In 2009, I examined the proportion of women in national parliaments as a measure of women’s status in society. Apparently, we get link rot here, too.
Representation in decision-making (i.e. the share of women in national legislatures) is often used as an indicator of the wider integration of women in political and everyday life. This research note examines whether the proportion of women in national parliament really can be regarded as a measure of women’s status in society. I argue — based on correlations and a scatter plot — that the proportion of women in parliament is a reasonably good indicator of status, with the benefit of being based on readily available data.
Working paper: Ruedin 2009 Status Working Paper
Ruedin, Didier. 2009. ‘The Proportion of Women in National Parliament as a Measure of Women’s Status in Society’. Oxford Sociology Working Papers 2009-05.
I got this today…
Cooperating with 6 other guest editors […] the Lead Guest Editor, has proposed a special issue titled Society, Culture and Politics in Contemporary Africa
wow, I count 7 editors in total, that must be a big special issue…
gather together researchers in order to spread their academic experience and research findings on all topics in relation to Africa
I see, all topics in relation to Africa. Now I wonder whether they can manage with 7 editors, I mean all topics in relation to Africa.
Unfortunately, this is followed by this table:
|Topics of interest include, but are not limited to:
- Socioeconomic dynamics
- Social mobility
That’s a real shame, not all topics after all. Now I’m not so sure anymore, I mean they do narrow it down quite a bit (there’s hope, though, that desperate “not limited to”).
Image credit: CC-BY-NC AJC1
While immigration in the sense of relocation is rather factual, the related concept of being of immigrant origin is socially constructed (some prefer references to having an immigrant background). How long is an individual who has moved to a different place considered an immigrant? By studying immigration, social scientists play a role in legitimizing and recreating these differences, thus help maintain arbitrary differences that can lead to discrimination. Should we stop? Let’s consider the alternative for a moment: without studying immigration we have no means of knowing whether there are problems, we do not know whether people perceived as immigrants tend to be discriminated in the labour market, and so on. So no, looking away is not the solution.
What we need to remind ourselves from time to time is taking care not to essentialize, not insisting on seeing migrants everywhere – especially not when we’re really looking at class, or gender. It means being precise about the words we use, and resisting the temptation to go with a topic just because it is high on the political agenda.
It’s common for people to consider themselves multiculturalists in the sense that they positively enjoy different cultures, favour ethnic diversity, and sneer at right-wing populists mobilizing against immigrants. There is, however, a paradox in liberal multiculturalism. On the one hand, respect for differences and other cultures is proclaimed. On the other hand, it values highly (even idealizes) the ability to go beyond one’s culture and value the diversity of cultures that exists. Put differently, if we want to be proper multiculturalists, we need others to be monoculturalists, the more ‘authentic’ the better.
What we’re looking at here is folkloric multiculturalism. Cultures are reduced to symbols, but also to ‘authentic’ settings (Italian pizza served by an Italian waiter, not German pizza served by a Polish waiter…). The paradox stems from the fact that if too many individuals transcend cultures, there is nobody left for the ‘authentic’ cultures we seek and respect. Yet, don’t multiculturalists look down on the ‘simple’ or ‘authentic’ people in their own culture because they are unable or unwilling to move beyond their own culture?
Baggini, J. 2010. “The Poppadom Paradox.” In The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten, 199–201. London: Granta Books.