The Power of Androgyny
by Doug Sawin, Ph.D.

Androgynythe presence in self-concept, thought and attitudes, and the availability for action in word and behavior of highly valued masculine and highly valued feminine characteristics in the same person, Male or Female. These characteristics include but are not limited to: gentle and firm, humble and bold, cooperative and competitive, emotional and rational, flexible and unwavering, nurturing and playful, soft-spoken and assertive.

In patriarchal societies, men and masculinity are held in higher esteem than women and femininity. Masculinity is associated with strength and femininity with weakness. Men are afforded superior status and position and women are assigned to lower status, domestic and childcare roles. The social and political remnants of patriarchy remain in many cultures in the world today.

In such cultures, a great mythology about gender differences is used to justify and thus maintain gender inequality and discrimination. In accordance with this mythology, boys and men are shamed for exhibiting feminine qualities and girls and women are shamed for exhibiting masculine qualities. Correspondingly, in her review of the scientific literature in child development reported in her book, In A Different Voice (1993), Carol Gilligan shows us that boys are raised to be independent and competitive and girls are raised to focus on affiliation and connection. Further, boys and men are taught to exercise "power over" while girls and women are taught to exercise "power for".

By means of gender discriminating child rearing practices, the rigid mythology about the superiority of men for tasks requiring intelligence, instrumental effectiveness, stamina and the exercise of power is held in place by the shame based socialization of children that confines them to limited, clearly specified gender role characteristics, attitudes and behavior. Traditionally gender typed parents teach their daughters traditionally defined feminine roles and teach their sons to fill traditionally defined masculine roles. In this way, the myths of gender differences are perpetuated from one generation to the next.

This false dichotomy of highly and rigidly differentiated masculine vs. feminine gender roles manifests in adulthood as gender discrimination that gives men the advantages and opportunities in many arenas in which women are afforded only limited access if any at all. The culture established in these male dominated arenas supports and rewards traditionally masculine traits and diminishes and devalues traditionally feminine traits. Consequently, women who enter these arenas are treated as second-class citizens in hiring, pay and promotion.

Women are expected to act like women (often called girls) and then penalized for doing so. Consequently many women believed that the only way to make it in a male dominated enterprise was to hide their feminine qualities and demonstrate masculine traits. That is, to become one of the boys and play the game by their rules. What a tragedy.

Until later in the last century, the traditional gender dichotomy described above was believed by psychologists and sociologists to be best described by a bi-polar continuum with extreme masculinity on one end and extreme femininity on the other end. In this model masculinity and femininity were seem as opposing sets of traits and, in a given individual, to be mutually exclusive. An individual could not be both strongly masculine and strongly feminine. Each person was believed to be either more masculine or more feminine but not both.

This traditional model was challenged by Janet Spence and Bob Helmreich in their research monograph, Masculinity and Femininity published in1978. They proposed a model in which masculinity and femininity were seen as separate and mostly independent dimensions of personality. So in this model there are two continua: masculinity, from high to low and femininity, from high to low. That is, any individual can be either high or low on masculinity and at the same time be high or low on femininity. This model allows consideration of personalities that are high on both dimensions, low on both, or high on one and low on the other. In this model, women who adhere to traditional gender role specifications would be high on the feminine continuum and low on the masculine continuum. Men who adhere to traditional gender role specifications would be high on the masculine continuum and low on the feminine continuum.

Spence and Helmreich's research, and research subsequent to theirs, have demonstrated reliably that this dualistic model that recognizes high and low degrees of masculinity and femininity in the same individual more accurately represents the gender qualities in people. Interestingly, there is a physiological parallel to this duality. Biologists tell us that everybody, both male and female, have both testosterone and estrogen in our systems. The difference between men and women is in the relative amount or the ratio of each of these hormones to the other. Women have greater amounts of estrogen than testosterone and men have more testosterone than estrogen.

In the dual-dimension model of gender, the combination of gender qualities that is of greatest interest to us is the high masculine-high feminine pattern (high M, high F). Parenthetically, it should be noted that Spence and Helmreich used only highly valued and socially desirable gender characteristics in their self-report assessments of masculinity and femininity. Thus, the high M, high F respondents scored high for the presence of both highly valued masculine traits and highly valued feminine traits.

This group of exceptional people included both men and women. Because these people scored high on both masculinity and femininity, the authors used the label androgynous to describe these respondents. Said differently, these people showed a set of gender qualities, high-M, High-F, that the authors labeled Androgyny. Results of a number of studies by Spence and Helmreich and other scientists have supported the dualistic model and the concept of the androgynous person, male or female.

What do we know about these androgynous people? Spence and Helmreich found that androgynous respondents had higher self-esteem and social competence, greater empathy, high levels of achievement motivation, high educational aspirations, low aggression and dominance, and more egalitarian, gender role attitudes. Further, the sub-groups that had the largest percentages of androgynous members were female varsity athletes, accomplished female and male scientists and lesbians.

Based on their research findings, Spence and Helmreich tell us that one of the implications of these data is the following: The fundamental task of all human beings is to balance their masculine and feminine qualities and that extremes on either without the presence of the other is destructive to the individual and thereby the society. For the traditionally socialized man, his challenge is to temper dominance and control that serves his self-interest and to expand concern for the welfare of others. For the traditionally socialized women, her challenge is to claim her natural power and become an effective, self-actualized person rather than finding her value only in supporting the welfare of others.

The findings of Spence and Helmreich are also being supported by more recent considerations of the qualities that make the best leaders, especially looking at women in leadership roles. In his forward to a recently published, edited volume of success stories written by women leaders, titled Enlightened Power (2005), David Gergen says the following: "The old style (of leadership) was top down, command and control, and directional. Today that kind of command-and-control leadership has given way to a new approach, often called an influence model of leadership. Instead of picturing a leader at the top of a pyramid, we envision her in the middle of a circle with spokes extending outward. . . . the new leader persuades, empowers, collaborates, and partners". The best leader, we are finding, is one who identifies top talent and nurtures and supports them to become leaders in their own right—a leader of leaders. Androgynous women and men are ideally suited to this new leadership style and, perhaps, created it.

Gergen goes on to point out that traditional leadership was typically aggressive, autocratic, strong and closed. Women leaders, and some men leaders, more often lead in ways that could be described as consensual, relational, caring, inclusive, open, and transparent. These different styles of leadership parallel the differences between traditional masculinity and the more balanced androgyny.

A case in point is the findings of a large scale study of CEO leadership styles in relation to corporate performance reported by Jim Collins in Good to Great (2001). Collins found that the leaders of the most successful corporations in his study were best characterized by two qualities: Humility and Will (fierce resolve). These qualities parallel the defining dimensions of androgyny. That is, the most powerful and successful corporate leaders appear to be androgynous, that is, high in a valued feminine quality and high in a highly valued masculine quality.

I think the power of androgyny is derived from three factors. First, when we manifest the best traits of femininity and the best traits of masculinity, we are capable of manifesting a full range of the most valued human behavior.

Second, by integrating valued feminine and valued masculine qualities in ourselves, we are a more complete and whole person. We are more integrated and thus in greater integrity.

And third, by exhibiting the best traits of both femininity and masculinity, that is, when we are androgynous, we are much more adaptive to a range of contexts, situations, issues and tasks. We can be as effective in the board room as we are in the nursery. Further, we are able to relate effectively to a broader range of people about a broader range of ideas, ways of thinking and ways of being. Putting these considerations together and said more simply, when we are androgynous we are all that we can be and the best person we can be.

So, what are the implications of all of this? I think there are several, some for us personally and some for us professionally.

For many of us, part of our job is to facilitate growth and development in our children as well as the people that work for us. That allows them to live more effective, productive and satisfying lives. I believe we ourselves will be more powerful and effective in this task if we come from a place of androgynous gender qualities. I recall from my thorough review of the parent child rearing literature some years ago, that, said briefly, the most effective parenting was firm and loving. Similarly, as androgynous men and women, we can support growth best if find that line that is the balance between clear, respectful confrontation and caring support.

There is value for us and the people around us of demonstrating both feminine and masculine qualities adaptively in our personal lives and in our careers. If we are willing to take on an androgynous way of being and doing, we will experience more functional and satisfying interpersonal relationships and significantly more powerful and effective management, leadership and job performance.

References

Collins, J. (2001) Good to great: Why some companies make the leap and others don't. New York: HarperCollins.

 

Coughlin, L., et al, Eds. (2005) Enlightened power: How women are transforming the practice of leadership. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

 

Gilligan, C. (1993) In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

 

Miller, J. B. (1986) Toward a new psychology of women. Boston: Beacon Press.

 

Spence, J.T. & Helmreich, R.L. (1978) Masculinity & Femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, & antecedents. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.