Why not Harris?

Recently, a friend voiced her doubt aloud: why, when we talk about Harris, we usually use her name - Kamala, and when we talk about Trump, we use his last name?

This prompted us, the recipients of this information, to reflect on mitigating and forming a friendly, less serious image of a woman in politics and the media. It may be a far-fetched statement, but in the current situation, when Harris lost the presidential election to Trump, it is also an opportunity to take a closer look at how the image and media visibility of both political leaders Kamala Harris and Donald Trump are shaping up in the context of gender.

It may seem that the way of expressing oneself about Kamala Harris (the aforementioned frequent use of her first name instead of last name) is not particularly relevant. However, in the world of media, which today is easily polarized by its superficiality, short messages and algorithmic settings, every word has its own meaning and weight. A return to a person in this case can easily shape her image — either as a serious, respectable person through the use of a last name, or as a more friendly but somewhat paternalistic candidate, which makes audiences see Harris as a less serious strong leader. When we say “Kamala,” we see a candidate closer to “the people,” perhaps more accessible, but it still clashes with the pervasive image of Trump — a strong, uncompromising candidate who wants an America that is important, strong, traditional and, as the Republican slogan proclaims, a great comeback.

Social evaluation

Women in leadership positions are still a minority, and those who occupy important political positions are all the more rare. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris was the third person in U.S. history nominated by a major political party for the position of vice president and the first woman to win the election. Before her, only Hillary Clinton, as the first woman in the history of the United States, won the nomination of the main party -- the Democratic Party -- in 2016 for the office of president.

In the context of the decisions that potential American voters make, a pre-election survey was conducted in which the residents of the United States were asked how important it is for a woman to win the presidential election in their lifetime. A relatively small percentage of American adults (18%) said that choosing a woman as president is extremely or very important to them. A majority (64%) felt that it was of little or no importance to them, or that the gender of the president did not matter to them. These opinions vary by gender and party affiliation (Pew Research Center 2023). The study looked not only at the importance of choosing a woman for the presidency, but also about the probability, the assessment of chances. Only one in four American adults believe that electing a woman as president of the United States is very or extremely likely in their lifetime. About half (49%) believe that this is quite likely, and 26% consider such a possibility unlikely or even unrealistic.

What gives rise to this uncertainty and lack of awareness that positions of power should strive for gender parity?

One reason is the centuries-old habit of men holding important managerial positions and the mere perception of leadership and politics as an occupation unsuitable for women. This image is a commonly fixed pattern of thinking that causes automatic thinking, often on the basis of a downright childish memory, that politics is reserved for the male sex. Not only is the assignment of gender to social roles built into the social fabric — the very thought of the concept of power and what it should look like is inherently patriarchal, strongly rooted in tradition, a form of government. What characterizes the “male” way of power? Following stereotypes and simplifying the definition: it is a way of governing that usually counts force, ruthlessness, cool rationality and sometimes even cynicism. Rarely in the context of politics do we think of conducting it in a less radical, more pro-social way and excluding the necessity of national domination, participation in war or fighting for profit. The way we are used to thinking about politics reflects, in a way, our thinking about the world: as a place of constant competition, a struggle for resources and any inequalities that can be fought by being stronger. However, this standard approach is undergoing quite a revolution: the conclusion of state alliances, the struggle for human rights or the progressive feminism are reversing the tendency to think that politics should only be based on rule with a hard hand.

At the same time, the lack of conviction for women in power, and the lack of more women to participate in political life, is due to a lack of representation. The circle closes: the fewer women in politics, especially at high levels, the less willing to participate in it, and the less belief that they can hold political office, the less faith the fewer female leaders. The lack of equal representation of the sexes is one of the biggest problems in equality policy, although next to it there are others, such as: adequate funding (or rather lack thereof), discrimination, or the so-called “glass ceiling”, about which we wrote more in the article Women in Politics. 

Intersectionality

Kamala Harris was not an easy candidate; the educated woman of color—even though she so well symbolizes what the United States of America really is, a country of immigrants whose fates have shaped the history and society of this country, and given the forefront of thinking about the rights of black people—still did not inspire the kind of confidence that was bestowed on Donate. Donald Trump, a white, rich man running a business. We can associate the overlap of different Harris characteristics with the notion of intersectionality — referring to the overlap of different social categories, which often leads to discrimination. Harris, compared to Trump, because of common social standards, was already in an inferior position at the start: as a celestial woman, she had at least two reasons for which she could be perceived worse. Of course, these are just some of the factors that may have influenced Harris's loss in the presidential election, and the focus on these cultural-image aspects is a reminder of how narratives of presence or ancestry shape political life and influence voter decisions.

This issue is raised in an interview with Krytyka Polityczna Łukasz Pawłowski, co-creator of the “American Podcast” and author of the book Divided States of America, describing how American society holds the respect and trust of establishment politicians characterized by rationality, logic, and common sense. Pawlowski also points out that Harris, because of the color of her skin and the fact that she is a woman, is perceived in a way that is not typical of the US political tradition. Why does it matter? According to Pawlowski, this gives Harris less opportunity to carry out radical political changes and promote his campaign in a specific, profiled way. As the Democratic Party is de facto more center-right than left-wing, Harris had to skillfully balance between different narratives in her campaign, as her electorate consisted of both left-wing voters and those closer to the right. Against the latter group, any too “leftist” move by Harris automatically exposed her to a patch of left-wing radical—a title Republicans would gladly give her by crafting the appropriate rhetoric. By virtue of just being a woman of color, which already made her seem too progressive to right-wing voters, any more progressive decision could have put additional strain on Harris's campaign. However, if a white man took her place, a more progressive election would not be considered an ideological revolution or worldview radicalism.

Thus, Pawlowski notes that Harris was, as it were, “doomed” to centrism in her campaign, and the reason for this situation was her starting, biological position, over which she had no influence. This shows how unfair such an assessment is, dictated by biological conditions that establish social principles in the US and have nothing to do with what we should actually hold politicians to account for: the actions implemented and their effectiveness. This also applies to the rest of the world, although today the United States represents the most visible example of inequality and extremes, also in the treatment of presidential candidates.

 summary

Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump — their rivalry on the road to power — is symbolic and multidimensional. It explores the issues of political image, identity and structural limitations, and raises questions about the functioning of entrenched social mechanisms and the role of the media in the perception of women in politics.

Sources:

1. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/09/27/views-of-having-a-woman-president/
2. https://krytykapolityczna.pl/swiat/usa-zadnych-powaznych-reform-nie-bedzie-rozmowa-z-lukaszem-pawlowskim/
3. https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/11/4/trump-vs-harris-american-misogyny-on-the-ballot
4. https://jobsdoor.eu/pl/articles/A31rHtU3lYN6AWfkxItG
5. https://www.pap.pl/aktualnosci/od-wiceprezydent-do-politycznej-gwiazdy-kariera-kamali-harris
6. Photo: Kamala Harris/ Official Portrait from WhiteHouse.gov, Public Domain