Abstract
Numerous studies have examined the problem of sexual harassment and have proposed models for understanding this problem. Using deconstruction, a literary theory, this article demonstrates a central problem with existing models: the word "power" contains too many concepts to be helpful in understanding sexual harassment. Further, current usage of the word, "power" in conjunction with the problem of sexual harassment creates a problematic "Power/Powerless Model" which precludes the ability of victims of sexual harassment from taking effective actions on their own behalves. This article then divides the word "power" into two central functions, power and authority, and shows how these two functions can reside within the individual as well as between people who occupy different positions. With these concepts, we provide a new model for understanding both fair and unfair hierarchical relationships. We analyze a particular case of sexual harassment using these concepts. Finally, we suggest some research and practical implications for this model.
Introduction
Numerous studies have pointed out the problem of sexual harassment, particularly on the university campus (e.g., Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, and Ormerod, 1988; Grauerholz, 1989; McKinney, 1990; Rubin and Borgers, 1990; Fitzgerald, 1991; Schlozman, 1991; and Barak, Fisher, and Houston, 1992) and in the workplace (e.g., Fain and Anderton, 1987; Riger, 1991; Sheffey and Tindale, 1992; Fitzgerald, 1993; and Charney and Russell, 1994). Sexual harassment can range from relatively mild to severe (Terpstra and Baker, 1987; Fitzgerald, 1991; and Gruber, 1992). It can have grave consequences for many aspects of victims lives, from loss of emotional health to economic deprivation due to job loss (Malovich and Stake, 1990; Rubin and Borgers, 1990; Riger, 1991; Schlozman, 1991; Fitzgerald, 1993; Charney and Russell, 1994). Obviously, this is a problem that must be addressed, yet studies have shown that people can perceive the same behavior in so many different terms (Saal, Johnson, and Weber, 1989; Baker, Terpstra, and B.D. Cutler, 1990; Ellis, Barak, and Pinto, 1991; Fitzgerald and Ormerod, 1991; Jaschik and Fretz, 1991; Johnson, Stockdale, and Saal, 1991; Barak, Fisher, and Houston, 1992; Bursik, 1992; Gervasio and Ruckdeschel, 1992; Jones and Remland, 1992; Barr, 1993; and Marks and Nelson, 1993). Furthermore, it is very difficult to even come up with a definition (Dodds, Frost, Pargetter, and Prior, 1988; Robertson, Dyer, and Campbell, 1988; Malovich and Stake, 1990; Rubin and Borgers, 1990; Schlozman, 1991; Gervasio and Ruckdeschel, 1992; Fitzgerald, 1991; Barr, 1993; Fitzgerald, 1993; ) on which everyone can agree, much less solutions that are effective. Sexual harassment is a complex problem that has yet to be well-understood.
Several frameworks have been proposed for the understanding of sexual harassment. For example, Fain and Anderton, (1987) look at sexual harassment in terms of differences between people in relation to organizational power and diffuse master status--the social status they bring to the organization. Jones, Remland, and Brunner (1987) initially find support for and Jones and Remland (1992) further explore a social exchange framework in which sexual harassment is seen as an exchange between people--the harassment is a price one pays to avoid other consequences. Saal, Johnson, and Weber (1989) mention three frameworks: the "natural" one, in which sexual harassment is a function of the natural attraction between men and women; the organizational framework, which explains sexual harassment in terms of the differences in organizational positions between people; and the socio-cultural model which analyzes sexual harassment in terms of gender difference, particularly the greater access of males to power within our culture. Barr (1993) also explores both the organizational and the socio-cultural frameworks. Grauerholz (1989); Workman and Johnson (1991); and Sheffey and Tindale (1992) present the sex-role spillover framework which combines some of the salient features of the organizational model and the socio-cultural model. Finally, McKinney (1990, 1992) looks at conflict theory and role theory in her efforts to understand "contrapower" harassment in which male college students sexually harass female professors. These theories have some similarities to organizational and socio-cultural frameworks in that they engage with both formalized/institutional and social power differences between people.
With the exception of the economic-style social exchange theory framework, there is a concept that is being inherently explored in most of these frameworks. This is the concept of "power." Power is seen as playing a very complex role in sexual harassment. While so many frameworks and studies deal with the concept of power, their findings are contradictory. On the one hand, Lester, Banta, Barton, Elian, Mackiewica, and Winkelried (1986) and Bursik (1992) have found the relative power of the two individuals to be significant in terms of how people (victims and/or observers) perceive sexual harassment. On the other hand, Fitzgerald and Ormerod (1991); Barr (1993); and Bingham and Scherer (1993) have found the relative power of two individuals not to be significant to the determination of sexual harassment. Fain and Anderton (1987) indicate that both organizational power and diffuse master status characteristics are significant to sexual harassment--neither framework is sufficient by itself to determine instances of sexual harassment. Finally, Grauerholz (1989), McKinney (1990), and McKinney (1992) examine what they call "contrapower," situations in which women faculty who hold organizational power have been sexually harassed by male students.
Power, then, is a very complex subject. It has a significant effect on the lives of people, for better or for worse. Yet it is a concept that is used without definition and without a thorough understanding of the implications of its use. The purpose of this paper is to develop an understanding of the concept of power as it is currently being used in relation to sexual harassment. This understanding will be developed through a form of linguistic analysis, deconstruction, which will demonstrate some significant limitations to the present concept of power. We will then propose an alternative framework that accounts for the limitations we find.
Deconstructing Power
As Cutler (1991) points out, deconstruction is a theory that exposes the linguistic constructs that are not overtly apparent in any given text, but which have significant ramifications for that text. Cutler demonstrates that the DSM III is based on linguistic oppositions that ultimately place a great distance between two people, the counselor and the client. This article provides a basis for exposing the linguistic assumptions on which the concept of power is based.
Consider, then, the concept(s) of power which are presented in the following seven excerpts:
1. The Organizational Model stipulates that the authority relations that exist within a given organization hierarchy and climate create opportunities for sexual harassment behaviors. Differential power, the numerical ratio of males to females, the norms of the organization, and the availability of formal or informal grievance procedures are aspects of the organizational infrastructure that are hypothesized to affect the incidence of harassment. The Socio-Cultural Model describes sexual harassment as a result of society's differential distribution of power and status between men and women, and as a mechanism for maintaining men's dominance over women in the workplace and throughout the general economy according to accepted sex-status norms. (Saal, Johnson, and Weber, 1989, 264)
2. Bill has power over Mary and it is the misuse of this power which plays an important role in making his treatment of Mary particularly immoral...But is this misuse of power what makes this action one of sexual harassment?
If it is, then it must not be restricted to formal power of the kind which Bill has over Mary--the power to dismiss her, demote her, withhold benefits from her, and so on. We also usually think of this sort of formal power in cases of police harassment. But consider the harassment of women at an abortion clinic by Right-To-Lifers. They cannot prevent the women having abortions and indeed lack any formal power over them. Nonetheless, they do possess important powers--to dissuade the faint-hearted...and to increase the unpleasantness of the experience of women attending the clinic. (Dodds, Frost, Pargett, and Prior, 1988, 115-116)
3. Although the present investigation operationally defined power as one's formal position in an organization, power may stem from any of several sources in addition to formal authority, such as work group alliances, personal characteristics, and control of valued resources. (Bingham and Scherer, 1993, 243)
4. ...there appear to be several factors that influence faculty when they evaluate the ethical acceptability of sexual relationships with students: mutual consent, the opportunity to evaluate, the status and age of the student, outcome, and whether or not the student initiated the relationship. Each of these factors appears to represent a misunderstanding of the power dynamics involved in faculty-student relationships. For example, the notion of mutual consent begs the question of whether such mutuality can actually exist in a situation where the participants are of markedly different status... (Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, and Ormerod, 1988, 338) [italics original]
5. Numerous studies exist on sexual harassment in academia. Almost all of this research, however, deals with the sexual harassment of students by faculty or with the harassment of faculty by other faculty...The assumption has been that sexual harassment occurs only when the offender has formal power or status over the victim. This assumption has led most researchers to ignore the possibility that students can sexually harass faculty. (McKinney, 1992, 627-628)
6. Rather than report their experiences to administrators or grievance committees, most respondents indicated they reported it to no one, to their department chair, or to another faculty member. One explanation for this finding is that individuals in the role of "victim" feel helpless, powerless, and concerned with retributions so they refrain from reporting the incidents. (McKinney, 1990, 436)
7. Sexual harassment has the potential for devastating impact on the victim's self-concept. Because of the common consequences, reconstruction of self-concept is likely to be the primary treatment goal. Given the diminution of self-esteem or, stated differently, the destructive effects for the global self-concept and the concomitant ego strength, a major therapeutic task should be to buttress the psychological identity and coping mechanisms of the victim-client. In other words, the client needs to be empowered. (Woody and Perry, 1993, 141) [italics original]
These seven excerpts have been selected from current literature on sexual harassment in order to present a variety of ways in which the concept of power has been used. It is this combination of seven excerpts which will form the basis of the deconstruction presented here. They will be referred to by the number we have assigned them.
To begin with, there seem to be several words that are associated with, differentiated from, or substituted for the word, "power":
Associates Substitutes Differentiates
Differential Authority (1) Status (1, 5)
power (1) Powerless (6)
Formal
power (2, 5)
Differential power appears to refer to the ability of some people to control others, a relationship of control that is not reciprocal. Formal power is related to a specific kind of control--the kind that is bestowed on individuals by institutions. Words like "differential" and particularly "formal" modify the concept of power, creating a taxonomy of sorts, something which has to do with kinds of power. This concept is most clearly seen in 2, when the authors contrast formal power with the power that Right-to-Lifers have.
The notion of the word "authority" as a substitute for "power" will be discussed in the following section. As for now, it is enough to note that it appears to have no independent function in excerpt 1. The word "status" is used in conjunction with power--as if the concept of status adds to the concept of power. Power does not include this concept. In contrast to the conjunction between power and status, "powerless" is an opposition to the concept of power. It indicates that power is missing.
The question becomes, then, what is power? It is not status--which might be seen as some kind of institutionally-derived set of rights or abilities (1, 5). By itself, it might refer to some kind of ability to do something (the Right-to-Lifers in excerpt 2 can do something even without "formal" power). It comes from various places (3), including something about the individual human being ("personal characteristics") as well as some kind of ability to control that is not institutionally determined ("valued resources"). It determines whether a person is able to consent to a sexual relationship (4). The lack of power means that a person is unable to act on her own behalf (6). It is something that can be given to someone (excerpt 7). It's clear from this confusing collection of ideas, that there are some very complex dynamics that occur between human beings, especially in relation to a concept like sexual harassment, and a small word like "power" cannot begin to cover them all. Further, even the use of modifiers with the word "power" does not successfully differentiate the functions of "power."
Cutler (1991) points out the centrality of opposition to the concept of deconstruction. The function of the opposition that has been identified here, Power/Powerless, has a particularly pernicious role to play in sexual harassment and other forms of oppression. As has been seen, so many studies have focused on the "power" of the harasser, whether that "power" is derived from the harasser's gender or position in the institution. If the harasser has "power," what does the victim have? As excerpt 6 suggests, she has nothing because she is now "powerless."
The notion of "powerlessness" would include, if we draw from the mishmash of definitions of power:
•A lack of rights or abilities
•An inability to do something
•A deficit or lack in one's personal characteristics (these characteristics fail to yield power)
•An inability to control even outside the institution
•An inability to consent to sexual relationships
•An inability to act on one's own behalf
There are two related problems with the notion of powerlessness in relation to victimization: first, it does not reflect the reality which several researchers have explored that victims of sexual harassment do have rights and that many have been able to act on their own behalves in response to sexual harassment (Grauerholz, 1989; Gruber, 1989; Rubin and Borgers, 1990; Bingham and Scherer, 1993; Charney and Russell, 1994; and Bart and O'Brien's review of women's effective strategies to avoid rape).
Secondly, and this is essentially an amplification of the first point, the notion of powerlessness, as it plays out in what we call the "Power/Powerless Model" of sexual harassment, precludes agency on the part of the oppressed in general. The main ramification of the Power/Powerless Model is that women as a whole are unable to change the institutions that give rise to sexual harassment. Instead, we must wait until those with the "power" share it or "empower" us to change. This scenario is not likely to happen in any significant way; people are not likely to give up that which benefits them and provides them with relatively unlimited access to the things they want.
Deconstructing the notion of power, we see that it contains many contradictory and complex elements. Furthermore, in conjunction with its opposition, it creates a linguistic model for understanding human relationships that precludes an oppressed group from taking action. As Cutler (1991) points out, the oppositional aspect of language means that it fails to represent our experiences as human beings. While this is an on-going condition of language, in the instance of sexual harassment this particular opposition prevents us from using language to articulate the dynamics that have so profoundly affected women's lives and, more importantly, our options.
What is needed, then, is a framework that unpacks the many ideas that have traditionally been contained in the word, "power." This model should also reflect some of the realities of sexual harassment which are concealed by the Power/Powerless Model, particularly reflecting the options a woman might have in countering incidents of sexual harassment. In the following section, such a model is presented. Its usefulness in explaining the dynamics of sexual harassment will then be explored.
Authority and Power
The word "authority," as we have seen, has been used interchangeably with the word "power." Most dictionaries and thesauruses offer authority as a meaning for power and vice versa. Yet, ignoring this particular interchange, the words do seem to go off in two different directions. Here are the definitions, from the venerable Oxford English Dictionary:
Authority:
I. Power to enforce obedience.
1. Power or right to enforce obedience; moral or legal supremacy; the right to command, or give an ultimate decision...
2. Derived or delegated power; conferred right or title; authorization...
3. Those in authority; the body or persons exercising power or command...
II. Power to influence action, opinion, belief.
4. Power to influence the conduct and actions of others; personal or practical influence...
5. Power over, or title to influence, the opinions of others; authoritative opinion; weight of judgement or opinion, intellectual influence...
6. Power to inspire belief, title to be believed; authoritative statement; weight of testimony. Sometimes weakened to: Authorship, testimony...
7. The quotation or book acknowledged, or alleged, to settle a question of opinion or give conclusive testimony...
8. a. The person whose opinion or testimony is accepted; the author of an accepted statement. b. One whose opinion on or upon a subject is entitled to be accepted; an expert in any question. (Compact OED, 143) [italics original]
Power:
I. As a quality or property.
1. Ability to do or effect something or anything, or to act upon a person or thing...
2. Ability to act or affect something strongly; physical or mental strength; might; vigour, energy; force of character; telling force, effect...
3. Of inanimate things: Active property; capacity of producing some effect; the activ principle or virtue of a herb, etc...
4. Possession of control or command over others; dominion, rule; government, domination, sway, command; control, influence, authority...
5. Legal ability, capacity, or authority to act...
II. As a person, body, or thing
6. One who or that which is possessed of or exercises power, influence, or government; an influential or governing person, body, or thing; in early use, one in authority, a ruler, governor.
7. A celestial or spiritual being having control or influence; a deity, a divinity...
8. In mediaeval angelology, The sixth order of angels in the celestial hierarchy.
9. A body of armed men; a fighting force, a host, an army...
10. a. A large number, a multitude, a 'host' of persons (not a military force); b. A large number, quantity, or amount of things... (Compact OED, 2263)
Again, there is a lot of overlap between these terms, but there are some significant differences, as well. It is because of these differences that we employ the term "authority" as well as the term "power" in our model.
In the excerpts, and in the definitions provided above, there are two significant functions that are different: control--over other people or things, and energy--the ability to act. Authority is control; power is energy. Every human action requires energy--power. Many actions require a certain amount of control over that energy. To get out of bed, to tie one's shoes, to write a memo, to drive a nail--all of these things require a certain amount of control in order to accomplish and the energy to do the work. If either authority or power is missing, these actions do not get accomplished.
Actions can be accomplished by a single person or they can be accomplished by more than one person working together. When they are accomplished by more than one person in a hierarchical relationship, one person or group can be considered the authority--controlling the actions of the other person or group--and the second person or group is the power--using energy to accomplish the action ordered by the first person or group. We call these hierarchical relationships between two people or groups "Authority/Power Relationships." We will be discussing two types of Authority/Power Relationships (APR's).
Thus, in the framework we are proposing, there are two aspects of authority and power which are significant: the attributes within the individual, which we call Personal Authority and Personal Power, and the attributes of relationships between individuals or groups, which we call Positional Authority and Positional Power. The positional elements derive from membership in a group or institution; these elements change as an individual changes membership or position in an institution. That is, when a person becomes the CEO of a company, he or she gains Positional Authority; when he or she retires or quits from that position, that person loses the authority that accompanies that position. In contrast to the positional elements, the personal elements accompany the individual no matter what position that individual occupies, and no matter to what group the individual belongs.
Where our analysis of what was formerly known as "power" differs from those represented in the excerpts above (and, indeed, across the literature on sexual harassment), is in terms of the concepts of personal power and personal authority. This difference is key to understanding women's options when faced with sexual harassment. Personal power is energy, something which all human beings have--we are born with it. Even babies have personal power, as harried parents well know. Certainly toddlers have personal power--boundless, endless energy. We retain this personal power throughout our lives. It is the energy allows us to move our bodies and to take actions.
Personal authority, in contrast, is not something we are born with; it is something we develop throughout our lives. We have indicated that personal authority is control. Human beings can exercise several different kinds of control over themselves. Physical control allows us to channel physical energy into movements precise enough to allow us to get dressed, feed ourselves, play the violin, type on a keyboard, and so forth. Intellectual control of ourselves allows us to gain and use knowledge--to make choices about what areas of knowledge we might pursue, for example. Emotional control allows us to interact with other people in positive ways even if we have strong feelings about something. If we all had temper tantrums every time we got angry, our interactions with each other would be extremely unpleasant. Finally, and most importantly, ethical control allows us to make decisions that take into account what is best for both ourselves and other people--no matter how we might feel about those decisions.
These types of control are developed in the individual during childhood and adolescence. Physical control begins to develop rather early. It is the easiest kind of control to develop because much of this control accrues with physical maturity. Intellectual control takes somewhat more time, but is still developed relatively easily, through the acquisition of knowledge. Both emotional and ethical control require a great deal of work on the part of parents and teachers as well as the child in order to develop. While a person might develop a great deal of both physical and intellectual control by the end of adolescence, emotional and ethical control are lifelong challenges. Each of these kinds of controls is a type of maturity. Personal authority is predicated on the development of these types of maturity.
As a society, we have been used to defining adults simply as people with some kind of physical maturity, usually age. This definition is legally codified. Unfortunately, this kind of definition of maturity masks an understanding that is central to unravelling the complexities of problems such as sexual harassment: to the extent that a physically mature human being has failed to develop the three other forms of maturity--most particularly emotional and ethical maturity--then that person does not have personal authority. That person is not an adult but is an overgrown child.[1]
Finally, within our theoretical system there is an important set of relationships between personal authority and power and positional authority and power. The relationships between the personal and positional elements within hierarchical relationships generates two different kinds of Authority/Power Relationships: fair and unfair. It is important to understand how constructive hierarchical relationships work in order to comprehend the problems of the destructive relationships. We will examine these two types of APR's and then show how sexual harassment can be explained through the concept of the Unfair Authority/Power Relationship.
Fair Authority/Power Relationships
An Authority/Power Relationship is a hierarchical relationship in which one person is in the position of authority and one person is in a position of power. The position of authority governs the position of power; thus the person in the position of authority contributes the control while the person in power contributes the energy for the tasks accomplished by the pair. Even though the person in the power position does not have institutionalized authority, there is a type of authority available to that person and that is personal authority. Thus, the power position does not rob the individual of personal authority--the ability of the person to control him or herself. The person in the authority position also has personal authority, and this personal authority is a significant part of the relationship between the two people.
How does this work out in "real life"? Consider the case of a supervisor and an employee, both adults in the personal authority sense of that word. The supervisor governs the actions of the employee. Yet the supervisor has personal authority, which means that even though she ostensibly has the right to govern many aspects of the behavior of the person in the power position, her actual use of the positional authority is limited by her emotional and ethical maturities. For example, within the realm of positional authority, a supervisor might have the right to require an employee to work overtime. The personal authority of that supervisor allows her to recognize the employee's need to have time off and to meet personal obligations outside of work; therefore the supervisor chooses not to require overtime unless there is truly a need for it. In other words, while the supervisor does use the authority allotted to her by her position, her personal authority ensures that she takes into account the rights and personhood of the person in the power position. Her personal authority limits her positional authority.
But what if this paragon of virtue and maturity makes a mistake? Here is the key to what makes this relationship a positive one: the person in the power position has personal authority, too. This means that while the person in the authority position governs the energy of the person in the power position in relation to the work they are accomplishing together, the person in the power position uses personal authority to make a very important decision: whether or not to allow her energy to be used in the way that the person in the authority position asks. In other words, the person in the power position uses her emotional and ethical maturities to judge whether or not it is appropriate for her to use her energy in a given manner. If it is not appropriate, then she may choose to remove her energy from that aspect of the authority/power relationship.
An extreme example of the removal of energy by people in power positions from the governance of the person in the position of authority would be labor strikes. The authorities (managers and owners) can accomplish nothing without the energy (power) of the workers, and the factories shut down at least temporarily. In a relationship in which the authority position is occupied by a mature adult, the chances are that any problems that the person in the power position perceives with what she is being asked to do will be negotiated between the two on adult to adult terms and will not require the employee to quit the job or go on strike. In the example of overtime, the employee lets the supervisor know of the difficulties of working overtime. They then work together to find a solution that will get the work done and allow the employee to meet other obligations. Both people, then, will use personal authority in an interaction which will determine how the positional authority and power will be enacted by both parties. In this interaction, while there is a hierarchical difference in the positions of the two people, there is no hierarchical difference in their personal characteristics (they both have personal authority). Thus, the problem solving that takes place is between two equals because personal authority gains ascendancy over the positions that the two people occupy.
The point here, and this cannot be emphasized too much, is that positional authority is dependent on positional power--the willingness of the person in the power position to use her energy in the way the authority commands. The personal authority--the ethical and emotional maturity--of the person in the power position is the ultimate safeguard that keeps an adult to adult authority/power relationship healthy and productive because that personal authority determines whether the terms of the positional power will be fulfilled and therefore whether that work will be accomplished. Personal elements, then, are stronger and more significant than the positional elements of a relationship when both parties are emotionally and ethically mature adults.
Unfair Authority/Power Relationships
By now the reader may be guessing the salient feature of Unfair Authority/Power Relationships--that they feature the marked lack of personal authority on the part of at least one member of the dyad. But there is more to this concept than meets the eye, so we'll unpack it as completely as we did the Fair Authority/Power Relationship. Like the Fair APR, the Unfair Authority/Power Relationship is hierarchical and features one person in a position of authority and one person in a position of power. Again, the person in the authority position has control over the actions of the person in the power position.
The difference here is that in an Unfair Authority/Power Relationship, the person in the authority position lacks personal authority. That is, this person lacks personal self-control, particularly in the areas of emotional maturity and ethical maturity. This lack has very serious ramifications for the relationship.
The overgrown child in the authority position makes a substitution: s/he substitutes positional authority for personal authority. This substitution of positional terms for personal terms privileges positional elements over personal elements. Because the overgrown child has no personal authority of his/her own, s/he fails to recognize or acknowledge it in the person who is in the power position. In fact, s/he does everything possible to erase the personal authority of the person in the power position, including hiring people who are not likely to have personal authority and using fear tactics with people whose personal authority is not particularly strong. With positional elements foregrounded and the personal elements erased, the safety mechanism of the Fair Authority/Power Relationship (the personal authority of both members of the relationship, but particularly of the person in the power position) is disabled. Negotiations of the adult to adult variety are impossible in this situation, although other actions are possible, as will be seen.
This erasure of personal authority has grave consequences. There are no limits on the exercise of authority by the overgrown child in the authority position. The overgrown child uses the position of authority as an excuse to command not only that the person in the power position complete certain kinds of work in a particular fashion in relation to the nature of the authority vested in him/her, but also s/he uses it as an excuse to command many other aspects of the power person's life--including, in the case of sexual harassment, the sexual availability of that person. The threat of being fired from a job during an instance of sexual harassment by a boss towards an employee, whether that threat is made implicit or explicit, is an example of the unfair use of positional authority (the ability to fire someone) completely unfettered by personal authority (which would include the recognition of the harm sexual harassment does to another person).
Finally, Unfair Authority/Power Relationships are not simply limited to unpleasant working environments and other forms of authority granted by government, private, or business institutions. Unfair APR's characterize a social class system in which some groups are in unfair positions of authority over other groups. Social institutions such as slavery and patriarchy (and there are many others) create relationships in which the personal authority of whole groups of people--their adult rights to make decisions about and to control their own lives--have been erased. Unfair Authority/Power Relationships are pervasive and pernicious. The failure of the overgrown children in positions of authority to develop emotional and ethical maturity--to control their own emotions and to take into account the adult rights of others--has led to so many of the excesses that have heretofore been attributed to the misuse of "power," including the problem of sexual harassment.
Challenging Unfair Authority/Power Relationships
Our critique of the Power/Powerless Model was predicated on the way in which that model linguistically precludes the possibility of action on the part of the victim. Where our model differs significantly from the Power/Powerless Model is at the level of the possibility of effective action that leads to change. Furthermore, as will be seen, these actions have already been taken by individuals in their efforts to cope with Unfair APR's. As will be seen in detail below, these actions have not been understood or recognized for what they are in the literature on sexual harassment because of the limitations of the Power/Powerless Model to account for action by the person or people who are in power positions.
Since the Unfair Authority/Power Relationship privileges the positional elements over the personal, the key to challenging this kind of relationship is to bring the personal elements into the picture. What we learned from Fair Authority/Power Relationships is that the personal authority of the person in the power position is the key to the health of the relationship. If the person in the power position uses personal authority to choose to not fulfill the terms of the power position, the person in the authority relationship is helpless (powerless). Authority without power is impotent.
Perhaps at this point, one might imagine large strikes of women who refuse to be part of organizations in which sexual harassment occurs. While that might be one way to use personal authority by an oppressed people, it is not likely to happen on a scale that is large enough to make some kind of significant difference. So many woman cannot afford to lose their jobs for the length of time it would take to make these changes (keep in mind that according to Parks (1992) the Montgomery, Alabama bus strike that led to the changes in segregation laws took longer than a year). The concept of personal authority--the authority that each individual has the possibility of developing--creates the possibility of individual solutions to individual instances of sexual harassment. These solutions are tailor-made to the particular contexts of the instance of sexual abuse. Over time, and as more and more individuals use personal authority, the institution itself is being challenged.
Responding to Sexual Harassment
Although the "powerless" aspect of the Power/Powerless Model is not typically stated overtly, it can be seen in the accounts of women's actions in response to sexual harassment. We will examine one study in particular in order to demonstrate the ways in which the Power/Powerless Model obscures our understanding of the ways in which women can and have responded to sexual harassment. Then we will analyze an account of the type of sexual harassment represented in that study.
In her study of "contrapower" harassment in which women professors were being harassed by their male students, Grauerholz (1989) lists several kinds of responses and how effective the victims of harassment thought them to be:
| Strategy | % | Effective (%) | Somewhat | Not effective (%) |
| Nothing, did not seem serious enough | 58 | - | - | - |
| Nothing, was concerned about possible repercussions | 9 | - | - | - |
| Tried to ignore it, avoided person(s) | 33 | 25 | 60 | 15 |
| Spoke to student's counselor about it | 3 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Confronted the individual directly | 39 | 52 | 40 | 8 |
| Filed an informal complaint with university officials | 3 | 0 | 50 | 50 |
| Filed a formal complaint with university officials | 2 | 0 | 100 | 0 |
| Filed a formal complaint with organization other than the university | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Other | 13 | 43 | 29 | 29 |
Approximately 32% of Grauerholz' sample of 208 women responded to the question which yielded this chart. In her text, Grauerholz mentions that "Other" strategies included warning other women faculty in the department who had the same student and changing telephone numbers to unlisted.
The majority of women here (58%) took a "powerless" stance[2] ostensibly because the incident about which they were writing did not seem important enough. Others (9%) were afraid to address it. And some (33%) took the "powerless" stance of ignoring the incident and avoiding the person in question. Finally, at least one of the "Other" strategies can also be seen as "powerless," those that involve changing one's telephone number. These stances leave the unfair authority/power relationship in place; the harasser continues to enact a position of authority because of his maleness over the teacher. When the victim uses avoidance tactics, the harasser continues to be in control because the victim changes her behavior in response to him (e.g., leaving the room when he enters, changing her phone number and putting up with the hassle that entails).
How effective are "powerless" strategies at addressing the problem? Effectiveness is not even a factor when the person took no action--so for the majority of the people in this study who experienced this kind of sexual harassment, there was no effective response to incidents that were at least bothersome enough to report on a questionnaire. Avoidance tactics were effective or somewhat effective 85% of the time, presumably in stopping the interaction between the two people directly involved. In the analysis of a particular instance below, we will see that there is the possibility of doing better than this--of putting the harasser (and on-lookers) in the position of having to recognize and learn from the harasser's mistaken behavior. Finally, since "Other" includes several tactics mixed up together, it is hard to discern the effectiveness of the "powerless" tactics represented.
One of the most effective strategies presented, on the other hand, was that of confronting the individual directly. Confrontation was ineffective for only 8% of the respondents who used this strategy. While a finding of this sort would seem to encourage women to use confrontation, an understanding of personal authority reveals that there are many ways to discuss a problem with another person. Some of these ways reflect the use of personal authority, and others of these ways would fail to. Bingham and Scherer (1993) discuss recent interest in individuals' methods of communication in their interactions with harassers about the harassment. Unfortunately, Grauerholz' study, like so much of the literature (e.g., Gruber, 1989 and Charney and Russell, 1994) lumps together all modes of "confrontation" such that it is impossible to determine how the strategy was used.
Other strategies, such as reporting the incident (whether formally or informally to university officials, to the students' counselor, or to other female faculty members) reflect a use of positional authority insofar as the person making these reports is using her positional authority granted by the university to address the gender-related Unfair Authority/Power Relationship which the student is enacting. While these types of strategies may contribute to an effective use of personal authority, as will be seen in an example below, they can often involve women simply relying on the authority of others (university administration) to address the problem. The ability and effectiveness of institutional response to sexual harassment has not been consistently demonstrated.
Finally, in relation to "contrapower" harassment, Kilcoyne (1991) recounts her response to a student who made harassing remarks on class attendance sheets. The remarks were made anonymously. She discussed the problem with the chair of her department and, at his request, a lawyer and the dean. They helped her to determine that she would deal with this publically with her whole class:
One of the dean's points in particular helped me to muster the courage to speak to my class: the behavior was so unusual and could indicate a serious problem. I began my announcement by stating that I never thought I would ever be saying what I was about to say and that I felt embarrassed. I then told them about the remark, how disturbed I felt about it, and to whom I had spoken. While I talked, I know my voice cracked with emotion more than once. Even though the person I suspected had cut class that day, the remarks stopped nevertheless. (240)While the remarks stopped, the student's disrespect did not. The student often came late to class and "giggled" (240) when the class discussed feminism.
Kilcoyne took further steps. She was able to identify the culprit based on his handwriting following the midterm exam. She made a second announcement to the class indicating that she knew who the person was and that he had 48 hours to get in contact with her to discuss the situation. When he failed to do so even after one week, she contacted the dean. The student was called in and then sent to her to apologize:
I think he [the student] assumed I was going to berate him, but instead I told him how the incident had made me feel. I said I was angry not only because he violated the boundaries of the student/professor relationship but because he also altered the relationship I had with a class I liked. I told him it was embarrassing to have so many of my colleagues know what he did. It was embarrassing to have to stand up in front of more than 30 students to discuss what had happened. In addition, I knew it was talked about all over the dorms, and my department chair was even asked about it at the gym.Following her discussion with the student, Kilcoyne noticed significant changes in his behavior. She summarizes her own feelings about the outcome of the incident:
The dean asked the student to think of a punishment. I suggested he write a 4-5 page paper on harassment...The student readily agreed to this assignment. (240)
Finally, from a personal perspective, the support given to me made me able to take a step back from the anger and embarrassment. My initial inclination was to try to force the student to withdraw from my class. But now I see that some good has resulted from our discussion. (241).
Kilcoyne's rich description of the incident, her response, and the outcome provide an opportunity to understand how personal authority can be effectively used in the response to unfair authority/power relationships. When the student wrote those remarks on the attendance sheets, he was enacting an unfair authority/power relationship based on gender and rooted in the patriarchal stance that females cannot have any type of authority over males. Kilcoyne's initial reaction was anger and embarrassment, but the support she received from the chair and the dean helped her to control those feelings[3] (emotional maturity) such that they did not prevent her from taking an action (discussing the incident with the whole class and continuing to pursue the incident).
Her control over her emotions also helped her to avoid taking another path--making him withdraw from the class--which would have solved the problem for herself but not for the student or any other women with which he would have contact in the future. This is a form of ethical maturity which considers not only what is best for the self (that the offensive behavior stop) but also what is best for the other (that the student learn from this incident and that because of this learning, other women would be less likely to be harmed by this student). This last aspect is particularly significant for Kilcoyne, who states, "I believe that young people in particular do not learn unless they see the consequences of their actions" (p. 240).
Note that the emotional control that contributed to Kilcoyne's effective handling of this incident did not include denial of her emotions. A very important aspect of Kilcoyne's talk with her class and talk with the individual student was the fact that she reported how she felt about the incident. What is key here is that she did not "berate" (240) the student. In other words, she discussed the existence of her anger and embarrassment without directing them toward the student. Kilcoyne's ability to acknowledge her feelings without using them to take some kind of emotional revenge on the student is a particularly mature quality.
Finally, it is important to note two things: first, that Kilcoyne did not aid the harassment by hiding its evidence. Her willingness to deal with it publically (even though that was difficult to do) gave the harasser the message that there would be consequences for his disrespect towards her. Secondly, Kilcoyne's emotional and ethical maturity caused her to follow through on her word. In other words, Kilcoyne did not make empty threats at any time during this incident.
In his study of the personal characteristics of men who are likely to be sexual harassers, Prior (1987) found that these men are less likely to be able to take the perspective of another person. Of course, being able to take the other's perspective is an aspect of ethical maturity, as we have pointed out. Through presenting her perspective to the student in a way that kept his defenses to a minimum (he was probably relieved not to be berated), and then following up her own perspective by requiring the student to further investigate the problem that he created, Kilcoyne was challenging this aspect of this overgrown child. She required him to develop his ethical maturity at least to some extent. Kilcoyne points out that the results of this incident not only included valuable lessons for the individual who harassed her, but also for the other students who were part of the class in which she addressed the issue, and even for the informal grapevine of people around the college who knew about the situation.
Kilcoyne recognized the violation of the "student/professor relationship" (240), which is an Authority/Power Relationship. Given the personal authority of Kilcoyne, we can assume that she does her best to create a Fair Authority/Power Relationship in her classroom, in which her positional authority is tempered by her personal authority. The student did, indeed, violate that APR through attempting to substitute an Unfair Authority/Power Relationship based on gender, in which he had a position of authority and Kilcoyne was placed in a position of power.
The erasure of personal authority that so often happens in this kind of violation and substitution is based on the complicity of silence. The person in the power position feels, as Kilcoyne did, embarrassed, and often afraid. For many, these strong feelings are enough to silence their voices, and, in so doing, to cooperate with the authority of the harasser. Yet Kilcoyne did not cooperate with the attempt to substitute the Unfair APR. She used her personal authority--her ability to control her own voice--to choose to make the incident public and therefore to not cooperate with the terms of silence and anonymity required by the authority in this Unfair Authority/Power Relationship.
Thus, Kilcoyne's personal authority removed her from this patriarchal relationship, thereby disabling this male's positional authority and reasserting the original professor/student Fair Authority/Power Relationship. Despite her considerable pain in this instance, Kilcoyne did not simply turn around the Unfair APR, becoming the positional authority without personal authority who abuses the person in the power position. In fact, one can see from this account the ways in which Kilcoyne's personal authority grew during the course of this painful incident such that she was able to require from the student actions (e.g., listening to her perspective and writing a paper about the problem) which were to the greater good of the student (helping him to begin to develop personal authority).
Implications of the Authority/Power Relationships Model
The Authority/Power Relationships Model represents a conscious attempt to take into account the differences between hierarchies that result in work that is rewarding to both parties and hierarchies that result in pain and oppression. It accounts for both institutional and social hierarchies. And, it accounts for the abilities of people who are in the position of being oppressed to take effective action on their own behalves--but action which also benefits oppressors because it requires them to grow up--to develop the maturities that are necessary for good working and social relationships. These actions end oppression without the use of violence.
This model is a new one. We have seen that most of the current literature, for example, fails to differentiate between personal authority tactics and tactics which fail to represent personal authority. In terms of research that engages with this model, we need to rethink our definitions and taxonomy of responses such that research models do not obscure the effective actions that oppressed people take on their own behalves. We need also to find instances of effective responses to sexual harassment (and other forms of oppression) and to analyze them in relation to ideas of personal authority.
The practical implications of this theoretical framework are profound. How do we help people to develop personal authority so that these Unfair Authority/Power Relationships might be ended--those who have been victims of sexual harassment and those who have been perpetrators? Certainly the notion of the different types of maturities might be helpful. There is a need, which this article could not fulfill, to further explicate the notion of personal authority--and to outline the principles of personal authority tactics.
Sexual harassment is a societal problem which is enacted in the relationships between individuals. The purpose of this article has been to analyze our current ways of understanding this problem and to propose a new way that mitigates the limitations of the current model. We hope this new way contributes to effective ways of addressing the problem.
References
Baker, D.D., D.E. Terpstra, and B.D. Cutler. 1990. Perceptions of sexual harassment: a re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology, v. 124, 409-416.
Barak, A., W.A. Fisher, and S. Houston. 1992. Individual difference correlates of the experience of sexual harassment among female university students. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 22, 17-37.
Barr, P.A. 1993. Perceptions of sexual harassment. Sociological Inquiry. v. 63, n. 4, 460-470.
Bart, P.B., and P.H. O'Brien. 1984. Stopping rape: effective avoidance strategies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, v. 10, n. 1, 83-101.
Bingham, S.G. and L.L. Scherer. 1993. Factors associated with responses to sexual harassment and satisfaction with outcome. Sex Roles, v. 29, 239-269.
Bursik, K. 1992. Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles, v. 27, 401-412.
Charney, D.A., and R.C. Russell. 1994. An overview of sexual harassment. American Journal of Psychiatry. v. 151, n. 1, 10-17.
Cutler, C.E. 1991. Deconstructing the DSM III. Social Work. v. 36, 154-157.
Dodds, S.M., L. Frost, R. Pargetter, and E.W. Prior. 1988. Sexual harassment. Social Theory and Practice. v. 14, n. 2, 111-132.
Ellis, S., A. Barak, and A. Pinto. 1991. Moderating effects of personal cognitions on experienced and perceived sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 21, 1320-1337.
Fain, T.C. and Anderton, D.L. 1987. Sexual harassment: organizational context and diffuse status. Sex Roles, v. 17, 291-311.
Fitzgerald, L. 1993. Sexual harassment: violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, v. 48, n. 10, 1070-1076.
Fitzgerald, L. and A.J. Ormerod. 1991. Perceptions of sexual harassment: the influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 15, 281-294.
Fitzgerald, L.F. 1991. Sexual harassment: the definition and measurement of a construct. In Paludi, M.A., editor. Ivory Power: Sexual Harassment on Campus. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Fitzgerald, L.F., L.M. Weitzman, Y. Gold, and M. Ormerod. 1988. Academic harassment: sex and denial in scholarly garb. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 12, 329-340.
Gervasio, A.H., and K. Ruckdeschel. 1992. College students' judgments of verbal sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 22, 190-211.
Grauerholz, E. 1989. Sexual harassment of women profesors by students: exploring the dynamics of power, authority, and gender in a university setting. Sex Roles, v. 21, 798-801
Gruber, J.E. 1989. How women handle sexual harassment: a literature review. Sociology and Social Research. v. 74, n. 1, 3-9.
Gruber, J.M. 1992. A typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: research and policy implications for the 1990's. Sex Roles, v. 26, 447-464.
Jaschik, M.L. and Fretz, B.R. 1991. Women's perceptions and labeling of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, v. 25, 19-23.
Johnson, C.B., M.S. Stockdale, and F.E. Saal. 1991. Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 15, 463-475.
Jones, T.S. and Remland, M.S. 1992. Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, v. 27, 121-142.
Jones, T.S., M.S. Remland, and C.C. Brunner. 1987. Effects of employment relationship, response of recipient and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, v. 65, 55-63.
Kilcoyne, P. 1991. Handling harassment by a student. PS: Political Science and Politics. v., 24, 240-241.
Lester, D., B. Banta, J. Barton, N.Elian, L. Mackiewicz, and J. Winkelried. 1986. Judgments about sexual harassment: effects of the power of the harasser. Perceptual and Motor Skills, v. 63, 990.
Malovich, N.J. and J.E. Stake. 1990. Sexual harassment on campus: individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 14, 63-81.
Marks, M.A. and Nelson, E.S. 1993. Sexual harassment on campus: effects of professor gender on perception of sexually harassing behaviors. Sex Roles, v. 28, 207-217.
McKinney, K. 1990. Sexual harassment of university faculty by colleagues and students. Sex Roles, v. 23, 421-438.
McKinney, K. 1992. Contrapower sexual harassment: the effects of student sex and type of behavior on faculty perceptions. Sex Roles, v. 27, 627-643.
Oxford University. The Compact Edition of the Oxford English Dictionary: Glasgow: Oxford University Press, 1971.
Parks, R. with Haskins, J. 1992. Rosa Parks: My Story. New York: Dial Books.
Pryor, J.B. 1987. Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, v. 17, 269-290.
Riger, S. 1991. Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, v. 46, n. 5, 497-505.
Robertson, C., C.E. Dyer, and D. Campbell. 1988. Campus harassment: sexual harassment policies and procedures at institutions of higher learning. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, v. 13, n. 4, 792-812
Rubin, L.J. and Borgers, S.B. 1990. Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980's. Sex Roles, v. 23, 397-411.
Saal, F.E., C.B. Johnson, and N. Weber. 1989. Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, v. 13, 263-276.
Schlozman, K.L. 1991. Sexual harassment of students: what I learned in the library. PS: Political Science and Politics. v., 24, 236-239.
Sheffey, S. and R.S. Tindale. 1992. Perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, v. 22, 1502-1520.
Terpstra, D.E. and D.D. Baker. 1987. A hierarchy of sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology, v. 121, 599-605.
Woody, R.H. and N.W. Perry. 1993. Sexual harassment victims: psycholegal and family therapy considerations. American Journal of Family Therapy, v. 21, n. 2, 136-144.
Workman, J.E. and K.K.P. Johnson. 1991. The role of cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment. Sex Roles, v. 24, 759-769.
End Notes
[1] We want to make it clear here that there are differences between real children and overgrown children. On the one hand, real children are under the care of an adult--a parent or legally assigned caretaker--whose responsibility is to both control the child to keep him or her out of trouble and to help the child develop the four different types of maturity. We do not expect children to naturally have these maturities at birth. This parent or guardian is the authority which controls the energy of the child until the child is able to control his/her own energy.
Overgrown children, on the other hand, do not generally have a caretaker to keep them out of trouble or to keep them from hurting others--to control their behavior (the exceptions to this are developmentally disabled people and the mentally ill, whose lack of personal authority is legally recognized). For whatever reason, overgrown children have not developed personal authority--yet they are treated as if they have.
[2]We are aware of the negative connotations of the word, "powerless" and the possibility that our concept of personal authority might lead some people to blame victims of discrimination when they fail to use personal authority tactics. Both the Power/Powerless Model and unfair authority/power relationships are entrenched to such a degree in our society that it is not surprising that many people use essentially passive strategies for coping with pervasive oppression. Our efforts here and elsewhere are to help people become aware of personal authority tactics before pain and anger lead them to violent strategies.
[3]We have stated that emotional and ethical maturities are lifelong challenges. Particularly when something traumatic happens, we may retreat from these maturities. One of the differences between adults and overgrown children is that adults are able to seek the support they need in relation to the trauma such that they can regain their emotional and ethical maturities. Overgrown children can't.
No comments:
Post a Comment