FINDING THE SECOND FACE OF POWER

Several decades ago, Bachrach and Baratz (Reference Bachrach and Baratz1962) critiqued the assumptions and limitations inherent in the study of political power in terms of tangible and quantifiable aspects. They argued that dismissing intangible and difficult-to-measure dimensions of power wrongly assumes that these aspects of power are inconsequential to the political process. A more comprehensive measurement of power should include what they call the “second face of power.” The second face of political power includes a group's ability to control the political agenda and confine the scope of conflict to the issues that dominant interests deem important. This process is not neutral; rather, it is predicated on contemporary hegemonic values and beliefs about stigmatized groups. Bachrach and Baratz claim that “the distinction between important and unimportant issues … cannot be made intelligently in the absence of an analysis of the ‘mobilization of bias’ in the community; of the dominant values and the political myths, rituals, and institutions which tend to favor the vested interests of one or more groups, relative to others” (Reference Bachrach and Baratz1962, 950).

Much as Bachrach and Baratz argue that phenomena assumed to be inputs to politics (e.g., invisibility, hierarchies) are really produced through politics, social and political theorist Judith Butler argues that categorical designations, rather than reflecting a natural or preordained hierarchy in society, are defined by the prevailing social and political institutions (Reference Butler1990). The common adage “it is what it is” has no place in the analyses of Bachrach and Baratz or Butler. The visibility and apparent salience of some issues and the invisibility and apparent unimportance of others is an effect of the political process, not an outcome. This second face of power is intimately linked to the maintenance and preservation of dominant interests (the political winners). Dominant interests are sustained through both tangible means such as institutions, laws, and resource distribution, and intangible means such as the reinscribing and reinforcement of socially created understandings of political losers and winners.

Bachrach and Baratz challenge the validity of using a static, one-dimensional measure of power in research, because this approach restricts our understanding of the dynamic and multidimensional concept of power. Examining the political and social processes through which groups are stigmatized or privileged may come closer to integrating the two faces of power that are present in many political disputes. The role of sexuality and gender in the political process often falls under the category of this second face of power. Although they are more difficult to measure, cultural norms and social institutions transmit standards of what is gender appropriate and sexually acceptable (Butler Reference Butler1990). Those standards are subsequently fueled and maintained through the political process. In short, “a social construction approach views sexual desires and practices as existing within social contexts in which power structures are present” (Asencio Reference Asencio2002, 2).

CONSTRUCTING SEXUALITY, GENDER, AND POLITICS

Scholars have examined how different categories of identity interact with the political environment and result in inequitable policy outcomes. Political actors' perceptions and portrayal of a particular group's identity help shape the types of policies that are designed for that group. Populations that are positively characterized are more likely to encounter advantageous policies, whereas negatively characterized populations are more likely to encounter policy measures that are punitive and coercive. Schneider and Ingram (Reference Schneider and Ingram1993) broadly organize populations into four target groups based on the intersection of the group's social construction (positive or negative) and political power (strong or weak).

Public officials are sensitive to how the target group will react to the policies they advocate because of the potential payoff (or backlash) that the official may receive when facing reelection (Haider-Markel and Meier Reference Haider-Markel and Meier1996; Mooney and Lee Reference Mooney and Lee2000). Populations classified in both the positive and strong categories (e.g., the elderly or corporate interests) tend to be advantaged by politicians, because these groups can assist in bids for reelection. Groups who are negatively constructed and politically weak (e.g., drug addicts or welfare recipients) often find themselves on the political agenda as recipients of punitive policies, because politicians do not fear retribution from them. Moreover, positively constructed strong groups tend to support coercive legislation (either explicitly or by tacit compliance) aimed at negatively constructed weak groups. This dynamic makes certain policy areas ripe for political actors' gain at the expense of the policy recipients and consequently often leads to illogical policy design (Schneider and Ingram Reference Schneider and Ingram1993, Reference Schneider and Ingram2005).

Advancing a policy agenda is an iterative process, because it often plays on existing social understandings of a group while simultaneously helping to create and shape those understandings. However, without contextualizing the ways in which a dominant group has defined a policy's target group, the research shortchanges potential theoretical developments and insights that could help explain and predict the future of the particular policy area. For example, many morality policies persist despite evidence that demonstrates their ineffectiveness. Abstinence-only education clearly illustrates this dynamic. To date, there is an absence of credible evidence demonstrating the efficacy of abstinence-only curricula and public opinion is not supportive of such an approach; however, throughout the Bush administration, these programs grew significantly in terms of resources and breadth of state implementation. An understanding of the discursive relationship between social construction and morality policy helps account for this paradox (Doan and Williams Reference Doan and Williams2008).

Adolescents, the target group of abstinence-only education policy, are politically weak; they are both seen and unseen in society, depending on the aspects of their lives, choices, and experiences that are being deliberated. When issues such as juvenile crime, teen pregnancy, or teen sexuality are under debate, teens as a group become very visible and hence are easy targets of legislation. Beyond any discussion of their “deviance,” however, teens are largely invisible. To further complicate this dynamic, at any one time, several definitions and understandings of adolescents' sexuality exist simultaneously, even if they contradict one another. Commonly, simplistic portrayals of teen sexuality betray the more complex and racialized understandings of sexuality that have enabled abstinence-only education to become folded into welfare reform. When racial stereotypes dovetail with preexisting perceptions of welfare abuse and dependency, young black women are often defined as “welfare queens.” Black women, in particular, have historically been characterized by dominant groups as having an “excessive and corrupted sexuality” (Fields Reference Fields2005, 549). This stereotype has now enveloped African American teens, who have become the underlying political focal point in welfare legislation.

Welfare and abstinence-only sex education have been legally tied together through the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) because of the perceived need to protect sexually pure, white American teens and control racially “other” teens, who are defined as both hypersexual and likely to become welfare dependent. Understanding the contextual relationship between social construction and policy can help account for the insertion of abstinence-only policy into welfare reform. Abstinence-only policy is only possible to the extent that the policy capitalizes on socially constructed understandings of adolescence, sexuality, race, and gender. In turn, the policy reinforces, legitimizes, and perpetuates a particular social construction of teens.

The importance of integrating social construction analysis into research is not limited to policy areas that are explicitly moral in nature. Studies span policy domains such as welfare, housing, and immigration (Schneider and Ingram Reference Schneider and Ingram2005). Other research has examined more nuanced social constructions of gender and sexuality, taking into account the complexity of “the relationship among multiple dimensions and modalities of social relations and subject formations” (McCall Reference McCall2005, 1771).

Intersectional research has examined the ways in which discrimination, inequality, and policy outcomes are shaped not only by prevailing macro-social divisions, but also by the variation that exists within these more universally constructed categories (Crenshaw Reference Crenshaw1991). For example, Cohen (Reference Cohen1999) has examined the African American community's underwhelming political response to the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The findings of her research suggest that the lack of political action regarding HIV/AIDS cannot be separated from the larger cultural taboo in the African American community that discourages open discussion of within-group variation relating to gender, class, and, particularly, sexual orientation. In this context, political outcomes cannot be parsed from the social meanings attached to interlocking and stigmatized categories of identity, because they simultaneously act as causes for each other.

Socially coded group identity overlooks an important aspect of the causality equation. Many governmental policies are rife with underlying meaning and are only possible to the extent that recipients of the policy are understood in very specific terms. However, in the absence of a social construction analysis, policy outcomes appear to be the result of explicit decision-making conducted in formal institutions using a clearly bounded policy process. The effects of the less tangible aspects of the second face of power on target populations are rendered irrelevant by students of politics and, in turn, are made invisible to the general citizenry. Similarly, electoral outcomes appear to result from aspects of the political process that can be observed and measured in tangible ways (e.g., financial resources, the incumbency advantage). But sexuality and gender do have an impact on electoral outcomes. I am not arguing that institutions and political processes are not important; rather, I seek to illustrate that the second face of power is an important aspect of the process. The public's underlying and usually unacknowledged acceptance of hierarchies related to sexuality and gender contribute to their assessment of candidates who depart from the white heterosexual male standard. Although a substantial group of scholars has rigorously investigated the difference that gender makes in electoral politics, not until the 2008 presidential campaigns featuring Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton did it become palpably obvious that socially constructed understandings of sexuality and gender are relevant to political outcomes (even if SNL was required to drive this point home).

Discrimination and stereotypes persist in influencing the electorate's behavior, particularly when commonly held characterizations of sexuality and gender are disrupted or challenged. Much evidence suggests that voters rely on gender stereotypes when evaluating a candidate's beliefs and traits (Huddy and Terkildsen Reference Huddy and Terkildsen1993). Gendered beliefs structure a voter's perception of a political candidate's ability to handle various issues. Gender stereotyping of a female candidate produces a more positive evaluation of her ability to deal competently with issues such as education, poverty, and health care but a less favorable evaluation of her ability to competently deal with policy issues such as foreign affairs, economics, and the military—areas that are linked with masculine stereotypes (Huddy and Terkildsen Reference Huddy and Terkildsen1993). Gender stereotypes also come into play when evaluating women's personality traits. Female politicians are frequently ascribed such stereotypical traits as being more compassionate, warm, and passive than their male counterparts (Dolan Reference Dolan2004; Sanbonmatsu Reference Sanbonmatsu2002).

Although the norms that underlie discrimination against female candidates seeking office are different from those that are employed for sexual minority candidates seeking office, they both continue to shape opportunities and barriers for candidates. Golebiowska (Reference Golebiowska2002) conducted a survey of gay and lesbian political candidates that asked them to assess the impact of their sexual orientation on their electoral pursuits. Her findings suggest that gay and lesbian candidates receive lower evaluations than their heterosexual counterparts, and that sexual minorities who seek elected offices are less likely to receive electoral support. This pattern is particularly pronounced for gay male candidates who fit the stereotype of being effeminate (Golebiowska Reference Golebiowska2001).

On the surface, Barney Frank, Hillary Clinton, welfare recipients, and teens appear to have little in common. However, as disparate as these people and groups seem to be, they all continue to be read as deviating from norms of gender or sexuality (or both). Their perceived deviance has influenced political outcomes, and, in turn, these outcomes have shaped and informed how their groups are perceived in society.

Students of politics are in a unique position to challenge and analyze both the surface and subsurface realities involved in generating political outcomes. The SNL skit featuring a sexy, flirtatious Sarah Palin and a manly, no-nonsense Hillary Clinton smartly reflected academic research demonstrating that even in high-profile presidential campaigns, media coverage disproportionately focuses on the personality traits and appearances of female candidates as compared to their male counterparts (Lawless Reference Lawless2009). The roughly five-minute skit manages to portray what political science has failed to show. By positioning the Palin-Clinton skit as the feature rather than a secondary part of the episode, SNL took sexuality and gender seriously, giving relevance and visibility to the issue. With fewer anecdotes and research that is more informed and nuanced than political punditry, political scientists would be wise to follow suit.