Draft:Agentic power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Agentic power, derived from the term agency, refers to individualistic power, wherein one resists outside influences of people or structures and makes relatively independent decisions.[1] Those with agency prioritize individualism, emphasizing their individual goals and achievements rather than those of a group.[2] Thus, agentic power is associated with assertiveness, competitiveness, independence, and courageousness.[2] As opposed to communal power and working with others to embrace the "power to" transform through social connections and communion, agentic power may be more coercive and emphasizes "power over" other people.[3] Agentic understandings of power are crucial to understanding how accountability, empathy, and identity relate to modern power struggles and perceptions.

Agency, Power, and Politics[edit]

While there are multiple definitions of power, at its core, power simply refers to having the "transformative capacity" to produce change."[4] However, traditional understandings of power align with agency. People often assume power to be "outside-in"; that is, power is vested in someone by an outside authority, and is exercised by exerting it upon others to produce change[5]. As a result, power is commonly understood to be manifested by "possession of control, authority, or influence over others."[6] Power and agency are intrinsically linked to each other. Indeed, due to their concentration of wealth, power is concentrated in the hands of a few elite who wield substantial influence in the decision-making processes of economic, political, and military institutions, providing them with agency.[7] Thus, political power is also associated with agency. Embracing the concept of "who has power over whom," political structures globally continue to embody agentic power.[8]

Agency and Accountability[edit]

Responsibility and Accountability[edit]

A commonly cited benefit of agentic power is that it provides accountability. When saying someone has power, they are "assign[ed] responsibility to a human agent or agency for bringing (or failing to bring) about certain outcomes that impinge upon the interests of other human beings."[9] With this responsibility comes accountability. Often, especially in politics, it is difficult to ascertain who is responsible for good (or bad) outcomes. By attributing power to one person, they bear the responsibility of the consequences for their action, or inaction; thus, allowing people to easily locate power through an agency-centric power model resolves issues of responsibility and accountability.[10]

Limitations of Accountability[edit]

However, a common critique of agentic power's relation to accountability is that it is not necessarily that simple to assign responsibility to one individual. Professor of Political Science Clarissa Hayward argues that issues tend to be "social," and not easily attributed to structures or institutions.[10] For example, it is tempting to attribute the lack of affordable housing available to racial minorities to agents in power, such as landlords discriminating against potential renters; however, the reality is that racial discrepancies in housing arose from multiple actors pursuing their own interests due to innovations in telecommunications and travel, and deindustrialization that created the middle-class suburbs largely responsible for the lack of affordable housing.[10] Similarly, the 2008 financial crisis is not easily attributed to a single actor; it may have been caused by borrowers taking on unaffordable loans, salespeople providing such loans, government regulators failing to identify the growing financial crisis, or some combination of these agents.[8] The interconnectedness of various "agents" makes it nearly impossible to attribute an outcome to an individual agent, disrupting calls for accountability.[8]

The lack of accountability is only anticipated to become more pervasive as society is faced with an increasing number of social crises, such as climate change and diminishing trust in democracy, that challenge agents in power.[11]

Agency and the Empathy Gap[edit]

Perspective-Taking[edit]

Gaining power is associated with a lack of perspective-taking and empathy. Once people attain power, they acquire more resources and no longer need to rely on others to achieve their goals, decrease their incentive to factor other people's perspectives into their decision-making calculus.[12] An agentic take on power also distances the agent in power from those they have power over. Agents viewing themselves as having power, being superior or different, creates "psychological distance" with others.[12] Indeed, self-centeredness and narcissism are associated with having agentic goals that prioritize one's own interests.[13] In contrast, mingling with others as witnessed with communal power is associated with perspective-taking and valuing others input. Having empathy and consideration for others leads to communal goals that balance a group's overall well-being and interests.[13] As a result, power is overall associated with a decline in taking perspectives from others, and therefore less accuracy in detecting others emotional statuses and a decline in empathy.[12]

Communal power may involve discussions and social connections to understand diverse perspectives

Institutions' rigid hierarchies perpetuate the empathy gap by strictly maintaining an agent in power over the average individual. As a result, in corporate America, executives who need empathy the most, because their actions impact the most number of people, are precisely the ones lacking empathy.[14] Infatuated by power over others, high-up employers tend to overlook the importance of forging relationships with their employees. This persistent lack of empathy due to agentic takes on power is deeply consequential. In the corporate world, lack of empathy with employees is associated with lower levels of workplace satisfaction and productivity.[15] Put simply, employees must feel valued by their employer to be valuable, but the distance created between employers and employees from agentic power hinders such relationships. Even outside the corporate world, however, the lack of empathy is a broader social issue. For example, people's unwillingness to wear masks during COVID is due to their emphasis of their personal autonomy and agency, and a disregard for others' well-being.[16]

The Role of Gender[edit]

The lack of empathy associated with agentic power is closely related to masculine understandings of agentic power and feminine understandings of communal power. Stereotypically masculine traits, such as being active and decisive, align with agentic power.[17] On the other hand, stereotypically feminine traits, such as being caring and emotional, align with communal power.[17] The masculinization of agentic power is related to the stereotype that men are rational actors, disregarding emotions. Perceiving agentic power as masculine makes it less acceptable for women act agentically. While self-enhancing and harsh actions are accepted as "demonstrable leadership" when coming from men actors, the same actions, when coming from women, are perceived as "hysterical" or "out of control."[18]

Agency and Identity[edit]

A prevalent critique of agentic power is that it reinforces existing social hierarchies. Agentic power is, after all, derived from agency, that is people's belief in their autonomy and capability to produce change. However, people's perception of their agency is influenced by their positionality in society, thus replicating existing social inequalities. Indeed, having "a sense of advantage" in regards to social class, race, or gender, "orients individuals towards agency" while "a sense of disadvantage orients individuals toward communion."[2] The differences in people's perceptions of their agency emerge due to factors such as the resource gap. Similar to people in power, people in advantaged positions not only have more resources, but have more control over how such resources are used, thus increasing their perception of their own agency.[2] As a result, low-class individuals tend to rank communal traits as more important in contrast to higher-class individuals that rank agentic traits as more important.[19] These internal feelings of agency are matched by outward perceptions of agency. People with "higher status are perceived as more agentic, whereas those with lower status are perceived as more communal."[2] Due to a combination of people's perception of their own, and others' power, based on their social status, agentic power perpetuates social inequalities.

Agentic Power and Gender in Politics[edit]

Agentic power's reinforcement of social hierarchies in politics is abundantly clear with gender. Voters tend to view agentic politicians as the most effective politicians. Voters associate success and capability more strongly with aggressive, hawkish leaders, attributing positive outcomes to a leader's action and decisiveness when there is an agentic leader, but attributing the same outcome to preexisiting favorable conditions with a dovish leader.[20] Overall, voters' "faith in beneficial outcomes is increased with an apparently strong leader."[20] Favoring agentic power inevitably means favoring masculine leadership strategies because, as previously established, agency is related to masculinity. Indeed, gendered differences in candidate support are often driven by beliefs that the United States has grown "too soft and feminine."[21] In American politics, "masculinity is aligned with notions of good leadership in the minds of voters."[22]

These masculine understandings of power and politics may very well dissuade women from being politically engaged or ambitious to begin with. In the political recruitment model, women often fall off the aspirant stage; a significant contributing factor to this is that women are less likely to be encouraged to run for office than their man counterparts.[23] This may be, at least in part, because women are less likely to have agentic characteristics stereotypically associated with politics. Even when women politicians do embrace agentic power, they often face backlash for crossing over gender stereotypes.[24]

The prominence of agentic power in politics contributes to women's underrepresentation in politics, and is apparent in politicians' interactions both in campaigning and after elections.

Negative Campaign Ads[edit]

Conforming to standards of agentic power with his hand motions and attire
Mitt Romney Speaking at CPAC - Conforming to standards of agentic power with his hand motions and attire

Political power is zero-sum, finite, and hierarchical. Any power an individual gains comes at the expense of another losing power.[25] Particularly in an increasingly polarized political landscape, this system pits candidates against each other in a combative manner. For instance, the 2018 midterm election witnessed a 61 percent increase in negative ads for federal races in comparison to 2014, with 76 percent of ads featuring an attack.[26] However, this tactic is not conducive for women running for office. Studies find that female candidates are uniquely vulnerable to being targeted with trait-based attack ads that challenge stereotypically feminine strengths.[27] Insofar as communion and empathy are seen as feminine, the emergence of attack ads targeting these characteristics further perpetuates masculinity and agency in politics. Indeed, "candidates routinely feminize their opponents in order to win, even if both candidates are male."[22] As a result, campaign tactics that attack feminine characteristics and reward masculinity continue to support agentic candidates over communal candidates.

Congressional Interactions[edit]

United States House Committee on Intelligence hearing on Emerging Technologies and National Security - the vast majority of the people in the hearing are men

Interactions among Congresspeople continue to display a feminine-masculine divide in communal and agentic power. A study of 24,000 congressional committee hearings between 1994 and 2018 found that women in Congress are more likely to be interrupted in hearings than men; specifically, women are 10% more likely to be interrupted in Senate committees.[28] Men remain focused on the expression of their individual opinions, reinforcing masculinity and agentic power. Women's support of each other in Congress, however, attests to their communion. When studying the frequency by which Congresspeople change the topic of discussion in committee hearings, "women are more likely to stay on the same topic as other women, while men are likely to change topics introduced by women."[29] As evidenced by interruption and topic changes, "increasing proportions of women work together with individuals' power status to increase women's voice and shift power dynamics within Congress."[29] Thus, dynamics among elected Congresspeople support the notion that men embrace agentic power, while women build coalitions of support and embrace communal power.

References[edit]

  1. ^ Ku, Xyle; Kim, Siyoung (2020-01-02). "The Role of the Military Rank, Relational Power, and Agentic Power in Happiness of Cadets at the Korea Military Academy". Military Behavioral Health. 8 (1): 42–52. doi:10.1080/21635781.2020.1717689. ISSN 2163-5781. S2CID 213274513.
  2. ^ a b c d e Rucker, Derek D.; Galinsky, Adam D.; Magee, Joe C. (2018-01-01), Olson, James M. (ed.), "Chapter Two - The Agentic–Communal Model of Advantage and Disadvantage: How Inequality Produces Similarities in the Psychology of Power, Social Class, Gender, and Race", Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 58, Academic Press, pp. 71–125, doi:10.1016/bs.aesp.2018.04.001, retrieved 2023-05-04
  3. ^ Koester, Diana (May 2015). "Gender & Power" (PDF). Developmental Leadership Program.
  4. ^ Campbell, Colin (December 2009). "Distinguishing the Power of Agency from Agentic Power: A Note on Weber and the "Black Box" of Personal Agency". Sociological Theory. 27 (4): 407–418. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9558.2009.01355.x. ISSN 0735-2751. S2CID 144987002.
  5. ^ Miller, Rick. "What Is Power, Really?". Forbes. Retrieved 2023-02-25.
  6. ^ "Definition of POWER". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 2023-02-25.
  7. ^ Mills, C. Wright (1956). The Power Elite. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195133544.
  8. ^ a b c Cutter, Davis (June 2015). "Power Without Agents? A Theoretical Analysis of Power in a Complex and Globalized World". Political Science Commons.
  9. ^ Ball, Terence (1976). "Review of Power: A Radical View; The Descriptive Analysis of Power". Political Theory. 4 (2): 246–249. ISSN 0090-5917. JSTOR 190637.
  10. ^ a b c Hayward, Clarissa; Lukes, Steven (April 2008). "Nobody to shoot? Power, structure, and agency: A dialogue" (PDF). Journal of Power. 5 (20): 5–20. doi:10.1080/17540290801943364. S2CID 10776472.
  11. ^ Busch-Jensen, Peter (August 2023), "Rethinking Power and Agency through the Lens of Intersubjectivity", Annual Review of Critical Psychology, retrieved 2023-05-04
  12. ^ a b c Galinsky, Adam D.; Magee, Joe C.; Inesi, M. Ena; Gruenfeld, Deborah H (December 2006). "Power and Perspectives Not Taken". Psychological Science. 17 (12): 1068–1074. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01824.x. ISSN 0956-7976. PMID 17201789. S2CID 3524097.
  13. ^ a b Findley, Danielle; Ojanen, Tiina (September 2013). "Agentic and Communal Goals in Early Adulthood: Associations with Narcissism, Empathy, and Perceptions of Self and Others". Self and Identity. 12 (5): 504–526. doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.694660. ISSN 1529-8868. S2CID 143117093.
  14. ^ III, Ernest J. Wilson (2015-09-21). "Empathy Is Still Lacking in the Leaders Who Need It Most". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 2023-05-04.
  15. ^ "Why Empathy Matters for Leaders | Eliot Partnership". eliotpartnership.com. Retrieved 2023-05-04.
  16. ^ Leary, Judith Hall,Mark. "The U.S. Has an Empathy Deficit". Scientific American. Retrieved 2023-05-04.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ a b Abele, Andrea E. (2003). "The dynamics of masculine-agentic and feminine-communal traits: Findings from a prospective study". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 85 (4): 768–776. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.4.768. ISSN 1939-1315. PMID 14561129.
  18. ^ Hutchison, Emma; Bleiker, Roland (2020), "Emotions, agency, and power in world politics", The Power of Emotions in World Politics, pp. 185–196, doi:10.4324/9780429331220-14, ISBN 9780429331220, S2CID 212958199, retrieved 2023-05-04
  19. ^ Chen, Xiaochen; Li, Muzi; Wei, Qingwang (2019). "Agency and Communion From the Perspective of Self Versus Others: The Moderating Role of Social Class". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 2867. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02867. ISSN 1664-1078. PMC 6930803. PMID 31920888.
  20. ^ a b "Why We Sometimes Favor Aggressive Political Leadership". The Decision Lab. Retrieved 2023-03-27.
  21. ^ Deckman, Melissa; Cassese, Erin (June 2021). "Gendered Nationalism and the 2016 US Presidential Election: How Party, Class, and Beliefs about Masculinity Shaped Voting Behavior". Politics & Gender. 17 (2): 277–300. doi:10.1017/S1743923X19000485. ISSN 1743-923X. S2CID 210441435.
  22. ^ a b Heldman, Caroline; Conroy, Meredeith; Ackerman, Alissa (2018). Sex and gender in the 2016 presidential election. Praeger. ISBN 978-1043052966.
  23. ^ Fox, Richard L.; Lawless, Jennifer L. (2004). "Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (2): 264–280. doi:10.2307/1519882. ISSN 0092-5853. JSTOR 1519882.
  24. ^ Krook, Mona Lena; Sanín, Juliana Restrepo (September 2020). "The Cost of Doing Politics? Analyzing Violence and Harassment against Female Politicians". Perspectives on Politics. 18 (3): 740–755. doi:10.1017/S1537592719001397. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 198599058.
  25. ^ http://www.sociology.org.uk/notes/papt2.pdf
  26. ^ Project, Wesleyan Media (2018-10-30). "61% Increase in Volume of Negative Ads - Wesleyan Media Project". Retrieved 2023-03-26.
  27. ^ Cassese, Erin C.; Holman, Mirya R. (2018-09-01). "Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks". Political Behavior. 40 (3): 785–807. doi:10.1007/s11109-017-9423-7. ISSN 1573-6687. S2CID 254933803.
  28. ^ Miller, Michael G.; Sutherland, Joseph L. (February 2023). "The Effect of Gender on Interruptions at Congressional Hearings". American Political Science Review. 117 (1): 103–121. doi:10.1017/S0003055422000260. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 248591784.
  29. ^ a b Ban, Pamela; Grimmer, Justin; Kaslovsky, Jaclyn; West, Emily (October 2019). "A Woman's Voice in the House: Gender Composition and its Consequences in Committee Hearings". Stanford Democracy and Polarization Lab.

Category:Wikipedia Student Program


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Agentic_power&oldid=1192436097"