User:Sonalchuriwal/Agentic Power

Redirect to:

• Draft:Agentic power

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. Those with agency prioritize individualism, emphasizing their individual goals and achievements rather than that of a group. Thus, agentic power is associated with assertiveness, competitiveness, independence, and courageousness. 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. [insert summary sentence]

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." 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. As a result, power is commonly understood to be manifested by by "possession of control, authority, or influence over others." Power and agency are intrinsically linked to each other. Indeed, due to their concentration of wealth, power is long understood to be concentrated in the hands of a few elite who wield substantial influence decision-making processes within economic, political, and military institutions, providing them with agency. Thus, political power is also traditionally associated with agency. Embracing the concept of "who has power over whom," political structures globally continue to embody agentic power.

Agency and Accountability[edit]

Responsibility and Accountability[edit]

A commonly cited benefit of agentic understandings of power is that it provides accountability. When saying someone has power, they are "assign[ed] responsibility to a human agent or agency for brining (or failing to bring) about certain outcomes that impinge upon the interests of other human beings."  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.

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. 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. 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. The interconnectedness of various "agents" makes it nearly impossible to attribute an outcome to an individual agent, disrupting calls for accountability.

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.

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. 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 than others, creates "psychological distance" with others. Indeed, self-centeredness and narcissism are associated with having agentic goals that prioritize one's own interests. 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 is associated with communal goals, that balance a group's overall well-being and interests. 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.

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. 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. 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.

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." 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. 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. 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." 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.

Power in Politics[edit]

In American politics, "masculinity is aligned with notions of good leadership in the minds of voters". This masculine understanding of politics emerges in campaigning tactics, in interactions among elected Congresspeople, and in mass voter behavior.

Power as Zero-Sum and Campaign Tactics[edit]

Mitt Romney Speaking at CPAC - Conforming to standards of agentic power with his hand motions and attire There is only a finite amount of power in society, especially in context of politics with numerically defined and hierarchical government positions. This leads to power being zero-sum; any power an individual gains comes at the expense of another losing power. Particularly in an increasingly polarized political landscape, this system naturally pits candidates against each other in a way that promotes combative and self-promoting behavior. 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. However, this tactic is not one that is 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. Indeed, "candidates routinely feminize their opponents in order to win, even if both candidates are male". Moreover, women's political representation is increasingly valued by society because of the belief that women politicians are more likely to address women's issues in politics. However, attack ads make this substantive representation an uphill battle for both men and women. Both male and female candidates are found to be more vulnerable to attack ads when supporting bills addressing gender.

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.

Interactions Among Elected Congresspeople[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 equate masculinity to dominance and agentic power. A study of 24,000 congressional committee hearings between 1994 and 2018 find 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. This reinforces a gender dynamic that associated women with communion and men with agency. Men remain focused on the expression of their individual opinions and thoughts, and provide this grace to other Congressmen, reinforcing men's association with agentic power. Women's support of each other in Congress 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". 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". Thus, dynamics among elected Congresspeople support the notion that men are more likely to embrace agentic power, the stereotypically valuable form of power in politics, while women build coalitions of support and embrace communal power.

Mass Voter Behavior[edit]

Voters continue to uphold politics ties to masculine understandings of agentic power. Voters generally associate success and capability more strongly with aggressive, hawkish leaders as opposed to dovish leaders. When enacting new changes, voters associate aggressive leaders' actions with greater success and capability, attributing positive outcomes to the person rather than the situation; the same action, when coming from a dovish leader, is perceived as a more passive action. Overall, "our faith in beneficial outcomes is increased with an apparently strong leader". This ties political success to agentic power; confrontational and aggressive action is perceived as acting more directly in the country's interest than do dovish tactics.

The constituency's tendency to associate political success with agentic power shows up in electoral outcomes and candidate support as well. Indeed, gendered differences in candidate support are often driven by beliefs that gendered differences will lead the United States has grown "too soft and feminine".

Conclusion[edit]

Politics association with agentic power and masculinity, puts women politicians and aspirants in a double bind. Feminine forms of power such as communal power are not as strongly valued in politics, yet women who embrace agentic power face backlash for crossing over gender stereotypes.