Genes, Brains and Gendered Behavior: Rethinking Power and Politics in Response to Condit, Liesen, and Vandermassen

Abstract

In response to the commentaries by Condit, Liesen, and Vandermassen, I argue that we lack a more nuanced understanding of women's political behavior (and therefore politics in general) because of the sustained barrier between the social and natural sciences, historical missteps, researcher bias, and perhaps an inclination to ask the wrong questions. By taking a Darwinian feminist approach to exploring gendered political behavior, and with the tools of behavior genetics and cognitive neuroscience, we can better understand the psychological and behavioral repertoires of men and women as well as predict political outcomes.

Using Power to Influence Outcomes

“…Power is also associated with organizational politics, positioned as both a tool and an outcome. In 1936, Lassell defined politics as “who gets what, when, and how” (Hannagan, 2008, p. 505). Hanscome (2000) cemented this connection, summarizing mid-1990s scholarship by writing: “Power is routinely negotiated among individuals as part of the ongoing political process” and cited Mainiero’s (1994) study where respondents, speaking of politics, were “referring to power dynamics and how they negotiated for either power or status or both” (p. 43).…”

“…McClelland and Burnham (1976/2003) saw power, defined as the desire to make an impact, as its own motivator for taking action. Hannagan (2008) proposed that we must also look at genes (given that broad personality constructs are inherited, and that different genes are present), hormones, neurotransmitters, and brain structure, to flesh out the study of how individuals use power. But are those physiological differences the only determinants of how men and women use power differently as individuals?…”

“…Many scholars recognized that early work on organizations, politics, and power were describing men’s experiences and presenting those as the norm (Carli, 1999; Duffy, 1986; Hannagan, 2008; Miller & Cummins, 1992; Smith & Grenier, 1982). Four years after Raven and French wrote their seminal work in 1959, less than 15% of managers were women, and less than 3.8% were Black women (Garfinkle, 1975).…”