Cross-Regional Support for Gender Equality
| Author | Ikuo Kabashima,Gill Steel |
| Date | 01 March 2008 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0192512107085609 |
| Published date | 01 March 2008 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
International Political Science Review (2008), Vol. 29, No. 2, 133–156
DOI: 10.1177/0192512107085609 © 2008 International Political Science Association
Sage Publications (Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, and Singapore)
Cross-Regional Support for Gender Equality
Gill Steel and Ikuo Kabashima
Abstract . Postmaterialists argue that citizens’ values change when
economic development expands educational opportunities. In modernized
societies, people embrace postmaterialist values such as self-expression
and the quality of life, including support for gender equality. We argue
that the political processes that accompany modernization influence
value formation. Since all societies do not modernize in the same way,
citizens in different regions do not share an identical set of values at
a particular stage in modernization. We compare East Asia with other
regions, arguing that in East Asia, state-driven modernization processes
incorporated gender inequality, and citizens’ values reflect the norms
disseminated by their governments. We use the underutilized Gallup
International Millennium Survey, conducted in more than 60 countries
in 2000.
Keywords: • Gender equality • Cross-national comparisons
Introduction
Why is it that East Asia is highly developed economically while citizens’ values in
the region are not “postmaterialist”? In the original statement of his postmaterialist
values theory, Inglehart famously argues that economic development and growing
affluence tend to expand literacy and educational opportunities, which in turn
influence values and attitudes. As societies modernize and people become
increasingly secure, their emphasis turns from economic and physical security
toward embracing postmaterialist values such as self-expression and the quality
of life, including support for gender equality (see, for example, Inglehart, 1977,
1997). Implicit in this line of reasoning is that if other nations are as wealthy as
the USA, or Western Europe, they will share similar values, including pro-feminist
attitudes.
Some nations in East Asia are as wealthy as western nations, but East Asians
are much less supportive of gender egalitarianism. Although previous research
demonstrates that modernization does not produce uniform attitudes, the
reasons why citizens’ values in societies with similar levels of development can
134 International Political Science Review 29(2)
be dramatically different are not clearly understood. To explain disparities,
some researchers, including those within the postmaterialist tradition, rely on
vague notions such as “cultural heritage” (see, for example, Inglehart and Baker,
2000: 22), while others argue that non-western democracies are simply playing
economic and political “catch-up” (Brzezinski, 1997: 5). In the future, they argue,
citizens’ values will be similar to those of westerners. These arguments have been
criticized for “western centrism,” that is, implying that West European or North
American attitudes toward gender are the normative standard to which other
nations will eventually conform.
We argue that since all societies do not modernize in the same way, citizens do
not all share an identical set of values at a particular stage in modernization: the
state-driven modernization processes in East Asia explicitly incorporated gender
inequality and citizens’ values in the region tend to reflect, but are not wholly
explained by, the norms disseminated by their governments.1 A component of
attitudes toward gender roles stems from Confucian values (what William Kelly
[1993: 202] succinctly refers to as a “Confucian idiom of relational hierarchy
and performative obligation”) and some leaders used Confucianism to legitimize
their discourse on modernization, but using the Confucian heritage to explain
the varying values within the region does not explain the intra-regional variance.
Nor does it explain the ways in which values have changed, have been differently
emphasized by state discourses at different times, or the variation in attitudes
that exist among different groups within a single nation. We need to examine in
more detail what exactly influences values and the ways in which these influences
are different in the region.
Much of the existing research analyzes attitudes toward gender equality either
in a single nation or in a limited number of nations, usually either the USA or
Western European nations. These studies contribute much to our understanding,
and using a small sample of countries or a single case study increases our in-depth
understanding of those nations, but do little to help us understand the rest of the
world, particularly when processes of modernization differ so greatly.
In this article, we examine citizens’ attitudes toward gender equality in 60
nations, using data from the Gallup International Millennium Survey, an under-
utilized, large-scale, cross-national, public-opinion survey.2 We particularly focus
on explaining attitudes toward gender equality in Japan and compare these
with the rest of East Asia (specifically, South Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and
Singapore). The wealth and educational levels in East Asia lead us to expect
high levels of gender-egalitarian values (as Inglehart and Norris [2003: 2] argue,
“the most egalitarian attitudes toward the division of sex roles should be found
in the most affluent societies”), but, in fact, East Asians are less egalitarian than
postmaterialist theories predict.
We argue that the modernization processes in this region differ markedly from
those in many of the countries that experienced early industrialization and in
currently industrializing nations, resulting in lower levels of support for gender
egalitarianism. The national ideologies that supported modernization promoted
gender segregation in policy and practice. These national ideologies, and the
policies that they generated, still influence contemporary values.
In most analyses of egalitarian attitudes, researchers pool all regions together
in a single regression analysis, using one dummy variable for each region (see,
for example, Inglehart and Norris, 2003). The implicit assumption is that the
To continue reading
Request your trial