Carol Bacchi

Policy as Discourse: What does it mean? Where does it get us?

The concept ‘discourse’ has become ubiquitous in contemporary social and political theory. However, it is not always clear what different authors mean when they use the term. Moreover, it seems that at times the term ‘discourse’ carries very different meanings. This paper examines the uses of ‘discourse’ among a group of scholars who have taken to describing policy as discourse, either directly (see, for example, Ball, 1990, 1993; Watts, 1993/1994; Phillips, 1996; Torgerson, 1996; Goodwin, 1996; Bacchi, 1999) or by implication (Beilharz, 1987; Jenson, 1988; Yeatman, 1990; Shapiro, 1992). Michael McCann (1994, p. 6) refers to a related body of literature which describes law as discourse. I intend to investigate what these theorists hope to accomplish through the invocation of ‘discourse’ and how their particular purposes affect the meaning of the term. I also intend to draw attention to a few lacunae in the uses of ‘discourse’ by this group, which, to my view, need addressing if the term is to serve the purposes they desire.

Discourse, Discourse Everywhere: Subject “Agency” in Feminist Discourse Methodology

The purpose of this article is to provoke much‐needed discussion on the uses by feminists, in particular feminist political scientists, of the language of discourse, discourses and discursive. The terms, it argues, have become ubiquitous, with considerable confusion about intended meanings. A particular concern is the growing tendency among some feminist political scientists to use “discourse” as shorthand for ways of talking about an issue. Critical to sorting through different meanings of discourse, it argues, is the question of subject “agency”—the extent to which subjects can use discourses or are constituted by them. As a way forward the article advances a dual‐focus agenda that builds bridges across discourse traditions; identifying both the ways in which interpretive and conceptual schemas delimit understandings, and the politics involved in the intentional deployment of concepts and categories to achieve specific political goals.

What are we mainstreaming when we mainstream gender

Abstract In the policies and practices of gender mainstreaming, gender itself is a contested concept. This article examines versions of gender mainstreaming in two countries, focusing on approaches we term the Canadian and Netherlands models. We show how different understandings of gender are attached to different reform approaches, and intimate how particular ways of conceptualising gender inhibit the efficacy of the mainstreaming strategy. In order to increase that effectiveness we suggest that gender mainstreaming models incorporate a view of gender as a verb rather than as a noun, so that the focus is on the processes of gendering rather than on the static category of ‘gender’. We make the argument that such a shift could: a) incorporate a feminist ontology of the body; b) align an understanding of gender as an unfinished process with the ways in which those who make and implement policy experience gender mainstreaming as always partial and incomplete.

Policy and discourse: challenging the construction of affirmative action as preferential treatment

This paper uses debates around affirmative/positive action to offer insights into the usefulness and limitations of discourse approaches to policy analysis. It illustrates that a particular understanding of affirmative action as preferential treatment has become hegemonic. This understanding relies upon a view that background social rules are generally fair, and that members of groups targeted by affirmative action need special help" to succeed. The basis of the privilege of dominant social groups is invisible in this conceptualization. The ubiquity of this understanding reveals the extent to which large numbers of social actors, including many who claim to be committed to substantive structural change, accept the premises of equal opportunity. My goal is to achieve a rebalancing in thinking about the relationship between discourse and political subjectivity by emphasizing the embeddedness, the taken-for-granted status, of certain belief systems. This rebalancing signals the need for reformers to interrogate closely the conceptual frameworks which shape their proposals.

Mainstreaming and neoliberalism: a contested relationship

Abstract The paper offers a comparative analysis of dominant mainstreaming and gender analysis frameworks to consider the nature of the relationship between these equality initiatives and neoliberalism. We challenge the portrayal of mainstreaming as necessarily resistant to neoliberalism, and show how dominant forms of mainstreaming illustrate characteristics congruent with neoliberal premises and policy agendas. Our particular concern is the extent to which some forms of mainstreaming and gender analysis are unable to put in question neoliberal premises because of their ex post character. For this reason we describe the relationship as contested. Our goal is to identify ways to strengthen the potential of mainstreaming initiatives to step outside of and critique neoliberalisms strategic norms. To advance this objective we offer some first steps towards producing gender analysis as an ex ante intervention. Significantly, we suggest that effective implementation requires a focus on policys creative (active) role in constructing “problems” and in shaping gender relations.

Mainstreaming politics: gendering practices and feminist theory

Forms of gender analysis are being introduced worldwide as new methods for achieving gender equality. This paper identifies limitations in dominant frameworks and puts forward suggestions to improve the process. It advances a form of deep evaluation to institutionalise conceptual analysis as a part of policy design. It also proposes the development of a Gendering Impact Assessment model that attends to the ways in which policy produces gender, and that has the potential to put in question the strategic norms of broad policy objectives. Gender analysis is a tool associated with gender mainstreaming, the most recent innovation in equality policy. Broadly, mainstreaming is a commitment to guarantee that every part of an organisation assumes responsibility to ensure that policies impact evenly on women and men. Gender analysis, in its most common form, describes a methodology for assessing if policy is, or is not, attentive to the ‘differences’ between women and men. I specify ‘its most common form’ because gender analysis has several incarnations. The approach has its genesis in the development field where there currently exists a plethora of frameworks (see March et al. 1999). Most of the major international organisations, including the United Nations, the World Bank and the ILO, employ forms of gender analysis. It is also being used in many western democracies, including Canada, New Zealand, parts of Europe and the European Commission itself. In Australia the Women’s Budget Program (1984-1996) is often identified as a precursor of gender analysis models (Sharp and Broomhill 2002; Rankin and Vickers 2001). AusAID (1998) referred to gender analysis as a part of social analysis as early as 1998.1 More recently, the Howard Government has signalled an interest in gender mainstreaming and gender analysis. The Office of the Status of Women has been shifted from the Prime Minister’s Department to the Department of Family and Community Services, moving ‘so-called women’s issues into the mainstream’ (Goward 2004). Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Pru Goward (2004), announced that this move creates the opportunity for ‘the entire public service to adopt gender analysis’. Given this development, it seems more important than ever to reflect upon just what ‘gender analysis’ entails.

Gender Mainstreaming or Diversity Mainstreaming? The Politics of “Doing”

Amongst recent debates about whether it is preferable to campaign for gender mainstreaming or diversity mainstreaming this paper makes the case that both proposals involve fields of contestation. Either reform, it argues, could be taken in anti‐progressive directions. Hence, we redirect attention to the processes and practices that give an initiative content and shape, which we call the politics of “doing”. The argument here is that the actual “doings” involved in producing reform initiatives are key sites for social change. Hence, in order to produce reforms responsive to the needs and wishes of diverse groups of women, attention ought to be directed to ways of making those “doings” inclusive and democratic. Specifically we highlight the importance of privileging the views of marginalized women in any such policy deliberations and respecting their perspectives on the usefulness of appeals to identity. We introduce the concepts of “coalitions of engagement” and “deep listening” to generate discussion around these contentious issues.

Problematizations in Alcohol Policy: WHO’s “Alcohol Problems”

This article examines how the issue of alcohol use has been problematized using past and current World Health Organization reports and associated publications as illustrations. The 2010 Global Strategy to Reduce the Harmful Use of Alcohol serves as a salient example. Applying an approach to policy analysis called “What’s the Problem Represented to be?” this article highlights grounding presuppositions in selected alcohol policies and policy proposals. Particular attention is directed to the genesis and continually evolving and changing key concept “alcohol problems” (or “alcohol-related problems” and other variations). The objective is to raise questions about the implications of public health frameworks of meaning around alcohol policy for how governing takes place and for governed subjects. On the basis of this analysis, this article signals the importance of interrogating the meaning and role of taken-for-granted categories of analysis.

The politics of research management: reflections on the gap between what we 'know' (about SDH) and what we do

Abstract Health researchers in a number of settings are expressing concern about the ‘gap’ between what we ‘know’ about the social determinants of health and of health inequalities, and the lack of action based upon this ‘knowledge’. Indeed, the ‘know-do gap’ has become almost a mantra echoed across international and some national institutional sites. This paper examines how the ‘problem’ of the ‘gap’ is understood and represented in dominant and sub-dominant conceptualisations. It highlights what is missing from these representations: adequate reflection on changing modes of governance of research management. Where once there was a degree of separation between research production and government policy, increasingly there is congruence between these governmental functions. This congruence means that the problem we face today is not a ‘gap’ but rather a ‘fit’ between what we ‘know’ and what we (don’t) do regarding SDH.

Feminist Discursive Institutionalism—A Poststructural Alternative

This paper joins the ongoing conversation about the desirability, or undesirability, of feminists becoming “new institutionalists”, which is linked to broader concerns about feminists seeking legitimacy as political “scientists”. With “feminist discursive institutionalism” as exemplar, it introduces the argument that paradigms, and hence methodologies, matter politically because they create different realities. To illustrate this proposition it examines the political implications of the different meanings of discourse, and related concepts of power, ideas, and “agency”/subjectivity, in Habermasian-influenced discursive institutionalism and in Foucauldian-inspired poststructuralist analysis. A key issue, it contends, is the extent to which institutions (and other political categories) are conceptualized as discrete entities or as more open-ended “assemblages”. This analysis, we suggest, solicits feminist researchers to reflect on the political implications of their theoretical investments.