3.5 Feminist Perspectives on Power
3.5.4 Authentic Power and Identity
3.5.1 Personal and Relational Power in Women
Freeman et al. (2001) claim that power is no longer solely a male construct. They argue that the challenge of an unprecedented female flux into the strongholds of our society, coupled with a revised feminist consciousness and legal mandate against discrimination has significantly influenced and complicated our conceptions of power. Early studies of power referred to the patriarchal construction of the term, referring to a win-lose or power over mentality. These psychological studies were typically constructed by men and applied to male subjects. With the growing understanding of patriarchy and the way in which gender are socially constructed categories (Mahalik et al. 2003), feminism began to make inroads into the field of psychology in its attempts to understand and liberate women from psychological oppression. Harvey (2010) claims that psychological oppression is the most painful component of the oppressed’s lived experience since negative messages from the oppressor distorts the person’s self- conception and self-respect resulting in low self-esteem. Bartky (1990) confirms this when describing how women oppress themselves psychologically when they exercise harsh control over their own self-esteem. It was the recognition of this psychological experience of powerlessness and the inability to do anything about it that motivated feminist psychology as a political project with a social change agenda (Rutherford et al.
2010). While there is debate as to whether feminist psychology has achieved this agenda or whether it remains the agenda (Rutherford et al. 2010), this focus in psychology generated perspectives on personal power and women’s self-development and attempted to do so on women’s terms.
The focus on women’s self-development and personal power, such as the empowerment of self-determination, draws parallels with the construction of power as described in the section on Positive Psychology (Chapter 2). The feminist construction of this power,
77
however, has a relational dimension in terms of liberation from patriarchal oppression, both at an internal psychological level and in inter-personal relations with both men and women. Rampage (1991: 110) describes this form of personal power as “the ability to be self-determining, to act rather than react and to choose the terms on which to live one’s life.” The power of autonomy and personal control over oneself and the direction of one’s life is regarded by Freeman and Borque (2001) as the sense of freedom that follows oppression.
Feminist psychologists have attempted to reconstruct power as something which does not require domination, but rather the ability to act, and the capacity to perform (Harstock 1998). Feminists therefore view power as having qualities of strength, energy, force and ability which result in generative and transformative processes (Harstock 1998; Ledwith 2009; Moses 2012; Nicholson 2012; Rutherford et al. 2010).
Harstock (1998: 63) observes that “important in all these (feminist) descriptions of power is a vision of power as part of the process of change, a process that can be moved forward and directed.” In patriarchal terms power has meant the ability to advance oneself and in so doing destroy or limit the power of others, whereas a women’s perspective of power is to implement what they already have and what they are still developing (Harstock 1998; Ledwith 20009; Nicholson 2012). Schaef (1992) agrees that men conceive power as limited, whereas women see it as limitless. From a feminist perspective power is viewed as regenerative and expanding when shared (Moses 2012;
Nicholson 2012).
However, Conway (2001) in her study on her historical archetypes of feminism challenges this theory, believing that feminist psychologists have made an industry out of relational self, presenting women as a nexus of relationships rather than an ego with boundaries and thus potential to stand out from the group. Burman (2001) claims that literature on gender and authority has tended to focus on maternal imagery in representing women’s roles in leading groups. Conway (2001) claims that forging the image of female power is difficult to do in the current ‘relational’ emphasis of feminist thought. In her opinion, women leaders are able to state their views and defend them strongly against contending opinions, apply their personal ability to get the best performance from others and mobilize them around a common goal. They are no more lodged in a network of relationships than their male colleagues. Conway (2001) argues
78
that feminist psychologists can’t see the ‘old boy’ network for what it is – a network of sustaining and collaborative relationships. Men don’t talk about these relationships because their discourse is supposed to focus on the business at hand. Women, on the other hand, are taught to report on the significance of relationships in their lives, and so they do it. Freeman and Borque (2001) concur claiming that our long standing beliefs about gender roles militate against women yielding the type of power associated with male leadership.
From the studies into women’s power cited in Freeman et al. (2001) female power has been described as indirect, personal, derivative as opposed to direct, authoritative and status-derived. Indeed women who adopt a stereotypical male leadership style or who occupy male dominated leadership positions are apt to be evaluated negatively in light of this gender-role incongruency. Men may adopt a variety of styles without sanction and their success is not compromised by a so-called feminine style. Women are criticised for adopting a male model of authority and devalued by the stereotyped female model. In their study into women and their experience of success, Freeman and Bourque (2001) found that women would cite the intrinsic reward of work satisfaction in business, worthwhile contribution in politics and achieving according to their own standards, rather than competition and direct power over others. The study raises the question as to whether women have greater concerns about both the possession and use of power than men, which may even inhibit them from achieving higher ‘status’ in social rank terms. Freeman and Bourque (2001) believe that a female desire for power runs contrary to the established ‘truth’ that ‘normal’ women are not interested in power (Sandberg 2013).
Contemporary feminist psychologists, theologians and social scientists (Brooks 2011;
Nicholson 2012; Rutherford et al. 2010) would argue that this line of thought has been informed by the hegemonic discourses of patriarchy and global corporate capitalism.
They observe that women who have moved into positions of power have failed to promote a more humane, progressive and tolerant society and have complied with and perpetuated the system of competition and domination for personal gain. Popular media portrays the oppressive female ‘boss’ (Eisenstein 2010) while empirical studies into leadership, which will be expanded on in the following chapter (Chapter 4), show that many women leaders adopt an authoritarian model of leadership (Kariuki 2004) which
79
at times represent an even more oppressive form of their male counterpart. Likewise feminist psychologists argue that feminism has failed to transform the psychology agenda and disrupt the status quo (Rutherford et al. 2010), by compromising to meet traditional standards as provided by male researchers. Whichever arguments are pursued, the contradictions within the way in which women’s power is perceived within a fragmented feminist framework points to tensions that exist in translating theory into action;; as well as contradictions in women’s experiences of and ability to exercise power.
3.5.2 Fear and Anxiety in Relation to Power
Women’s inexperience in using their power openly as well as fears of power manifests in a variety of ways, according to Schaef (1992). This is because women have not been well versed in the conventions by which men have been geared since childhood. Power struggles can leave women vulnerable and disheartened (Miller & Cummins 1992). The use of power for their own purpose often results in negative reactions from men which are then internalized by women as wrong (Sandberg 2013; Valerio 2009). Power in women is often associated with abandonment, because women are encouraged to remain in a situation which others define, or feelings of inadequacy and anger (Miller &
Cummins 1992). The use of power by women is also frequently related to destructiveness for other women that disrupts and challenges their support systems and their relational stereotypes (Valerio 2009). In contradiction with feminist thought which promotes collective action and sisterhood, is the commonly experienced competitiveness between women, popularised by the ‘pull her down’ rhetoric (Erasmus- Kritzinger 2003; Kolb, Williams & Frohlinger 2010; Valerio 2009). In the absence of being able to exercise power directly women may resort to indirect forms of wielding power through passive aggressive behaviours, or the manipulation and control of people they can, such as other women (Wilson 2004).
Since power is closely related to identity, women who use their power with some efficacy and freedom often feel it will destroy their core sense of identity. Miller (1982) questions whether women are able to enjoy the benefits of their power if it is so intricately linked to anxiety and the risk of loss of identity. The findings of Jamieson’s (1995) research support the notion that women are ambivalent about, or fear, their own
80
power. Jameson found that women in senior positions reject the masculine paradigm but are unwilling to consider their own power. In conducting their study there seemed to be a reluctance to deal with power as an issue. On the other hand, they viewed powerlessness as being an issue of victims and were not comfortable acknowledging either their own power or powerlessness. In a similar study conducted by Henry (1994), the most significant finding was that women were unable to define ‘equality’ and therefore it remained an abstract concept removed from their everyday life. Jamieson’s (1995) research did reveal that women contrasted their own feminine power with that of men, whose strategies they viewed as withholding power and being vested in their status, rather than their own strategies of sharing power. These studies were both conducted in the United States more than a decade ago. Despite the inequities that still exist, women’s role in society has changed over the past decade (Eisenstein 2010) and it is fitting that this research study reviews the way in which women engage with power within the contemporary and local context of South Africa.
Another study conducted in the United States of America in the 1990’s by Clayton &
Crosby (1992) revealed that women are reluctant to identify discrimination against themselves. They observed that “when a woman perceives support for remedial action, she may be more likely to identify discrimination – both to herself and to others – than if she expects no support” (Clayton et al. 1992: 94). The implication of this for research on women is that when looking at the ways in which masculine society hampers women, researchers should ideally bring women together to explore these issues in order to offer support (Harvey 2010). However, feminist researchers (Gavey 2005;
Mahoney & Yngvesson 1992) caution against simplistic interpretations of women’s’
unwillingness or inability to speak on issues, since their voices are as multiple and diverse as their personal histories and so is the meaning of silence. Just as there are more questions than answers around women’s reluctance to engage with power assertively, the same applies to women’s expression of themselves through having their voice heard within the spaces they occupy.
81 3.5.3 Voice and Silence in Relation to Power
For women to find their own ‘voice’ is seen by some prominent feminist authors, such as Carol Gilligan (1982) as central to women’s experience and exercise of power. These feminists (Brescoll 2011; Gilligan 1982; Lee 2010) see women’s strength as emerging from the recovery of an authentic voice and the capacity to express it and a women’s subordination in the silencing of the voice. Women historians have supported this view (Gal 1991) on the basis of recapturing the silent past, a symbol of passivity and powerlessness. Volubility, according to Mast (2002) plays an important role in establishing power hierarchies but also in communicating one’s power to others.
Brescoll (2011) proposes that women do not spend as much time talking in public forums as men since they fear backlash from perceptions that their behaviour is incongruent with their stereotype by both men and women. This fear has been found to explain the reason why women may fail to promote themselves and engage in aggressive negotiations (Amanatullah & Morris 2010; Moss-Racusin & Rudman 2010).
However, some feminist theorists (Lee 2010; Mahoney 2001) challenge this simple equation of voice with authority and silence with victimisation. Lee (2010) claims that it is only within the framework of dominant linguistic ideologies that forms such as silence, interruption, or euphemism gain their specific meanings. Postmodernist feminists prefer the notion of split subjectivity, shifting identifications and selves constructed retrospectively out of cultural myths, distorted memories and psychological fantasies (Hoffman 2001; Nicholson 2012). In this context, silence or not communicating can be a healthy response to being controlled (Mahoney 2001). Weiler (2001) highlights the danger of projecting social identity and assuming authority in speaking for silenced others.
Just as feminists are conflicted over power, conflicting views of silence trigger emotional and anxious responses (Fiske 2010; Galinsky, Magee, Gruenfeld, Whitson &
Lijenquist 2008; Mahoney 2001; Mahoney & Yngvesson 1992). The feeling of being unable and unwilling to speak brings about a certain shame amongst feminists given the expectation created by feminist psychologists that silence is a sign of inauthenticity or failure to be a real feminist. Efforts to communicate that are not fully successful, according to Galinsky et al. (2008) may evoke painful emotions, such as shame, but can also lead to anger which can motivate a subjective sense of agency and resistance.
82
Authors concur that a space of silence where one does not have to be accountable gives the opportunity to nurture the capacity to speak out, even though the situation may be subjectively experienced as confusing and anxiety provoking (Keltner et al. 2003;
Mahoney 2001; Mahoney & Yngvesson 1992). Brescoll’s (2011) study into the effects of volubility of men and women revealed that for women talking more in an organisational context may not be an effective way of communicating their power to others. Walsh’s (2012) article on extroversion versus introversion in leaders claims that the world is biased towards extroversion which supports the pressure that women may feel to ‘speak out’ should they wish to be viewed as a leader in an organisation.
Ultimately, with a level of awareness, silence may help to foster the capacity to speak out with confidence, authority and authenticity (Galinsky et al. 2008). Furthermore, in psychology studies on therapeutic practices, silence has also been attributed to a form of contemplation, often referred to as ‘mindfulness’, which gives rise to a powerful expansion of perspectives which can relate to the growth of individuals (Blanton 2007;
Shapiro & Carlson 2009; Siegel 2007).
3.5.4 Authentic Power and Identity
Recovering their ‘authentic voice’ was proposed by Gilligan (1982) and feminist authors of the time as a way of enabling women’s strength to emerge and be expressed.
Just as silence takes on various meanings within the feminist discourse, so too does the concept of authenticity. Feminist writing of the postmodern period that point to the enlightening and at times painful psychological process of understanding and integrating contradictory thoughts and feelings which challenges the notion of an authentic ‘self’ (Gal 1991; Ledwith 2009; Mahoney 2001; Mahoney & Yngvesson 1992; Nicholson 2012) They reject the possibility of a whole identity that gives rise to a single true voice and attack the idea that a healthy identity is fixed, especially a stable gender identity.
Organisational psychologists, Anderson and Shafer (in Coughlin, Wingard & Hollihan 2005) describe authentic power as a creative life force which we draw on each time we express ourselves honestly and thoughtfully. But they also identify a deeper power which is anchored in the commitment to gain self-knowledge and grow through a continuing journey to self-acceptance. In writing about how women experience power,
83
they focus on the emotional truths that are revealed through storytelling and how women’s stories of power are woven into their beliefs and mental models, socialised by gender, ethnic group, culture and family. They believe that authentic power is to become relentless and undefended in seeking knowledge of ourselves which gives women the capacity to transform reality and reconnect to their soul. This is similar to Nicholson’s (2012: 26) “archetype of the self for women” which relates to the contemporary social and spiritual journey towards wholeness. It also relates to the literature on self-awareness and growth in the section on positive psychology in chapter 2 (section 2.3.2).
Anderson and Shafer’s (2005) construction of power in relation to their own experience and studies of women in business (in Coughlin et al. 2005: 65) include the following characteristics which addresses some of the complexities and conflicts recounted in this chapter:
It celebrates a wide range of individual traits and styles
It responds with compassion and generosity to everyday and multifaceted challenges
It prompts change by openly inviting diverse opinions and approaches It seeks continuous awareness of its use to positive effect
This construction of power (Anderson & Shafer in Coughlin et al. 2005) encourages individuals to recognise their own power, yet recognise the paradox of independence and interdependence. Feminist authors appear to agree that both men and women need to be engaged in this process of pursuing self-knowledge in the interest of expressing their identity and a redefined sense of personal power (Dickerson 2013; Ledwith 2009;
Moses 2012; Nicholson 2012). This pursuit of authenticity in leadership is the focus of many leadership studies, pertaining to both men and women, and is elaborated on in Chapter 4 on leadership. Women, however, are still considered key in initiating changes to the prevailing models, since they remain a non-dominant group, trying to function in systems dominated by male views and mental models (Moses 2012).
84