“Organisations want to be more open without paying the price”

Interview by Apolline Guillot.

There are still obstacles to putting women in positions of power. Why is that?

Manon Garcia: Women are not deliberately excluded, they are just held at a distance, because of what is known as second-generation gender bias.

Tell me more!

First, the absence of female models that young women want to resemble. When I was a student, I interviewed former students on their experience of the corporate world. I didn’t envy any of the women I spoke to. One confessed that by choosing to have both a career and children, she had no social or love life. So much was expected of her, as a woman, that it was impossible to lead a normal life. “You have to make choices,” as she said.

Then there are the leisure activities associated with the workplace. For example, everyone knows that top management tend to play squash and golf. Both are extremely gendered. Until top executives do Zumba together without it being seen as ridiculous, there will always be a form of socialisation in high circles that will be inaccessible to women. And of course, women being the child carers, they can’t stay late to chat over drinks. And we all know that’s when the interesting conversations take place. Women are perceived as less involved or seen as suspicious.

‘Conventions render behaviour intelligible’

Is there any hope of ridding the workplace of standards and stereotypes so we can reinvent ourselves?

Feminist, antiracist, and nonbinary discourse fosters hope that it might one day be possible. Heidegger understood that it is conventions that render behaviour intelligible. For example, in France, to greet someone you shake hands or kiss on both cheeks. If you were to hug someone instead, that behaviour would be interpreted. You would be seen as trying to be different or cool. Your behaviour would be scanned for meaning, to make sense of it. We need social conventions that we understand and master, the better to distance ourselves from them.

There’s no racism or sexism in a greeting, surely?

No, but, it’s the same principle. It would be naive to think of the workplace as a clean slate, a laboratory experiment. It is part of society, and therefore influenced by it. You can’t just state that patriarchy and racism don’t exist in the office just because you don’t want them to! On the contrary, I think it’s important to admit our biases and social conventions so we can ensure they don’t apply unfairly.

‘We are responsible for containing the effects of our biases’

For example?

When you’re white, you expect coloured people, especially women, to defer to you, and when they don’t, you take it as an aggression. It’s up to us to watch out for such stereotyped expectations and make sure they don’t lead to racism or injustice. It isn’t realistic to believe we can rid ourselves of our biases and conventions. However, we are responsible for containing their effects.

So, a boss may not be actively sexist, but can still perpetuate masculine domination?

Yes, of course. When there are plenty of women in a company, you might think there would be less sexism. But women are sexist too, sometimes more so, because they don’t question their sexism so much. They can still demonstrate epistemic injustice.

What is epistemic injustice?

Epistemic injustice is systematically doubting someone’s ability to produce legitimate knowledge. Women or members of certain ethnic groups may be mistrusted because they speak from a certain “place”. The truth is that the members of the dominant group do not need access to the knowledge produced by the minority or discriminated group. So they can actively ignore them. That is what is called epistemic laziness.

In my work on sexuality, I have seen that men have plenty of information on feminine pleasure and that they often decide to treat it as irrelevant, because they do not see it as of any real interest. That is epistemic laziness! It is similar in the workplace. People know the way work is set up is biased against their female colleagues, but they also know that it would cost them time and effort to change the situation.

‘Denial is partly unconscious, whereas epistemic laziness is bad faith’

Is it denial then?

Denial is partly unconscious, whereas epistemic laziness is bad faith. Acting in bad faith is tempting. We can all do it, even when we know the risks. In the introduction to Second Sex [1949], for example, Simone de Beauvoir writes that women who claim their sex has not affected their life and who “assert that they are men”, are acting in bad faith. Yet, in some interviews, the same Simone de Beauvoir claimed that being a woman had no effect on her life! In her Memories and her diaries, she states the contrary.

How can you learn to hear what you don’t want to hear?

It often happens when something breaks, or is untied. Like with #metoo. Before, many well-intentioned men could see that women were treated badly. But to acknowledge it meant sparking conflict, losing contracts and so on. But the more women spoke out, the more a man’s silence equated to being an accessory. It became a question of justice, not just of comfort.

‘We should create an environment in which people can talk and be heard’

Is it uncomfortable to be inclusive?

Yes! To be inclusive, you have to think about what you’re doing, and if you do it anyway, you’re not inclusive. Organisations often want to be more open without paying the price. I’m always amazed when I turn up to speak and I get asked not to make men uncomfortable, or feel guilty, so as not to put them off. I don’t want men to beat themselves up, but nothing will change as long as people – men and women – on’t seriously question their behaviour.

What’s the best way to approach the issue, at work or elsewhere?

I suggest a switch of standpoint. Instead of saying “The important thing is to speak out,” which puts the onus on women, we should create an environment in which people can talk and be heard.

Picture © Heike Steinweg / opale.photo