What part does gender play in our perception of authority? This is the question that researchers across disciplines seek to answer. Here I will analyze several texts to develop an understanding of the impact of gender, of both the "leader" and "subordinate," on authority.
It is first important to note that there is a significant difference in the levels that women and men obtain and exercise authority. Rudman and Kilianski explain that:
"The gender gap in authority reflects chronic power differences between men and women. This disparity, prevalent throughout history and across and cultures, may stem from traditional labor divisions, in which men and women have traditionally been assigned occupational and domestic roles, respectively" (2000, p. 1315).
Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, and Opeil (1977) define authority as "to engage in behavior that can be described as active, assertive, and aggressive" (p. 366). The exercise of explicit authority is therefore masculine in nature due to the tendency toward outwardly forward behaviors. Generally, the authors found female figures of authority to be less respected and less liked. However, even when their male counterparts they were still respected. (Jacobson, Antonelli, Winning, & Opeil, 1977).
The important distinction here is that although males t occupy positions of authority more often than women, it does not mean that those subordinated to that authority necessarily like that figure. Instead, they are viewed as simply "doing their job." Females, however, who engage in the same sort of behavior are not likely to be viewed the same; she is viewed as cold, unfeeling, and void of femininity. Additionally, there are differences in how the authority figure is viewed depending on the sex of the subordinate. For example, if the female authority has a female subordinate, it is considered only a partial reversal of roles. However, if the female authority has a male subordinate, she is viewed completely unfavorably as the situation is counter to traditional gender roles (Jacobson et al., 1977).
Another interesting factor that Jacobson et al. considered in their discussion of authority figures was the responsibility of the involved parties. The authors found that women were more likely to be held accountable for the role reversal, and therefore negatively evaluated. The fact that a man has experienced a role reversal is not his fault for he did not deliberately place himself in a subordinate position and did not alter his behavior to be subservient. The female, on the other hand, actively sought out a position of authority and is therefore negatively evaluated in her role (Jacobson et al., 1977).
It is important to understand the prescriptive nature of traditional gender roles--because men have traditionally occupied positions of power, it must continue to be that way. Female leaders are therefore viewed as "intruders" stepping on the toes of men by usurping their power and authority. Essentially, because female leaders are unfamiliar, they are threatening and even disliked (Rudman & Kilianski, 2000).
The other scenario that Jacobson et al. examined was concerning the nonuse of authority. Rather than punish the subordinate, the authority figure expresses disapproval, but ultimately lets the offense go. This passive, softer approach is more congruent with traditionally feminine roles. As a result, male figures who fail to punish are viewed more harshly than female authority figures in the same situation. However, the authors point out a very specific way in which female authority figures are harmed by both exercising and not exercising authority:
"On the other hand, since the subordinate has transgressed in some way, the authority figures may be perceived as not doing his or her job if he or she fails to take action against the subordinate. If so, the negative evaluation might affect the female authority figure more than the male because females are often considered unfit for positions of authority and their lack of positive action may serve to confirm the subject's suspicions in that regard" (Jacobson et al., 1977, p. 371).
On the issue of nonuse of authority, they evaluated whether there was a difference in evaluation depending on the sex of the subordinate and the sex of the authority figure. The "friendlier" approach was viewed by most as being more effective when used against members of the opposite sex. Therefore when women treat other women leniently they are viewed negatively, but if women fail to treat me leniently they are viewed negatively. Ultimately, the passive approach is more expected to come from women, so they are evaluated negatively if they do not employ it against men, while these same actions are tolerated when committed by men (Jacobson et al., 1997).
Their conclusions ultimately find that while men are evaluated based only on their behavior and the nature of that behavior, women are not. Instead, women are judged based on their behavior and that behavior is screened through a gendered lens to evaluate the acceptability of her actions.
The other important aspect of the construction and maintenance of authority is the ability of authority figures and subordinates to communicate, and in what avenues. If an individual fears being overruled by an authority figure, they are less likely to trust their superior. In effect, lines of communication will be significantly restricted, showing communication as a meter for measuring the level of trust and security. Additionally, the extent to which those in authority honor the ideas and acknowledges the concerns of subordinates will indicate the level of trust in the relationship (Aghion &Tirole, 1997).
Communication and trust are significant factors in determining the ability of a figure to command power. In order for an authority figure to obtain real power, it must be granted and consented to by those subordinated over which his or she has power. Meaning that those subject to the control of that individual must respect him or her in order for the relationship to be successful. The process by which they earn this respect depends on the levels of communication there are among the group (Seckmand & Couch, 1989).
Seckman and Couch find that the way that figures of authority use and participate in humor identifies their leadership style. The authors conceptualize jocularity and sarcasm as two distinct social acts that require analysis. It is explained that jocularity is the process of people laughing together. During this process, "social barriers, such as those of status, temporarily are lowered" (Seckman & Couch, 2000, p. 328). In this view, jocularity indicates unity. Sarcasm, conversely, communicates "social distance." It indicates that someone needs to distance themselves from a certain activity, person, or activity. Although it is intended to create social distance, sarcasm requires a mutual understanding of the symbols that make language sarcastic (Seckman & Couch, 2000).
Ultimately, it is concluded that there are differences in the perception of female and male authority figures based on their gender, their traditional roles, and the ways in which they exercise authority over subordinates. It is also relevant to note that there are different ways in which authority figures acquire and maintain the trust of those they have power over. Additionally, the style of humor and communication manufactures relational differences among individuals.
Using these theories as a basis for understanding power and authority dynamics, I will examine the different ways that two different characters in similar situations behave differently because of constructed gender norms. Star Trek: The Next Generation's Captain Jean Luc Picard and Star Trek: Voyager's Captain Kathryn Janeway occupy relatively identical positions as first in command aboard a star ship.
The shows take place in the 25th century and showcase the adventures of the United Federation of Planets vessels throughout the universe. The main mission of the ships is "to seek out new life and new civilization; to boldly go where no one has gone before." Due to the nature of their missions, they often encounter a variety of different types of missions. Some are military in nature, some are scientific, and a good portion are diplomatic. As leaders, the captains must be ready to face any kind of confrontation that is likely to occur while they are in command of the star ship.
Both series contain a variety of different species and races that the ships encounter. Much of the crew aboard the star ships are either human or humanoid--which means species that are like humans physiologically.
Captain Picard is a seasoned captain of the USS Enterprise. Picard is a human from a small village in France. He is extremely philosophical, thoughtful, and extremely well-read. He has a real passion for theater--especially Shakespeare. His closest relationships are with his First Officer Commander Riker, who he fondly refers to as "Number One" and the Chief Medical Officer Beverly Crusher, whom he was friends with before they served together. As a person, he is not extremely emotional, but does possess some sentiment for more traditional customs. Additionally, Picard is not an extremely social creature; he often appears uncomfortable in social situations.
As a leader, he maintains a significant level of professionalism. For example, in one episode, "Night Terrors," the entire crew suffers from a lack of REM sleep as the result of a space phenomenon. This lack of REM sleep causes the crew to feel paranoid, confused, forgetful, and even sometimes violent. In one scene, Captain Picard is in a "turbolift" (elevator), when he begins feeling as though the turbolift is about to fall apart. He crouches on the floor and begins screaming in fear. When he reaches the "bridge" (main helm control and operations), his intended destination, it is revealed that the situation was all an illusion. The captain stands up, brushes off his clothes and pretends as if nothing ever happened. He does not speak of his experience to anyone. This shows that Captain Picard's pride is extremely important to him.
As part of this need to maintain pride and professionalism, his tone is often serious. Rarely does Picard engage in pleasure or comedy; he is extremely devoted to his work. Much of what he says throughout the course of one episode is one-word or one-line commands. For example, after one of the members of the crew requests a course of action, the captain often responds "make it so" or "engage." It seems that this is the way that Captain Picard maintains distance from the other members of the crew so as not to get too emotionally involved with any one person. It is not as though the captain does not care for the members of crew, he just feels the need to create a separation between himself and others.
An example of this is in the episode "Galaxy's Child" is when Captain Picard becomes agitated at the humor of others. The premise of the episode is that the Enterprise has interrupted the birthing process of a large space creature that remains unidentified throughout the episode. When normal security measures do not deter the mother creature from draining the energy of the ship, Captain Picard orders his tactical officer to fire on the creature, which in effect kills her. The young is born and immediately attached to the star ship as if it is the mother of the creature. The other members of the crew informally refer to the creature as "Junior." In a briefing session, Lieutenant Commander Data, and android who lacks many human emotions, asks honestly if Junior will be the official name of the creature. Captain Picard, who is not amused by the innocence of the questions, responds harshly with "no it is not." As soon as the captain leaves the room, the other members of the senior staff begin laughing and smiling. This demonstrates how uncomfortable Captain Picard is in social situations, especially those involving humor.
As an authority figure, he often is not part of the decision-making process. Instead, he spends the majority of his time in his ready room contemplating the possible solutions that others have compiled. He believes that it is the task of his subordinates to develop and present remedies for the crisis at hand. This is representative of traditionally male constructions of power and authority. The idea that the captain is supposed to arbitrate decisions, and not collaborate, is indicative of a level of superiority; the captain is above pooling resources with other members of the crew like equals. In briefing sessions, when the senior staff are deciding what to do about a crisis at hand, Captain Picard rarely, if ever, offers substantial contributions to the conversation.
Another character flaw that demonstrates a level of elitism is the fact that Captain Picard often stays in his "ready room"--a room attached to the bridge--to contemplate his decisions alone. In most aspects of society, men are not permitted to share their more personal thoughts and feelings without being confronted as feminine. Therefore, his need to isolate himself and his individual beliefs are in line with this way of thinking. His role as an authority figure only furthers these implications. Maintaining open communication is essential for maintaining a level of trust amongst most groups. However, Captain Picard does not command trust and decision-making capabilities in this same way. Instead, the crew is just supposed to trust him and believe in what he has to say. And they do. The Captain does not have to work to earn their respect continuously, he seems to just have it indefinitely as the result of his status as captain.
Ultimately, Picard is a masculine leader who upholds masculine ideologies. He is well-educated, well-read, a high-level thinker, a decision-maker, and a "do-er." However, the way that he demonstrates these characteristics is what is most indicative of conformity to gender norms. Picard seems to belong to a group of intellectual elites; he does not place himself on the same level as his crew, does not laugh with his crew, or cry with his crew. In one episode, when the entire ship is confronted with the prospect of inevitable death, he retreats to his quarters where he plays fine classical music and begins to read.
Captain Kathryn Janeway commands the USS Voyager. The premise of the show is that while on an exploratory mission, the ship is trapped in a worm hole and transported from the Alpha Quadrant (where Earth is located) to the Delta Quadrant, which is many, many light-years away. It is expected that the trip for them to get home would take more than thirty years. Therefore, Captain Janeway is put in a unique position. She is isolated from Star Fleet (the Earth chapter of the United Federation of Planets), without back-up, and in a part of the galaxy that is mostly unknown and uncharted. As a result, they encounter life-forms and circumstances that are unique and complex.
As a character, Janeway constantly uses sarcasm and humor as a way to make a point to other members of her crew. Also, members of the crew feel comfortable using the same communication devices around her. This indicates a level of trust and companionship between the different levels of command. Overall, Janeway's approach to command is much more rooted in real-world consequences. Instead of isolating herself from her comrades, she builds meaningful relationships with many of them; including, but not limited to, her First Officer Lieutenant Commander Chakotay, her Chief Engineer Lieutenant Commander B'Ella Torres, her Chief Medical Officer who, because he is a holographic projection, is simply called Doctor, and her Tactical Officer Commander Tuvok. She is willing to connect with and relate to the members of her crew on a personal basis, provide counseling, and suggest advice.
This personality trait and communication style is a traditionally feminine role. Many perceive women as being the more nurturing of the two sexes; the one to provide care in whatever capacity it is needed. Because Janeway is a woman, she has to maintain a level of femininity or her crew will perceive her as "stepping outside of her role" and view her negatively. When others are facing personal dilemmas, Janeway often provides an anecdote from a previous time in her life to help her comrade through their tough times.
Captain Janeway is very firm in her ways, but her ways are not very firm. Meaning that she often takes the passive, more diplomatic approach. She intends to exhaust every imaginable peaceful possibility instead of hinting at aggressiveness. For example, the crew encounters a violent "hunter" race known as the Hirogen. Only one member of the crew aboard the Hirogen ship is alive, but he is still seriously wounded. All of the others aboard the alien ship were ripped apart and killed by what the viewer comes to know as Species 8472. Despite Voyager's negative past with the Hirogen race, she decides to send an "away team"--a small complement of senior officers--on an investigative mission. She is met with opposition at every decision she makes. Even after the crew is safely returned to the Voyager, she is still facing criticism from members of the crew asking for explanation. This reinforces the idea that the decisions of female leaders are not normally respected, but even less so when they are not outwardly aggressive. It seems as though women are not fit to be in positions of authority if they choose the more diplomatic approach.
To demonstrate Janeway's ability to identify with the crew, the captain often accompanies her away teams on extremely dangerous, and potentially fatal, missions--something that Star Fleet captains are not advised to do. This gives Janeway the opportunity to show that she does not feel superior to other members of her crew and would give her life to save the collective. Additionally, the tendency to go on missions unfit for captains is Janeway's way to "prove herself" to the others. Because she is a woman, she is suspected of being weaker and more frail than her male counterpart. Before others will trust and respect her as a leader, she must show that she is worthy of that trust and respect.
The two characters are interesting in and of themselves but even more interesting as a comparative study. It is not to say that one style of command is preferable to another, but rather that because of social expectations, women and men have to command authority in different ways. Because this is a television program, and not actual leaders in positions of authority, it is reflective of social pressures and norms in an even more pervasive way--what the American people want to see in their television heroes is highly indicative of what they want to see in their real-life heroes.
First, take the issue of humor and communication. Captain Janeway takes a lot more egalitarian approach to interacting with her crew. She tries to demonstrate that she is on the same level as them and does not try to step outside of her traditional gender boundaries by demanding too much respect. Additionally, Janeway uses humor to instill a sense of community with her comrades; she is more interested in building relationships than maintaining rigid levels of command.
Captain Picard, on the other hand, is significantly less light-hearted than Janeway. He maintains a serious tone with his crewmates, does not have as many persisting relationships with members of his crew as Captain Janeway, and is practically offended by humor. All of these traits are attempts to command authority and respect in a different type of way. He wants to distance himself from the others instead of put himself on an equal playing field, which is inside traditional male conceptions of proper authority.
Second, on the issue of problem-solving, Janeway is much more hands-on when it comes to missions than Picard. Picard does not need to engage in dangerous missions or difficult thought experiments because he has already gained the respect and commendation of Star Fleet and his crew. Janeway, on the other hand, seems to still be working to prove herself to others. Additionally, it seems as though Janeway simply enjoys being a part of the problem-solving process, instead of just being a decision-maker. This shows that because she is a woman, Janeway must be more involved in the actual process of inventing solutions or her opinion on the matter might not be as respected as that of a mans.
Finally, there is the issue of overall respect and the ability of the one in power to give orders that others will follow. Janeway is often met with opposition when crew members don't agree with her method of problem-solving. This opposition requires the captain to justify her opinion and decision to those who have absolutely no ability to give her orders or review her actions. Picard is not often met with that same opposition. In fact, his word is often accepted on face value with little-to-no explanation at all.
Gender norms play an important role in everyday life and how we view and enjoy our favorite television shows. Star Trek has been around for decades and many different generations and age-groups can appreciate its content. The show has come a long way in defeating traditional stereotypes of how men and women behave. Star Trek: The Original Series depicted women only in subordinated positions in short dresses, tall boots, and plunging necklines. Over time, the television series have transitioned and changed with social norms, with Star Trek: The Next Generation eliminating the embarrassing uniforms and placing women in positions of power and with Star Trek: Voyager with a female captain. Ultimately, it remains important to stay critical consumers of media so as not to perpetuate gender stereotypes to the detriment of social progress.
