25 representation, as defined by Hanna Pitkin, as the dimension relating most to voting. Symbolic representation embodies the beliefs and attitudes inherent in the process leading up to voting, making it the dimension most akin to the voting process. Following a period of minimal attention, scholarly interest in representation reemerged in the 1990s. Notably, this resurgence emphasized a normative standpoint advocating for the descriptive representation of women and other historically marginalized groups. Phillips (1995) argues for the increased presence of women in politics, stating that it would enhance the visibility of “particular interests of women that would be otherwise overlooked” (Phillips, 1995: 62–63). Similarly, Williams (2000) argues that marginalized groups, particularly those who are “immutable” (Williams, 2000: 55), need to be represented in politics to ensure that their “voices are heard” (2000: 62, 78, 131, 138), particularly given the “legacy of state-sponsored discrimination” and continued “systemic biases” (2000, 199). Mansbridge (1999) suggests that descriptive representation can help establish the “legitimacy” (1999: 648) and prove the “ability to rule” (1999: 628) of marginalized groups. Young (2000) also emphasizes the importance of descriptive representation because it reduces bias against “embodied forms of expression” (2000: 56) and increases the visibility of “situated knowledges” (2000: 70). Overall, the normative arguments for descriptive representation range from increasing the visibility of marginalized interests, having their voices be heard through epistemic justice to counter historic (epistemic) injustices, increasing legitimacy and proving they are able to rule. In the 2000s, the focus shifted towards a constructivist approach, revisiting the conceptualization of representation rather than its normative aspects (Disch, 2015). Scholars started emphasizing the dynamic relationship between voters and politicians, particularly exploring identity dynamics (Saward, 2010: 16, 298). This emphasis on identity becomes crucial in understanding why citizens might prefer in-group politicians. In this dissertation, I employ the conceptual framework established by Hanna Pitkin, delving into the dimensions of descriptive, substantive, and symbolic representation. I aim to critically examine and assess the normative propositions put forth by scholars like Mansbridge, Young, and Williams, by shifting the focus towards the perspective of the individual citizen, much akin to the approach taken by Saward. To understand the representation of identities, I draw on the literature of Social Identity Theory (Tajfel, 1974; Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Turner, 1975; Turner, Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987; Turner and Oakes, 1986). They state that all humans strive for a positive self-image, i.e. positive distinctiveness. Social Identity Theory proposes that individuals use different strategies to achieve positive distinctiveness, including individual mobility, social creativity, and social competition, depending on various factors such as group status. For low-status groups, the choice of strategy depends on factors such as the permeability of group boundaries and the perceived homogeneity/ heterogeneity of the out-group. If low-status individuals perceive boundaries as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw