinforces an integrationist approach to gender mainstreaming. Bearing this in mind, the question arises, is the right strategy to engage with state institutions? Can they be effective in advancing gender equality given their “embedded nature … in structures of inequality” (Rai Reference Rai2008, 73)?

Institutional Dimensions

Gender mainstreaming seeks to change institutional structures, policy instruments, and priorities from a gender equality perspective. It does so by creating the conditions for institutional learning—for instance, by building up gender expertise within organizations (Moser and Moser Reference Moser and Moser2005; Stratigaki Reference Stratigaki2005). The idea is to enable bureaucrats to reorganize institutional procedures and to redefine policy values in ways to achieve gender equality.

But empirical studies show that gender mainstreaming has not automatically triggered processes of socialization. Gender mainstreaming policies face strong administrative and institutional resistance. For the case of the EU, Stratigaki (Reference Stratigaki2005) depicts how high- and middle-level bureaucrats strategize against the implementation of gender mainstreaming, draft documents, change meanings, delegate power by removing or replacing officials, and exclude expert knowledge by discontinuing gender expert groups in different policy areas. Hafner-Burton and Pollack (Reference Hafner-Burton and Pollack2009) trace such institutional impediments back to the incentives set by organizations for the implementation of gender mainstreaming. They criticize the reliance on “soft incentives” (i.e., voluntary training) and argue that bureaucrats need to be encouraged to conform to the mainstreaming mandate through “hard incentives” (i.e., performance-oriented promotion or remuneration).

Some feminist scholars, however, doubt that the gendered nature of organizations can be escaped (i.e., Benschop and Verloo Reference Benshop and Verloo2006). Their studies show the persistence of gendered power asymmetries in bureaucracies. These asymmetries take form not only in the under-representation of women in key positions, but also in implicit institutional rules that prescribe appropriate social behavior along gender lines. These rules determine whose claims are heard and which policy priorities are set. Prügl (Reference Prügl2009, 178) distinguishes two types of rules: “rules of identity” and “rules of entitlement.” Rules of identity are productive in a Foucaultian sense; they “produce performances of gender, sex and desire, hierarchical constructions of femininity and masculinity and definitions of hegemonic masculinity” and, thus, gendered agency. Rules of entitlements are more explicit; they “are often formulated as rights” and regulate the access to material and non-material resources. These rules become institutionally sedimented and constitute patriarchal rule (Herrschaft) in bureaucracies. As a consequence, a change of rules is—as Prügl emphasizes—a prerequisite for a change of patriarchal rule. This, however, is a matter of power struggles triggering diverse mechanisms, such as refusal, co-optation, empowerment, and normalization.

The aspect of new rules of identity plays a particularly important role in feminist analyses that draw on Foucault's governmentality framework; they regard gender mainstreaming as a technology of government, which produces certain kinds of gendered subjects (Bedford Reference Bedford, Caglar, Prügl and Zwingel2013; Phillips Reference Phillips2005; Wöhl Reference Wöhl, Rai and Waylen2008). These studies make an important contribution to the feminist literature on gender mainstreaming, as they shift the focus from the effects of power asymmetries within organizations on the implementation of gender mainstreaming to the power effects of mainstreaming practices themselves. Thus, gender mainstreaming is not just subject to power struggles, but also a technique of power.