5.3 Individuals within Gender-Based Systems of Power
5.3 Individuals within Gender-Based Systems of Power
The previous section described how gender and other social locations are socially constructed within four domains of power: structural power, disciplinary power, cultural or hegemonic power, and interpersonal power. This section focuses on three ways that gender can be privileged or marginalized in the interpersonal domain of power: tokenism, microaggressions, and internalized oppression. As you explore these concepts, keep in mind that each of the four domains of power work together within an interconnected matrix of domination. Look for ways that these interpersonal forms of privilege and marginalization are also reinforced by structural, disciplinary, and cultural power.
Tokenism
Have you ever felt isolated and marginalized as the only person of your race, gender, disability status, ethnicity, or lived experience in a group? Conversely, have you ever been a part of a diverse group of people and felt accepted, valued, and normal? What conditions do you think make a difference between feeling included or isolated? When social groups or organizations increase gender representation without addressing oppressive systems of power embedded in their organizational structure and culture, the people recruited to diversify those organizations can experience harmful tokenism.
Tokenism is the practice of making only a superficial or symbolic effort to diversify an organization by recruiting a small number of people from underrepresented groups to give the appearance of equality. In other words, tokenism attempts diversity without equitable representation or full inclusion. Fiona Byarugaba (she/her) describes tokenism as liking the idea of diverse voices but not being ready to listen to diverse ideas that people bring to the table (Byarugaba 2021).
Rosabeth Kanter (she/her) defined tokenism in her study on gender in the workplace, Men and women of the corporation. As women began moving into leadership positions traditionally held by men, they experienced specific challenges in male-dominated workplaces. Because women were few, they were more visible than men, and they experienced increased performance pressure, increased attention to perceived gender differences, and an expectation to live up to gender stereotypes. Kanter found extra emotional labor (Chapter Four) was required from women and that some responded by routinely doing more than required, while others tried not to attract much attention. Both responses put women on an unequal footing with the men they worked with.
Similarly, navigating the constant attention to gender differences also led some women to lean into the stereotypes by presenting as hyper-feminized. Whether women in token positions responded to stereotyping by either correcting, quietly accepting, or trying to live up to them (self-distortion), Kanter (2010) found that a constant need to respond impacted both personal well-being and job performance (figure 5.9). The work of dealing