This weeks readings include articles by Suzanne Dovi and Katherine Tate (recommended), both of which focus on representation in congress. While there are many theoretical arguments presented, the debate boils down to which type of representation is best for marginalized groups: descriptive or substantive? Descriptive representatives are those who share demographic characteristics with those their constituents (i.e. a Latino congressperson is best suited to represent a Latino/a). Substantive representatives are those who focus on the interests and needs of various groups (i.e. a congressperson of any race who work substantively for what they perceive to be Black issues). I would like to hear your views on this debate and more generally how our representative democracy should best represent an increasingly diverse nation.
Other food for thought that you might want to comment on include:
- the breakdown of the current 115th Congress (especially focus on pages 7-8)
- exit polls for presidential elections from 1972 - 2016 broken down by demographic characteristics (once you scroll down you will see different years emerge at the top of the screen, use those to shift between elections and also pay attention to the change between each election and the one just before it along the right side of each row)
I believe descriptive representation is the better for marginalized groups, as long as that descriptive representation doesn’t transition into a symbolic representation. Although a descriptive representative may not have all the same political views as other citizens in their demographic, they are still a part of that demographic. When deliberation time comes, I think it is crucial marginalized groups are fairly represented. Katherine Tate discusses this in her article “Does Race Matter?” when she mentions the importance of a marginalized group being able to publicly represent their interests. The key word there is “interests”, and obviously if the subjects being deliberated are unrelated to race/ethnicity, then this doesn’t matter. But if a representative were asked about potential legislation to help reduce crime in poor urban areas with high minority populations, I believe it would be more meaningful to have a minority speaking on the issue than a person who only says to have similar interests as those affected. Basically, I think when it gets down to the nitty-gritty, a substantive representative can't speak as effectively as someone who has had to endure some of the hardships of being a minority in America.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with your argument about descriptive representation. I think it could be argued that a descriptive representative could also be a substantive representative in a sense. If they are from the same demographic, I think that makes them more likely to understand the needs and interests of their demographic. That kind of goes back to the discussion we had in the beginning of the class about someone from a particular racial or ethnic group being asked to speak on behalf of their demographic. As we talked about during that discussion, I think it is possible that being part of that demographic alone gives you an insight that someone looking from the outside in could not necessarily see. Thats how I rationalize the importance for descriptive representation as opposed to substantive representation.
DeleteI think that it is important for congress and representation within politics to be a combination of both. I think it is impossible to have a representative that can be perfectly descriptive to the entirety of their constituents. It is much more complicated than having the same skin color or gender. Intersectionality really plays a role in this discussion, because a male Latino "descriptive" representative is still not descriptive for female Latinas in the area. I think that there must be a healthy balance of both. While the representative may be descriptive for some of their demographic, they must still be substantive for the rest of their demographic that they do not reach. As we become more and more diverse, it will be virtually impossible for representatives to be one of everything, but I think that that must not deter us from trying! However, we have to be realistic and understand that while we may try to have descriptive representation, they cannot forget the needs of those demographics that might not be represented.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you that the best route for congress and overall politics is a combination of both descriptive and substantive. I think the reason why descriptive representation in congress and even other fields the politics, is that there is that feeling of comfort that you're race or ethnicity is being represented. It does not necessarily mean that someone has to be, for example, Native American to understand Native American issues. That is where it connects to the substantive group, which as I agreed with Schyler, they are also important. I, do however, skew a little bit more to descriptive because although someone who is not the specific race or ethnicity that they are "representing" for a different group. I think the overall reason why descriptive representation is sought out and/or wanted more is because of people's reactions. In reality, a person who is white speaking on Native American issues will not get as much support or acknowledgement versus someone is is Native American. Because at the end, I noticed that people see racial representation as something shown physically, and not intellectually, in politics.
DeleteI would agree that ideally both descriptive and substantive representation would work best. A balance of both would work well in the fact that not all descriptive representation might have the same views as someone with the same ethnicity or race. Substantive representation would allow us to focus on the issues and balance these both. Sometimes it may occur that people focus only on the descriptive aspect because they can relate and not truly on the substantive aspect of actual policies that they may imply. By being able to diversify and allow more individuals to represent a specific group they may be able to bring something new to the table and offer a different perspective. While observing the breakdown of the 115th Congress I can see than many of the non-white members have less than 10% representation and women on the other hand have 20%. As these numbers may be small, we can make a difference by being more open to new outlooks and allowing more diverse groups to have a say in our countries decisions.
DeleteI also think that congress and politicians have to be combination of both descriptive and substantive. And since it is becoming more and more diverse a lot of people might think that representation will only be based on politician’s race or ethnicity. At the same time people automatically think if they are voting for Black president only black people will be benefited or if they are voting for white president, black people will be left out. And according to the election article, it is easy to see that people vote for candidates with same racial or ethical background. I do agree with Schyler that as we become more diverse it would be impossible to for representatives to catch up with all of the diversities. That is why I think that descriptive representation will be more popular but politicians cannot forget about the substantive representation.
DeleteIn my opinion, it is certainly important to make sure Congress is not compiled of strictly white men. I say this, not because of the issue of descriptive representation, but mostly because I do not think that it would represent the United States well. I do not believe that someone has to be a certain race in order to properly address issues of that race. There are many minorities in the United States so to believe that we could get every single minority represented in Congress is loss hope.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if someone is able to reach out to multiple minorities and address those issues, then that makes them qualified - not the color of their skin or the economic class they fall into. But like I said, it is important to get different races into politics to represent America the correct way.
I believe that substantive representation plays a bigger role than descriptive representation. Although it would be great to have a mixture of both, it rarely occurs in that way. I agree with Chloe that someone does not have to be of that certain race in order to address issues of that race. Looking at the exit polls of the 2016 election proves that substantive is weighed greater than descriptive. Hilary Clinton is a white female that received 88% of black votes and 65% of the Latino/Hispanic and Asian vote. She did not overwhelming win the women’s vote either, there was only a 12% difference. I think the exit polling proves that people do necessarily vote for someone who resembles them but votes for someone who shares similar values and goals of the country. When you compare the number of Black who voted in the 2000 election and 2008 election, Barack Obama only had 3% more black voters than Al Gore. There is no drastic difference in the numbers even though the Black community finally had someone of descriptive representation running for office.
DeleteHowever, as our country increasingly becomes diverse I think it would be great to have more racial groups in office who come from areas that are looking for change. I believe people who have experiences can shape our government differently but I do not think we have to limit change being done by someone of that race.
I believe that in a world with far less racial/ethnic tension, substantive representatives would be perfectly able to handle any issues that arise and require reform. The problem for me is that there is an amazingly high amount of bias and naivety when it comes to the issues and experiences that minorities face every day. In the ideal world where politicians are the representatives of the people, and their sole goal is to adapt and bring voice to issues that their constituents raise, a substantive representation would be more than adequate to meet the populations needs. However, this is not the world we live in. Many politicians have ulterior motives with the bills they introduce and many do not have the goal of true representation in their minds. They do not (and can not) fully understand the issues facing minorities, as most are not part of those groups. If practical issues in today's time and world are to be addressed, we will need to have a descriptive representation of leaders, as well as a large substantive force acting alongside them.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I think to achieve the best possible outcome for representation a combo of both descriptive and substantive must be had, I think overall substantive is the most important. I think that because a lot of races and religions are under represented in the 115th Congress so if everyone was focusing on descriptive representation there would be a lot of groups who would be left out. Although a white male might not be the best person to represent the Latino population it is still important that he does the best he can to understand their wants and needs. I think with a more diverse congress descriptive representation could be more useful because there is a more complete bridge of understanding between the representative and the people, but you cannot totally disregard groups that are different from you. Both are equally important, I just believe at the moment substantive carries more weight.
ReplyDeleteI think that is it crucial to have both forms of representation in politics. However, I think descriptive representation is more of an issue at the moment because, as the makeup of the 115th Congress shows, Congress is still made up of predominantly white males. I think descriptive representation is also beneficial because it is easier for someone of the race that they are representing to know more about the issues that affect that race. For example, having a white man talk about minority issues is important, but he will never know exactly how issues affect minorities because he isn't a minority. If there was more clear diversity in Congress, it would probably lead to more minority issues being addressed.
ReplyDeleteA majority of minorities will say that a descriptive representative is the better voice for their people, because they can relate to them on a personal level. The descriptive representative might have faced similar challenges, handled issues in a similar manner, and etc. Unlike substantive representative, it is not simply a matter of feeling for someone, but actually enduring the same problems and issues. Substantive representatives are, also, a great choice because they attempt to understand interests, but it is safe to say that understanding is completely different from experiencing, so understanding can only go so far. But on the other hand, it is important to have the best of both worlds, so no one minority is only accounted for. It is important to understand that it is hard for a certain representative to share similar interests with an entire population, which is why it is important for there to be a wide range of different representatives throughout, so that as many people can be voiced.
ReplyDeleteI think that regarding substantive and descriptive representation, this is a both/and not an either/or situation. While substantive representation may work for a certain groups’ causes, as much as we may hate it, image matters. That’s where descriptive representation comes in. Though someone may look like a certain group, it does not necessarily mean they will speak for them on group specific issues. While we could debate the pros and cons of having one or the other, or both, I think that we should also set these ideas and types of representation into today’s political climate.
ReplyDeleteToday, America is having trust issues. The American people are told not to trust the media, while the media tells us to trust stories they bring forth. Even more than that, when we elect our representatives we trust them to represent and fight for our interests. However, recently even this sense of trust seems to be broken. For example, in town halls all over the country representatives have been met with outrage and protesting from their constituents. The blame can be placed on either party. Whether it’s because the candidate campaigned one way, but votes another, or the voter was misguided in where the candidate stood on certain issues, there is a definite lack of communication or expectation between voters and representatives. The only type of relieve I can seem to come up with is for voters to educate themselves about candidates prior to election season. This is not a new idea, but is rather beginning to sound like a broken record.
I think that its very hard to say whether descriptive or substantive representation is best for marginalized groups. Although it could be easier for a representative to address issues that he or she relates to because they are of a certain ethnicity, it doesn’t always mean that they will. For example, many people argue that Barack Obama didn’t do as much as he could for black people. As long as the marginalized group is represented and their issues are addressed, I don’t think that whether their representation is coming from someone who is the same ethnicity as them or not is all that relevant. With that being said, it is still very important to have a diverse Congress, ethnically, in order for our representative democracy to be prosperous. If a Congressman doesn’t actively represent the marginalized group that they are apart of, they still act as a figure of inspiration for the group, promoting involvement among members of that group in politics.
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult argument to "pick sides" on. On one hand, descriptive representation is important in inspiring younger generations of a particular race. To recognize that their faces are being seen and their voices are being heard is an important aspect of pride and self-esteem. I think regardless of intention, everyone has only their racial lens to work from. Yes, a white person may sympathize and understand some of the issues facing the black community, but they will never experience it themselves. To put briefly, descriptive representation is a key element when choosing representatives as it brings different lenses and perspectives into government dealings.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think descriptive representation is important, I also understand and appreciate the gravity of substantive representation. I have great admiration for individuals such as Bernie Sanders who speak on behalf of many races, genders, and sexual orientations. However, he is a straight white man. Senator Sanders has gained substantial momentum and following with minority races, regardless of his own racial background. Arguably, Barack Obama, although the first African-American president, did not focus heavily on aiding the black community as much as he was predicted to. Substantive representation is important because it provides action and advocacy for minority groups although the person themselves is not a member of that group (or visa versa).
In a perfect world, I would love to see a balance of substantive and descriptive representation. I would love to say that minority groups in Congress are for sure going to advocate for their communities, but that is unpredictable. If I had to choose, I would favor substantive representation because it implies active support for minorities. Seeing a Congress full of white men is not my ideal Congress, but if they all supported minority groups, I would appreciate the sea of whiteness a bit more.
Margaux's eloquent response made me rethink my position. The topic of representation reminds me of an Op-ed by Maureen Dowd I read about a year ago after Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump. The article, titled "Sarah Palin Saves Feminism" jokingly thanks Sarah Palin for her work on the campaign trail because finally, we have an example of a woman in the spotlight who does not represent the entire female gender. It's a funny article and an interesting perspective.
DeleteThis goes back to Margaux's point that while both types of representation are important, substantive representation might be more important when it comes to promoting policies that will have long-lasting benefits. When deciding between the two, I just think of figures such as Sarah Palin, Carly Fiorina, and even Kellyanne Conway (although not a politician but did make history as the first woman to lead a winning presidential campaign) and although I am happy to see more and more women in the political arena, I am not sure if these women represent my morals and ideas best.
Here is the link to the Sarah Palin article: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/24/opinion/sunday/sarah-palin-saves-feminism.html
I think that the best form of representation is the distinctive one. the people who is representing the marginalized groups would be from the same background and they would understand better what a person, which is part from a marginalized group, is living because they probably lived it. However, i feel that only ONE person could not represent a whole community or whole marginalized group because people can vary and people probably would not share the same values as the representative. But I think that people are more interested on seeing someone of their own in a high level on politics, they would feel identified. But still I feel that is a big dilemma to choose which is the correct form to represent a marginalized group on politics because it is not easy to conglomerate a lot of people in just one category, because maybe someone would not feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteI personally believe that substantive representation is more useful in helping represent marginalized groups of people. Someone who shares demographic traits with the people who need representing may not be dealing with the same issues that the group would like addressed. Marginalized groups need someone who to speak up for the problems that they need addressed, they do not need someone that looks like them but has no clue of what their issues are. I feel as if descriptive representation almost makes it seem as if the problems that the representative then discusses are immediately associated with anyone who looks like the representative. Descriptive representation in my opinion furthers stereotypes and makes it harder for marginalized groups to have their voices heard.
ReplyDeleteWhile for the vast majority of issues, I believe that a politician who is a substantive representative will do as well as a descriptive representative, but for issues which only effect that specific racial group, descriptive representatives might be necessary as they are the only ones who will truly understand the situation and circumstances to which their constituents go through. I also think if a minority group is represented by descriptive representative they often can “normalizes” their race or minority. For example, if people were to see a very strong and patriotic Muslim senator wearing a traditional Kufis cap, it might change the opinion of groups who have become Islamophobia.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that you need both substantive and descriptive in congress. Substantive because it can be seen more broadly and can also show that the congressman may not be that certain race, but that they're taking initiative to it. The only works well when it is not much of a race issue though because I do believe that sometimes some issues can be addressed by those who suffer from it. Sometimes you need someone needs totally about problems that affects the nation as whole and sometimes you need someone who understands the problems specific races face.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the substantive vs. descriptive representation debate, I think we run into a problem that Dovi discusses as it relates to what substantive representation means in practice. Substantive representation and descriptive representation are both terms that we are considering in the abstract. As Dovi mentions, past scholars argue that substantive representation for historically oppressed groups in the U.S. will likely not be possible without descriptive representation. This means that while substantive representation in the abstract regards as possible an all-white, all-male Congress that sincerely acts for the interests of women and minorities, in practice this would likely be impossible. While I am not entirely familiar with the event, I have heard people refer to the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas Nomination scandal as one occasion where male senators could not wrap their heads around some things that Anita Hill, like many other women in the workplace, said she experienced. It is cases like these that make a strong argument for needing descriptive representation FIRST, although that is obviously an insufficient desire for a democratic society. I think the U.S. should have a proportional representation, party list system that includes racial and gender quotas to ensure representation on a descriptive level, though, again, this is only a start.
ReplyDelete