DESCRIPTIVE REPRESENTATION OF MEN

Descriptive representation denotes that different groups are represented politically in similar proportions to their share of the population. We know that men and women make up approximately half of electorates, but most representative political bodies comprise a majority of men and a corresponding minority of women. The literature has discussed this mostly as a problem of women's underrepresentation rather than men's overrepresentation, although they are two sides of the same coin. It could be argued that shifting the focus to men's overrepresentation is merely a linguistic twist, but we argue that language matters, and the constant focus on women's underrepresentation reinforces the view of men in politics being the norm and women being deviations from that norm. Moreover, in line with Bacchi (Reference Bacchi2009), we are convinced that problem descriptions matter for how research is designed and conducted as well as for policy solutions.

The historical problem description framed around women's political underrepresentation has been crucial for investigating everything from women's suffrage to the introduction of quotas for women. When searching for causes of women's underrepresentation, research has increasingly zoomed in on political parties and the manner in which they select candidates (e.g., Bjarnegård Reference Bjarnegård2013; Hinojosa Reference Hinojosa2012; Kenny Reference Kenny2013; Kittilson Reference Kittilson2006; Lovenduski and Norris Reference Lovenduski and Norris1993; Murray Reference Murray2010). This reasoning has also opened up discussions about why male-dominated parties strive to preserve the status quo—in other words, what explains the persistent descriptive overrepresentation of men?

With such a problematic description, research also starts framing research questions in different ways, leading researchers to look in different places and come up with new answers. For instance, Bjarnegård has demonstrated how informal networks operate to protect those already in power. People selected into such networks usually must possess homosocial capital: they are individuals who already have access to power and resources, and they are perceived to be similar to others in the network (Bjarnegård Reference Bjarnegård2013). In the Japanese context, LeBlanc (Reference LeBlanc2010) calls this unconscious trust in and preference for (a certain type of) male politicians “the art of the gut.” These networks also favor some men over others, meaning that male overrepresentation still does not translate into the descriptive representation of all men.

Moreover, Murray has demonstrated how the rephrasing of the problem can actually lead to new arguments and different policy implications. If we take into account research that demonstrates how men's selection is facilitated by their sex because their qualifications are often taken for granted (e.g., Besley et al. Reference Besley, Folke, Persson and Rickne2017), it makes sense to scrutinize men's merits by introducing quotas for men rather than for women (Murray Reference Murray2014).

SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION OF MEN

Substantive representation refers to the representation of interests. Descriptive representation is not a prerequisite for substantive representation to occur (Childs and Krook Reference Childs and Lena Krook2009 note that some men, and not all women, will serve as “critical actors” to advance women's interests). Nonetheless, there are numerous studies indicating that higher levels of descriptive representation facilitate better substantive representation, given that lived experience heightens people's awareness of problems and motivation to resolve them (e.g., Cowell-Meyers and Langbein Reference Cowell-Meyers and Langbein2009; Swers 2005).

Studies of substantive representation have always focused on the conundrum of how to defend the interests of underrepresented groups, such as women. For groups whose presence is disproportionately high, such as men, there is no perceived need to worry about substantive representation; it is taken as a given. Men's interests are often conflated with universal interests, reflecting the numerical dominance of men and the lack of critical reflection on how men's preferences are also shaped by their gender. Indeed, there is almost no work exploring the concept of “men's interests” and how these might be distinct from women's or universal human interests.

Furthermore, just as women are heterogeneous in their needs and preferences, so, too, are men. Hegemonic masculinities privilege some men over others, with wealthy, able-bodied, heterosexual, ethnic-majority men enjoying numerous advantages over other groups of men. Men who do not conform to the expectations of hegemonic masculinity may find themselves excluded altogether from the political process (Le Blanc Reference LeBlanc2010) or marginalized within it. The overrepresentation of men is therefore better understood as the overrepresentation of privileged men, thus providing an even greater imbalance between politicians and the people they are charged with representing. For the many men who cannot meet the masculine ideal, a dual problem emerges: they do not necessarily benefit from the advantages associated with their sex, but they are seldom recognized as being disadvantaged by their gender.

A critical focus on men allows us to distinguish between the representation of all citizens, the representation of men as a collective group, and the substantive representation of different subgroups of men. Recognizing gender hierarchies within groups of men, as well as between men and women, allows us better to understand the multifaceted dimensions of men's substantive representation.

SYMBOLIC REPRESENTATION OF MEN

Symbolic representation has, again, mainly been studied with regard to women. It has been argued that seeing women in power sends an important signal to other women that politics concerns them and is a career that women can pursue; that is, women representatives become symbolic role models. Another vein of research on the symbolic representation of women demonstrates how pervasive stereotypical reporting and portrayal of women is—and how women politicians have to adapt to this stereotypical portrayal despite its irrelevance (Kahn Reference Kahn1996; Lawless Reference Lawless2004).

Symbolic representation is also likely to work in the reverse, but because men in politics are the norm, we seldom notice the signals that are constantly sent to men that they are suitable for political office. Reporting and portrayal of male politicians may also be stereotypical, or it may be the case that masculinity is conflated with the political, so that male politicians are portrayed simply as politicians. Looking more closely at constructions and manifestations of masculinity, however, we may see that they are closely connected to manifestations of power and strength. Analyses of President Nicolas Sarkozy in France and Vladimir Putin in Russia have pointed to specific and explicit performances of masculinity conveying physical strength and heterosexuality (Achin and Dorlin Reference Achin and Dorlin2008; Achin, Dorlin, and Rennes Reference Achin, Dorlin and Rennes2008; Sperling Reference Sperling2015).

The entrance of women into the political sphere can serve as a contrast that makes symbolic manifestations of masculinity more visible. Lovenduski has argued that political parties have been male-dominated institutions since their inception and that they are full of informal rules, practices, and symbols made by and for men (Lovenduski Reference Lovenduski2005). Puwar has written about “bodies out of place”—women and minorities entering spaces where men have historically been considered entitled to power. She demonstrates that the experiences of newcomers can uncover the hidden masculine symbols and processes that favor men and work to the disadvantage—or at least the discomfort—of female bodies in politics.