Equality, time and the possibility of politics

When Finnish women gained, together with men, a universal and equal right to vote and stand for election in 1906, many believed that a crucial and irreversible change had taken place in relations between women and men and in the attainment of gender equality. A hundred years later, this magical year is still frequently referred to as a milestone that started off a consistent development towards better equality. This process has been marked by various stages of equality and legislative reforms through which women’s political, economic and social rights have been extended. Commonly cited examples of critical events at the turn of the new millennium have been the establishment of quota regulations in the Finnish Equality Act for equal representation of women and men in public preparatory bodies or the election of Tarja Halonen as Finland’s first woman president.

This perception of history holds within a special perspective of Finland in a global context. Especially on international arenas Finns have wished to emphasize their country’s head start in gender equality compared to other nations and the notion of Finland as serving as a model example for other countries. This international “equality contest”, which has especially intensified in recent years and been enabled by the availability of comparative statistics, has established a ranking order for how different countries have progressed in the sphere of gender equality. In this competition, Finland has, among other western countries, stressed its level of progress compared to the third world, which is regarded as moving in a whole different category of gender equality.

Anne Maria Holli (1), who has studied Finnish gender politics extensively, speaks of the 1990s as a decade during which gender equality was defined in the context of a society that had nearly reached a stage of full equality. According to this perception, Finns have internalized gender equality so well both as a value and a model of behavior that problems concerning equality are hardly more than minor deviations and that attaining equality lacks only a few final touches in what is otherwise an equal society. A similar approach to gender equality can also be observed in the social debate prior to the approving of the formerly mentioned quota regulations by the Finnish Parliament in 1995 (2): problems in equality and obstacles encountered by women were regarded as digressions or disturbances, which only somewhat slowed down the highly advanced process towards a fully equal society. This perspective of continuous progress was also linked to a perception of the temporariness of quotas and a belief in the potential to reach through them a permanent state of equality in the near future (3).

These conceptions of gender equality that have prevailed in Finland at the turn of the millennium also hold within a certain perspective on temporality and relations between the present, the past and the future. At its simplest, this time perspective builds on a perception of the nearness of future in the present and of Finland already being “on the threshold of almost complete equality”. On the other hand, this way of defining equality is also closely tied to a perspective on the past that bases itself on a firm belief in progress: the history of Finland is a story of progressing equality and of a journey that has nearly been brought to an end. This argumentation reflects a central element of progress-oriented thinking: progress occurs in relation to a former reactionary, backward state. The progress of equality thus advances linearly in time, towards its final destination in the near future, where human action for equality is no longer needed.

These certain perspectives of temporality are also strongly linked to how the change regarding gender equality is perceived and what kind of actors and action are connected with equality. Kia Lindroos and Kari Palonen regard time as one of the resources through which new questions can be politicized and power shares are created in political struggle (4). Viewed from another angle, time and different interpretations of temporality can also serve as instruments of non-politicization and as restrictors of the space for action. A certain “time order” of gender equality also sets limits to how the promotion of equality is perceived and what kind of a change is considered feasible (5).

It would thus be important to ask what various ways of perceiving temporality structure the Finnish discussion and politics on equality and how these often self-evident and silently powerful cultural categorizations effect the limits of politics for enhancing gender equality on the one hand and for preventing discrimination on the other. Through this, we could also critically assess the temporal dimensions of gender politics or present alternative perspectives to time and, concurrently, to the eradication of gender inequality and to changing the power relations in society.

Firstly, the consequences and reproductive power of a linear and progress-oriented time perception are felt, for example, in the equality work of Finnish municipalities, which has not been significantly paced by the deployment of quota regulations in municipal organs. Although advocates of equality in municipal decision-making organs have taken advantage of the regulations to address failures in equal representation of the sexes, the quotas have also strengthened the notion of gender equality having been attained in Finland (6). The close to equal numeric representation of women and men on municipal committees and executive boards has been regarded as evidence that problems of equality are outdated and that positive action is no longer needed. This perception excludes the possibility to examine decision-making from a gender perspective and discuss questions such as (hidden) discriminatory practices and the gendered implications of decision-making for women and men. This is concretely manifested in the fact that in the structural change on the Finnish public service sector that has brought about fundamental changes to, for example, municipal services and administration, gender issues or the effects of the changes on the status of women have not been subject to discussion – despite the fact that nearly 80 percent of municipal employees are women. What is even more alarming is that many municipal decision-makers also regard quotas as obsolete. Questions of gender equality and equality policies are thus considered on the whole as a thing of the past.

From this perspective the progress of equality is determined as a kind of societal growing process, at the terminal point of which “real equality” occurs naturally - or as Katharina Tollin has phrased it – without external force, endogenously. The already achieved goal is a permanent state of equality where conflicts no longer exist and which is determined through “being” more than through action.

With this perspective of temporality discrimination is generally viewed as society’s – and individuals’ – temporary growing pains rather than as a question of power or as intentional action. Along with the maturing of the Finnish society and the emergence of new, more equal generations, also discrimination will disappear, so questions of the mechanisms of reproduction of discrimination no longer need to be posed. Equality becomes a natural order and at the same time, the connection between gender equality and political action is broken – gender equality politics therefore become an empty concept.

As it is, the strong presence of a belief in progress and a linear time perception in the Finnish gender equality debate has hindered the study of practices that produce inequality and of discrimination in everyday life. The consecutive past, present and future of equality do not leave room for reflection on equality from a perspective that is detached from this continuity or tied to the moment, as acts of discrimination or equality here and now (7). At the same time, we lose sight of the possibility of multiple temporal dimensions in equality and of the concurrent existence of equality and discrimination.

Secondly, this temporal perspective is in Finland often intertwined with a strong national dimension and a perception of Finland as a forerunner in gender equality. At the same time, other countries, especially those outside of Europe, are regarded as still struggling with problems of equality that Finland passed already at the start of the 20th century. Finland is perceived as living in its own age of equality, like a spaceship traversing the future world where global questions of equality or measures developed by other countries to promote equality have no effect. From this perspective of national time, it is however difficult to tackle women’s problems concerning poverty or temporary work in a new global situation, or the lacking influence of women in transnational decision-making or in leadership of the business world beyond the borders of nation states. National self-sufficiency in reflection on equality also rules out many possibilities to challenge the limits of both gender equality and political action.

What alternative perspectives of temporality could then be found to look at gender equality and, more extensively, the social practices that generate inequality and linkages between gender and power? This is not an easy task, as the belief in progress is tightly linked to the idea of hope and trust in the possibility to change the world. But the question remains: is it not the very multidimensional nature of time, the convergence of continuity and suddenly emerging situations that provides the means to understanding and influencing both repeated and new, even surprising problems in equality. From this perspective, gender equality is not progressing or attained, but equality, discrimination and power questions relating to gender can also present themselves in different situations as new, conflicted and unanticipated. Perhaps this multi-layered temporal aspect of equality and emphasis on momentariness can also bring new meaning to political action and hope for the eradication of gender inequality.

Eeva Raevaara is Doctor of Social Sciences and a feminist researcher who has studied gender equality debates and policies in Finland and France. She works as a coordinator at the Christina Institute for Women’s Studies, University of Helsinki.

This article was first published in FRAMEWORK Issue 5/ July '06 (ISSN 1459-6288). http://www.framework.fi

References

1) Anne Maria Holli, Discourse and Politics for Gender Equality in Late Twentieth Century Finland. Acta Politica 23. Helsinki. University of Helsinki, Department of Political Science, 2003.

2) According to Article 4 of the Finnish Act on Equality between Women and Men, in all public committees, advisory boards and corresponding bodies and in municipal bodies, with the exception of municipal councils, the minimum percentage of both women and men shall be 40 percent.

3) See Eeva Raevaara, Tasa-arvo ja muutoksen rajat – Sukupuolten tasa-arvo poliittisena ongelmana Ranskan parité- ja Suomen kiintiökeskusteluissa. Tane-julkaisuja 7, Sosiaali- ja terveysministeriö, Tasa-arvoasiain neuvottelukunta. Helsinki, 2005.

4) Lindroos, Kia – Palonen, Kari, “Aika politiikan kohteena.” In Kia Lindroos – Kari Palonen (eds.), Politiikan aikakirja. Ajan politiikan ja politiikan ajan teoretisointia. Tampere. Vastapaino, 2000, 7–24.

5) Tollin, Katharina, “Kampen om tiden”. In Eva Magnusson – Malin Rönnblom (eds.), Gender Equality and Other Normativities: Critical Perspectives on Nordic Gender Constructions in Policies and Practices. (To be published).

6) Holli, Anne Maria – Luhtakallio, Eeva – Raevaara, Eeva, National Report of Finland. Gender and Local Management of Change. Helsinki. Helsingin yliopisto, 2004. http://www.sh.se/genreetlocal

7) Lindroos explicitly speaks of “the present” as a political time. An emphasis on the moment and the present opens out in the direction of a pluralist experience of time and problematizes the linearity and singularity of time. See Lindroos, Kia “Nykyisyyden politiikkaa”. In Kia Lindroos – Kari Palonen (eds.), Politiikan aikakirja. Ajan politiikan ja politiikan ajan teoretisointia. Tampere. Vastapaino, 2000, 59–80.