OCR Text |
Show THE UTAH STATE SENATE: EFFECTS OF TOKENISM AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE GENDER PARITY Ashley E. DiAna different from the other senators. This could be because of lower level of awareness, which seems unlikely in light of her other work and positions, or because in the particular arena of the senate there is not an inequality that she perceives compared to other areas. The second perceptual phenomenon is polarization, where the majority group becomes aware of the similarities and difference between themselves and the token group and responds with heightened boundaries. The three types of this boundary heightening are interruptions to the group process, informal isolation, and loyalty tests. There was clear evidence of interruptions to the group process and loyalty tests. Sen. Evans (R) describes moments within her caucus where the male members told inappropriate jokes or made potentially questionable remarks, and she either ignored them or told a joke back. This enabled her to stay inside the circle, and gained her acceptance to the overall group process. She also described how early in her senate career there were moments when conversations with her peers were halted briefly to ask her permission to progress. She talked about how even simple issues like movies elicited a gendered response, and her ability to not be offended by the commentary allowed her to then have an opinion after the conversation lagged. She was not offended by any of this process, and analyzed it by saying that men and women are "just different," and that this was one example of gender differences. Sen. Evans (R) had passed key loyalty tests by being a friendly member of the caucus. She counted it a great compliment when someone came into the caucus lunch for bill discussion and paused, when talking about a gender sensitive issue (issue not specified during interview), nodding in her direction; one of her male counterparts said not to worry about her because she was just "one of us." Sen. Walker (R), on the other hand, did not see or describe any of the manifestations of this phenomenon. She said she had been treated like an equal and that she did not perceive any gender differentiation in terms of substantive issues. She, too, asserted the fundamental differences between men and women. She said that men and women think and behave differently, and that an understanding of this difference was necessary to be an effective legislator in a body of mostly men. Sen. Hale (D), who did not believe that women had to work any harder than their male counterparts, did see differences in the way she was treated by her caucus leadership. She felt that though it was unconscious, her opinion and input was not sought out. She felt that she had to be more assertive and vocal about her position in order to get equal time with the male leadership of the Democratic caucus. She had to cause an interruption to the group process in order to be fully participatory. She attributed some of this to a difference in social and conversational behavior. She did not share the same pastimes as her male counterparts, and she felt that bringing informal conversation to a formal level for the purposes of strategizing sometimes alienated her from her caucus and their informal bonding. Polarization based on gender within the senate was present in most of the interviews. The degree to which the senators sensed this aspect of tokenism was far less than the sense of heightened visibility in almost every interview. Though the senators all had a clear position on whether women were more visible and had to work harder, the sense that there was a social and conversational divide was far less defined. Senator Evans (R) most clearly discussed this aspect of tokenism. Her understanding that getting along with and being accepted by her male colleagues was clear. She knew that a friendly casual relationship was key to sustaining her position in the Senate and the Republican caucus. Senator Hale (D) also exhibited a more refined sense of this aspect of tokenism. The fact that she realized she needed to be part of less formal interaction, while feeling alienated because her pastimes are significantly different than her caucus leadership, showed how important casual conversation is to coalition building and access to power sharing in an elected body. Her realization that she has to be more assertive and become more engaged in caucus conversation shows the level to which these women, specifically Democrats, have to be aware and act upon this divide. Otherwise, their ability to maintain position and progress is limited or eliminated. The fact that this aspect was less clear in the other interviews in no way means it is less powerful or present in the Senate than heightened visibility. This aspect of tokenism may be more insidious and subtle than most assumed, thereby making it more detrimental to female senators because it is not discussed the way level of work production is. It is easier to see who writes more letters, spends more time in meetings, and is connected to community groups than who is friendly and part of the "in" crowd within the body. To further explore this aspect of polarization, more interviews about the social nature of the body, including who socializes informally with whom and how often, would have to be completed. Observation of the body both in session and especially during breaks would also provide more evidence. If male senators golf and share meals only with other male senators, then there may be more concrete evidence of this more subtle aspect. Gender consciousness in regards to polarization is critical. When elected women have a heightened level of gender consciousness, there is a clear awareness of the subtle entrap-ments associated with polarization. When gender consciousness is less developed, these entrapments may be seen as innocuous. Senator Hale (D) is a good example of a heightened level of awareness of this aspect of tokenism; she not only sees clear examples of this separation going on, she has determined the best means for addressing that polarization by using her voice and asserting her equality. Senator Evans (R) is a good example of the internal negotiation that accompanies a heightened level of gender consciousness. She has 26 |