Men and Women Take on the Economy Together

It's Thanksgiving and my gratitude prize immediately goes to President-Elect Obama for his economic team. Not because it was the first team he had pulled together, nor for the accumulated talent therein. I'm grateful for the sheer symbolic power of his choice of team members: alongside the two obvious men were two surprising women. Tim, Larry, Christina and Melody: half men, half women in a balanced partnership to face a global crisis and reshape the economic culture of the early 21st Century.

I guess that many people will object to the way I am framing this event: women might feel offended that I find it remarkable that there are as many women as men in the front line. Men may draw attention to the imbalance in their distributed powers and challenge the notion that it is a team at all. Both could take a look at Cambridge University findings about the distinctly masculine nature of the meltdown: there's much to explore there.

Meantime, don't underestimate the power of the image - Obama hasn't. Let's ask ourselves what he might be trying to achieve by bringing the four of them together on the stage.

What has been more powerful in this past month, than the image of the Obama family, laughing and clearly loving, on the stage in Chicago? We know so little about any of them - but the sheer spectacle of their unity has caused more optimism in the media than I've experienced for a long time. Why is that? Is it because it reaches beyond our rational brains to our emotional responses, eliciting a positive feeling about the future that politicians rarely generate?

Or is it that Obama is the very model of soft power: soft as in engaged, personal, co-creative, networked, family-orientated - all as the source of power? And are these qualities that we yearn for in politics, but so rarely find - even from the women who get involved?

In a recent interview I did with Marie Wilson, founder and Director of The White House Project, she drew attention to the difficulty for women as messengers for family values:

"If women focus too much on their children they will be considered divided in their commitment and unfit for office. When women talk about diplomacy it's seen as avoidance of action - women have a harder time wielding soft power than men.

"Joyce Fletcher described her work with a group of engineers - mostly men - in her book Disappearing Acts: Gender, Power, and Relational Practice at Work. Whenever they had disputes in the workforce, it was always the women who mediated using what Fletcher understood to be their feminine power -what I would call soft power. But this was not seen as power by the men: it was seen as mothering or nurturing, a marginal skill that could be taken for granted.

"That's why Hilary had such a tough time in the elections: if she didn't show hard power, the same power as the men, she looked powerless.

"But Obama used soft power - he became the woman in the race - and he won it that way. He was never afraid to talk family, show love, ask for emotion from the electorate. And he is still here, showing the women how to do it".

The messages Obama is sending out are profound: he gives men permission to be attentive fathers as well as providers. He gives women prominence as mothers, as much as as economists or lawyers. As a team the Obamas honour their children as well as civic life. Not holding back on these images and these projections of love and care, gives Obama what Joseph Nye would call the power of attraction - soft power. Meaning: we are drawn to it through our own desire for it.

I predict that this will open the door to far more political participation from women in the future as well as a new kind of participation from men. Can't you already see men vying to be the best father, rushing home early from a session of policy making, just to 'be with' (not sort out) the kids? Men taking responsibility for their daughters and their sons, happy to model a masculinity which is both caring and protective.

And I can see women bringing their female skills and values right into the heart of government, instead of leaving them at home. Strong in their soft power, proud as mothers and carers - ready to create new partnerships with men to deliver the changes promised.

And for that, today, I am truly thankful.

Comments

[canta]

Obama does seem to possess something of an integrated whole, a "mix of hard and soft power skills" as Nye says. With Western Civilization thinking based on separation and duality, it's more common to have the world presented to us in polarities - right versus wrong, male v female, mind v body, hard v soft. However, this period with Obama as president-elect is exceptional as it is a period of promise rather than delivery, one where he is protected from 'the howling winds of power' and therefore can present himself as soft in the sense of "engaged, personal, co-creative, networked, family-orientated". It is inevitable that post January 09 Obama will disappoint some by flexing his muscles. I remain in awe of Obama and consider his election as one of the most exciting political events in my lifetime; I am still moved to tears at the thought of kids at my children's tough multi-racial inner-city London school jumping for joy at his election and feeling connected to a political movement for the first time in their lives - but I cannot help wondering how long, in the cold corridors of power, Obama can embody the integrated non-duality of humanism?

[LeeChalmers]

Great post Indra. Its interesting to hear Marie Wilson say that in many ways Obama became the woman in the race. I would say that the US is not ready for a female President because the idea is still considered too odd. Id like to point to the media for a moment to illustrate my point.

In the popular show 24, the President of the US is a black man. In films such as The Fifth Element and Deep Impact we see the same image. Its not remarkable, its just presented as something that may well be the case in the future. However, the notion of a female president is so 'way out there' that it requires a show all of its own, 'Commander in Chief' so we can marvel at the oddity and wonder whatever will she do next.

It's the dearth of female role models in politics that makes it harder for women to gain entrance to office than men. Much work needs to be done to ensure that all women can see the notion of running country as not preposterous, but simply something that can happen in the future. Hopefully not too a long away a future....

[infinity]

Drivel. And I thought I was voting for President of the United States not a facilitator for a Large Group Awarness Training class. Good for a couple of laughs, though.

[RI]

I think Obama is a true role model, as you point out. (Now, we can speak of these things. During the campaign, I would not have wanted to see what the fear mongers would have done with such ideas).

Having just read Robert A Johnson's "Owning Your Own Shadow : Understanding the Dark Side of the Psyche," it seems to me that Obama is a master of "owning his shadow" in a balanced and life-affirming way. For men, the shadow includes the feminine and for women the shadow includes the masculine. Most of the time these energies or aspects of the psyche are demonized or repressed. It is a great achievement Obama can honor and express some feminine strengths (of his own, his spouse and other women) in public life, while maintaining his identity as a strong man.

[richardvjohnson]

Indra, thank you! While the blogosphere is focussed on assessing blame for Mumbai, you've stated the REAL dynamic.
There is a real clash of civilizations going on. It's not about Islam vs Christianity or free-market Capitalism vs Socialism. It's between societies which have empowered women (North and South America, Northern Europe, Israel, China) and those which have not (the Islamic world, Africa, India). In this sense, India, the victim of Mumbai, is no better than the terrorists...
BUT with the boomer generation in America and I can only hope elsewhere in the West, men have become reponsible for parenting for the first time in human history, leading to the generation of children who have just elected Barack Obama to save our planet (though it may be too late for the polar bears, tigers, and whales).

[indraadnan]

Thanks Richard. What you have identified is the crucial change " that it is not one or two women that can make a difference, but that it is groups, societies and yes, generations of people who begin to choose "softer" values " be they men or women. That does not add up to passivity, or loss of order and clarity as some people fear, but different, more effective action " active engagement, attention to relationship, human development, transforming conflict etc We have been living in a strongly masculine culture " competitive, dualistic, work obsessed and, despite the internet, emotionally disconnected. There is room for change.

[papapj]

Don't know if there is such a thing as 'soft power', Indra. The female of the species always has been deadlier, though testosterone does have it's own brutish preeminence, for what it's worth.

Balance and equity are necessary, and the more inclusive Obama Administration can only give a more representative and exemplar view of America.

[indraadnan]

Papaj " Soft Power continues to be an unknown quantity. Is it simply the power that one nation accumulates by becoming attractive to other nations as Joseph Nye describes? Or can it be also be understood as the source of that power, a feminine quality that engages, relates, opens up people and conflicts so that they become attractive?

Although I do think that women have innate soft power " qualities that come in part from generations of mothers nurturing " I also believe that women need to be in feminine environments to allow those qualities to emerge. Isolated female leaders " Thatcher, Meir, Rice even Gandhi " often take on the masculine powers in order to lead the men around them. And as you say, they do it well.

Hard powered cultures are in favour of strong masculine leadership: they work through winning over losers. Soft powered culture is in favour of partnership and co-operation: that means finding effective relationships between men and women, soft and hard power for the sake of all.

[jnye]

I think you are correct, and I like your post. In my recent book, The Powers to Lead, I argue that soft power is not simply related to nations, but to any groups or individuals. As we try to understand leaders, we must note that they have a mix of hard and soft power tools to choose from. Obama has a very good mix of hard and soft power skills. I also agree with your point that in politics today, it is more difficult for women to use their soft power tools. Let us hope that some day, we will see that gender stereotypes get in our way, and and in some contexts men need to act more "like women" and women more "like men." Effective leaders need the contextual intelligence to know when to use hard and soft power skills regardless of gender.

[hippynanainblingland]

How, exactly, do you come to the conclusion that the female of the species always has been deadlier? It is not women who create armies and merrily march off to war, nor is it women who kill their exes in droves when pushed out of the nest, mostly for abusive behavior. I'm open, please explain your assertion to me.