Political Leadership: Structure – Consciousness – Emotions

Introduction

In contemporary theoretical research in political science on the phenomenon of leadership – more precisely, the creation, reproduction, or decline of relational asymmetry between the leader and her followers in given political circumstances – it is worth highlighting the conceptual-cognitive importance of methodological holism and the theoretical acumen of structural-functional perspectives. In this publication, both these analytical traditions are considered as part of a macro-structural view and/or scientific conceptualization of the world of politics. To put it in overly simplified terms, one might say that this refers to a centuries-old scientific reflection which views politics as a dynamic-emergent structural space: a space in which we analyze numerous relations of dependence or co-dependence between variables and/or factors, both measurable (overt) and immeasurable (covert) ones. This is a holistic manner of thinking, interpreting, and explaining politics, in which political reality is not assumed to be – or even cannot be – reduced to a countable aggregation of social interactions and interpersonal exchanges; regularly predictable causality; unambiguously recognized agency of political subjects (participants of leadership practices). In this case, the process of political leadership occurs in the world, which is defined as a comprehensive structural complexity. It is a whole of a higher order, which goes beyond a simple sum of its parts, and, what is more, within which there exist: collective agency and consciousness or supra-individual emotions, as well as coincidence, unpredictability, and new, emergent qualities, which are the result of the progressing complexity.

In other words, diverse structural-functional approaches in modern social sciences – including political science – fit and often reference some assumptions and directives of methodological holism. In this sense, if we holistically assume that politics is a complex, temporal, structural space that cannot be reduced to its elements, and is based on a subject-object dialectic of co-dependence, then it becomes valid to interpret leadership asymmetry on the facet of a system (relationship) of between-subject powers, interactions, and exchange that change in time. Therefore, we ←7 | 8→may speak of multifactoral and multifaceted analyses of the phenomenon of leadership, in which:

Noteworthy, from a meta-theoretical stance, such a dynamic structural space seems to be a synonym of multi-level and multidimensional political practices, in which processes and/or mechanisms of leadership, differing in form and content, realize themselves with a temporal dialectic of subject-object co-dependence in the background. At the same time, this is a space in which a gradual structuration of leadership takes place. This means that, in particular political conditions, or, more precisely, in given sociostructural circumstances, leadership asymmetry arises and “plays out.” Here, structuration is understood as a form of existence that is always subject to revision and change, a form of temporary constitution, materialization, or validation of particular leadership relations in given political conditions. This refers to a real constitution of political leaders under multilateral conjugations – or, as Anthony Giddens would say, under a dualism of structures – between given conditions (the effective social structure) and the actions of subjects that are part of those conditions (Giddens, 1984, ←8 | 9→pp. 16–28, 227–280). In other words, the scientific explanation of political leadership cannot be reduced merely to particular traits or abilities, characterological features, psycho-dynamic profile, style, personality, etc. of a given political leader – and the same applies to his or her self-fashioning in the media, effective communication strategies, or PR. In that sense, leadership always occurs under particular structural circumstances which are external in relation to the leader. Therefore, the socio-political environment is variously influenced by and acts on the leader (as in feedback loops), his or her manner of thinking, mentality, decisiveness, or more precisely – his or her developed style of leading. The leader becomes, to some extent, an emanation of social moods, manners of thinking, perceiving, and problematizing reality: both a creator (subjective inspirer, political role-model, and authority for followers) and partly an imitator (subjective mirror) of the group which he/she politically represents and whose support he/she actively seeks based on the principle of social accreditation.

Such a meta-analytical attempt, I believe, will present the multifactoriality and the temporal dialectics between the leader and her supporters in quite an interesting way. Still, I would like to signal that in academic discussions on the phenomenon of leadership, any conceptual-theoretical reductions – for example, psychological, economical, situational, ethical, anthropological, or cultural ones – become an incomplete and often distorted method of theorizing or nomological explanation. I believe that my selection may also be interpreted as a particular epistemological reduction. Despite the partial legitimacy of this claim, I am convinced that my three-element attempt may be – or even should be – read as an affirmative rupture from academic reductionism. I hope that the presented layout and structure of ←9 | 10→the text will allow readers to look at political leadership as a processual phenomenon, in which structural-functional, awareness-related, and emotional factors intertwine, determine, and depend on each other.