Mary Bernstein

Culture, power, and institutions: A multi-institutional politics approach to social movements

We argue that critiques of political process theory are beginning to coalesce into a new approach to social movements—a “multi-institutional politics” approach. While the political process model assumes that domination is organized by and around one source of power, the alternative perspective views domination as organized around multiple sources of power, each of which is simultaneously material and symbolic. We examine the conceptions of social movements, politics, actors, goals, and strategies supported by each model, demonstrating that the view of society and power underlying the political process model is too narrow to encompass the diversity of contemporary change efforts. Through empirical examples, we demonstrate that the alternative approach provides powerful analytical tools for the analysis of a wide variety of contemporary change efforts.

Identities and Politics: Toward a Historical Understanding of the Lesbian and Gay Movement

Critics of identity politics often wax polemically as they charge contemporary social movements with narrowly and naively engaging in essentialist politics based on perceived differences from the majority. Such essentialism, critics charge, inhibits coalition building (e.g., Phelan 1993; Kimmel 1993), cannot produce meaningful social change, and reinforces hegemonic and restrictive social categories (Seidman 1997). It is even responsible for the decline of the Left (Gitlin 1994, 1995). Social movement scholars similarly view ‘‘identity

Same-Sex Marriage and the Future of the LGBT Movement: SWS Presidential Address

In this article, I respond to queer critiques of the pursuit of same-sex marriage. I first examine the issue of (homo)normalization through a consideration of the everyday lives of same-sex couples with children, a subject about which queer critics are strangely silent. Children force same-sex couples to be out in multiple areas of their lives and recent court cases explicitly challenge the idea that same-sex couples do not make fit parents. Second, I examine whether same-sex marriage will address structural inequalities or will mainly benefit white, middle-class people. Access to marriage has disparate benefits depending on people’s structural locations, but is a movement goal supported by a broad array of LGBT people. Third, I examine the relationship between marriage, regulation, and the state. I argue for a broader understanding of the relationship between the state and different types of relationships, suggesting that it is impossible to escape regulation. If we consider marriage and family forms cross-nationally, we see a variety of possibilities for state recognition of various family forms. I conclude by assessing the impact of same-sex marriage on the future of LGBT politics, arguing that achieving marriage equality may allow the space for new political possibilities to emerge.

Sexual Citizenship and the Pursuit of Relationship- Recognition Policies in Australia and the United States

Achieving the right to marry has arguably been the one of the most important agenda items for the U.S. lesbian and gay movement for more than a decade (Bernstein 2002; Eskridge 1996). In contrast, achieving samesex marriage has not been central to the political agenda of lesbian and gay activists in Australia until very recently. Instead, activists have pursued entrance into “de facto” relationships that are in some ways similar to common-law marriages in the United States. However, de facto relationships do not carry all the rights, responsibilities, and obligations of marriage, nor do they necessarily affect parental rights in the case of same-sex couples. Although initially heralded as a great victory in the United States, civil unions, originally developed in Vermont as an alternative to marriage, are now viewed by most activists as a second-class form of relationship recognition. Until recently, major advances in relationship recognition, including same-sex marriage (Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa) as well as comprehensive (Vermont, California, New Jersey, and Washington) or limited (Hawaii) domestic partnerships or civil unions in the United States were achieved through the courts, under threat of a court decision, or were passed as compromise measures in response to the enactment of state-level defense of marriage acts (DOMAs) that denied marriage rights to same-sex couples. 1 In stark contrast, Australian activists have almost entirely eschewed the courts in their pursuit of official recognition of their relationships. Given that Australia and the United States are both considered liberal welfare states (Esping-Andersen 1990) with similar approaches to the development of public policy, what accounts for the differences between the two countries in the strategies they have developed

Gay Officers In Their Midst: Heterosexual Police Employees' Anticipation of the Consequences for Coworkers Who Come Out

While fear among gay men and lesbians about being out in a masculinist environment is not surprising, this article examines what heterosexuals expect will happen when gay men and lesbians come out. We draw on a unique dataset from a police department in the southwest United States to examine the consequences anticipated by heterosexual police department employees if a gay or lesbian officers sexual orientation became known in the workplace. We test four main sets of factors: individual-level demographic characteristics and religious background; homophobia; organizational tolerance for discrimination; and intergroup contact theory to explain how heterosexuals expect gay and lesbian coworkers to be treated. Using ordinary least squares regression, we find that characteristics of workplaces, measured by tolerance of discrimination, as well as contact with gay men and lesbians on the job are more significant predictors of anticipated outcomes than are individual-level traits and homophobic attitudes. We conclude by discussing the policy implications of our research.

Altared States Legal Structuring and Relationship Recognition in the United States, Canada, and Australia

In this article, we use comparative historical analysis to explain agenda-setting and the timing of policy outcomes on same-sex marriage in the United States, Canada, and Australia. Unlike the United States and Canada, Australia does not have a bill of rights, making litigation to obtain rights not enumerated in existing legislation unavailable to activists. Extending the literatures on the development of public policy and on political and historical institutionalism, we argue that in the absence of domestic opportunities for legal change, international law becomes more important to activists in wealthy democracies, but it is contingent on states’ specific institutional and cultural features. Even when international law is “domesticated” into national political structures, it is still secondary to internal conditions in countries with extensive rights-based polities. International law may set a political agenda, but once introduced, policies move according to internal conditions related to party discipline, the centralization of courts, and policy legacies within those countries.

Identities and Politics

Critics of identity politics often wax polemically as they charge contemporary social movements with narrowly and naively engaging in essentialist politics based on perceived differences from the majority. Such essentialism, critics charge, inhibits coalition building (e.g., Phelan 1993; Kimmel 1993), cannot produce meaningful social change, and reinforces hegemonic and restrictive social categories (Seidman 1997). It is even responsible for the decline of the Left (Gitlin 1994, 1995). Social movement scholars similarly view “identity movements” as cultural rather than political movements whose goals, strategies, and forms of mobilization can be explained better by a reliance on static notions of identity than by other factors.

Same-Sex Marriage and the Assimilationist Dilemma: A Research Agenda on Marriage Equality and the Future of LGBTQ Activism, Politics, Communities, and Identities

ABSTRACT This special issue of the Journal of Homosexuality, examines the impact of the marriage equality movement and the resulting landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that legalized same-sex marriage in the U.S., on lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) activism, politics, communities, and identities. The articles in this issue examine the complicated ways in which the discourse used in same-sex marriage court cases is related to heteronormative discursive frames; the lived reality of married same-sex couples and the complex ways in which they think about marriage and heteronormativity; the ways that heteronormativity is racialized, which affects how African Americans perceive the impact of same-sex marriage on their lives; how same-sex marriage has influenced public opinion and the likelihood of anti-gay backlash; and the impact of same-sex marriage on family law. In this article, I draw on the empirical research from these articles to develop a theoretical framework that expands a multi-institutional (MIP) approach to understanding social movements and legal change. I build on and develop three conceptual tools: the assimilationist dilemma, discursive integration and cooptation, and truth regime. I conclude by laying out an agenda for future research on the impact of same-sex marriage on LGBTQ movements, politics, identities, and communities.

Community Policing, Workplace Structure and Attitudes Toward Lesbians and Gay Men and their Civil Liberties

While criminal justice workplaces, such as the police and prisons, are noted for reproducing both gender inequality and inequality based on sexuality or sexual orientation, this paper examines whether reorganizing the workplace can alter those interactions and reduce inequality. We draw on survey data from a police department to theorize the likely impact of the move toward community policing and rehabilitative models of justice on the attitudes of heterosexual sworn officers and civilian employees toward lesbians and gay men and their civil rights. Our analysis shows that sworn officers and civilian employees’ attitudes toward community policing and rehabilitation significantly affect their views on lesbians and gay men and their civil liberties both directly and indirectly. We conclude by suggesting the policy implications of our findings and avenues for future research.

Power, politics and social movements: a multi-institutional politics approach

References Dahl, Robert. 1984. Modern Political Analysis. Upper-Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Millet, Kate. 1970. Sexual Politics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press. Easton, David. 1953. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Aldred A. Knopf. Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power/Knowledge. Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972–1977. New York: Random House. Lasswell, Harold Dwight. 1936. Politics; Who Gets What, When, How. New York: Whittlesey House. Lukes Steven. 2005. Power: A Radical View. 2nd ed. New York: Palgrave MacMillan and the British Sociological Association. Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.