3
who holds a position of authority in a special interest group (2). In contrast, employing the
theme of inclusiveness central to the multi-axis framework used here, political leadership for
Black women not only includes all of the forms excluded by Mughan and Patterson, but adds to
the list. For Black women, politics is power and all genres are in some way related and therefore
can be defined as political if one so chooses.
This restricted view also extends to the “interactionist” model of leader/follower relations
introduced by Mughan and Patterson. Central to political leadership in democratic societies is
the relationship between the leader and the follower. Followers must give their consent to be led
in order for a leader to develop. This requirement serves as a sort of constraint upon the leader,
requiring him to work in a way that is in the interest of his followers who periodically renew
their consent to be led. This “interactionist” model of leadership includes three core
components: 1) the leader, 2) the followers, and 3) the functional relationship between the leader
and followers. “[L]eadership is a relationship between one or more persons who exercise
influence and one or more persons who submit to that influence…[L]eadership is an
asymmetrical relationship and the degree of asymmetry can change from situation to situation,
even if the partners to that relationship do not” (8).
Where my approach differs from Mughan and Patterson is in the distinction between leader and
follower and the asymmetrical nature of their relationship. I submit that for Black women, the
preferred model is one where the interaction among group members is much more symmetrical,
with a common claim to leadership made by all who are committed to the movement to bring
about a shift in power relations.
Convention