Content area
Full Text
(ProQuest: ... denotes non-US-ASCII text omitted.)
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Hanna Pitkin's "Concept of Representation" Revisited
One crucial element of Hanna Pitkin's (1967) definition of political representation has been relatively neglected in the voluminous literature her work has inspired. That element is what I will refer to as potentiality, the subjunctive idea that to be considered represented, citizens must feel that someone would defend their interests if those interests were threatened. Attention to potentiality provides a reason to value descriptive representation. Second, it illuminates the representation provided by nonelected leaders and social groups. Third, it clarifies the reciprocal links between participation and representation: persons who are participatory have better grounds to believe that their interests will be protected, and those who have such a belief participate more. Evidence to support this claimed relationship between participation and representation is presented for the U.S. case.
Potentiality appears toward the end of Pitkin's concluding, synthetic discussion of representation. Representation is a function provided by elites for the mass public, a function that requires the two "great moods" of form (institutions, rules) and substance (intentions, purpose). "Representing here means acting in the interest of the represented, in a manner responsive to them" (Pitkin 1967, 209). Generally, however, one cannot match an individual's preferences with a certain legislator's preferences or actions. It is misguided to require such a match, given that, as Pitkin explains, representatives must have some freedom to act independently and no one can know with certainty the interests of another, or even at times of oneself. Representation resides in a system. Pitkin's ultimate definition hinges less on the specifics of the different "great moods" and still less upon dyadic matching, but rather requires potentiality. To be well represented, citizens must feel that someone would defend their interests were these threatened:
As in nonpolitical representation, the principal need not express his wishes, or even have formulated any, but he must be capable of doing so; when he does, his wishes should be fulfilled unless there is good reason (in terms of his interest) to the contrary. . . . There need not be a constant activity of responding, but there must be a constant condition of responsiveness, of potential readiness to respond....