This article develops a theory of the gendered character of public talk as a way to account for women’s variable participation in the settings that make up the public sphere. Public settings for citizen talk such as radio call-in shows, social networking sites, letters to the editor, and town hall meetings are culturally coded female or male. In feminized settings, where the people who organize public talk are from feminized professions and where the favored modes of talk and action emphasize stereotypically feminine values, women are likely to be as active and influential participants as men. We test this proposition by way of an examination of the organized public deliberative forums in which many Americans today discuss policy issues. We show that women truly are equal participants in these forums. We account for this surprising development by demonstrating the female gendered character of the contemporary field of organized public deliberation.
AckerJoan. 1990. “Hierarchies, Jobs, Bodies: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender and Society4:139–58.
2.
AkkermanTjitskeHagerMaartenGrinJohn. 2004. “The Interactive State: Democratisation from Above?” Political Studies52:82–95.
3.
AlbrechtSteffen. 2007. “Whose Voice Is Heard in Online Deliberation: A Study of Participation and Representation in Political Debates on the Internet.” Information, Communication, and Society9:62–82.
4.
AlexanderJeffrey C.SmithPhilip. 1993. “The Discourse of American Civil Society: A New Proposal for Cultural Studies.” Theory and Society22:151–207.
5.
AriesElizabeth. 1996. Men and Women in Interaction: Reconsidering the Differences. New York: Oxford University Press.
6.
BaoicchiGianpaolo. 2005. Militants and Citizens: The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Porto Alegre. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
7.
BalkaEllen. 1993. “Women’s Access to On-line Discussions about Feminism.” Electronic Journal of Communication3:1. Retrieved October 16, 2013 (http://www.cios.org/EJCPUBLIC/003/1/00311.html).
8.
BarberBenjamin R.1988. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley: University California Press.
9.
BaronJames N.NewmanAnn. 1989. “Pay the Man: Effects of Demographic Composition on Prescribed Wage Rates in the California Civil Service.” Pp. 107–30 in Pay Equity: Empirical Inquiries, edited by MichaelsR. T.HartmanH. I.O’FarrellB.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
10.
BaymNancy K. “Agreements and Disagreements in a Computer-mediated Discussion.” Research on Language and Social interaction29(4):315–45.
11.
BellahRobert N.MadsenRichardSullivanWilliamSwidlerAnnTiptonSteven. 1985. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University California Press.
12.
BickfordSusan. 1996. The Dissonance of Democracy: Listening, Conflict, and Citizenship. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13.
BinghamLisa B.NabatchiTinaO’LearyRosemary. 2005. “The New Governance: Practices and Processes for Stakeholder and Citizen Participation in the Work of Government.” Public Administration Review65:547–58.
14.
BohmanJames. 1996. Public Deliberation: Plurality, Complexity, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
15.
BordtRebecca. 1997. The Structure of Women’s Nonprofit Organizations. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
16.
BrownWendy. 1992. “Finding Man in the State.” Feminist Studies18:7–34.
17.
BryanFrank M.2004. Real Democracy: The New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
18.
BurghardtDeborah A.ColbeckCarol L.2005. “Women’s Studies Faculty at the Intersection of Institutional Power and Feminist Values.” The Journal of Higher Education76:301–30.
19.
ChambersSimone. 2003. “Deliberative Democratic Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science6:307–26.
20.
ChangYu-hsinFanYun. 2010. “Gender Politics in Deliberative Democracy.” Paper presented at the “Below the Storm” Conference, Institute of Political Science, Academia Sinica.
21.
ClaymanSteven E.2004. “Arenas of Interaction in the Mediated Public Sphere.” Poetics32:29–49.
22.
CloudDana L.1998. Control and Consolation in American Culture and Politics: The Rhetoric of Therapy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
23.
CohenJoshua. 1989. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” Pp. 17–34 in The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State, edited by HamlinA.PettitP.London: Basil Blackwell.
24.
CohenLisa E.BroschakJoseph P.HavemanHeather A.1998. “And Then There Were More? Sex Composition and the Hiring/Promotion of Women Managers.” American Sociological Review63:711–27.
25.
ConoverPamela JohnstonSearingDonald D.CreweIvor M.2002. “The Deliberative Potential of Political Discussion.” British Journal of Political Science32:21–62.
26.
CooperChristopherKnottsH. GibbsHaspelMoshe. 2009. “The Content of Political Participation: Letters to the Editor and the People Who Write Them.” PS: Political Science and Politics42:131–36.
27.
CornwellErin YorkHansValerie P.2011. “Representation through Participation: A Multilevel Analysis of Jury Deliberations.” Law & Society Review45(3):667–98.
28.
DavisRichardOwenDiana. 1998. New Media and American Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
DelliCarpiniMichaelX.CookFay LomaxJacobsLawrence R.2004. “Public Deliberation, Discursive Participation, and Citizen Engagement: A Review of the Empirical Literature.” Annual Review of Political Science7:315–44.
30.
DovidioJohn F.EllysonSteveKeatingCaroline F.HeltmanKarenBrownClifford E.1988. “The Relationship of Social Power to Visual Displays of Dominance between Men and Women.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology54:233–42.
31.
DryzekJohn S.2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
32.
Duerst-LahtiGeorgia. 1997. “Reconceiving Theories of Power: Consequences of Masculinism in the Executive Branch.” Pp. 11–32 in The Other Elite: Women, Politics, and Power in the Executive Branch, edited by BorrelliM. A.MartinJ. M.Boulder, CO: Rienner Press.
33.
Duerst-LahtiGeorgia. 2005. “Institutional Gendering: Theoretical Insights into the Environment of Women Office Holders.” Pp. 230–43 in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed., edited by ThomasS.WilcoxC.New York: Oxford University Press.
34.
DutwinDavid. 2003. “The Character of Deliberation: Equality, Argument, and the Formation of Public Opinion.” International Journal of Public Opinion Research15(3):239–64.
35.
EliasophNina. 1998. Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
36.
EliasophNinaLichtermanPaul. 2003. “Culture in Interaction.” American Journal of Sociology108:735–94.
37.
EleyGeoff. 1992. “Nations, Publics, and Political Cultures: Placing Habermas in the Nineteenth Century.” Pp. 289–339 in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by CalhounC. J.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
38.
ElyRobin J.1995. “The Power of Demography: Women’s Social Constructions of Gender Identity at Work.” Academy of Management Journal38:589–63.
39.
FigalloCliffMillerJedWeissMarc N.2004. “Listening to the City Online Dialogues: Overview and Observations.” Group Facilitation6:25–32.
40.
FishkinJames S.1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
41.
FishkinJames S.1995. Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
42.
FishmanRobert. 2004. Democracy’s Voices: Social Ties and the Quality of Public Life in Spain. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
43.
FraserNancy. 1992. “Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.” Pp. 109–42 in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by CalhounC.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
44.
FungArchon. 2007. “Minipublics: Deliberative Designs and Their Consequences.” Pp. 159–83 in Can the People Govern? Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy, edited by RosenbergS. W.Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.
45.
GastilJohnLevinePeter, eds. 2005. The Deliberative Democracy Handbook: Strategies for Effective Civic Engagement in the 21st Century. San Francisco: John Wiley.
46.
GillisJohn R.1994. Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
47.
GoodinRobert E.DryzekJohn S.2006. “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-political Uptake of Mini-publics.” Politics and Society34(2):219–44.
48.
GutmannAmyThompsonDennis Frank. 1996. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
49.
HabermasJürgen. [1962] 1989. The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society. Translated by BurgerT. in association with LawrenceF.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
HabermasJürgen. 1984. The Theory of Communicative Action. Translated by McCarthyT.Boston: Beacon Press.
51.
HartRoderick P.2001. “Citizen Discourse and Political Participation: A Survey.” Pp. 407–32 in Mediated Politics: Communication in the Future of Democracy, edited by BennettW. L.EntmanR. M.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
52.
HartStephen. 2001. Cultural Dilemmas of Progressive Politics: Styles of Engagement among Grassroots Activists. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53.
HeierbacherSandy. 2002, “Categorizing the Dialogue & Deliberation Community.” Retrieved October 22, 2013 (http://ncdd.org/rc/item/1608).
54.
HerringSusan C.1994. “Politeness in Computer Culture: Why Women Thank and Men Flame.” Pp. 278–94 in Cultural Performances: Proceedings of the Third Berkeley Women and Language Conference. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Women and Language Group.
55.
HerringSusan C.2003. “Gender and Power in Online Conversation.” Pp. 202–28 in The Handbook of Language and Gender, edited by HolmesJ.MeyerhoffM.Oxford: Blackwell.
56.
HerringSusan C.PaolilloJohn C.2006. “Gender and Genre Variation in Weblogs.” Journal of Sociolinguistics10:439–59.
HickersonAndreaGastilJohn. 2008. “Assessing the Difference Critique of Deliberation: Gender, Emotion, and the Jury Experience.” Communication Theory18:281–303.
59.
HoganChristine. 2002. Understanding Facilitation: Theory and Principles. London: Kogan Page.
60.
JacobsRonald N.2003. Research in Political Sociology12:19–47.
61.
KathleneLyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review88:560–76.
62.
KathleneLyn. 2005. “In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process.” Pp. 213–29 in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future. 2nd ed., edited by ThomasS.WilcoxC.New York: Oxford University Press.
63.
KarpowitzChristopher F.2008. “Men, Women, and Walmart: Citizen Discourse at Public at Local Public Hearings.” Unpublished manuscript.
64.
KnightJackJohnsonJames. 1997. “What Sort of Political Equality Does Deliberative Democracy Require?” Pp. 279–319 in Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics, edited byBohmanJ.RehgW.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
65.
KollockPeterBlumsteinPhilipSchwartzPepper. 1985. “Sex and Power in Interaction: Conversational Privileges and Duties.” American Sociological Review50:34–46.
66.
LandesJoan B.1988. Women and the Public Sphere: In the Age of the French Revolution. Cornell: Cornell University Press.
67.
LawRobin. 1999. “Beyond ‘Women and Transport’: Towards New Geographies of Gender and Daily Mobility.” Progress in Human Geography23:567–88.
68.
LeeCaroline W.2007. “Is There a Place for Private Conversation in Public Dialogue? Comparing Stakeholder Assessments of Informal Communication in Collaborative Regional Planning.” American Journal of Sociology113:41–96.
69.
LeighningerMatthew. 2006. The Next Form of Democracy: How Expert Rule is Giving Way to Shared Governance–And Why Politics Will Never Be the Same. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
70.
LeighningerMatt. 2012. “Mapping Deliberative Engagement: Pictures from a (R)evolution.” Pp. 19–40 in Democracy in Motion, edited by NabatchiT.GastilJ.WeiksnerM.LeighningerM.New York: Oxford University Press.
71.
LewisGregory B.NiceDavid. 1994. “Race, Sex, and Occupational Segregation in State and Local Governments.” American Review of Public Administration24:393–410.
72.
LichtermanPaul. 2005. Elusive Togetherness: Church Groups Trying to Bridge America’s Divisions. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
73.
MansbridgeJane. 1993. “Feminism and Democratic Community.” Pp. 339–95 in Democratic Community: Nomos XXXV, edited by ChapmanJ. W.ShapiroI.New York: New York University Press.
74.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” Pp. 211–39 in Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by MacedoS.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
75.
MansbridgeJaneBohmanJamesChambersSimoneEstlundDavidFollesdalAndreasFungArchonLafontCristinaManinBernardMartíJosé Luis. 2008. “The Place of Self-interest in Deliberative Democracy.” Unpublished manuscript.
MatteiLaura R. Winsky. 1998. “Gender and Power in American Legislative Discourse.” Journal of Politics60:440–61.
78.
MaumeDavid J.Jr.1999. “Glass Ceilings and Glass Escalators: Occupational Segregation and Race and Sex Differences in Managerial Promotions.” Work and Occupations26:483–509.
79.
McCoyMartha L.ScullyPatrick L.2002. “Deliberative Dialogue to Expand Civic Engagement: What Kind of Talk Does Democracy Need?” National Civic Review92:117–35.
80.
McKennaLauraPoleAntoinette. 2008. “What Do Bloggers Do: An Average Day on an Average Political Blog.” Public Choice134:97–108.
81.
MutzDiana C.2006. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
NCDD. 2009. “What Is Dialogue? Definitions from Leaders in the Field.” Retrieved October 22, 2013 (http://ncdd.org/rc/item/1501).
85.
NelsonJulie. 1996. Feminism, Objectivity, and Economics. New York: Routledge.
86.
PerrinAndrew. 2006. Citizen Speak. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
87.
PerrinAndrewVaiseyStephen. 2008. “Parallel Public Spheres: Distance and Discourse in Letters to the Editor.” American Journal of Sociology114:781–810.
88.
PollettaFrancescaLeeJohn. 2006. “Is Telling Stories Good for Democracy? Rhetoric in Public Deliberation after 9/11.” American Sociological Review71(5):699–721.
89.
PollettaFrancescaWoodLesley M.2005. “Public Deliberation after 9/11.” Pp. 321–48 in Wounded City: The Social Impact of 9/11, edited by FonerN.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
90.
PriceVincent. 2009. “Citizens Deliberating Online: Theory and Some Evidence.” Pp. 1–22 in Online Deliberation: Design, Research, and Practice, edited by DaviesT.GangadharanS. P.Chicago: University Chicago Press.
91.
ReskinBarbara F.RoosPatricia. 1990. Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women’s Inroads into Male Occupations. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
92.
RidgewayCeciliaSmith-LovinLynn. 1999. “The Gender System and Interaction.” Annual Review of Sociology25:191–216.
93.
RobertsNancy. 2004. “Public Deliberation in an Age of Direct Citizen Participation.” American Review of Public Administration34:315–53.
94.
RosenbergShawn, ed. 2007. Can the People Govern: Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy. Hampshire, UK: Palgrave.
95.
RyanMary P.1992. “Gender and Public Access: Women’s Politics in Nineteenth-century America.” Pp. 259–88 in Habermas and the Public Sphere, edited by CalhounC. J.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
96.
RyfeDavid Michael. 2002. “The Practice of Deliberative Democracy: A Study of 16 Deliberative Organizations.” Political Communication19:359–77.
97.
RyfeDavid Michael. 2007. “Toward A Sociology of Deliberation.” Journal of Public Deliberation3:1–27.
98.
SandercockLeonieForsythAnn. 2005. “A Gender Agenda: New Directions for Planning Theory.” Pp. 67–85 in Gender and Planning: A Reader, edited by FainsteinS. S.ServonL. J.New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
99.
SandersLynn. 1997. “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory25:347–76.
100.
SavickiVictorKelleyMerle. 2000. “Computer Mediated Communication: Gender and Group Composition.” CyberPsychology and Behavior3:817–26.
SchudsonMichael. 1997. “Why Conversation Is Not the Soul of Democracy.” Critical Studies in Mass Communication14:297–309.
103.
SirianniCarmenFriedlandLewis. 2001. Civic Innovation in America: Community Empowerment, Public Policy, and the Movement for Civic Renewal. Berkeley: University of California Press.
104.
SiuAlice. 2008. “Look Who’s Talking: The Impact of Argument Quality on Small Group Mechanisms and Opinion Change.” Unpublished PhD dissertation, Stanford University.
105.
Stromer-GalleyJennifer. 2002. “New Voices in the Public Sphere: A Comparative Analysis of Interpersonal and Online Political Talk.” The Public9:5–20.
106.
Study Circles. 2001. “Organizing Community Wide Dialogue for Action and Change.” Topsfield, MA: Topsfield Educational Foundation.
107.
Study Circles. 2003. “What Works: Study Circles in the Real World.” Topsfield, MA: Topsfield Educational Foundation.
108.
Study Circles. 2006. “A Guide for Training Study Circle Facilitators.” 2nd ed.Topsfield, MA: Topsfield Educational Foundation.
109.
TimbergBernardErlerBob. 2002. Television Talk: A History of the TV Talk Show. Austin: University Texas Press.
110.
TonnMarie Boor. 2005. “Taking Conversation, Dialogue, and Therapy Public.” Rhetoric and Public Affairs8:405–30.
111.
TracyKarenDurfyMargaret. 2007. “Speaking Out in Public: Citizen Participation in Contentious School Board Meetings.” Discourse and Communication1:223–49.
112.
WagnerDavid G.BergerJoseph. 1997. “Gender and Interpersonal Task Behaviors: Status Expectation Accounts.” Sociological Perspectives40:1–32.
113.
WalshKatherine Cramer. 2007. “The Democratic Potential of Civic Dialogue.” Pp. 45–63 in Can the People Govern? Deliberation, Participation, and Democracy, edited by RosenbergS.New York: Palgrave.
WilliamsChristine L.1995. Still a Man’s World: Men Who Do “Women’s Work.”Berkeley: University of California Press.
116.
WilliamsonAbbyFungArchon. 2005. “Mapping Public Deliberation: Report for the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.” Menlo Park, CA: Hewlett Foundation.
117.
WilsonP. A.PadgettJ. D.WallaceJ.2007. “New Orleans Community Congress II: Towards the Next Era of Participatory Democracy.” An Evaluation Report Commissioned by AmericaSpeaks Office of Research and Evaluation.
118.
YankelovichDaniel. 1999. The Magic of Dialogue: Transforming Conflict into Cooperation. New York: Simon and Schuster.
119.
YankelovichDaniel D.RosellSteveGantwerkHeidiFriedmanWill. 2006. “The Next Big Step in Deliberative Democracy.” Kettering Review23:54–66.
120.
YoungIris Marion. 1996. “Communication and the Other: Beyond Deliberative Democracy.” Pp. 121–35 in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political, edited by BenhabibS.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
121.
YoungIris Marion. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
