In the Concept of Representation, Hanna Pitkin (Reference Pitkin1967) argues that legislators should be judged by their actions—substantive representation—and not just their closeness in characteristics to their constituents—descriptive representation. Pitkin's theoretical framework is the standard that political representation scholars use when evaluating whether the presence of women or racial and ethnic minorities in legislatures results in greater responsiveness to female or minority interests. Do female legislators better represent the interests of women in U.S. congressional committee hearings on domestic violence than male legislators? Are minority legislators more active in advocating for minority interests than white legislators in hearings relating to racial profiling? Although Pitkin is skeptical that descriptive representatives alone improve legislators' responsiveness to the interests of constituents that they descriptively represent, extensive normative and empirical analyses focusing on race and gender have demonstrated that it is not a question of whether descriptive representation matters, but rather when and how it matters to improving substantive representation (see, for example, Bratton Reference Bratton2005; Canon Reference Canon1999; Casellas Reference Casellas2011; Gamble Reference Gamble2007; Gay Reference Gay2001; Grose Reference Grose2011; Haynie Reference Haynie2001; Lublin Reference Lublin1997; Mansbridge Reference Mansbridge1999; Tate Reference Tate2003; Thomas Reference Thomas1994; Whitby Reference Whitby1997).

The gender and political representation literature presents conflicting findings on whether female legislators provide better representation of women's interests than male legislators. The studies supporting the positive impact of descriptive representation show that female legislators and legislatures with higher proportions of women are more likely than their male counterparts and male-dominated legislatures to sponsor and pass women's interest legislation (Bratton and Haynie Reference Bratton and Haynie1999; Swers Reference Swers2002; Thomas Reference Thomas1994). Although there are advantages to having more female legislators, the greater presence of women does little to improve the effective representation of women's interests (Crowley Reference Crowley2004), and more female legislators may even diminish attention to women's issues, as a result of white male backlash (Hawkesworth Reference Hawkesworth2003; Kanthak and Krause Reference Kanthak and Krause2010). Even minority female legislators who are members of both descriptive groups are not any more responsive to women's interests than male legislators (Bratton and Haynie Reference Bratton and Haynie1999; Hancock Reference Hancock2004).

Even though there is a growing body of empirical research exploring the impact of the intersection of race and gender in the broader field of women and politics (Brown Reference Brown2010; Simien Reference Simien2006; Smooth Reference Smooth2006), the literatures in women and minority political representation have mostly developed in relative isolation from each other, with each focusing exclusively on race or gender but usually not both. As a result, we have no common unifying theory that might explain why descriptive representation leads to substantive representation. Instead, we have a multitude of theories ranging from critical mass theory to racial or gender group consciousness that are credited as the primary factors that give descriptive representation the explanatory power that leads to substantive representation. These theories—independently—are not adequate in explaining the link between descriptive and substantive representation as required by Pitkin. For instance, critical mass theory is the primary mechanism used by women and politics researchers to evaluate the merits of descriptive representation for women. The theory states that women do not influence legislative outcomes until women move beyond mere token status and constitute a critical mass in governing bodies (Bratton, Haynie, and Reingold Reference Bratton, Haynie, Reingold and Hardy-Fanta2006; Dodson and Carroll Reference Dodson and Carroll1991; Thomas Reference Thomas1994). But some scholars have found that tokens can be effective in promoting women's interests in legislatures (Crowley Reference Crowley2004; Wolbrecht Reference Wolbrecht2000). The conflicting findings in this body of research demonstrate that a critical mass framework alone cannot adequately explain how women can effectively provide substantive representation to women's interests since the proportion of women in the U.S. Congress never rises above the threshold of token status. Women and politics scholars have argued that researchers should move away from critical mass theory (Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Krook2008), but recent research on women's political representation still focuses on sheer numbers (Hughes Reference Hughes2011).

Critical mass theory should not be rejected; it should just be refined to include the insights from race and ethnicity scholars who argue that thresholds alone are not sufficient for assessing substantive representation (Minta and Brown Reference Minta and Brown2012; Minta and Sinclair-Chapman Reference Minta and Sinclair-Chapman2012). Descriptive representation is significant not just because there are more minorities in Congress, but because minority legislators possess racial or ethnic group consciousness, linked fate, and strategic group uplift. Minority legislators are likely to believe that what happens to the group also affects them individually. Not only do black and Latino legislators believe that they have a common or shared fate with other blacks and Latinos, but they also believe that they must engage in collective action to improve the condition of all blacks and Latinos (Fenno Reference Fenno2003; Minta Reference Minta2011; Sanchez Reference Sanchez2006; Whitby Reference Whitby1997). To help minority legislators fulfill their commitment to advance minority interests and overcome their token status in Congress, minority legislators organized into caucuses such as the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), the Congressional Hispanic Caucus (CHC), the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus (CAPAC), and created diversity infrastructures (Minta and Sinclair Chapman 2012).

Sheer numbers are important in terms of increasing the capacity of the caucuses, but numbers alone are not sufficient for advancing the interests of minorities in Congress, and we should not expect the same to be true for women. Underrepresented groups are powerful because these caucuses are cohesive voting blocs and use their power on congressional committees to advance the liberal policy agendas of minorities in Congress. While female legislators are not as cohesive in their policy objectives as blacks or Latinos, there is clear evidence that women have organized within Congress to advocate for the interests of all women. In 1977, women in Congress, both Democrats and Republicans, formed the Congressional Caucus for Women Issues (CCWI) to address the issues that concern all women. Because the CCWI is composed of Democratic and Republican legislators from the House and the Senate, the caucus does not focus on issues that divide the coalition (like abortion and welfare), but concentrates on consensus issues, such as measures to reduce domestic violence and sexual harassment in the workplace.

In addition to women and minority caucuses advocating for the respective interests of minorities or women, greater collaboration between women and minority political representation scholars can lead to studies that clearly examine how women and minority legislators work together or how their individual group efforts can affect each other. Diversity is more than just one group providing representation for its specific interests; it is also about changing a nondiverse environment to allow for other groups to make similar demands. Although most of the push for civil rights has pertained mainly to civil rights for blacks, the issue of fighting sex discrimination was included in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Moreover, African Americans have demanded more attention to issues such as creating more opportunity for minority-owned businesses and eliminating discrimination in housing and employment. Issues that are usually intended to pertain to black Americans have created opportunities and an environment for other groups, such as women, to make claims to eliminate discrimination in employment and housing based on gender. By not examining these groups together, we miss the interaction and coalition formation that may occur between women and minority groups with corresponding interests.

As mentioned earlier, research examining the intersection of race and gender recognizes that these literatures should be working together because many minority women in Congress belong to both women and minority caucuses. The extent to which minority women work within racial/ethnic and gender caucuses would provide greater insight into how the intersection of race and gender structures advocacy for both minority and women's issues. Despite the recognition for more synergy between the two literatures, intersectional studies, along with other critics of descriptive representation, focus mainly on how the descriptive categories of women and racial minorities do not provide adequate representation to all women and minorities, particularly minority women. In fact, the concept of descriptive representation and the racial/ethnic and gender group consciousness and minority organizations that power it may hide the diverse preferences that exist among a group by suggesting that one representative can speak for everyone (Celis et al. Reference Celis, Sarah Childs and Krook2008; Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Krook2008; Phillips Reference Phillips1995; Young Reference Young2000). On race and women's issues, political elites may pay more attention to more advantaged individuals within women and minority groups than to less advantaged ones. For example, leaders in women and minority organizations spend more time advocating for issues such as affirmative action, which mostly benefits middle-class white women and minority men, but ignore advocacy on welfare policies that affect lower-income minority women (Cohen Reference Cohen1999; Hancock Reference Hancock2004; Strolovitch Reference Strolovitch2007).

Intersectionality research is correct to point out the limits of descriptive representation, but these studies should devote more time to examining who advocates for minority women's interests when minority female legislators are not descriptively represented in these institutions. In the U.S. Senate, only one minority woman has ever served in the chamber, and in the U.S. House of Representatives, from 1951–2004, minority women averaged only 1% of the membership, compared to 6% for minority men. Clearly, there has been increased attention to issues that affect minority women, but is this credit solely due to greater representation of minority women, or do other groups provide effective advocacy? With the exception of Reingold and Smith (Reference Reingold and Smith2012), few systematic studies have demonstrated whether intersecting identities, in fact, lead to qualitatively better representation of minority women. Since many issues, such as welfare and employment discrimination, are considered racial and women's issues, there is little systematic evidence to support the claim that minority male legislators will behave differently from minority female legislators on these issues that are both racialized and gendered.

Great advances have been made in improving our understanding of how Congress collectively represents various constituencies and the role that descriptive representatives play in facilitating better substantive representation for women and racial and ethnic minorities. Even though Pitkin's important book was written prior to major events that increased greatly the number of minority and female legislators in Congress, such as redistricting cases in the 1980s and 1990s and the women's movement, her insights have greatly influenced the ongoing debates on whether the presence of minorities and women in Congress are necessary to represent the interests of minorities and women. Addressing Pitkin's challenge, the political representation scholars are closer to pinpointing why and how descriptive representation results in substantive representation. Despite these strides, more collaborative work between women and politics and race and politics scholars can greatly improve our understanding of how gender and racial or ethnic diversity work together in legislatures to explain how underrepresented groups organize and collaborate to advance the interests of marginalized groups in these majority white and majority male political institutions.