Individual Submission Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Addressing Invisibility: Gender and Race Affinity Groups on Capitol Hill

Thu, August 29, 10:00 to 11:30am, Marriott, Wilson C

Abstract

Consistent with Connell’s (2002) criteria, the U.S. Congress is a gendered institution characterized by gendered relations of power, gendered culture and symbolism, and a pattern of gender arrangements that inform behaviors of male and female actors. Simultaneously, race is similarly an organizing feature of Congress, creating distinct conditions and power differentials along racial lines (Jones 2017). Finally, Hawkesworth’s (2003) influential work on the “race-gendering” of Congress illustrates how “the production of difference, political asymmetries, and social hierarchies that simultaneously create the dominant and the subordinate” occurs in Congress and shapes the experiences and behaviors of women of color in distinct ways (531). While most research on the gendered and raced dynamics of Congress focus on principal institutional actors – elected members, congressional staff are key actors who not only experience and navigate this institution, but also have the capacity to influence the prevailing norms and power distribution.
In this paper, I will apply an intersectional framework by which to evaluate gender, race, and congressional staff. I will interrogate the co-constitutive relationship between staff and congressional culture, rules, and structures, focusing specifically on the creation and function of staff affinity groups that organize along lines gender and/or race. These organizations make visible and address the concurrent privileging of masculinity and whiteness in congressional structures, operations, and distributions of power. I will make two significant contributions to the literature on congressional staff, gender, and racial politics in this paper. First, I will draw upon congressional archives and interviews to identify the prevalence of gender and/or race affinity groups operating on Capitol Hill historically and at present day, including both formal and informal staff organizations and networks. Second, I will use both archival evidence and insights from interviews with group leaders and members to identify the origins, primary functions, and perceived benefits of these groups, including their engagement with and potential influence on the gendering and racing of the U.S. Congress.
In previous research (Dittmar 2018), I have outlined the ways in which congressional staff engage in both a racialized and gendered professionalism. According to Watkins-Hayes’ (2009), “At the heart of the notion of racialized professionalism is the assertion that social identities such as race, class, and gender inform professional identity, one’s interpretation of one’s assigned professional role (129).” I suggest that in addition to providing access to relational networks, spaces of visibility and belonging (see Jones 2017 on the “Black nod” among black congressional staffers), and tools for professional development, staff affinity groups organized around gender and/or race may also influence the degree to and ways in which these forces shape staffers’ professional identities. More specifically, affinity groups will impact how they seek out, filter, and use information as they make legislative recommendations to members and colleagues. Evaluating the development of gender and/or race staff affinity groups over time also allows for investigation into shifts in groups’ presence, function, and utility among the congressional workforce over time.

Author