1
Gender ManifestoGender ManifestoGender ManifestoGender Manifesto
A call for critical reflection onA call for critical reflection onA call for critical reflection onA call for critical reflection on
GenderGenderGenderGender----oriented capacity buildingoriented capacity buildingoriented capacity buildingoriented capacity building and consultancyand consultancyand consultancyand consultancy1
We are pursuing a dual objective with this manifesto: On the one hand to
eliminate the gendered norms and preconceptions in Gender Training and
Consultancy; and on the other hand, to return to the core and the critical intrinsic
meaning of the term Gender2
.
We have observed that in the fields of “Gender Training” and “Gender
Consultancy” pervasive gender concepts tend to reproduce rather than alter the
present gender order. We see the need, on the contrary, for critical reflection in this
field, which questions dualising gender concepts instead of reinforcing them,
analyses the stereotypes and exposes rather than reproduces them.
Also, instead of thinking of “gender” as an isolated category, it should always be
viewed within the context of other social power relations. We consider a selfreflective,
theoretically grounded and identity-critical practice to be necessary in
education and consultancy with a gender perspective.
We have further noticed that the term “Gender Mainstreaming”3
is increasingly
interpreted as a neo-liberal reorganization strategy in order to optimize “genderspecific
human resources”. This narrow sense of the concept of gender equity as
limited to organizational efforts to increase efficiency has failed, in our opinion, to
achieve the original emancipatory objective to view equal rights, opportunities and
participation of men and women as an all-encompassing human right. Where
supposedly gender-specific skills have been “discovered” as virtually natural assets,
gender equity has mutated into smart management of assumed differences.
Consequently, social inequalities and exclusion are being hidden by a rhetoric of
diversity. That is why, we plead for a systematic emancipatory perspective that is
aware of the historical roots of Gender Mainstreaming in the feminist movements
and the international context.
We see a danger of preserving, or even reinforcing, the mainstream gender
order through Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Training. In our view, a critical
reflective practice that can successfully confront this danger must fulfil certain
prerequisites, which need greater recognition in this field. By indicating theoretical
and methodological premises and the standards for professional practice derived
from them, we offer this manifesto as a contribution to quality development in
Gender Training and Consultancy.
1
We would like to thank Farah Alouidor and Rachel Andras for their translation of the
German Gender-Manifest.
2
The German Geschlecht does not distinguish between “sex” and “gender”. However, the
English term gender is presently used in the German language as well, causing confusion
about its meaning. This translation uses the English gender as appropriate, with
additional explanations where necessary.
3
Gender Mainstreaming is a strategy to create gender equality in day-to-day life. Gender
Mainstreaming is therefore a process-oriented cross-sectional task. “Top down” Gender
Mainstreaming requires clear responsibilities and steering functions. Gender
Mainstreaming is based on the production and systematic use of Gender knowledge.
2
Theoretical Premises: our understanding of genderTheoretical Premises: our understanding of genderTheoretical Premises: our understanding of genderTheoretical Premises: our understanding of gender
“Gender” is presently much talked about. A professional field of gender work,
which was unthinkable in the mid-90s, has been established, at the latest since the
international strategy of Gender Mainstreaming made its way into German
institutions. Consultants, trainers and coaches make a living out of it today by
training and consulting many different types of institutions in all aspects of gender.
The main objective is mostly to promote the legally established gender equity
through institutional action, especially in public institutions. In the course of the
introduction of Gender Mainstreaming, “gender” has therefore – at least in
professional circles – become a common expression. Often the word “women” or
“men” has been replaced with the term “gender” or “gender” has been used as a
synonym for “men, on the one hand, and women, on the other.”
The use of gender in current scholarly discourse, however, denotes a position
that does not confirm the prevailing gender duality but questions its social
production processes and its ways of operating in a gender-based hierarchical
structure. How is gender continually produced anew and yet unchanging as a bipolar
norm of social attribution that relates men and women to each other as
complements and conforms them to hierarchical relations? The societal norm of
heterosexual duality of sexes and its inherent causal connection of biological sex
with gender and desire is thus called into question: This fundamentally criticizes the
prevailing gender order, which for instance associates a body defined as female with
certain personal attributes and behaviour patterns classified as feminine and with a
necessary focus on men as regards desire. This critique is based on the observation
of numerous social genders and of different ways of desire. This has also shown
that “sex” is also a by-product of socio-cultural construction.
We believe that this critical potential in the term gender has received too little
attention in the gender-oriented education and consultancy field. Instead we have
observed a problematic tendency in the use of the term gender: “Gender” is used as
an analytical category, by which to diagnose gender differences, but those
differences are often put down to differences between “men” and “women”. Gender
analysis tools have been used mostly to uncover differences between men and
women in a specific field or subject, and then to make it a disputable issue. The aim
of using different forms of gender analysis is to refute an assumed gender
neutrality. However important this function is, it must be regarded with
ambivalence: A critical side effect of gender analysis lies in the homogenising of
men and women, respectively, and disregarding differences within the respective
gender groups. In order to operationalise the gender analysis by reducing its
complexity, a dual gender order is applied. The practice of gender analysis, thus,
risks unwittingly “doing gender”, which reinforces the differences that were
supposedly only to be analysed. This, however, serves to maintain the very gender
order that we feel should be overcome.
The main challenge, therefore, is to make a paradoxical approach to Gender
the starting point for professional action; that is, to use Gender as an analytical
category in order to overcome Gender as a classification category. That is why, it is
necessary to view gender analysis, following the “three-step strategy” from
construction to reconstruction to deconstruction, with regard to its own constructive
aspect, thus, making gender analysis itself the subject of the analysis.
3
Deconstruction instead of dramatisationDeconstruction instead of dramatisationDeconstruction instead of dramatisationDeconstruction instead of dramatisation –––– An exampleAn exampleAn exampleAn example
This three-step strategy can be clarified by means of an example of
unreflected treatment of the term gender: The newly established concept of a
“gender team” is being used professionally to denote a team of two trainers or
consultants, which consists of a man and a woman. Clients often request the
presence of such a gender team, since it is assumed that the participating men and
women will feel addressed by a mixed-gender team. However, related to the above
theoretical thoughts, reference to a gender team itself proves to be
counterproductive, because the gender team is itself a gender duality construction
and, as such, needs to be questioned.
The social mechanisms of construction and exclusion in this man-woman
dichotomy can be worked out through critical reconstruction. If Gender is taken
seriously as a critical category it can never exclusively refer to a man-woman team,
the composition of which is based only on the biological category “sex”. Gender as
an idea specifically emphasizes detachment from the biological duality and the
schematic man-woman distinction. This reduction of Gender to the biological
existence as a man or woman is indeed an example of “doing gender”, which
reduces gender politics to a simplistic head count of females and males (that is,
mere “sex counting”) regardless of what these counted heads are thinking or what
these people embody. Such a biological foundation of Gender thus contradicts the
basic idea of the concept of Gender.
In contrast, deconstruction of the term “gender team” makes it possible to
shift the meaning. Who- or whatever constitutes a gender team is articulated in a
new way. A gender team can be composed of two or more people of any gender
identity and therefore any “sex” if they have gender and training competence.
Gender, in this understanding, does not set any limits.
Impetus for greater gender diversityImpetus for greater gender diversityImpetus for greater gender diversityImpetus for greater gender diversity
Common theoretical assumptions as well as fundamentalist religious or
socio-biological determinist approaches often support the thesis of gender
characteristics being generated by prediscursive factors, for example as God’s will
or genetic determination. This form of allocating predetermined gender roles goes
against an understanding of gender equity, which always consists of an individual
and collective freedom of decision and autonomy to act, whether in one’s choice of
career or ways of developing partnerships, lifestyles or companionship models. In
our view, the task of a critical, reflective Gender practice is to point out complex
Gender structures and at the same time to oppose the reproduction and
trivialisation of differences. Therefore all statements which ascribe to men or women
specific attributes, skills and/or limitations solely on the basis of their sex should be
identified as part of a normative “gender corset”, which in its static characteristics
has to ignore and fail to recognise individual interests, competence and
possibilities.
From our point of view it is not of issue to manage identified gender
differences, but to identify the gender distinctions that are inherent in our
perception.
This means recognizing the construction of supposed inequalities to be a process of
normalisation that objectifies socially constructed differences as “natural” and then
presents them to us as supposedly innately physical or mental. This process of
4
normalisation should be exposed and rejected as a social assignment of one’s role
and position in society, which is viewed as “normal”.
Dealing responsibly with the category Gender requires an awareness of the
“gender paradox”, that is, treating the simultaneous constructing and overcoming of
gender as a productive starting point for action.
Therefore, the important aspect is how Gender can be used in a way that contributes
to overcoming the unequal social gender order. Hence, in line with Judith Lorber, we
support a practice of “using gender to undo gender”. A closer look at the meaning
of the English verb to undo demonstrates that undoing refers, on the one hand, to
the processes of loosening that which is tied and opening up what is closed and, on
the other hand, it involves eliminating existing effects. Undoing Gender in this way
loosens the ties, relations and attachments of the bipolar hierarchical gender order,
unfastening the laces of the aforementioned gender corset and abolishing in the
long term the still-existing effects of the gender hierarchy. This all promotes a
gender diversity that is individually, equally and fairly moulded and a new way of
renegotiating gender relations based on companionship and solidarity.
Methodical premises for a reflectingMethodical premises for a reflectingMethodical premises for a reflectingMethodical premises for a reflecting GenderGenderGenderGender ---- practicepracticepracticepractice
Applying systematically the three-step: Construction-reconstruction-
deconstruction
- Identifying dual constructions of gender as such
- reconstructing gender distinctions instead of assuming gender
differences
- tracing down the historical, cultural, and political conditions that lead
to Gender
- highlighting the multiple contexts and interplays of Gender with other
social categories
- opening the „gender corset“
- deconstructing gender, therewith creating open space for diverse
models of gender existence and multiple ways of living
„Undoing gender“
- unlearning gender stereotypes as an opportunity instead of as a threat
- (gradually) upsetting the gender order rather than speaking of
„female“ and „male“ respectively, “gender specific” habits and
behaviour.
- encouraging a conception of a person’s identity as open and never
terminated
Raising awareness of the „ paradoxes of gender“
- reflecting upon the double-edge of „doing gender“, e.g. in the practice
of “gender analysis” (generating gender based data)
Putting Gender concepts into the respective context
- Broaching Gender as a complete prerequisite concept based on
feministic theory and practice, and locating it historically in the
political movement context.
Posing questions on power relations
- concentrating on predominance and privileged structures in gender
relations, and developing concrete steps for change
5
Facilitating participatory-methodology trainings
- focussing on the process and the participants
- communicating Gender in an interactive instead of an instructive way
(for instance, through analyzing stereotypes with the aim to point out
diversity and discussing standardisation processes and ways in which
gender ambiguity is socially sanctioned).
Developing precisely-tailored concepts instead of offering standard recipes
- putting into context “gender analysis” and Gender Training and
adjusting the content accordingly, as well as highlighting possibilities
of linking Gender with other social categories
In conclusion: Standards for a reflectiveIn conclusion: Standards for a reflectiveIn conclusion: Standards for a reflectiveIn conclusion: Standards for a reflective GenderGenderGenderGender practicepracticepracticepractice
Thus, we propose the following professional standards based on these
theoretical and methodical premises:
1. A reflective „Gender practice“ opposes the reproduction of gender
duality and offers instead an analysis of its foundation, its ways of
functioning and its effects, in order to find long term solutions to
overcome it.
2. A reflective gender practice opposes the trivialisation and
dramatisation of gender. It promotes the specific perception of
individual interests and capabilities beyond gender-based
preconceptions, without losing sight of the influence of the
hierarchical social gender order.
3. A reflective gender practice offers gender as an open concept and
creates space for ideas for the elimination of previous restrictions on
gender identities.
4. A reflective gender practice is aware that the origins of gender work
are based in the feminist movements and relates to those roots. It
respects the work of colleagues in the field and explicitly cites and
credits the sources and resources used.
5. A reflective gender practice highlights the potential tension in the
relationship between efficiency and equality and is committed to
gender equality.
Where gender duality was, there shall diversity of genders beWhere gender duality was, there shall diversity of genders beWhere gender duality was, there shall diversity of genders beWhere gender duality was, there shall diversity of genders be
Berlin, Germany, January 2006
Dr. Regina Frey Dr. Jutta Hartmann
Andreas Heilmann Thomas Kugler
Stephanie Nordt Sandra Smykalla