Can Institutional Representation Create Substantive Social and Moral Change, Or Is It Primarily Symbolic?
The institutional representation of people marginalized for their gender identity and expression has been an important part of progress towards equality in Western societies since at least the twentieth century.
There is debate about how meaningful this representation really is. Some critics argue that despite these gains, true social and moral change remains elusive due to factors such as systemic oppression, tokenization, and internalized biases within institutions. On the other hand, proponents point out that increased visibility can foster positive attitudes towards minorities, lead to more inclusive policies, and ultimately pave the way for structural transformation. To understand both perspectives better, it may be helpful to consider what institutional representation looks like in practice and its potential impacts on broader cultural beliefs and behaviors.
Examples of Institutional Representation
One example of institutional representation is the presence of openly LGBTQ+ individuals in public office or political leadership roles.
The recent election of Pete Buttigieg as mayor of South Bend, Indiana, made national headlines when he became one of few openly gay men to hold this position. His candidacy sparked a conversation about whether sexual orientation should matter less than qualifications in politics and provided a positive image of a non-straight person holding power. Another example is the appointment of transgender activist Dr. Rachel Levine as Secretary of Health in Pennsylvania during the COVID-19 pandemic. Her visibility helped normalize trans identity and countered misconceptions about trans people's capabilities.
Many private companies have created employee resource groups (ERGs) dedicated to LGBTQ+ issues, which aim to create a safe space for queer employees and advocate for their interests within the organization.
The Limitations of Institutional Representation
Critics argue that these cases represent mere tokenism rather than substantive change. In many instances, only a few individuals from underrepresented groups are chosen to serve as representatives. These spokespersons may face pressure to conform to dominant ideals and downplay aspects of themselves that could cause controversy.
Simply being visible does not guarantee lasting social change. Instead, it takes sustained effort to challenge harmful beliefs and practices at all levels of society. According to sociologist Patricia Hill Collins, institutions often reproduce existing hierarchies instead of disrupting them. Even if minorities gain access to decision-making spaces, those who benefit most are typically already privileged.
White cis women have achieved greater political influence than other minority groups, yet they still struggle with gender bias and stereotyping. Moreover, institutional representation may be limited by homophobic or transphobic backlash against marginalized identities, particularly when right-wing politicians attack queerness as "deviant" behavior. This can lead to policies such as banning drag shows or restricting transgender healthcare.
Institutional Representation as Symbolic Progress
Proponents counter that even symbolic progress is important because it raises awareness about discrimination and encourages dialogue about how it should end. It also provides role models for younger generations who lack positive examples of non-heteronormative identity in their daily lives. They point out that public support for LGBTQ+ issues has grown rapidly since the 1970s due to increased visibility in mainstream media, politics, and academia. In addition, many people believe that diversity within institutions helps make them more innovative and responsive to diverse needs. ERGs offer opportunities for networking, mentorship, and professional development while advocating for inclusivity across an organization.
Having openly LGBTQ+ leaders can help normalize queer culture and challenge stigmas around same-sex relationships, intimacy, and sex. All these factors contribute to a more accepting environment where everyone feels valued regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
The debate over whether institutional representation creates substantive change remains ongoing, but both sides agree that its effects are complex and multi-faceted. While some see it as merely symbolic, others consider it a necessary step towards true equality. Either way, continued efforts towards greater diversity and inclusion will be crucial for dismantling systems of oppression based on gender identity and expression.
Can institutional representation create substantive social and moral change, or is it primarily symbolic?
Institutional representation can create both substantive social and moral changes as well as being primarily symbolic. There are several arguments for why this might be the case, such as that representative bodies like governments can actively enact policies that reflect their constituents' values and interests, which can have a tangible effect on individuals' lives.