Check‐mating the state? Argumentation strategies in Finnish equality policies

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
The objective of this article is to analyse and discuss the argumentation strategies used by the Finnish Council for Equality during 1972–86. The question addressed is: How did the Council try to convince other authorities of the desirability of gender equality and to persuade them to act accordingly, and with what consequences and implications? The theoretical and methodological framework for analysis was provided by Perelman and Olbrechts‐Tyteca's rhetorical theory of argumentation. The analysis shows that in the 1970s it was typical of the Council to utilize mainly associative techniques in the form of pragmatic arguments. These types of strategies were based on a mutual and taken‐for‐granted understanding of equality and tended to focus the debates on the means for attaining the goal. The analysis points out the implications of the argumentation strategy for the formulation and potential success of the claims. At the turn of the 1980s, there came about “a rhetorical turn” in the argumentation of the Council as it started to utilize dissociative techniques in an innovative way. The transformation of argumentation techniques involved a reconceptualization of equality as well as an attempt to legitimize the demand for practical equality measures by an appeal to deep‐seated bureaucratic norms and values. The Council ended up by presenting itself as a loyal bureaucratic servant and by questioning the loyalty of others. The dissociative argumentation strategies were also utilized in order to back the claim for women's representation in the politico‐administrative arenas. By this means, the Council created places for the female subject in the discourse, albeit in ideologically contradictory ways. The results of the study show a simultaneous feminization and bureaucratization of the ideology of the Council. This seemingly contradictory phenomenon is discussed in terms of different conceptualizations of co‐optation. The conclusion argues for a strategy of “feminist judo” by the Council, of turning the weight of the bureaucracy against itself. The feministization of the ideology was balanced by assuming a semblance of legitimacy found in an adherence to the bureaucratic credo and language. The analysis raises the query whether co‐optation should be regarded as not only a question of necessity but also as a question of strategic choices for state feminism.

This publication has 2 references indexed in Scilit: