Discursive Inequity and the Internal Exclusion of Women Speakers

Abstract

In today’s democracies, disempowered group members are no longer formally barred from the political arena. However, there is a concern that the historical memory of political inequality and exclusion remains as internalized cognitive dispositions, shaping behavior even after laws are changed. Focusing on the legacy of women’s political exclusion from the public sphere, I consider whether internal exclusions undermine women’s ability to influence political discourse even under conditions of formal political equality. All else being equal, do women and men in Western democracies have the same discursive influence? Are women particularly sensitive to men’s discursive authority? I help answer these questions using an experimental research design. The results of my study offer evidence that people are more willing to revise their opinions after hearing a man’s counterargument than after hearing a woman’s identical counterargument. This pattern appears to be driven by the way women respond to a man’s counterclaim. I discuss how gendered discursive inequities reinforce existing patriarchal structures, and the role that women inadvertently play in their own subjugation. I conclude by offering suggestions for better approximating the ideal of discursive gender equality.

Climate change communication and public engagement in interpersonal deliberative settings: evidence from the Irish citizens’ assembly

“…Second, recent research has emphasised gender asymmetries in discursive influence of communicators. Beauvais (2019) finds that both men and women are more open to revise their opinions after having received an identical counterargument coming from a male communicator than from a female communicator. Accounting for potential gender differences in communication is therefore paramount.…”

Measuring Democratic Listening: A Listening Quality Index

“…For example, by using listening quality as a dependent variable, we can study how different deliberative formats (e.g., moderated or not, small groups, big groups, enclaved or inter-group, online or face-to-face) impact listening quality. We can also study whether some groups of people listen more or better than others and whether actor-specific factors, including gender or age, affect listening quality (Beauvais 2019). As a dependent variable, the LQI can help researchers identify facilitating factors of listening.…”

“…Last, the democratic functioning of deliberation involves promoting inclusion and facilitating "equal opportunities to participate" (Mansbridge et al 2012, 12). Here, again, listening is crucial: I cannot have participated in the formation of a collective opinion if I am allowed to speak, but what I say is ignored (Beauvais 2019;Scudder 2020b;Young 2000). The epistemic, ethical, and democratic functions of deliberation all depend on the quality of listening.…”

“…Did their preferences move in the direction of a particular speaker's preferences (Neblo, Esterling, and Lazer 2018, 131)? Did a participant report being influenced by another person's opinions or arguments (Beauvais 2019)? Another possible change-based measure of listening would involve looking for evidence of greater integration of considerations in deliberation (Niemeyer 2019).…”

The Body Speaks Before It Even Talks: Deliberation, Populism and Bodily Representation

“…Power infuses deliberative institutions with unacknowledged asymmetries in voice. For example, women can be internally excluded from deliberation when they find themselves constantly interrupted by their male counterpart, or doubt their own judgment and tend not to stand their ground in discussions (Beauvais, 2019;Afsahi 2020). Citizens with disabilities also face hurdles to be accepted as co-equal deliberators (Karpowitz et al 2012).…”