Expressed commitment to affirmative action so often fails to translate into meaningful reform largely due to the reinforcement of dominant representations. Debates around affirmative action have played themselves out through 'category politics' -- the political use of conceptual and identity categories (such as 'equal opportunity' or 'women') in ways that delegitimize affirmative action and keep reform within limits. In addition, proponents of affirmative action too often make the mistake of refashioning the reform in response to attacks upon it, in the process reducing its potential impact. An example is the insistence by some that their form of affirmative action does not undermine 'merit' because they wish only qualified women to be appointed. This effectively removes the opportunity to challenge existing concepts of what constitutes merit. The result is that affirmative action (where it exists) is understood as a species of philanthropy, a reform which acknowledges the need to 'assist' the 'disadvantaged'. This view constitutes affirmative action targets as the problem and leaves the privilege of those in positions of influence and authority unchallenged. In fact, it enhances that authority by putting into their hands the power to decide who needs 'assistance', when and in what form.