Androgyny—the 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.