Suchergebnisse

Este artículo revisa críticamente la extensa literatura sobre la representación política de los grupos sociales y destaca las ventajas de la teoría interseccional para estudiar esta cuestión. Se argumenta que el mérito de dicho enfoque puede ser encontrado en su ontología del poder. La teoría interseccional está basada en la concepción relacional del poder político que ubica la constitución de las relaciones de poder en las interacciones sociales, como la representación política. Por ejemplo, la teoría interseccional impulsa el conocimiento que se encuentra como ocurre en la representación política tras del estudio de las desigualdades en la representación (que están conectadas, presumiblemente, a posiciones sociales estables) para, con ello, considerar los medios por los que dicha representación reproduce las posiciones de privilegio y desventaja. ; This article critically reviews the extant literature on social group representation and clarifies the advantages of intersectionality theory for studying political representation. It argues that the merit of intersectionality theory can be found in its ontology of power. Intersectionality theory is founded on a relational conception of political power that locates the constitution of power relations within social interactions, such as political representation. As such, intersectionality theory pushes scholarship beyond studying representation inequalities —that are linked to presumably stable societal positions— to also consider the ways in which political representation (re)creates positions of privilege and disadvantage.

This comparative analysis investigates formal parliamentary bodies 'for women' and informal networks and parliamentary groups ('gender equality bodies'). These are evaluated to determine the extent to which they contribute to a 'good' collective process of women's substantive representation. Focusing on three countries, Belgium, the United Kingdom (UK) and New Zealand (NZ), we explore which venues are responsive to women and which are inclusive of a wide variety of claims. The UK and NZ cases score better than Belgium on the responsiveness criterion given that linkage with the women's movement is more or less guaranteed while Belgium and the UK appear more promising on inclusiveness, predominantly because of their rules concerning the composition of the gender equality bodies. However, in none do the various bodies constitute a strong site for quality substantive representation of women (SRW). Rather, it appears SRW remains dependent on the role of critical actors.

Resentment is a complex, multi-layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi‐layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

Resentment is a complex, multi‐layered emotion, within which perceptions of unfairness and feelings of anger are central. When linked to politics, it has predominantly been associated with the alleged "crisis of representative democracy" and populism. However, recent studies have shown that resentment can intervene positively in people's relations to politics and political institutions by facilitating certain types of political participation (Capelos & Demertzis, 2018). Despite this, the concept of resentment, and hence its role in contemporary representative democracy, is often poorly defined, with empirical investigations of its manifestation(s) remaining scarce. Borrowing a conceptualization of resentment as "resentful affectivity," our article draws on the analysis of focus groups carried out in Belgium (2019–2020) with individuals where resentful affectivity is likely to be observed (i.e., contemporary movements of contestation such as the Yellow Vests, Youth for Climate, and individuals who occupy a socially disadvantaged position). We find that experiences of intense anger, fear, disappointment, and the unfairness of representative democracy, i.e., of how representative democracy works on the ground, coexist simultaneously with remaining hopes in the democratic system. We show how this complex blend of emotions confronts citizens with what we call a "democratic dilemma." We document the different ways in which citizens cope with this dilemma and conclude by highlighting both the positive and negative ways in which resentment intervenes in the contemporary "crisis of representative democracy."

To date, research on gender and political representation has predominantly centered on women. The assumption that men as a privileged group automatically gain representation is nevertheless problematic. Not only are some (dominant) groups of men better represented than others, we simply do not know what men's interests are. Up until today, however, no study has actually explored the nature of men's interests in an empirical way. This paper offers a first attempt to conceptualize and operationalize the notion of men's interests in empirical research. Based on new and original data from the 2014 PARTIREP voter survey organized in Belgium on the occasion of the 2014 federal and regional elections, we study men and women along political themes, their political visions and their voting behavior. The main question that guides our research is the following: What do gender differences in political themes and visions tell us about male (and female) interests in politics? Next to offering empirical insights into women and men's political interests, this paper also provides a theoretical contribution to broader debates on group interests. We reflect on our observation that men and women attach importance to the same political themes but have different visions about them, and what this teaches us about "male interests" and "female interests". We also launch a call for new empirical and theoretical research into men and their interests in politics.

To date, research on gender and political representation has predominantly centered on women. The assumption that men as a privileged group automatically gain representation is nevertheless problematic. Not only are some (dominant) groups of men better represented than others, we simply do not know what men's interests are. Up until today, however, no study has actually explored the nature of men's interests in an empirical way. This paper offers a first attempt to conceptualize and operationalize the notion of men's interests in empirical research. Based on new and original data from the 2014 PARTIREP voter survey organized in Belgium on the occasion of the 2014 federal and regional elections, we study men and women along political themes, their political visions and their voting behavior. The main question that guides our research is the following: What do gender differences in political themes and visions tell us about male (and female) interests in politics? Next to offering empirical insights into women and men's political interests, this paper also provides a theoretical contribution to broader debates on group interests. We reflect on our observation that men and women attach importance to the same political themes but have different visions about them, and what this teaches us about "male interests" and "female interests". We also launch a call for new empirical and theoretical research into men and their interests in politics.