The Process of Substantive Representation for LGBTQ Groups

Substantive representation is defined as “acting in the interests” of the constituency (Pitkin 1967). Other theorists have sought to expand and better define representation although these terms remain rooted in the style and motivation of representative’s actions. For example, Mansbridge’s concept of gyroscopic representation identifies those who “look internally” to make decisions that are good for the whole. Researchers are often interested in exploring which dimension of representation explains a policy outcome, rather than viewing them as parts of a process that interact and respond to one another. This paper focuses on the problems of conceptualization and measurement that come with an empirical study of marginalized group representation. I attempt to puzzle out what it would mean for us to move away from an outcomes-oriented approach to studying the process of political representation. I attend to the marginalizing impact that LGBT/Q policies can have on those who are “Othered” in the LGBT/Q community and I frame my conceptualizations using both intersectionality and queer theory. If we are attuned to Iris Marion Yong’s assertion that democracy is a social justice project of inclusion then it makes the most sense to study the complexities of political representation. We must also be aware of the ways that representation may impede democracy and vice versa (Pitkin 2004). I track the ways that members of parliament in the UK represent LGBT/Q communities in order to study the ways these typologies (Pitkin 1967; Mansbridge 1999, 2003; Rehfeld 2008) are useful to representatives as they try to represent groups. For example, do non-descriptive actors rely on gyroscopic representation, surrogate representation, or some combination? I seek to explain the way these conceptualizations of representation are related to one another and to the policy-making process for marginalized groups.