Are Gender Quotas Feminist? A Theoretical Approach

This Paper seeks to address the tensions between advances in feminist theory and the implementation of gender quotas. On the surface, quotas are an explicitly feminist policy; they seek to correct the overrepresentation of men in politics and advance the political and symbolic representation of women. However, quotas are a policy of assimilation into problematic political structures and are predicated upon sex-difference between men and women. From a liberal feminist perspective, this path towards equality of representation would be beneficial. However, for those adherent to alternative feminisms, such as post-structuralism, quotas are problematic as they advance essentialism and rely on the gender-binary. Additionally, from an intersectional analysis, quotas may not be sufficient in addressing multiple forms of underrepresentation and exclusion. This project attempts to bridge an apparent gap between theoretical and empirical work on feminist political representation by analyzing the French case through three separate theoretical positions: liberal feminism, postmodern feminism, and intersectional feminisms. As Joan Scott (2005) notes, parité activists attempted to assimilate the category “woman” into the sex-less, universal category of citizen. We argue that despite the denial of difference between the genders in this instance, the quota project in France does not overcome conflicts with feminist theories. Despite these limitations, it is clear that quotas have had substantial impacts on symbolic and descriptive representation for women in numerous countries around the globe. Rather than become immobilized by the tensions between feminist theory and quota policy, we will argue for the better incorporation of “strategic essentialism” (Spivak) in feminist theories, the move beyond hyphenated-feminisms, and the continued emancipatory potential of quotas.