The basic duality of living: A discussion of unmitigated agency and communion beyond psychopathology
Dr. Marjolein Lips-Wiersma
Department of Management Studies
University of Canterbury
Private bag 4800
Christchurch
New Zealand
Fax: 0064 3 3642020
Abstract
The study reported in this paper discusses the findings of a qualitative analysis of career histories with a focus on the relationship between agency and communion. The findings of this study show that themes of agency and communion as significant motivational themes underlay changes across the life-span (McAdams et al, 1996) and in the specific context of career are clearly articulated by the research participants and actively shape career choice and transition. These findings strengthen the importance of emergent theory on agency and communion. In doing a qualitative research study of agency and communion in the context of daily living over a period of time, opportunities for expanding agency and communion theory itself emerged. It was found that the themes of agency and communion do not only address a continuum between self- and other-orientation as commonly held at present (Hermans and Hermans, 1995), but also address a continuum between ‘being’ and ‘doing’. Furthermore current theory on agency and communion treats the relationship between agency and communion as either independent or oppositional (Leonard, 1997) whereas the findings show that the relationship between agency and communion is one of dynamic tension in which research participants struggle to simultaneously combine themes of agency and communion in their career but over a life-span make career choices and transitions, to shape a career that includes motivations of both self- and other orientations and both ‘being’ and ‘doing’. The findings partly confirm the duality assumption underpinning Bakan’s theory and provide an empirical base for it while showing the importance of dynamic tension in shaping lives. Agency and communion theory have been referred to as one of the most influential ideas in personality psychology to date (McAdams, 1996) and this study clearly shows the impact of agency and communion motivations in shaping career. It is therefore suggested that this study may offer avenues for further research in order to enrich agency and communion theory and develop more dynamic models of the relationship between agency and communion.
Key words
Agency and communion
Narrative
Career
Introduction
Agency and communion theory (Bakan, 1966) has been referred to as one of the most influential ideas in personality psychology today (McAdams, 1996). Agency and communion have been found to be significant themes in autobiographical research (McAdams, 1996) and unmitigated agency and communion is often drawn on in order to explain neurosis or unbalanced emotional development (Bar-Yam Hassan, 1987). However how and whether the relationship between agency and communion, as implied in Bakan’s writing on duality, is present and actively shaping daily living has not been addressed to any significant extent (Leonard, 1997). Drawing on a three year empirical study on career development over a life-span, the study reported in this paper seeks to further understand the relationship between agency and communion.
Agency and communion theory, as described by its founder, Bakan, is based on the assumption, that there is a basic duality in human existence (Bakan, 1966) or opposite trends in human motivations (Angyal, 1965) between self-orientation and other-orientation where one of these motivations can suppress the other which results in unbalanced individual and collective human development. There is a significant body of psychological literature that talks about psychologically unhealthy lives. However in this body of literature psychological illness is viewed as a result of personal unhealthy emotional responses or traits, rather than as a loss of balance or equilibrium. Agency and communion theory is different in this respect in that authors consider a definition of health or wellbeing to be the balance of the agentic and communal dimensions within the individual (e.g. Bonanno and Castonguay, 1994; MacDermid et al, 1998), as well as society (e.g. McAdams, 1998). The “moderation or balancing of agency with communion therefore provides a proper goal of the individual throughout life” (Bakan, 1966, p. 236). Although unmitigated agency and communion is increasingly being used to explain differences between healthy and unhealthy psychological life patterns, the duality assumption; whether individuals perceive oppositional motivational trends, are able to articulate these or actively try to reconcile these by balancing agency with communion in their daily lives has not been supported nor empirically tested to any significant extend.
The relationship between agency and communion
Agency refers to “existence of the organism as an individual” and manifests itself in self-protection, self-expansion, self-assertion, formation of separations, and mastery of the environment. By contrast, communion refers to the “participation of the individual in some larger organism of which the individual is a part” and is manifested in union, openness, love and intimacy (Bakan, 1966, p. 15). McAdams et al (1996) arrived at the following “thematic lines”: Agency refers to self-mastery, status, achievement and empowerment whereas communion refers to love and friendship, dialogue, care, help and community. Similarly Hermans and Hermans (1995), describe themes of agency as self-esteem, self-confidence, strength, and pride and indicates that the self is experienced as an autonomous entity strong enough to cope with the situation at hand. Communion ways of being are described as caring, love, tenderness, and intimacy, and indicate the experience of participating with someone or feeling close to someone or something. In summary agency has been described as self-orientation and communion as other-orientation (Hegel, 1994, Hermans and Hermans, 1995; McAdams, 1996).
So what phenomenon does agency and communion theory describe? Leonard suggests three approaches to theory and research to date. Firstly, agency and communion have been conceptualised as two types of personality traits (Buss, 1990; Levit, 1991) which are intrinsic to the individual and stable parts of individual make-up, with differences between individuals and groups such as men and women. Agency and communion have also been conceptualised as underlying motives for all human behaviour and thematic lines underlying the changes across the life-span, and development of the person (Hassan & Bar-Yam, 1987; McAdams, 1985). A third approach “Also understands the concepts as underlying human motives but takes a social rather than a personality approach by focusing on life-situations and the way they foster or constrict both the quantity of agency and communion and the ways they can be expressed (e.g. Richards and Larson, 1991; Stewart & Maulley, 1089)” (Leonard, 1997, p. 825). At present a fourth approach is emerging in combination with narrative theory in which it is suggested that agency and communion assist us in understanding unity, purpose, and meaning in a person’s life story (McAdams, 1996; Hermans and Hermans, 1995). In this study I focus on the second classification of agency and communion as underlying motives for all human behaviour and thematic lines underlying the changes across the life-span, but will also draw on the fourth interpretation in discussing the significance of the results.
Several possible relationships between agency and communion have been outlined although few have been empirically tested. To date most post-Bakan research and theory have conceptualised agency and communion as either unrelated or oppositional (Leonard, 1997). For example Wiggins (1991) suggest they are unrelated and puts agency on an assured/dominant to unassured/ submissive/ passive continuum and communion on a intimacy/union/solidarity to a remoteness/ dissociation/ hostility continuum with individuals being able to score high on agency and communion simultaneously. McAdams (1985) in his work on generativity revealed the need for both agency and communion to make separate contributions and there is no suggestion that agency and communion are opposite to each other and that one suppresses the other. Yet Bakan himself infers an oppositional model in which too much agency represses communion. In an oppositional model “a particular act or though or feeling cannot be simultaneously highly agentic and highly communal” (Leonard, 1997, p. 827). Leonard herself argues against the oppositional point of view but does show that it is consistent with a number of constructs in western societies. Perhaps not unsurprisingly most examples of the oppositional model in western society introduced by Leonard are within the context of work. For example she shows that it is commonly assumed that socialising is detrimental to work and that achievement at work is often individually constructed, while individuals are simultaneously asked to collaborate. Leonard also shows that, although agency and communion are often viewed as separate constructs, the oppositional model is often implied in the language used by theorist, including those theorists who argue the constructs are independent. For example ‘moving against others vs moving towards others’ (Wiggins, 1991); ‘being a separate entity vs oneness with the world’ (Fromm, 1979; Gallos, 1989), social relatedness vs self-insistence (Bar Yam Hassan and Bar Yam, 1989) or ‘autonomy vs homonomy’ (Angyall, 1965), all attesting to a ‘self versus other’. These constructs seem to indicate, if not oppositional directions, at least a relationship of dynamic tension between agency and communion. Hassan and Bar-Yam (1989, p. 103) write that “the two needs [agency and communion] are in constant tension throughout the life cycle”. One factor may be the time-span over which we assess agency and communion themes as in his later research on autobiographical accounts McAdams et al (1996) although not directly commenting on the relationship between agency and communion also write that “an agency peak experience may be followed by a highly communal turning-point event”. As previously mentioned, I do not think it coincidental that the examples used by Leonard concern the world of work or career where there are extensive references to conflict between self and other in relation to for example approval at work vs. maintaining one’s integrity, personal achievement in the context of teams, belonging to an organisational culture, while maintaining one’s integrity and distinct self, and controlling vs letting go.
Agency and Communion theory in the context of career
The different themes of agency and communion have discussed in the context of career in relation to measures of career success, balancing the two motivations in self and organisation as well as career planning. Gallos (1989) questions the exclusive focus on the agency theme of increased autonomy as a measure of career success. She critiques developmental models (e.g. Levinson) that reflect only male development patterns and asks what identity formation, individuation, and occupational choice look like from a female perspective. She argues that for men development has meant acting out of agency themes such as increased autonomy and separation from others as means of strengthening identity whereas for women the self and identity is strengthened in relation to others (communion). She suggest that women have not had the same opportunities for moving up career ladders as agentic themes of personal achievement, separation and autonomy have often been identified as ability signals, that is the qualities and behaviours on which one would traditionally be promoted within organisations. These ability signals have traditionally been highly valued and rewarded, often with high levels of remuneration and public approval (Gillligan, 1982). Gallos expresses the hope that research and theory on balancing agentic and communal ways of being can provide men with viable alternatives to traditional approaches to careers which have them to forgoing nurturing roles leading to dead ends for so many. She suggests that it is important that career success is also defined by communal ways as building community, building teams and co-operation are important to the organisation and therefore also warrant career promotion. The question is why, if a combination of agentic and communal ways of being in the workplace is likely to have positive outcome for both genders as well as the organisation, a combination of both is so difficult to enact. Kofodimos (1993) investigates reasons for unbalanced ways of doing and being at work. She primarily addresses the agency theme of mastery and communion theme of intimacy. She asks what it is about having a successful career that is so compelling, more so than loving and having a successful personal life. She suggests that an imbalance in ‘mastery’ and ‘intimacy’ underlies and reinforces the focus of time and energy on work and neglect of personal life. “Attaining mastery is an important means by which individuals clarify their identity, enhance their self-esteem, and feel fulfilment, pleasure and joy” (p. 39). The intimacy approach is, according to Kofodimos, per definition opposite, and her research shows that managers and executives who approach the world from a mastery perspective, including women, tend not the use the intimacy oriented approach. Her research therefore supports the oppositional perspective, however she too argues for the importance of balance. Kofodimos suggests that the consequences of striving for mastery and avoiding intimacy are that one experiences life as mundane, that relaxation is difficult, interaction with others, including spouse and children becomes exclusively task oriented, engagement in leisure activities becomes competitive, and a person becomes impatient and needs to control and manage others while being intolerant towards others’ weaknesses and mistakes. Ultimately work is used as a defence against personal problems. She furthermore shows that the mastery/intimacy imbalance is compulsive and addictive in nature and that this helps to explain why this balance is often not addressed until it reaches critical proportions, supporting the notion of (unmitigated) agency suppressing communion. Furthermore the organisation will not take an active role in mitigating this imbalance as it serves organisational purposes. “If we are striving toward an idealized image of career success, our ambition dovetails nicely with the organisation’s interest in bending us to its own ends. Specifically, organisations’ hierarchical structures and the very notion of advancement play on our unconscious belief that success and promotion will allow us to approach that idealized image for which we strive” (p. 75). However she also suggest that although this pattern has short term benefits for both individual and organisation is it not sustainable in relation to personal health and positive family relationships and that for the organisation which has increasingly demands team work and co-operation this pattern also needs changing. Kofodimos’ research supports Bakan’s original ideas as he suggests that pursuit of career, profit seeking, a propensity for saving, and control, have led to a degree of impersonality, distrust in interpersonal relations, loneliness, as well as eschewing of sociability (Gemütlichkeit) and mystery. From this review it becomes evident that theory on work is not only concerned with the main motivational themes underpinning human development but also with the relationship between agency and communion.
Marshall (1989) argues the need for balancing agency and communion in relation to career planning:
“Much of the prescriptive literature on careers is about directing one’s journey, presenting the right image, making short-term choices in the service of long-term aims and so on. This perspective is future oriented and goal dominated; status on retirement is a marker of achievement” ….. “Communion offers an alternative basis for “planning” and for judging the value of career. Its keynotes are flexibility, openness to opportunities and right timing as the person and appropriate environment meet. This process is not usually change seeking but change accepting. Individuals must be prepared for transformation, to lose and gain definitions of self as they both adjust to the environment and take up its challenges. (p. 287).
Marshall suggests that communion approaches to career may be more realistic in an environment of change, and may also enable the individual to live more purposefully in relation to careers. Marshall describes communion to be about ‘being’ as distinct from agency which she desribes to be about ‘doing’. Although I could not find any other references to ‘being’ versus ‘doing’ distinction between agency and communion, Bonanno and Singer (1993) do distinguish a ‘reflective’ quality of the communion dimension, Fromm extensively discusses the importance of ‘being’ as distinct from ‘having’, and Vaill (1997) discusses the importance of ‘being’ in relation personal and organisational development. I therefore felt this distinction was important to investigate further in order to get a more precise understanding of the precise nature of the relationship between agency and communion.
Based on the literature review of agency and communion and career the inquiry focused on whether there was evidence of the ‘doing’ vs ‘being’ dimension of agency and communion, and whether this distinction was important for the second purpose of inquiry of further understanding the relationship between agency and communion. And finally to analyse the effects of this relationship between agency and communion on career behaviour.