what's meaning of representation

Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Definition of representation – Learner’s Dictionary

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

representation noun ( SPEAKING FOR )

Representation noun ( showing ).

(Definition of representation from the Cambridge Learner's Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)

Translations of representation

Get a quick, free translation!

Word of the Day

a device that measures air pressure and shows when the weather is likely to change

Varied and diverse (Talking about differences, Part 1)

Learn more with +Plus

Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
English–Dutch Dutch–English
English–French French–English
English–German German–English
English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
English–Italian Italian–English
English–Japanese Japanese–English
English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
English–Polish Polish–English
English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
English–Spanish Spanish–English
English–Swedish Swedish–English
Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
representation (SPEAKING FOR)
representation (SHOWING)
Translations
All translations

To add representation to a word list please sign up or log in.

Add representation to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

Definition of 'representation'

representation

representation in British English

Representation in american english, examples of 'representation' in a sentence representation, cobuild collocations representation, trends of representation.

View usage for: All Years Last 10 years Last 50 years Last 100 years Last 300 years

In other languages representation

American English : representation / rɛprɪzɛnˈteɪʃən /
Brazilian Portuguese : representação
Chinese : 代表
European Spanish : representación
French : représentation
German : Vertretung
Italian : rappresentanza
Japanese : 代表
Korean : 대표
European Portuguese : representação
Latin American Spanish : representación
Thai : การมีตัวแทน

Browse alphabetically representation

represent value
representamen
representant
representation of reality
representational
representational painting
All ENGLISH words that begin with 'R'

Related terms of representation

ensure representation
equal representation
exact representation
fair representation
false representation
View more related words

Quick word challenge

Quiz Review

Score: 0 / 5

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

Daily Crossword
Word Puzzle
Word Finder
Word of the Day
Synonym of the Day
Word of the Year
Language stories
All featured
Gender and sexuality
All pop culture
Writing hub
Grammar essentials
Commonly confused
All writing tips
Pop culture
Writing tips

Did you mean representation ?

representational

Dictionaries home
American English
Collocations
German-English
Grammar home
Practical English Usage
Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
Word Lists home
My Word Lists
Recent additions
Resources home
Text Checker

Definition of representation noun from the Oxford Advanced American Dictionary

representation

Join our community to access the latest language learning and assessment tips from Oxford University Press!

3 representations [ plural ] ( formal ) formal statements made to someone in authority, especially in order to make your opinions known or to protest We have made representations to the mayor but without success.

Other results

Nearby words.

TheFreeDictionary
Word / Article
Starts with
Free toolbar & extensions
Word of the Day
Free content
representation

rep·re·sen·ta·tion

Rep•re•sen•ta•tion.

macrograph - A life-size drawing or representation.
simulacrum - In the original sense of the word, it was simply a representation of something, such as an oil painting or marble statue.
representational art - Art that seeks to depict the physical appearance of reality; also called objective art and figurative art.
logogram , logograph , grammalogue - A logogram or logograph is the same as a grammalogue, a word represented by a single sign, like $.

Representation

abstractionism
Additional Member System
adumbration
anaglyphoscope
anamorphosy
binary coded decimal
cognitive content
concrete representation
convergence
cosmography
repoussé
Repousse work
Reprehender
reprehensibility
reprehensible
reprehensibly
reprehension
reprehensive
reprehensively
Reprehensory
representable
representamen
Representance
representant
Re-presentation
representational
representational art
representational process
representational system
representationalism
Representationary
representative
representative downwind direction
representative downwind speed
representative fraction
representative sample
representative sampling
representatively
representativeness
represented
representee
representer
representment
representor
repressed memory
represent to
represent to (someone or something)
Represent to Witness
represent us as
represent us in
represent us to
represent you as
represent you in
represent you to
represent yourself as
represent yourself in
represent yourself to
Represent/Represented
representability
Representable functor
representablely
Representaciones Riquelme y Cerramientos Murcia
Representamen
Representant
Representante Especial del Secretario General
Representatieve Vakorganisaties
Representation (arts)
Representation (disambiguation)
Representation (psychology)
Representation Agreement Resource Centre
Representation and Maintenance of Process Knowledge
Representation and Transportation Allowances
Representation and Welfare Unit
representation condition
Représentation des Institutions Françaises de Sécurité Sociale
Representation Fund Custodian
Representation Language Language
Représentation Militaire Française
Representation of People's Act
Representation of persons; a fiction of the law
Representation of Stimuli as Neural Activity Project
Representation of the People Act
Representation of the People Acts
Representation of the People Order
Representation oligonucleotide microarray analysis
Representation Oligonucleotide Microarray Analysis (ROMA)
Representation Quality
Representation theory
Facebook Share

Subscriber Services
For Authors
Publications
Archaeology
Art & Architecture
Bilingual dictionaries
Classical studies
Encyclopedias
English Dictionaries and Thesauri
Language reference
Linguistics
Media studies
Medicine and health
Names studies
Performing arts
Science and technology
Social sciences
Society and culture
Overview Pages
Subject Reference
English Dictionaries
Bilingual Dictionaries

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

representation

Quick reference.

[Latin repraesentare ‘to make present or manifest’]

1. Depicting or ‘making present’ something which is absent (e.g. people, places, events, or abstractions) in a different form: as in paintings, photographs, films, or language, rather than as a replica . See also description; compare absent presence.

2. The function of a sign or symbol of ‘standing for’ that to which it refers (its referent).

3. The various processes of production involved in generating representational texts in any medium, including the mass media (e.g. the filming, editing, and broadcasting of a television documentary). Such framings of the concept privilege authorial intention. See also auteur theory; authorial determinism; sender-oriented communication.

4. A text (in any medium) which is the product of such processes, usually regarded as amenable to textual analysis (‘a representation’).

5. What is explicitly or literally described, depicted, or denoted in a sign, text, or discourse in any medium as distinct from its symbolic meaning, metaphoric meaning, or connotations: its manifest referential content, as in ‘a representation of…’ See also mimesis; naturalism; referentiality.

6. How (in what ways) something is depicted. However ‘realistic’ texts may seem to be, they involve some form of transformation. Representations are unavoidably selective (none can ever ‘show the whole picture’), and within a limited frame, some things are foregrounded and others backgrounded: see also framing; generic representation; selective representation; stylization. In factual genres in the mass media, critics understandably focus on issues such as truth, accuracy, bias, and distortion ( see also reflectionism), or on whose realities are being represented and whose are being denied. See also dominant ideology; manipulative model; stereotyping; symbolic erasure.

7. The relation of a sign or text in any medium to its referent. In reflectionist framings, the transparent re- presentation, reflection, recording, transcription, or reproduction of a pre-existing reality ( see also imaginary signifier; mimesis; realism). In constructionist framings, the transformation of particular social realities, subjectivities, or identities in processes which are ostensibly merely re- presentations ( see also constitutive models; interpellation; reality construction). Some postmodern theorists avoid the term representation completely because the epistemological assumptions of realism seem to be embedded within it.

8. A cycle of processes of textual and meaning production and reception situated in a particular sociohistorical context ( see also circuit of communication; circuit of culture). This includes the active processes in which audiences engage in the interpretation of texts ( see also active audience theory; beholder's share; picture perception). Semiotics highlights representational codes which need to be decoded ( see also encoding/decoding model; photographic codes; pictorial codes; realism), and related to a relevant context ( see also Jakobson's model).

9. (narratology) Showing as distinct from telling (narration).

10. (mental representation) The process and product of encoding perceptual experience in the mind: see dual coding theory; gestalt laws; mental representation; perceptual codes; selective perception; selective retention.

11. A relationship in which one person (a representative) acting on behalf of another (as in law), or a political principle in which one person acts, in some sense, on behalf of a group of people, normally having been chosen by them to do so (as in representative democracies).

From: representation in A Dictionary of Media and Communication »

Subjects: Media studies

Definition of represent

(Entry 1 of 2)

transitive verb

intransitive verb

Definition of re-present (Entry 2 of 2)

characterize

Examples of represent in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'represent.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

Middle English, from Anglo-French representer , from Latin repraesentare , from re- + praesentare to present

14th century, in the meaning defined at transitive sense 1

1564, in the meaning defined above

Dictionary Entries Near represent

reprehensory

Cite this Entry

“Represent.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent. Accessed 8 May. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of represent, legal definition, legal definition of represent, more from merriam-webster on represent.

Nglish: Translation of represent for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of represent for Arabic Speakers

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries. Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

More commonly misspelled words, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, how to use em dashes (—), en dashes (–) , and hyphens (-), popular in wordplay, 12 star wars words, the words of the week - may 3, a great big list of bread words, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.

Play Blossom: Solve today's spelling word game by finding as many words as you can using just 7 letters. Longer words score more points.

Table of Contents
Random Entry
Chronological
Editorial Information
About the SEP
Editorial Board
How to Cite the SEP
Special Characters
Advanced Tools
Support the SEP
PDFs for SEP Friends
Make a Donation
SEPIA for Libraries
Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

Friends PDF Preview
Author and Citation Info
Back to Top

Political Representation

The concept of political representation is misleadingly simple: everyone seems to know what it is, yet few can agree on any particular definition. In fact, there is an extensive literature that offers many different definitions of this elusive concept. [Classic treatments of the concept of political representations within this literature include Pennock and Chapman 1968; Pitkin, 1967 and Schwartz, 1988.] Hanna Pitkin (1967) provides, perhaps, one of the most straightforward definitions: to represent is simply to “make present again.” On this definition, political representation is the activity of making citizens’ voices, opinions, and perspectives “present” in public policy making processes. Political representation occurs when political actors speak, advocate, symbolize, and act on the behalf of others in the political arena. In short, political representation is a kind of political assistance. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is not adequate as it stands. For it leaves the concept of political representation underspecified. Indeed, as we will see, the concept of political representation has multiple and competing dimensions: our common understanding of political representation is one that contains different, and conflicting, conceptions of how political representatives should represent and so holds representatives to standards that are mutually incompatible. In leaving these dimensions underspecified, this definition fails to capture this paradoxical character of the concept.

This encyclopedia entry has three main goals. The first is to provide a general overview of the meaning of political representation, identifying the key components of this concept. The second is to highlight several important advances that have been made by the contemporary literature on political representation. These advances point to new forms of political representation, ones that are not limited to the relationship between formal representatives and their constituents. The third goal is to reveal several persistent problems with theories of political representation and thereby to propose some future areas of research.

1.1 Delegate vs. Trustee

1.2 pitkin’s four views of representation, 2. changing political realities and changing concepts of political representation, 3. contemporary advances, 4. future areas of study, a. general discussions of representation, b. arguments against representation, c. non-electoral forms of representation, d. representation and electoral design, e. representation and accountability, f. descriptive representation, other internet resources, related entries, 1. key components of political representation.

Political representation, on almost any account, will exhibit the following five components:

some party that is representing (the representative, an organization, movement, state agency, etc.);
some party that is being represented (the constituents, the clients, etc.);
something that is being represented (opinions, perspectives, interests, discourses, etc.); and
a setting within which the activity of representation is taking place (the political context).
something that is being left out (the opinions, interests, and perspectives not voiced).

Theories of political representation often begin by specifying the terms for the first four components. For instance, democratic theorists often limit the types of representatives being discussed to formal representatives — that is, to representatives who hold elected offices. One reason that the concept of representation remains elusive is that theories of representation often apply only to particular kinds of political actors within a particular context. How individuals represent an electoral district is treated as distinct from how social movements, judicial bodies, or informal organizations represent. Consequently, it is unclear how different forms of representation relate to each other. Andrew Rehfeld (2006) has offered a general theory of representation which simply identifies representation by reference to a relevant audience accepting a person as its representative. One consequence of Rehfeld’s general approach to representation is that it allows for undemocratic cases of representation.

However, Rehfeld’s general theory of representation does not specify what representative do or should do in order to be recognized as a representative. And what exactly representatives do has been a hotly contested issue. In particular, a controversy has raged over whether representatives should act as delegates or trustees .

Historically, the theoretical literature on political representation has focused on whether representatives should act as delegates or as trustees . Representatives who are delegates simply follow the expressed preferences of their constituents. James Madison (1787–8) describes representative government as “the delegation of the government...to a small number of citizens elected by the rest.” Madison recognized that “Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm.” Consequently, Madison suggests having a diverse and large population as a way to decrease the problems with bad representation. In other words, the preferences of the represented can partially safeguard against the problems of faction.

In contrast, trustees are representatives who follow their own understanding of the best action to pursue. Edmund Burke (1790) is famous for arguing that

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests, which interest each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but Parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole… You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him he is not a member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament (115).

The delegate and the trustee conception of political representation place competing and contradictory demands on the behavior of representatives. [For a discussion of the similarities and differences between Madison’s and Burke’s conception of representation, see Pitkin 1967, 191–192.] Delegate conceptions of representation require representatives to follow their constituents’ preferences, while trustee conceptions require representatives to follow their own judgment about the proper course of action. Any adequate theory of representation must grapple with these contradictory demands.

Famously, Hanna Pitkin argues that theorists should not try to reconcile the paradoxical nature of the concept of representation. Rather, they should aim to preserve this paradox by recommending that citizens safeguard the autonomy of both the representative and of those being represented. The autonomy of the representative is preserved by allowing them to make decisions based on his or her understanding of the represented’s interests (the trustee conception of representation). The autonomy of those being represented is preserved by having the preferences of the represented influence evaluations of representatives (the delegate conception of representation). Representatives must act in ways that safeguard the capacity of the represented to authorize and to hold their representatives accountable and uphold the capacity of the representative to act independently of the wishes of the represented.

Objective interests are the key for determining whether the autonomy of representative and the autonomy of the represented have been breached. However, Pitkin never adequately specifies how we are to identify constituents’ objective interests. At points, she implies that constituents should have some say in what are their objective interests, but ultimately she merely shifts her focus away from this paradox to the recommendation that representatives should be evaluated on the basis of the reasons they give for disobeying the preferences of their constituents. For Pitkin, assessments about representatives will depend on the issue at hand and the political environment in which a representative acts. To understand the multiple and conflicting standards within the concept of representation is to reveal the futility of holding all representatives to some fixed set of guidelines. In this way, Pitkin concludes that standards for evaluating representatives defy generalizations. Moreover, individuals, especially democratic citizens, are likely to disagree deeply about what representatives should be doing.

Pitkin offers one of the most comprehensive discussions of the concept of political representation, attending to its contradictory character in her The Concept of Representation . This classic discussion of the concept of representation is one of the most influential and oft-cited works in the literature on political representation. (For a discussion of her influence, see Dovi 2016). Adopting a Wittgensteinian approach to language, Pitkin maintains that in order to understand the concept of political representation, one must consider the different ways in which the term is used. Each of these different uses of the term provides a different view of the concept. Pitkin compares the concept of representation to “ a rather complicated, convoluted, three–dimensional structure in the middle of a dark enclosure.” Political theorists provide “flash-bulb photographs of the structure taken from different angles” [1967, 10]. More specifically, political theorists have provided four main views of the concept of representation. Unfortunately, Pitkin never explains how these different views of political representation fit together. At times, she implies that the concept of representation is unified. At other times, she emphasizes the conflicts between these different views, e.g. how descriptive representation is opposed to accountability. Drawing on her flash-bulb metaphor, Pitkin argues that one must know the context in which the concept of representation is placed in order to determine its meaning. For Pitkin, the contemporary usage of the term “representation” can signficantly change its meaning.

For Pitkin, disagreements about representation can be partially reconciled by clarifying which view of representation is being invoked. Pitkin identifies at least four different views of representation: formalistic representation, descriptive representation, symbolic representation, and substantive representation. (For a brief description of each of these views, see chart below.) Each view provides a different approach for examining representation. The different views of representation can also provide different standards for assessing representatives. So disagreements about what representatives ought to be doing are aggravated by the fact that people adopt the wrong view of representation or misapply the standards of representation. Pitkin has in many ways set the terms of contemporary discussions about representation by providing this schematic overview of the concept of political representation.

1. Formalistic Representation : Brief Description . The institutional arrangements that precede and initiate representation. Formal representation has two dimensions: authorization and accountability. Main Research Question . What is the institutional position of a representative? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . None. ( Authorization ): Brief Description . The means by which a representative obtains his or her standing, status, position or office. Main Research Questions . What is the process by which a representative gains power (e.g., elections) and what are the ways in which a representative can enforce his or her decisions? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely assess whether a representative legitimately holds his or her position. pdf include--> ( Accountability ): Brief Description . The ability of constituents to punish their representative for failing to act in accordance with their wishes (e.g. voting an elected official out of office) or the responsiveness of the representative to the constituents. Main Research Question . What are the sanctioning mechanisms available to constituents? Is the representative responsive towards his or her constituents’ preferences? Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . No standards for assessing how well a representative behaves. One can merely determine whether a representative can be sanctioned or has been responsive.

Brief Description . The ways that a representative “stands for” the represented — that is, the meaning that a representative has for those being represented.

Main Research Question . What kind of response is invoked by the representative in those being represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Representatives are assessed by the degree of acceptance that the representative has among the represented.

Brief Description . The extent to which a representative resembles those being represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative look like, have common interests with, or share certain experiences with the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess the representative by the accuracy of the resemblance between the representative and the represented.

Brief Description . The activity of representatives—that is, the actions taken on behalf of, in the interest of, as an agent of, and as a substitute for the represented.

Main Research Question . Does the representative advance the policy preferences that serve the interests of the represented?

Implicit Standards for Evaluating Representatives . Assess a representative by the extent to which policy outcomes advanced by a representative serve “the best interests” of their constituents.

One cannot overestimate the extent to which Pitkin has shaped contemporary understandings of political representation, especially among political scientists. For example, her claim that descriptive representation opposes accountability is often the starting point for contemporary discussions about whether marginalized groups need representatives from their groups.

Similarly, Pitkin’s conclusions about the paradoxical nature of political representation support the tendency among contemporary theorists and political scientists to focus on formal procedures of authorization and accountability (formalistic representation). In particular, there has been a lot of theoretical attention paid to the proper design of representative institutions (e.g. Amy 1996; Barber, 2001; Christiano 1996; Guinier 1994). This focus is certainly understandable, since one way to resolve the disputes about what representatives should be doing is to “let the people decide.” In other words, establishing fair procedures for reconciling conflicts provides democratic citizens one way to settle conflicts about the proper behavior of representatives. In this way, theoretical discussions of political representation tend to depict political representation as primarily a principal-agent relationship. The emphasis on elections also explains why discussions about the concept of political representation frequently collapse into discussions of democracy. Political representation is understood as a way of 1) establishing the legitimacy of democratic institutions and 2) creating institutional incentives for governments to be responsive to citizens.

David Plotke (1997) has noted that this emphasis on mechanisms of authorization and accountability was especially useful in the context of the Cold War. For this understanding of political representation (specifically, its demarcation from participatory democracy) was useful for distinguishing Western democracies from Communist countries. Those political systems that held competitive elections were considered to be democratic (Schumpeter 1976). Plotke questions whether such a distinction continues to be useful. Plotke recommends that we broaden the scope of our understanding of political representation to encompass interest representation and thereby return to debating what is the proper activity of representatives. Plotke’s insight into why traditional understandings of political representation resonated prior to the end of the Cold War suggests that modern understandings of political representation are to some extent contingent on political realities. For this reason, those who attempt to define political representation should recognize how changing political realities can affect contemporary understandings of political representation. Again, following Pitkin, ideas about political representation appear contingent on existing political practices of representation. Our understandings of representation are inextricably shaped by the manner in which people are currently being represented. For an informative discussion of the history of representation, see Monica Brito Vieira and David Runican’s Representation .

As mentioned earlier, theoretical discussions of political representation have focused mainly on the formal procedures of authorization and accountability within nation states, that is, on what Pitkin called formalistic representation. However, such a focus is no longer satisfactory due to international and domestic political transformations. [For an extensive discussion of international and domestic transformations, see Mark Warren and Dario Castioglione (2004).] Increasingly international, transnational and non-governmental actors play an important role in advancing public policies on behalf of democratic citizens—that is, acting as representatives for those citizens. Such actors “speak for,” “act for” and can even “stand for” individuals within a nation-state. It is no longer desirable to limit one’s understanding of political representation to elected officials within the nation-state. After all, increasingly state “contract out” important responsibilities to non-state actors, e.g. environmental regulation. As a result, elected officials do not necessarily possess “the capacity to act,” the capacity that Pitkin uses to identify who is a representative. So, as the powers of nation-state have been disseminated to international and transnational actors, elected representatives are not necessarily the agents who determine how policies are implemented. Given these changes, the traditional focus of political representation, that is, on elections within nation-states, is insufficient for understanding how public policies are being made and implemented. The complexity of modern representative processes and the multiple locations of political power suggest that contemporary notions of accountability are inadequate. Grant and Keohane (2005) have recently updated notions of accountability, suggesting that the scope of political representation needs to be expanded in order to reflect contemporary realities in the international arena. Michael Saward (2009) has proposed an innovative type of criteria that should be used for evaluating non-elective representative claims. John Dryzek and Simon Niemayer (2008) has proposed an alternative conception of representation, what he calls discursive representation, to reflect the fact that transnational actors represent discourses, not real people. By discourses, they mean “a set of categories and concepts embodying specific assumptions, judgments, contentions, dispositions, and capabilities.” The concept of discursive representation can potentially redeem the promise of deliberative democracy when the deliberative participation of all affected by a collective decision is infeasible.

Domestic transformations also reveal the need to update contemporary understandings of political representation. Associational life — social movements, interest groups, and civic associations—is increasingly recognized as important for the survival of representative democracies. The extent to which interest groups write public policies or play a central role in implementing and regulating policies is the extent to which the division between formal and informal representation has been blurred. The fluid relationship between the career paths of formal and informal representatives also suggests that contemporary realities do not justify focusing mainly on formal representatives. Mark Warren’s concept of citizen representatives (2008) opens up a theoretical framework for exploring how citizens represent themselves and serve in representative capacities.

Given these changes, it is necessary to revisit our conceptual understanding of political representation, specifically of democratic representation. For as Jane Mansbridge has recently noted, normative understandings of representation have not kept up with recent empirical research and contemporary democratic practices. In her important article “Rethinking Representation” Mansbridge identifies four forms of representation in modern democracies: promissory, anticipatory, gyroscopic and surrogacy. Promissory representation is a form of representation in which representatives are to be evaluated by the promises they make to constituents during campaigns. Promissory representation strongly resembles Pitkin’s discussion of formalistic representation. For both are primarily concerned with the ways that constituents give their consent to the authority of a representative. Drawing on recent empirical work, Mansbridge argues for the existence of three additional forms of representation. In anticipatory representation, representatives focus on what they think their constituents will reward in the next election and not on what they promised during the campaign of the previous election. Thus, anticipatory representation challenges those who understand accountability as primarily a retrospective activity. In gyroscopic representation, representatives “look within” to derive from their own experience conceptions of interest and principles to serve as a basis for their action. Finally, surrogate representation occurs when a legislator represents constituents outside of their districts. For Mansbridge, each of these different forms of representation generates a different normative criterion by which representatives should be assessed. All four forms of representation, then, are ways that democratic citizens can be legitimately represented within a democratic regime. Yet none of the latter three forms representation operates through the formal mechanisms of authorization and accountability. Recently, Mansbridge (2009) has gone further by suggesting that political science has focused too much on the sanctions model of accountability and that another model, what she calls the selection model, can be more effective at soliciting the desired behavior from representatives. According to Mansbridge, a sanction model of accountability presumes that the representative has different interests from the represented and that the represented should not only monitor but reward the good representative and punish the bad. In contrast, the selection model of accountability presumes that representatives have self-motivated and exogenous reasons for carrying out the represented’s wishes. In this way, Mansbridge broadens our understanding of accountability to allow for good representation to occur outside of formal sanctioning mechanisms.

Mansbridge’s rethinking of the meaning of representation holds an important insight for contemporary discussions of democratic representation. By specifying the different forms of representation within a democratic polity, Mansbridge teaches us that we should refer to the multiple forms of democratic representation. Democratic representation should not be conceived as a monolithic concept. Moreover, what is abundantly clear is that democratic representation should no longer be treated as consisting simply in a relationship between elected officials and constituents within her voting district. Political representation should no longer be understood as a simple principal-agent relationship. Andrew Rehfeld has gone farther, maintaining that political representation should no longer be territorially based. In other words, Rehfeld (2005) argues that constituencies, e.g. electoral districts, should not be constructed based on where citizens live.

Lisa Disch (2011) also complicates our understanding of democratic representation as a principal-agent relationship by uncovering a dilemma that arises between expectations of democratic responsiveness to constituents and recent empirical findings regarding the context dependency of individual constituents’ preferences. In response to this dilemma, Disch proposes a mobilization conception of political representation and develops a systemic understanding of reflexivity as the measure of its legitimacy.

By far, one of the most important shifts in the literature on representation has been the “constructivist turn.” Constructivist approaches to representation emphasize the representative’s role in creating and framing the identities and claims of the represented. Here Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim is exemplary. For Saward, representation entails a series of relationships: “A maker of representations (M) puts forward a subject (S) which stands for an object (O) which is related to a referent (R) and is offered to an audience (A)” (2006, 302). Instead of presuming a pre-existing set of interests of the represented that representatives “bring into” the political arena, Saward stresses how representative claim-making is a “deeply culturally inflected practice.” Saward explicitly denies that theorists can know what are the interests of the represented. For this reason, the represented should have the ultimate say in judging the claims of the representative. The task of the representative is to create claims that will resonate with appropriate audiences.

Saward therefore does not evaluate representatives by the extent to which they advance the preferences or interests of the represented. Instead he focuses on the institutional and collective conditions in which claim-making takes place. The constructivist turn examines the conditions for claim-making, not the activities of particular representatives.

Saward’s “constructivist turn” has generated a new research direction for both political theorists and empirical scientists. For example, Lisa Disch (2015) considers whether the constructivist turn is a “normative dead” end, that is, whether the epistemological commitments of constructivism that deny the ability to identify interests will undermine the normative commitments to democratic politics. Disch offers an alternative approach, what she calls “the citizen standpoint”. This standpoint does not mean taking at face value whomever or whatever citizens regard as representing them. Rather, it is “an epistemological and political achievement that does not exist spontaneously but develops out of the activism of political movements together with the critical theories and transformative empirical research to which they give rise” (2015, 493). (For other critical engagements with Saward’s work, see Schaap et al, 2012 and Nässtrom, 2011).

There have been a number of important advances in theorizing the concept of political representation. In particular, these advances call into question the traditional way of thinking of political representation as a principal-agent relationship. Most notably, Melissa Williams’ recent work has recommended reenvisioning the activity of representation in light of the experiences of historically disadvantaged groups. In particular, she recommends understanding representation as “mediation.” In particular, Williams (1998, 8) identifies three different dimensions of political life that representatives must “mediate:” the dynamics of legislative decision-making, the nature of legislator-constituent relations, and the basis for aggregating citizens into representable constituencies. She explains each aspect by using a corresponding theme (voice, trust, and memory) and by drawing on the experiences of marginalized groups in the United States. For example, drawing on the experiences of American women trying to gain equal citizenship, Williams argues that historically disadvantaged groups need a “voice” in legislative decision-making. The “heavily deliberative” quality of legislative institutions requires the presence of individuals who have direct access to historically excluded perspectives.

In addition, Williams explains how representatives need to mediate the representative-constituent relationship in order to build “trust.” For Williams, trust is the cornerstone for democratic accountability. Relying on the experiences of African-Americans, Williams shows the consistent patterns of betrayal of African-Americans by privileged white citizens that give them good reason for distrusting white representatives and the institutions themselves. For Williams, relationships of distrust can be “at least partially mended if the disadvantaged group is represented by its own members”(1998, 14). Finally, representation involves mediating how groups are defined. The boundaries of groups according to Williams are partially established by past experiences — what Williams calls “memory.” Having certain shared patterns of marginalization justifies certain institutional mechanisms to guarantee presence.

Williams offers her understanding of representation as mediation as a supplement to what she regards as the traditional conception of liberal representation. Williams identifies two strands in liberal representation. The first strand she describes as the “ideal of fair representation as an outcome of free and open elections in which every citizen has an equally weighted vote” (1998, 57). The second strand is interest-group pluralism, which Williams describes as the “theory of the organization of shared social interests with the purpose of securing the equitable representation … of those groups in public policies” ( ibid .). Together, the two strands provide a coherent approach for achieving fair representation, but the traditional conception of liberal representation as made up of simply these two strands is inadequate. In particular, Williams criticizes the traditional conception of liberal representation for failing to take into account the injustices experienced by marginalized groups in the United States. Thus, Williams expands accounts of political representation beyond the question of institutional design and thus, in effect, challenges those who understand representation as simply a matter of formal procedures of authorization and accountability.

Another way of reenvisioning representation was offered by Nadia Urbinati (2000, 2002). Urbinati argues for understanding representation as advocacy. For Urbinati, the point of representation should not be the aggregation of interests, but the preservation of disagreements necessary for preserving liberty. Urbinati identifies two main features of advocacy: 1) the representative’s passionate link to the electors’ cause and 2) the representative’s relative autonomy of judgment. Urbinati emphasizes the importance of the former for motivating representatives to deliberate with each other and their constituents. For Urbinati the benefit of conceptualizing representation as advocacy is that it improves our understanding of deliberative democracy. In particular, it avoids a common mistake made by many contemporary deliberative democrats: focusing on the formal procedures of deliberation at the expense of examining the sources of inequality within civil society, e.g. the family. One benefit of Urbinati’s understanding of representation is its emphasis on the importance of opinion and consent formation. In particular, her agonistic conception of representation highlights the importance of disagreements and rhetoric to the procedures, practices, and ethos of democracy. Her account expands the scope of theoretical discussions of representation away from formal procedures of authorization to the deliberative and expressive dimensions of representative institutions. In this way, her agonistic understanding of representation provides a theoretical tool to those who wish to explain how non-state actors “represent.”

Other conceptual advancements have helped clarify the meaning of particular aspects of representation. For instance, Andrew Rehfeld (2009) has argued that we need to disaggregate the delegate/trustee distinction. Rehfeld highlights how representatives can be delegates and trustees in at least three different ways. For this reason, we should replace the traditional delegate/trustee distinction with three distinctions (aims, source of judgment, and responsiveness). By collapsing these three different ways of being delegates and trustees, political theorists and political scientists overlook the ways in which representatives are often partial delegates and partial trustees.

Other political theorists have asked us to rethink central aspects of our understanding of democratic representation. In Inclusion and Democracy Iris Marion Young asks us to rethink the importance of descriptive representation. Young stresses that attempts to include more voices in the political arena can suppress other voices. She illustrates this point using the example of a Latino representative who might inadvertently represent straight Latinos at the expense of gay and lesbian Latinos (1986, 350). For Young, the suppression of differences is a problem for all representation (1986, 351). Representatives of large districts or of small communities must negotiate the difficulty of one person representing many. Because such a difficulty is constitutive of representation, it is unreasonable to assume that representation should be characterized by a “relationship of identity.” The legitimacy of a representative is not primarily a function of his or her similarities to the represented. For Young, the representative should not be treated as a substitute for the represented. Consequently, Young recommends reconceptualizing representation as a differentiated relationship (2000, 125–127; 1986, 357). There are two main benefits of Young’s understanding of representation. First, her understanding of representation encourages us to recognize the diversity of those being represented. Second, her analysis of representation emphasizes the importance of recognizing how representative institutions include as well as they exclude. Democratic citizens need to remain vigilant about the ways in which providing representation for some groups comes at the expense of excluding others. Building on Young’s insight, Suzanne Dovi (2009) has argued that we should not conceptualize representation simply in terms of how we bring marginalized groups into democratic politics; rather, democratic representation can require limiting the influence of overrepresented privileged groups.

Moreover, based on this way of understanding political representation, Young provides an alterative account of democratic representation. Specifically, she envisions democratic representation as a dynamic process, one that moves between moments of authorization and moments of accountability (2000, 129). It is the movement between these moments that makes the process “democratic.” This fluidity allows citizens to authorize their representatives and for traces of that authorization to be evident in what the representatives do and how representatives are held accountable. The appropriateness of any given representative is therefore partially dependent on future behavior as well as on his or her past relationships. For this reason, Young maintains that evaluation of this process must be continuously “deferred.” We must assess representation dynamically, that is, assess the whole ongoing processes of authorization and accountability of representatives. Young’s discussion of the dynamic of representation emphasizes the ways in which evaluations of representatives are incomplete, needing to incorporate the extent to which democratic citizens need to suspend their evaluations of representatives and the extent to which representatives can face unanticipated issues.

Another insight about democratic representation that comes from the literature on descriptive representation is the importance of contingencies. Here the work of Jane Mansbridge on descriptive representation has been particularly influential. Mansbridge recommends that we evaluate descriptive representatives by contexts and certain functions. More specifically, Mansbridge (1999, 628) focuses on four functions and their related contexts in which disadvantaged groups would want to be represented by someone who belongs to their group. Those four functions are “(1) adequate communication in contexts of mistrust, (2) innovative thinking in contexts of uncrystallized, not fully articulated, interests, … (3) creating a social meaning of ‘ability to rule’ for members of a group in historical contexts where the ability has been seriously questioned and (4) increasing the polity’s de facto legitimacy in contexts of past discrimination.” For Mansbridge, descriptive representatives are needed when marginalized groups distrust members of relatively more privileged groups and when marginalized groups possess political preferences that have not been fully formed. The need for descriptive representation is contingent on certain functions.

Mansbridge’s insight about the contingency of descriptive representation suggests that at some point descriptive representatives might not be necessary. However, she doesn’t specify how we are to know if interests have become crystallized or trust has formed to the point that the need for descriptive representation would be obsolete. Thus, Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation suggests that standards for evaluating representatives are fluid and flexible. For an interesting discussion of the problems with unified or fixed standards for evaluating Latino representatives, see Christina Beltran’s The Trouble with Unity .

Mansbridge’s discussion of descriptive representation points to another trend within the literature on political representation — namely, the trend to derive normative accounts of representation from the representative’s function. Russell Hardin (2004) captured this trend most clearly in his position that “if we wish to assess the morality of elected officials, we must understand their function as our representatives and then infer how they can fulfill this function.” For Hardin, only an empirical explanation of the role of a representative is necessary for determining what a representative should be doing. Following Hardin, Suzanne Dovi (2007) identifies three democratic standards for evaluating the performance of representatives: those of fair-mindedness, critical trust building, and good gate-keeping. In Ruling Passions , Andrew Sabl (2002) links the proper behavior of representatives to their particular office. In particular, Sabl focuses on three offices: senator, organizer and activist. He argues that the same standards should not be used to evaluate these different offices. Rather, each office is responsible for promoting democratic constancy, what Sabl understands as “the effective pursuit of interest.” Sabl (2002) and Hardin (2004) exemplify the trend to tie the standards for evaluating political representatives to the activity and office of those representatives.

There are three persistent problems associated with political representation. Each of these problems identifies a future area of investigation. The first problem is the proper institutional design for representative institutions within democratic polities. The theoretical literature on political representation has paid a lot of attention to the institutional design of democracies. More specifically, political theorists have recommended everything from proportional representation (e.g. Guinier, 1994 and Christiano, 1996) to citizen juries (Fishkin, 1995). However, with the growing number of democratic states, we are likely to witness more variation among the different forms of political representation. In particular, it is important to be aware of how non-democratic and hybrid regimes can adopt representative institutions to consolidate their power over their citizens. There is likely to be much debate about the advantages and disadvantages of adopting representative institutions.

This leads to a second future line of inquiry — ways in which democratic citizens can be marginalized by representative institutions. This problem is articulated most clearly by Young’s discussion of the difficulties arising from one person representing many. Young suggests that representative institutions can include the opinions, perspectives and interests of some citizens at the expense of marginalizing the opinions, perspectives and interests of others. Hence, a problem with institutional reforms aimed at increasing the representation of historically disadvantaged groups is that such reforms can and often do decrease the responsiveness of representatives. For instance, the creation of black districts has created safe zones for black elected officials so that they are less accountable to their constituents. Any decrease in accountability is especially worrisome given the ways citizens are vulnerable to their representatives. Thus, one future line of research is examining the ways that representative institutions marginalize the interests, opinions and perspectives of democratic citizens.

In particular, it is necessary for to acknowledge the biases of representative institutions. While E. E. Schattschneider (1960) has long noted the class bias of representative institutions, there is little discussion of how to improve the political representation of the disaffected — that is, the political representation of those citizens who do not have the will, the time, or political resources to participate in politics. The absence of such a discussion is particularly apparent in the literature on descriptive representation, the area that is most concerned with disadvantaged citizens. Anne Phillips (1995) raises the problems with the representation of the poor, e.g. the inability to define class, however, she argues for issues of class to be integrated into a politics of presence. Few theorists have taken up Phillip’s gauntlet and articulated how this integration of class and a politics of presence is to be done. Of course, some have recognized the ways in which interest groups, associations, and individual representatives can betray the least well off (e.g. Strolovitch, 2004). And some (Dovi, 2003) have argued that descriptive representatives need to be selected based on their relationship to citizens who have been unjustly excluded and marginalized by democratic politics. However, it is unclear how to counteract the class bias that pervades domestic and international representative institutions. It is necessary to specify the conditions under which certain groups within a democratic polity require enhanced representation. Recent empirical literature has suggested that the benefits of having descriptive representatives is by no means straightforward (Gay, 2002).

A third and final area of research involves the relationship between representation and democracy. Historically, representation was considered to be in opposition with democracy [See Dahl (1989) for a historical overview of the concept of representation]. When compared to the direct forms of democracy found in the ancient city-states, notably Athens, representative institutions appear to be poor substitutes for the ways that citizens actively ruled themselves. Barber (1984) has famously argued that representative institutions were opposed to strong democracy. In contrast, almost everyone now agrees that democratic political institutions are representative ones.

Bernard Manin (1997)reminds us that the Athenian Assembly, which often exemplifies direct forms of democracy, had only limited powers. According to Manin, the practice of selecting magistrates by lottery is what separates representative democracies from so-called direct democracies. Consequently, Manin argues that the methods of selecting public officials are crucial to understanding what makes representative governments democratic. He identifies four principles distinctive of representative government: 1) Those who govern are appointed by election at regular intervals; 2) The decision-making of those who govern retains a degree of independence from the wishes of the electorate; 3) Those who are governed may give expression to their opinions and political wishes without these being subject to the control of those who govern; and 4) Public decisions undergo the trial of debate (6). For Manin, historical democratic practices hold important lessons for determining whether representative institutions are democratic.

While it is clear that representative institutions are vital institutional components of democratic institutions, much more needs to be said about the meaning of democratic representation. In particular, it is important not to presume that all acts of representation are equally democratic. After all, not all acts of representation within a representative democracy are necessarily instances of democratic representation. Henry Richardson (2002) has explored the undemocratic ways that members of the bureaucracy can represent citizens. [For a more detailed discussion of non-democratic forms of representation, see Apter (1968). Michael Saward (2008) also discusses how existing systems of political representation do not necessarily serve democracy.] Similarly, it is unclear whether a representative who actively seeks to dismantle democratic institutions is representing democratically. Does democratic representation require representatives to advance the preferences of democratic citizens or does it require a commitment to democratic institutions? At this point, answers to such questions are unclear. What is certain is that democratic citizens are likely to disagree about what constitutes democratic representation.

One popular approach to addressing the different and conflicting standards used to evaluate representatives within democratic polities, is to simply equate multiple standards with democratic ones. More specifically, it is argued that democratic standards are pluralistic, accommodating the different standards possessed and used by democratic citizens. Theorists who adopt this approach fail to specify the proper relationship among these standards. For instance, it is unclear how the standards that Mansbridge identifies in the four different forms of representation should relate to each other. Does it matter if promissory forms of representation are replaced by surrogate forms of representation? A similar omission can be found in Pitkin: although Pitkin specifies there is a unified relationship among the different views of representation, she never describes how the different views interact. This omission reflects the lacunae in the literature about how formalistic representation relates to descriptive and substantive representation. Without such a specification, it is not apparent how citizens can determine if they have adequate powers of authorization and accountability.

Currently, it is not clear exactly what makes any given form of representation consistent, let alone consonant, with democratic representation. Is it the synergy among different forms or should we examine descriptive representation in isolation to determine the ways that it can undermine or enhance democratic representation? One tendency is to equate democratic representation simply with the existence of fluid and multiple standards. While it is true that the fact of pluralism provides justification for democratic institutions as Christiano (1996) has argued, it should no longer presumed that all forms of representation are democratic since the actions of representatives can be used to dissolve or weaken democratic institutions. The final research area is to articulate the relationship between different forms of representation and ways that these forms can undermine democratic representation.

Andeweg, Rudy B., and Jacques J.A. Thomassen, 2005. “Modes of Political Representation: Toward a new typology,” Legislative Studies Quarterly , 30(4): 507–528.
Ankersmit, Franklin Rudolph, 2002. Political Representation , Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Alcoff, Linda, 1991. “The Problem of Speaking for Others,” Cultural Critique , Winter: 5–32.
Alonso, Sonia, John Keane, and Wolfgang Merkel (eds.), 2011. The Future of Representative Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Beitz, Charles, 1989. Political Equality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. [Chapter 6 is on ‘Representation’]
Burke, Edmund, 1790 [1968]. Reflections on the Revolution in France , London: Penguin Books.
Dahl, Robert A., 1989. Democracy and Its Critics , New Haven: Yale University.
Disch, Lisa, 2015. “The Constructivist Turn in Democratic Representation: A Normative Dead-End?,” Constellations , 22(4): 487–499.
Dovi, Suzanne, 2007. The Good Representative , New York: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Downs, Anthony, 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy , New York: Harper.
Dryzek, John and Simon Niemeyer, 2008. “Discursive Representation,” American Political Science Review , 102(4): 481–493.
Hardin, Russell, 2004. “Representing Ignorance,” Social Philosophy and Policy , 21: 76–99.
Lublin, David, 1999. The Paradox of Representation: Racial Gerrymandering and Minority Interests in Congress , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, 1787–8 [1987]. The Federalist Papers , Isaac Kramnick (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97(4): 515–28.
Manin, Bernard, 1997. The Principles of Representative Government , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nässtrom, Sofia, 2011. “Where is the representative turn going?” European journal of political theory, , 10(4): 501–510.
Pennock, J. Roland and John Chapman (eds.), 1968. Representation , New York: Atherton Press.
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Berkeley: University of California.
Plotke, David, 1997. “Representation is Democracy,” Constellations , 4: 19–34.
Rehfeld, Andrew, 2005. The Concept of Constituency: Political Representation, Democratic Legitimacy and Institutional Design , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
–––, 2006. “Towards a General Theory of Political Representation,” The Journal of Politics , 68: 1–21.
Rosenstone, Steven and John Hansen, 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America , New York: MacMillian Publishing Company.
Runciman, David, 2007. “The Paradox of Political Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 15: 93–114.
Saward, Michael, 2014. “Shape-shifting representation”. American Political Science Review , 108(4): 723–736.
–––, 2010. The Representative Claim , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
–––, 2008. “Representation and democracy: revisions and possibilities,” Sociology compass , 2(3): 1000–1013.
–––, 2006. “The representative claim”. Contemporary political theory , 5(3): 297–318.
Sabl, Andrew, 2002. Ruling Passions: Political Offices and Democratic Ethics , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schaap, Andrew, Thompson, Simon, Disch, Lisa, Castiglione, Dario and Saward, Michael, 2012. “Critical exchange on Michael Saward’s The Representative Claim,” Contemporary Political Theory , 11(1): 109–127.
Schattschneider, E. E., 1960. The Semisovereign People , New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Schumpeter, Joseph, 1976. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy , London: Allen and Unwin.
Schwartz, Nancy, 1988. The Blue Guitar: Political Representation and Community , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Shapiro, Ian, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood and Alexander S. Kirshner (eds.), 2009. Political Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Urbinati, Nadia, 2000. “Representation as Advocacy: A Study of Democratic Deliberation,” Political Theory , 28: 258–786.
Urbinati, Nadia and Mark Warren, 2008. “The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory,” Annual Review of Political Science , 11: 387–412
Vieira, Monica and David Runciman, 2008. Representation , Cambridge: Polity Press.
Vieira, Monica (ed.), 2017. Reclaiming Representation: Contemporary Advances in the Theory of Political Representation , New York: Routledge Press.
Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(1): 5–22.
Barber, Benjamin, 1984. Strong Democracy , Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Dryzek, John, 1996. “Political Inclusion and the Dynamics of Democratization,” American Political Science Review , 90 (September): 475–487.
Pateman, Carole, 1970. Participation and Democratic Theory , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rousseau, Jean Jacques, 1762, The Social Contract , Judith Masters and Roger Masters (trans.), New York: St. Martins Press, 1978.
Saward, Michael, 2008. “Representation and Democracy: Revisions and Possibilities,” Sociology Compass , 2: 1000–1013.
Apter, David, 1968. “Notes for a Theory of Nondemocratic Representation,” in Nomos X , Chapter 19, pp. 278–317.
Brown, Mark, 2006. “Survey Article: Citizen Panels and the Concept of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 14: 203–225.
Cohen, Joshua and Joel Rogers, 1995. Associations and Democracy (The Real Utopias Project: Volume 1), Erik Olin Wright (ed.), London: Verso.
Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P. Wattenberg (eds.), 2002. Parties without partisans: Political change in advanced industrial democracies , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Montanaro, L., 2012. “The Democratic Legitimacy of Self-appointed Representatives,” The Journal of Politics , 74(4): 1094–1107.
Ryden, David K., 1996. Representation in Crisis: The Constitution, Interest Groups, and Political Parties , Albany: State University of New York Press.
Truman, David, 1951. The Governmental Process , New York: Knopf.
Saward, Michael, 2009. “ Authorisation and Authenticity: Representation and the Unelected,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17: 1–22.
Steunenberg, Bernard and J. J. A.Thomassen, 2002. The European Parliament : Moving Toward Democracy in the EU , Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schmitter, Philippe, 2000. “Representation,” in How to democratize the European Union and Why Bother? , Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, Ch. 3. pp. 53–74.
Street, John, 2004. “Celebrity politicians: popular culture and political representation,” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations , 6(4): 435–452.
Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2007. Affirmative Advocacy: Race, Class, and Gender in Interest Group Politics , Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Tormey, S., 2012. “Occupy Wall Street: From representation to post-representation,” Journal of Critical Globalisation Studies , 5: 132–137.
Richardson, Henry, 2002. “Representative government,” in Democratic Autonomy , Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch. 14, pp. 193–202
Runciman, David, 2010. “Hobbes’s Theory of Representation: anti-democratic or protodemoratic,” in Political Representation , Ian Shapiro, Susan C. Stokes, Elisabeth Jean Wood, and Alexander Kirshner (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Warren, Mark, 2001. Democracy and Association , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
–––, 2008. “Citizen Representatives,” in Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British ColumbiaCitizens’ Assembly , Mark Warren and Hilary Pearse (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 50–69.
Warren, Mark and Dario Castiglione, 2004. “The Transformation of Democratic Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 5, 20–22.
Amy, Douglas, 1996. Real Choices/New Voices: The Case for Proportional Elections in the United States , New York: Columbia University Press.
Barber, Kathleen, 2001. A Right to Representation: Proportional Election Systems for the 21 st Century , Columbia: Ohio University Press.
Canon, David, 1999. Race, Redistricting, and Representation: The Unintended Consequences of Black Majority Districts , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Christiano, Thomas, 1996. The Rule of the Many , Boulder: Westview Press.
Cotta, Maurizio and Heinrich Best (eds.), 2007. Democratic Representation in Europe Diversity, Change, and Convergence , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Guinier, Lani, 1994. The Tyranny of the Majority: Fundamental Fairness in Representative Democracy , New York: Free Press.
Przworksi, Adam, Susan C. Stokes, and Bernard Manin (eds.), 1999. Democracy, Accountability, and Representation , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Dennis, 2002. Just Elections , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Jacobs, Lawrence R. and Robert Y. Shapiro, 2000. Politicians Don’t Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness , Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Grant, Ruth and Robert O. Keohane, 2005. “Accountability and Abuses of Power in World Politics,” American Political Science Review , 99 (February): 29–44.
Mansbridge, Jane, 2004. “Representation Revisited: Introduction to the Case Against Electoral Accountability,” Democracy and Society , 2(I): 12–13.
–––, 2009. “A Selection Model of Representation,” Journal of Political Philosophy , 17(4): 369–398.
Pettit, Philip, 2010. “Representation, Responsive and Indicative,” Constellations , 17(3): 426–434.
Fishkin, John, 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy , New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Gutmann, Amy and Dennis Thompson, 2004. Why Deliberative Democracy? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hibbing, John and Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, 2002. Stealth Democracy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Saward, Michael (ed.), 2000. Democratic Innovation: Deliberation, Representation and Association , London: Routledge.
Severs, E., 2010. “Representation As Claims-Making. Quid Responsiveness?” Representation , 46(4): 411–423.
Williams, Melissa, 2000. “The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and Deliberative Democracy,” in Citizenship in Diverse Societies , W. Kymlicka and Wayne Norman (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, Ch 5. pp. 124–153.
Young, Iris Marion, 1999. “Justice, Inclusion, and Deliberative Democracy” in Deliberative Politics , Stephen Macedo (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University.
Bentran, Cristina, 2010. The Trouble with Unity: Latino Politics and the Creation of Identity , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Celis, Karen, Sarah Childs, Johanna Kantola and Mona Lena Krook, 2008, “Rethinking Women’s Substantive Representation,” Representation , 44(2): 99–110.
Childs Sarah, 2008. Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation , London: Routledge.
Dovi, Suzanne, 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?,” American Political Science Review , 96: 745–754.
–––, 2007. “Theorizing Women’s Representation in the United States?,” Politics and Gender , 3(3): 297–319. doi: 10.1017/S1743923X07000281
–––, 2009. “In Praise of Exclusion,” Journal of Politics , 71 (3): 1172–1186.
–––, 2016. “Measuring Representation: Rethinking the Role of Exclusion” Political Representation , Marc Bühlmann and Jan Fivaz (eds.), London: Routledge.
Fenno, Richard F., 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and Their Constituents , Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Gay, Claudine, 2002. “Spirals of Trust?,” American Journal of Political Science , 4: 717–32.
Gould, Carol, 1996. “Diversity and Democracy: Representing Differences,” in Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political , Seyla Benhabib (ed.), Princeton: Princeton University, pp. 171–186.
Htun, Mala, 2004. “Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups,” Perspectives on Politics , 2: 439–458.
Mansbridge, Jane, 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’,” The Journal of Politics , 61: 628–57.
–––, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
Phillips, Anne, 1995. Politics of Presence , New York: Clarendon.
–––, 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should It Matter Who Our Representatives Are?,” in Feminism and Politics , Oxford: Oxford University. pp. 224–240.
Pitkin, Hanna, 1967. The Concept of Representation , Los Angeles: University of Press.
Sapiro, Virginia, 1981. “When are Interests Interesting?,” American Political Science Review , 75 (September): 701–721.
Strolovitch, Dara Z., 2004. “Affirmative Representation,” Democracy and Society , 2: 3–5.
Swain, Carol M., 1993. Black Faces, Black Interests: The Representation of African Americans in Congress , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Thomas, Sue, 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies,” Journal of Politics , 53 (November): 958–976.
–––, 1994. How Women Legislate , New York: Oxford University Press.
Weldon, S. Laurel, 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking,” Journal of Politics , 64(4): 1153–1174.
Williams, Melissa, 1998. Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University.
Young, Iris Marion, 1986. “Deferring Group Representation,” Nomos: Group Rights , Will Kymlicka and Ian Shapiro (eds.), New York: New York University Press, pp. 349–376.
–––, 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
–––, 2000. Inclusion and Democracy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.

G. Democratic Representation

Castiglione, D., 2015. “Trajectories and Transformations of the Democratic Representative System”. Global Policy , 6(S1): 8–16.
Disch, Lisa, 2011. “Toward a Mobilization Conception of Democratic Representation,” American Political Science Review , 105(1): 100–114.
–––, 2012. “Democratic representation and the constituency paradox,” Perspectives on Politics , 10(3): 599–616.
–––, 2016. “Hanna Pitkin, The Concept of Representation,” The Oxford Handbook of Classics in Contemporary Political Theory , Jacob Levy (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198717133.013.24
Mansbridge, Jane, 2003. “Rethinking Representation,” American Political Science Review , 97: 515–528.
Näsström, Sofia, 2006. “Representative democracy as tautology: Ankersmit and Lefort on representation,” European Journal of Political Theory , 5(3): 321–342.
Urbinati, Nadia, 2011. “Political Representation as Democratic Process,” Redescriptions (Yearbook of Political Thought and Conceptual History: Volume 10), Kari Palonen (ed.), Helsinki: Transaction Publishers.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

FairVote Program for Representative Government
Proportional Representation Library , provides readings proportional representation elections created by Prof. Douglas J. Amy, Dept. of Politics, Mount Holyoke College
Representation , an essay by Ann Marie Baldonado on the Postcolonial Studies website at Emory University.
Representation: John Locke, Second Treatise, §§ 157–58 , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press
Popular Basis of Political Authority: David Hume, Of the Original Contract , in The Founders’ Constitution at the University of Chicago Press

Burke, Edmund | democracy

Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

Info about mirror sites

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Why Representation Matters and Why It’s Still Not Enough

Reflections on growing up brown, queer, and asian american..

Posted December 27, 2021 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

Positive media representation can be helpful in increasing self-esteem for people of marginalized groups (especially youth).
Interpersonal contact and exposure through media representation can assist in reducing stereotypes of underrepresented groups.
Representation in educational curricula and social media can provide validation and support, especially for youth of marginalized groups.

Growing up as a Brown Asian American child of immigrants, I never really saw anyone who looked like me in the media. The TV shows and movies I watched mostly concentrated on blonde-haired, white, or light-skinned protagonists. They also normalized western and heterosexist ideals and behaviors, while hardly ever depicting things that reflected my everyday life. For example, it was equally odd and fascinating that people on TV didn’t eat rice at every meal; that their parents didn’t speak with accents; or that no one seemed to navigate a world of daily microaggressions . Despite these observations, I continued to absorb this mass media—internalizing messages of what my life should be like or what I should aspire to be like.

Because there were so few media images of people who looked like me, I distinctly remember the joy and validation that emerged when I did see those representations. Filipino American actors like Ernie Reyes, Nia Peeples, Dante Basco, and Tia Carrere looked like they could be my cousins. Each time they sporadically appeared in films and television series throughout my youth, their mere presence brought a sense of pride. However, because they never played Filipino characters (e.g., Carrere was Chinese American in Wayne's World ) or their racial identities remained unaddressed (e.g., Basco as Rufio in Hook ), I did not know for certain that they were Filipino American like me. And because the internet was not readily accessible (nor fully informational) until my late adolescence , I could not easily find out.

Through my Ethnic Studies classes as an undergraduate student (and my later research on Asian American and Filipino American experiences with microaggressions), I discovered that my perspectives were not that unique. Many Asian Americans and other people of color often struggle with their racial and ethnic identity development —with many citing how a lack of media representation negatively impacts their self-esteem and overall views of their racial or cultural groups. Scholars and community leaders have declared mottos like how it's "hard to be what you can’t see," asserting that people from marginalized groups do not pursue career or academic opportunities when they are not exposed to such possibilities. For example, when women (and women of color specifically) don’t see themselves represented in STEM fields , they may internalize that such careers are not made for them. When people of color don’t see themselves in the arts or in government positions, they likely learn similar messages too.

Complicating these messages are my intersectional identities as a queer person of color. In my teens, it was heartbreakingly lonely to witness everyday homophobia (especially unnecessary homophobic language) in almost all television programming. The few visual examples I saw of anyone LGBTQ involved mostly white, gay, cisgender people. While there was some comfort in seeing them navigate their coming out processes or overcome heterosexism on screen, their storylines often appeared unrealistic—at least in comparison to the nuanced homophobia I observed in my religious, immigrant family. In some ways, not seeing LGBTQ people of color in the media kept me in the closet for years.

How representation can help

Representation can serve as opportunities for minoritized people to find community support and validation. For example, recent studies have found that social media has given LGBTQ young people the outlets to connect with others—especially when the COVID-19 pandemic has limited in-person opportunities. Given the increased suicidal ideation, depression , and other mental health issues among LGBTQ youth amidst this global pandemic, visibility via social media can possibly save lives. Relatedly, taking Ethnic Studies courses can be valuable in helping students to develop a critical consciousness that is culturally relevant to their lives. In this way, representation can allow students of color to personally connect to school, potentially making their educational pursuits more meaningful.

Further, representation can be helpful in reducing negative stereotypes about other groups. Initially discussed by psychologist Dr. Gordon Allport as Intergroup Contact Theory, researchers believed that the more exposure or contact that people had to groups who were different from them, the less likely they would maintain prejudice . Literature has supported how positive LGBTQ media representation helped transform public opinions about LGBTQ people and their rights. In 2019, the Pew Research Center reported that the general US population significantly changed their views of same-sex marriage in just 15 years—with 60% of the population being opposed in 2004 to 61% in favor in 2019. While there are many other factors that likely influenced these perspective shifts, studies suggest that positive LGBTQ media depictions played a significant role.

For Asian Americans and other groups who have been historically underrepresented in the media, any visibility can feel like a win. For example, Gold House recently featured an article in Vanity Fair , highlighting the power of Asian American visibility in the media—citing blockbuster films like Crazy Rich Asians and Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings . Asian American producers like Mindy Kaling of Never Have I Ever and The Sex Lives of College Girls demonstrate how influential creators of color can initiate their own projects and write their own storylines, in order to directly increase representation (and indirectly increase mental health and positive esteem for its audiences of color).

When representation is not enough

However, representation simply is not enough—especially when it is one-dimensional, superficial, or not actually representative. Some scholars describe how Asian American media depictions still tend to reinforce stereotypes, which may negatively impact identity development for Asian American youth. Asian American Studies is still needed to teach about oppression and to combat hate violence. Further, representation might also fail to reflect the true diversity of communities; historically, Brown Asian Americans have been underrepresented in Asian American media, resulting in marginalization within marginalized groups. For example, Filipino Americans—despite being the first Asian American group to settle in the US and one of the largest immigrant groups—remain underrepresented across many sectors, including academia, arts, and government.

Representation should never be the final goal; instead, it should merely be one step toward equity. Having a diverse cast on a television show is meaningless if those storylines promote harmful stereotypes or fail to address societal inequities. Being the “first” at anything is pointless if there aren’t efforts to address the systemic obstacles that prevent people from certain groups from succeeding in the first place.

Instead, representation should be intentional. People in power should aim for their content to reflect their audiences—especially if they know that doing so could assist in increasing people's self-esteem and wellness. People who have the opportunity to represent their identity groups in any sector may make conscious efforts to use their influence to teach (or remind) others that their communities exist. Finally, parents and teachers can be more intentional in ensuring that their children and students always feel seen and validated. By providing youth with visual representations of people they can relate to, they can potentially save future generations from a lifetime of feeling underrepresented or misunderstood.

Kevin Leo Yabut Nadal, Ph.D., is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at the City University of New York and the author of books including Microaggressions and Traumatic Stress .

Find a Therapist
Find a Treatment Center
Find a Psychiatrist
Find a Support Group
Find Online Therapy
United States
Brooklyn, NY
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Los Angeles, CA
New York, NY
Portland, OR
San Diego, CA
San Francisco, CA
Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
Asperger's
Bipolar Disorder
Chronic Pain
Eating Disorders
Passive Aggression
Personality
Goal Setting
Positive Psychology
Stopping Smoking
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
Child Development
Therapy Center NEW
Diagnosis Dictionary
Types of Therapy

Understanding what emotional intelligence looks like and the steps needed to improve it could light a path to a more emotionally adept world.

Emotional Intelligence
Gaslighting
Affective Forecasting
Neuroscience

What is Representational Art? (Explained with Examples)

When you look at an artwork, the first thing that crosses your mind is how attractive or unattractive the art is. While some artwork simply expresses aesthetic beauty, other artworks aim to pass a message or represent real situations. The latter type of art is known as representational art.

Representational arts are artworks that depict real situations. The sources of inspiration for a representational work are generally real objects, people, or scenes. For instance, the painting of a cat is considered to be representational art because it describes a real-world subject.

Keep reading to learn more about representational art including its history, its importance in the art world, and some of the styles most well-known artists.

Table of Contents

Definition Of Representational Art

A primitive cave painting is an example of Representational Art.

(This article may contain affiliate links and I may earn a commission if you make a purchase)

A representational artwork contains a real image or object that individuals can easily identify. Therefore, the artist aims at using a skillful technique to give the visual art an appropriate touch of realism.

Some representational artworks fuse abstract art with reality, but this doesn’t make it less of representational art. In other words, some representational artworks could depict real objects in a realistic way, but that is not required.

For instance, a representational artist can paint a flower using characteristics that anyone can identify as a flower’s, but then the artist adds other abstract elements to its environment. These elements are things you would never find in the environment of a flower which also diminishes the concept of reality.

But, provided that it still has the basic elements related to something real, it is still considered a form of representational art.

Representational pieces usually contain seascapes, landscapes, portraits, and still-life figures. Aside from these, representational arts represent scenes from everyday life and history.

Note #1 : Sometimes, Representational Art is referred to as Figurative Art even though it doesn’t have to contain figures.

Note #2 : Nonrepresentational art would be artwork that doesn’t portray anything that is real. In other words, the art work doesn’t attempt to illustrate a person, place, or object as in conceptual art. See artist Piet Mondrian’s Kunstmuseum Den Haag as an example.

A Brief History Of Representational Art

Representational arts are some of the oldest surviving artworks in the world. These works date back to cave paintings from over 40,000 years ago. Another example is The Venus of Willendorf , which dates back to more than 25,000 years ago.

There are also ancient arts that date back as far as the Stone age. They usually represent real people and scenes and sometimes narrate the setting of their environment.

The most impressive representational artworks came to be during the Renaissance . Historical artists like Leonardo de Vinci and Michelangelo are two of the most famous artists responsible for this type of work. Both artists created pieces that were stunning replicas of real people.

A good example of these artworks is Leonardo de Vinci’s Mona Lisa , where we see the perfect representation of a woman. During this period, artists did mostly commissioned works for royalty. In other words, most of the artwork around this time depicted real people, and as such are representational .

Over time, painting techniques have continued to develop and have undergone many stylistic changes. Despite the phases it’s gone through, figurative art has maintained the concept of presenting real-life objects as the subject of the painting.

The Importance Of Representational Art

Representational art portrays real life people, places, or things.

The reign of representational art in history has been quite significant, and the majority of artists have expressed it in their works of art. Despite the advancement of other art forms, representational art has remained quite unchanged. Today, it still remains one of the most prevalent forms of art due to its positive reception from both artists and viewers.

The representational art style is important for the following reasons:

Representational Art Serves As A Guideline For Artistic Merit

One of the major roles that representational paintings and other artworks play is that it sets a standard for evaluating the artistic excellence of an art piece . Evaluation of an artist’s work often depends on the authenticity and similarity it shares with the image the artist tried to recreate. With this, it is easier to differentiate outstanding works from average ones, especially in a portrait or still-life drawing.

Learn how to create a realistic pencil drawing.

This is an added advantage over other forms of art, as the subject of the artist’s work is a visible reference to aid evaluation. In other words, if an artist paints an image of a tree in a meadow, the artist’s skill will be judged based on how much the figurative painting is an authentic representation of the original subject.

Representational Art Serves As A Starting Point For Artworks

Portraits, landscapes, scenes, and other life situations serve as a starting point and inspiration for an artist whose goal is to replicate a real subject . Representational art involves an artist’s basic skills, including drawing, composition, color mixture, light contrast, and perspective. Therefore, an artist with these skills can paint using any form of art technique.

As a result, beginners favor representational art as it helps hone basic artistic skills and helps them graduate into more complicated art forms.

Representational Arts Is Easily Accessible

Representational art is a genre that never grows old and has remained in vogue throughout the history of art . In some cases, these artworks only received recognition after many years had passed. The fact that modern-day individuals still understood these art pieces after such a long period of time, demonstrates the application and the usefulness of representational art.

The rapid growth of technology has also resulted in an increasing amount of comfort that people have with representational art . This is due to the ease with which galleries and artists can reproduce artwork using digital tools and computer programs. In this way, popular art pieces can be duplicated and widely distributed while ensuring that they retain the quality of the original image.

Artists Who Have Created Well-Known Representational Works of Art

There have been many works of art that artists have created over the years that depict real-life things and people. Some of them are exceptional examples of representational art. Each artwork depicts a specific subject matter such as a person, a still-life, an animal, or a landscape.

Let’s take a look at some of these famous Representational artworks and the artists who created them.

Paul Cezanne’s Masterpiece, Four Apples

Four Apples is a still-life representational painting that Paul Cézanne painted in oil on canvas in 1881. It is notable because it demonstrates his rejection of wide brushstrokes and instead preferred the use of strong light and shadow contrasts.

Cézanne used this technique to bring out the colors of the subjects he was painting, allowing him to produce works of art that were lifelike in their appearance.

No one could mistake the four round objects in the middle of the canvas in Four Apples for anything other than apples. Though Four Apples is one of his more plain works, the complexity of this piece is found in the way he depicts its subject matter.

This ability to depict the fruit exactly as he saw it allowed Cézanne to avoid any possibility of his work being misinterpreted by the public at large.

Joaqun Sorolla’s Valencian Fishermen

Valencian Fishermen is a simple picture that Sorolla painted in 1895 during the period of the Impressionist movement. By giving his painting such a straightforward title, Joaquin Sorolla could convey exactly what his artwork was about.

His painting shows two men standing at the edge of the water, working with fishing equipment.

His inspiration is assumed to be from real-life Valencian fishermen, going about their business in the middle of the day. The painting gives an aura of a peaceful city though it clearly focuses on the fisherman working on the coast.

Stanley Spencer’s Turkeys

Turkeys demonstrated the painters’ ability to accurately portray animal representations in an incredibly realistic and representational manner. In this picture, Sir Stanley Spencer painted turkeys in the backyard of someone’s home. These turkeys were the focal point of the painting. Thus, they were the first things an admirer saw.

As a result, it is unlikely for viewers to misinterpret the subject matter of Spencer’s work. Beginning with the title, Spencer conveyed the message and what his painting represented.

Algernon Newton’s The Surrey Canal, Camberwell

The Surrey Canal, Camberwell is a 1935 representation of the real version of a canal. Here, it is easy to see what Algernon Newton was trying to portray.

Because of the incredible attention to detail and realism he used in his artwork, galleries regard this painting as a notable example of Representational art .

Although Newton painted The Surrey Canal, Camberwell with great precision, the artwork’s quality stems from a different fact. The painting gives spectators the sense that they are looking at a photograph of the canal rather than a painting of it.

A Few Final Thoughts About The Representational Style

In addition to the four artworks I mentioned above, there are many artists who have portrayed real things in their artwork. In fact, the vast majority of artworks in existence were created using the representational style .

Representational art continues to make history, and the style often gives artists a starting point for an artwork.

Even if the artwork contains abstract elements, it is still considered representational art as long as the art is portraying a real-life subject.

With the role representational art plays in paintings, sculpture, and other artwork, it will continue to remain one of the art world’s most preferred art genres.

Can An Artist Have Multiple Styles? (Explained)

Idealized Art (A World of Perfection)

Bryan is an artist living in Las Vegas, Nevada who loves travel, ebiking, and putting ketchup on his tacos (Who does that?!). More about Bryan here.

Street Art vs Graffiti (How are They Different?)

For ages, people have shown creativity and expressed themselves through art. Two art forms that have helped in self-expression amongst young people are Street Art and Graffiti. Chances are that you’ve seen a few buildings, city walls, or train cars covered in painted murals or styled writings and either admired it or considered it to…

Can An Artist Have Multiple Styles? (Explained)

As a messy-minded artist, I have always found it difficult to stick with one art style. However, my curiosity and desire for experimentation were useful during art courses where I was encouraged to broaden my horizons. But can an artist have multiple styles? Yes, an artist can have multiple styles and mediums. Famous artists are…

What is Traditional Art? The Present Day Concept and Revival

What is traditional art? It began with muddy handprints slapped on cave walls and progressed to mediums that are still practiced today, such as painting, drawing, and sculpture. Traditional arts include any type of creative practice passed down through generations. The intention of traditional art is to express cultural and religious ideas, as well as…

The Beginner’s Guide To Conceptual Art: What’s The Big Deal?

Conceptual art can be an ambiguous art form and difficult to understand, especially if you are new to the art world. But it does have its appeal. Conceptual art is important in the evolution of contemporary art. Conceptual art is an art form that is all about the idea itself. In conceptualism, there is more…

What is Folk Art? (Explained)

Folk Art is everywhere around us. It is unaffected by revolutions or academic theories. It includes work created by indigenous people, peasants, and other low-wage workers. Folk art, unlike fine art, is largely functional and decorative rather than solely attractive. It is distinguished by a naive style that rejects established proportion and perspective principles. Folk…

What Is The Main Subject Of Persian Landscape Art? (Explained)

Persian art, also known as Iranian art, is one of the richest art heritages in the world, which encompasses many influences of neighboring countries and cultures. Most Persian artists prefer to paint landscapes; however, the main subject in these paintings differs from the subjects in Western-style landscapes. So, what is the main subject in Persian…

What is the biblical meaning of the number 2 and its representation of unity?

Posted: May 7, 2024 | Last updated: May 7, 2024

In conclusion, the biblical meaning of the number 2 speaks to the profound significance of unity amidst diversity—a theme woven throughout scripture and reflected in the harmony of creation, the covenant relationship between God and His people, and the unity found in Christ. As believers, we are called to embrace this unity, recognizing the inherent value of diversity and the strength that comes from working together for God's purposes. ]]>

Embracing Unity in Diversity

$Through the redemptive work of Christ, the fractured unity between God and humanity is restored. The reconciliation achieved through Christ's sacrifice brings together diverse peoples and cultures into one unified body, fulfilling God's plan for harmony and wholeness. ]]>$

Restoration of Unity in Christ

In Christian theology, the concept of the Church as the "body of Christ" emphasizes unity in diversity among believers (1 Corinthians 12:12-27). Just as the human body consists of many parts working together, so too does the Church thrive on the diversity of its members united in Christ. ]]>

The Church: Body of Christ

The book of Ecclesiastes proclaims, "Two are better than one because they have a good return for their labor" (Ecclesiastes 4:9). This wisdom highlights the strength and mutual support found in unity, encouraging cooperation and collaboration among believers. ]]>

Ecclesiastes: Strength in Unity

The number 2 in biblical symbolism underscores the principle of unity amidst diversity—a harmonious blending of different elements or individuals working together for a common purpose. It celebrates the beauty of diversity while affirming the essential unity that binds all creation together. ]]>

Unity in Diversity

In the New Testament, Jesus commissioned his disciples in pairs, sending them out two by two to preach the gospel and minister to others (Mark 6:7). This partnership model reflects the collaborative nature of ministry and the importance of mutual support and accountability. ]]>

Jesus' Commissioning of Disciples

Two Tablets of the Law

The construction of Noah's Ark provides another biblical example of the significance of the number 2. The ark served as a vessel for preserving unity amidst diversity, as pairs of animals—male and female—were brought together to ensure the continuity of life (Genesis 6:19-20). ]]>

Noah's Ark: Preservation of Unity

The story of Adam and Eve exemplifies the unity represented by the number 2 in biblical symbolism. Through marriage, Adam and Eve become "one flesh," symbolizing the profound unity and partnership between man and woman ordained by God (Genesis 2:24). ]]>

Adam and Eve: Unity in Marriage

In the biblical creation narrative, the number 2 is prominent in the establishment of dualities, such as the separation of heaven and earth (Genesis 1:6-8). This division sets the stage for the unfolding of divine order and the harmonious coexistence of complementary elements. ]]>

Creation Story: Heaven and Earth

The number 2 in biblical numerology is often associated with the concept of duality—the idea of two entities or aspects existing in harmony or opposition. It symbolizes partnership, cooperation, and the complementary nature of opposites coming together. ]]>

Duality and Partnership

Numbers in the Bible are not merely mathematical entities but convey symbolic meanings and spiritual truths. Each number carries unique significance, serving as a vehicle for conveying divine messages and revealing deeper layers of truth. ]]>

Symbolism of Numbers in Scripture

More for you.

I was fired from a new job in less than a week after I started. It taught me not every opportunity is a good opportunity.

Tom Brady roast: Michael Jordan among nine sports icons who should be in the hot seat next

Businessman Slipping a Stack of Cash into His Suit Pocket

Who Is the Richest Person in the World? Top 10 People by Net Worth in 2024

Donald Trump in 'Best Case Scenario' With Trial: Ex-Aide

The #1 sitcom of all time isn't 'Seinfeld,' 'Friends,' or 'The Office,' according to data. See the top 100.

This Map Shows the Most Popular Pies by State

10 Cars That are Super Cheap to Insure

Kelsey Plum #10 of the Las Vegas Aces dribbles the ball during the game against the Dallas Wings on September 29, 2023 at the College Park Center in Arlington, TX.

WNBA star Kelsey Plum talks 'tough' offseason after filing for divorce from Giants' Darren Waller

14 fascinating things most Americans don’t even know about the USA

CBS & CBS Studios Chiefs On Building ‘NCIS' Universe: Pending Renewals, Possible Crossovers & Bringing Back Tiva

‘NCIS' Tony & Ziva Spinoff Series Gets Official Title

50 most popular chain restaurants in America

The #1 restaurant chain in America, according to diners—and see the rest of the top 50

29-year-old ex-bartender now earns $100,000 working in AI without a college degree—here's how

5 Things You Need To Stop Doing If Your Car Has An Automatic Transmission

I Lost 100lbs by Following 5 Small Daily Habits

Russia Threatens ‘Highly Dangerous’ Conflict After Petition Pushing For NATO Troops Circulates On Ukrainian Government Site

A 62-year-old employed 'peak boomer' in California makes too much for affordable housing but lives in her car: 'I'll work until I drop'

25 Facts You Learned in School That Are No Longer True

Top 10 most expensive US states to live in – see if yours makes the list

We Tried And Ranked 17 Of The Best Frozen Pizzas And The Winner Had Us Shook

Brittney Griner to Caitlin Clark: WNBA Is 'Different' with Players Trying to 'Feed Their Families' (Exclusive)

School Guide
Mathematics
Number System and Arithmetic
Trigonometry
Probability
Mensuration
Maths Formulas
Class 8 Maths Notes
Class 9 Maths Notes
Class 10 Maths Notes
Class 11 Maths Notes
Class 12 Maths Notes
Geometry – Definition, Examples, 2D and 3D Shapes & Applications

Lines and Angles

Lines in Geometry: Definition, Types and Examples
Difference between a Line and a Ray

Angles Definition, Types and Examples

Types of angles, 2d geometry.

Points, Lines and Planes
Polygon Formula - Definition, Symbol, Examples
Types of Polygons
Understanding Quadrilaterals - Measures of the Exterior Angles of a Polygon
Triangles in Geometry
Types of Triangles, Classifications, Practice Questions and FAQs
Angle Sum Property of a Triangle
Area of Triangle | Formula and Examples
Theorem - Angle opposite to equal sides of an isosceles triangle are equal | Class 9 Maths
GRE Geometry | Triangles
Triangle Inequality Theorem, Proof & Applications
Congruence of Triangles |SSS, SAS, ASA, and RHS Rules
Mid Point Theorem
X and Y Intercept Formula
Basic Proportionality Theorem (BPT) | Proof and Examples
Criteria for Similarity of Triangles
Pythagoras Theorem | Formula, Proof and Examples

Quadrilateral

Types of Quadrilaterals and Their Properties
Angle Sum Property of a Quadrilateral
Introduction to Parallelogram: Properties, Types, and Theorem
Rhombus: Definition, Properties, Formula, Examples
Square in Maths - Area, Perimeter, Examples & Applications
Rectangle | Definition, Properties, Formulas
Trapezium in Maths | Formulas, Properties & Examples
Kite - Quadrilaterals
Area of Parallelogram (Definition, Formulas & Examples)

Euclidâ€™s Geometry

Euclidean Geometry
Equivalent Version of Euclid’s Fifth Postulate
Circles in Maths
Circumference of Circle - Definition, Perimeter Formula, and Examples
Area of a Circle: Formula, Derivation, Examples
Area of a Circular Sector
Segment of a Circle
Circle Theorems
Tangent to a Circle
Theorem - The tangent at any point of a circle is perpendicular to the radius through the point of contact - Circles | Class 10 Maths
Number of Tangents from a Point on a Circle
Theorem - The lengths of tangents drawn from an external point to a circle are equal - Circles | Class 10 Maths
Equation of a Circle
What is Cyclic Quadrilateral
Theorem - The sum of opposite angles of a cyclic quadrilateral is 180° | Class 9 Maths

3D Geometry

Visualizing Solid Shapes
Polyhedron | Meaning, Shapes, Formula, and Examples
Difference between 2D and 3D Shapes
Equation of a Straight Line
Slope of a Line
Angle between a Pair of Lines
Slope Intercept Form
Point Slope Form Formula of a Line
Writing Slope-Intercept Equations
Slope of perpendicular to line
Point of Intersection of Two Lines Formula: Solved Examples
Slope of the line parallel to the line with the given slope
Minimum distance from a point to the line segment using Vectors
Distance between two parallel lines
Equation of a straight line passing through a point and making a given angle with a given line

Conic Section

Conic Sections
Identifying Conic Sections from their Equation
Parabola | Graph, Properties, Examples & Equation of Parabola
Vertex of a Parabola Formula
Focus and Directrix of a Parabola
Equation of parabola from its focus and directrix
Standard Equation of a Parabola with Examples
Ellipse Formula
Equation of ellipse from its focus, directrix, and eccentricity
Perimeter of an Ellipse
How to find the Area of an Ellipse?
How to find the equation of an ellipse given the foci and minor axis?
Hyperbola | Equation, Definition & Properties
Hyperbola Formula
Asymptote Formula

An angle is a form of geometrical shape constructed by joining two rays to each other at their end points. The two lines joined together are called the arms of the angle and the measure of the opening between them is the value of the angle between these two lines.

Table of Content

Angle Definition

Symbol of an angle.

Representation of an Angle

Parts of an Angle

Arms of an Angle

Vertex of an angle, types of angles based on measurement, positive and negative angles, types of angles in pair, complementary angles, supplementary angles, adjacent angles, linear pair, vertically opposite angles., angles formed by transversal and parallel lines, corresponding angles, alternate interior angles, alternative exterior angles, consecutive interior angles, interior and exterior angles, angle measurement, degree of an angle, radian of an angle, how to measure an angle, steps to construct an angle, some important results on angles, solved examples on angles.

In this article, we will learn about the definition and parts of angles in Geometry , their representation, examples, and t ypes like acute angle, right angle, obtuse angle, etc. along with FAQs.

An Angle is a shape or space formed at the meeting point of two intersecting rays.∫

An angle is formed when two rays are joined together at a common point. The two lines are called ‘Arms of the Angle’ and the common point of the meeting is called a ‘Vertex’.

Angle is represented by the symbol “∠”

While writing an angle ∠ is used along with the points. The common point is written in between the two other points. For Example, if we have ∠AOB, it means O is the common point at which two rays OA and OB are meeting and an angle is formed.

Check: Lines and Angles

An angle consists of the following parts :

Arms of the Angle
Vertex of the angle
Initial Side
Terminal Side

The image shown below shows the parts of an angle.

The two rays that joint together to form the angles are called the arms of the angle. In the image added below, OP and OQ are the arms of the angle. The space between these two arms is the measure of the angle.

The endpoint of the two arms of the angles is called the vertex of the angle. It is the point where the arms of the angle meet. In the above image added O is the vertex of the angle.

There are different types of angles judged on the basis of four different parameters. They are mentioned as follows:

On the Basis of Measurement
On the Basis of Rotation
On the Basis of Pair
On the Basis of Intersection by Transversal

There are six types of angles on the basis of measurement. They are:

Acute Angle

Right Angle

Obtuse Angle

Straight Angle

Reflex Angle

Complete Angle

Learn More, 7 Types of Angles

The angle that measures less than 90° is the Acute Angle. The degree always measures between 0 and 90.

Acute angles measure positive when the rotation is anticlockwise and negative when the rotation of the angle is clockwise.

In the figure, O is the vertex of the angle, and OA and OB are two intersecting rays that meet at point O forming an angle less than 90°. Hence, ∠AOB is an acute angle.

Right Angle

The angle that exactly measures 90° is called a Right Angle.

It is also considered as a half straight angle as half of 180° makes a right angle. The value of the angle may be positive or negative on the basis of the rotation of the angle.

In the figure, O is the vertex of the angle, and OA and OB are two intersecting rays that meet at point O forming an angle of exactly 90°. Hence, ∠AOB is a right angle. Also when two rays meet to form a 90° angle there are called Perpendicular to each other. Here OA and OB are perpendicular to each other.

The angle that measures more than 90° and less than 180° is called an Obtuse Angle. The degree always lies between 90° and 180°.

The value of the obtuse angle will be positive if the rotation is anticlockwise and negative if the rotation is clockwise.

In the figure, O is the vertex of the angle, and OA and OB are two intersecting rays that meet at point O forming an angle of more than 90°. Hence, ∠AOB is an obtuse angle.

The angle that measures exactly 180° is a Straight Angle. It is called Straight Angle because when two rays make 180° between them then they are in a straight line.

In the figure, of a straight angle, we can observe that O is the meeting point of two arms, called the vertex and OA and OB are two sides of the angle.

The angle that measures more than 180° and less than 360° is called a Reflex Angle. The degree always lies between 180° and 360°.

In the figure, O is the vertex of the angle, and OA and OB are two intersecting rays that meet at point O forming an angle of more than 180°. Hence, ∠AOB is a reflex angle.

The angle whose measurement is 360° is called a Complete Angle. It happens when you make a complete turnaround and reach the initial point then in this case the angle is Complete Angle.

Let’s now study angle on the basis of Rotation

There are two types of angles on the basis of Rotation. They are listed as follows:

Positive Angle

Negative Angle

The angle that moves anticlockwise from its base and is drawn from the point (x, y) which is its origin is called a positive angle.

The angle that moves clockwise from its base and is drawn from the point (-x, -y) which is its origin is a negative angle.

Now we will study the angles on the basis of pair.

There are five types of angles on the basis of pairs. They are :

Vertically Opposite Angles

Now let’s learn each of these angles in pair in detail.

If the summation of two angles measures 90° then, the angles are said to be Complementary Angles and each angle is called a complement of the other.

The two angles combining together do not require to be adjacent or similar. It can be any two types of angles measuring 90° after addition. For Example, 70 and 20 are complementary angles.

If the summation of two angles measures 180°, the angles are said to be Supplementary Angle. Each Angle is called a Supplement of the other.

For Example, 150° and 30° are Supplementary Angles.

Two angles are said to be adjacent if they have a common vertex, a common arm, and the rest two arms lie on the alternate side of the common arm. Angle AOC and Angle BOC are Adjacent Angles

∠AOC and ∠BOC are here adjacent because they have a common point O, a common vertex OC and rest two arms OA and OB lie on the alternate side of the common arm.

When the sum of two adjacent angles is 180° then they are called a Linear Pair.

As the name suggests the pair of angles result in a straight line.

Remember that there is one difference between Supplementary Angle and Linear Pair. For a Linear Pair, the two angles must be adjacent while there is no such condition for Supplementary Angles. For Supplementary Angles, only the sum of the angles should be 180° doesn’t matter if they are adjacent or not. Here ∠AOC and ∠BOC are linear pairs as AOB is a straight line.

When two lines intersect each other at a common point then the pair of angles in front of each other are called Vertically Opposite Angles.

In the below figure, AB and CD are two lines that intersect each other at O, then pairs of Vertically Opposite Angles are (∠AOC, ∠BOD) and (∠AOD, ∠BOC).
It should be noted that a pair of vertically opposite angles are equal i.e. ∠AOC = ∠BOD) and ∠AOD = ∠BOC).

Let’s now discuss the final category of angles i.e. Angles formed by the Transversal and Parallel Lines

There are four types of angles formed by transversal and parallel lines. They are :

Alternate Exterior Angles

Now let’s learn about these in detail.

The Angles that are present at similar positions and on the same side of the transversal are Corresponding Angles. Corresponding Angles are the same in measurement.

In the figure below, ∠AOL and ∠CPM are corresponding angles placed at similar positions one at the exterior and the other at the interior part.

The angles which are present on opposite sides of the transversal is the alternative interior angle. They are present at the inner side of the Z formed in the figure. The pair of Alternate Interior angles are equal to each other.

In the figure below, ∠AOT and ∠OTR are alternate interior angles placed interiorly alternate to each other. Similarly, ∠BOT and ∠OTQ are also Alternate Interior Angles.

The angles present on opposite sides of the transversal but externally are the alternative exterior angle. They are spotted at the exterior part of Z and both the angles measure the same.

In the figure below, (∠AOL, ∠DPM) and (∠BOL, ∠CPM) are the pair of Alternate Exterior Angles.

When two interior angles of the same side of the transversal are placed consecutively i.e. just after the other then they are called Consecutive Interior Angles. The sum of the pair of Consecutive Interior Angles is 180°.

In the below figure pair of Consecutive Interior Angles are (∠BOP, ∠CPO) and (∠AOP, ∠OPD).

Interior and exterior angles depends on the region of the angle where they are made. Let’s learn about interior and exterior angles below.

Interior Angle

The angles that are formed inside any shape are called the Interior angles . For Example, angle inside a triangle , quadrilateral etc.

Exterior Angle

The angle that are formed outside any shape are called the exterior angles.

Suppose we take a triangle ABC then and extend the line BC to D then in that figure we can easily mark the interior and exterior angles.

Here, in the above figure, ∠ABC, ∠BCA, and ∠CAB are interior angles and ∠ACD is the exterior angle.

The angle can be measured in ‘Degree’ or ‘Radian’. In the case of Degrees, the measurement goes from 0° to 360° while in the case of Radian measurement goes from 0 to π.
The smaller units of angle are minutes and seconds. Minute is represented by a single apostrophe(‘) while second is represented by a double apostrophe(”). We should remember below mentioned relations among various units of angles:

π = 180° 1° = 60′ 1′ = 60”

To convert the Angle from Degree to Median, we should multiply the given angle(in degrees) by π/180. Let’s see one example

Example: Convert 90° to Radian Solution: 90° × π/180 = π/2

To convert the Angle from Radian to Degree we should multiply the given angle(in radians) by 180/π. Let’s see one example

Example: Convert π/2 to Degrees. Solution: (π/2) × (180/π) = 90°

Learn more, Degrees to Radians

An angle can be measured easily by using a protector or compass. In general, we use the protector to measure the angles. Follow the steps added below to measure the angle,

Step 1: Place the protector above one of the arms of the angle.
Step 2: Measure the value in the anticlockwise direction or clockwise direction depending on the opening of the angle then mark the value where the angle’s arms coincide with the value in the protector.
Step 3: The reading obtained in the protector is the required measure of the angle.

An angle can be easily constructed using the proctor or compass. To construct an angle using the protractor we follow the steps added below,

Step 1: Draw a ray OA of any length that is parallel to horizontal edge of page.

Step 2: Place the protractor on the ray OA such that O is at the centre of the protractor. And OA is at the right side of the protractor.

Step 3: Mark the point from the right side of the protractor at the angle which we want to construct suppose we have to construct an angle of 60°(mark the point as P)

Step 4: Join OP ∠AOP is the required angle.

There are some results on angles that are generally used while solving problems of geometry . We have mentioned some of them down below.

Angle on any side of a straight line is 180°
Angle around a point is 360°
Vertically Opposite Angles are equal
Alternate Interior Angles are equal
Corresponding Angles are equal.
Sum of all three angles in a triangle is 180°
Sum of all four angles in a quadrilateral is 360°
Linear Pair always sum to 180° and are formed on either side of a straight line.
Complementary Angles sum to 90°
Supplementary Angles sum to 180°

Lines and Angles Angles Formula Types of Angles

Here we have provided you with a few solved examples to help you understand the concept of angles very clearly.

Example 1: Find the complementary angle of ∠A = 48 o .

Given angle, ∠A = 48 o Complement of any Angle = 90 o – Angle Complement of ∠A = 90 o – 48 o Complement of ∠A = 42 o Thus, the complement of ∠A is 42 o

Example 2: Find the supplemenatry angle of ∠A = 48 o .

Given angle, ∠A = 48 o Supplement of any Angle = 180 o – Angle Supplement of ∠A = 180 o – 48 o Supplement of ∠A = 132 o Thus, the complement of ∠A is 42 o

Example 3: Find the supplementary angle of ∠A = 98 o .

Given angle, ∠A = 98 o Supplement of any Angle = 180 o – Angle Complement of ∠A = 180 o – 98 o Complement of ∠A = 82 o Thus, the complement of ∠A is 8 2 o

Example 4: Classify the angles into different categories,

(1) ∠A = 12 o As the measure of ∠A is less than 90 o , thus it is an acute angle. ∠B = 172 o As the measure of ∠B is greater than 90 o , thus it is an obtuse angle. ∠C = 232 o As the measure of ∠C is greater than 180 o , thus it is a reflex angle. ∠D = 180 o As the measure of ∠D is equal to 180 o , thus it is a straight angle.

Practice Problems on Angles

Mentioned below are a few practice problems on angles for you to solve on your own:

1. Find the Supplementary Angle of ∠A = 82°

2. Find the Supplement of Angle ∠A = 108°

3. Find the Complementary Angle of ∠A = 45°

4. Find the Complement of Angle ∠A = 60°

Angles Definition, Types and Examples – FAQs

What are the different types of angles.

There are mainly six types of angles. They are listed as follows: Acute angle: Measures less than 90° Right Angle: Measures exactly 90° Obtuse angle: Measures more than 90° and less than 180° Straight angle: Measures exactly 180° Reflex angle: Measures more than 180° and less than 360° Complete Angle: Measures Exactly 360°

What are Angles?

An angle is a form of geometrical shape, that is constructed by joining two rays to each other at their end-points.

What are Different Types of Angles formed by Parallel Lines and Transversal?

The different types of angles formed by Parallel lines and Transversal are Corresponding Angle, Alternate Interior Angle, Alternate Exterior Angle and Consecutive Interior Angles.

What is a Linear Pair of angles?

When the sum of two adjacent angles is 180° then the pair of angles are called Linear Pair.

What are Complementary Angles?

Two angles whose sum is 90° are called Complementary Angles.

What are Supplementary Angles?

Two angles whose sum is 180° are called Supplementary Angles.

Please Login to comment...

Improve your Coding Skills with Practice

What kind of Experience do you want to share?

IMAGES

What Is Representation
REPRESENTATION
What is the Meaning of Representation
PPT
Representation power
Representation

VIDEO

Part 36: biomedical event extraction using abstract meaning representation
Representation of relation
Hello baccho what's meaning of Heigh and Dry?
3 Meaning Representation Conceptualization
CSCI:548 Unsupervised Entity Linking with Abstract Meaning Representation
what's meaning of gods image ll #shorts #kalyug #kali

COMMENTS

Representation Definition & Meaning
representation: [noun] one that represents: such as. an artistic likeness or image. a statement or account made to influence opinion or action. an incidental or collateral statement of fact on the faith of which a contract is entered into. a dramatic production or performance. a usually formal statement made against something or to effect a ...
REPRESENTATION
REPRESENTATION definition: 1. a person or organization that speaks, acts, or is present officially for someone else: 2. the…. Learn more.
REPRESENTATION definition
REPRESENTATION meaning: 1. a person or organization that speaks, acts, or is present officially for someone else: 2. the…. Learn more.
REPRESENTATION Definition & Meaning
Representation definition: the act of representing.. See examples of REPRESENTATION used in a sentence.
Representation
A representation acts or serves on behalf or in place of something. A lawyer provides legal representation for his client. A caricature is an exaggerated representation or likeness of a person.
representation noun
representation by a lawyer; direct representation in Parliament; Whether guilty or innocent, we are still entitled to legal representation. They had a strong representation in government. The task force had broad representation with members drawn from different departments. The party has increased its representation in Parliament.
REPRESENTATION definition
REPRESENTATION meaning: 1. speaking or doing something officially for another person: 2. the way someone or something is…. Learn more.
REPRESENTATION definition and meaning
10 meanings: 1. the act or an instance of representing or the state of being represented 2. anything that represents, such as a.... Click for more definitions.
Representation Definition & Meaning
Representation definition, the act of representing. See more.
representation noun
1 [uncountable, countable] the act of presenting someone or something in a particular way; something that shows or describes something synonym portrayal the negative representation of single mothers in the media The snake swallowing its tail is a representation of infinity.
Representation Definition & Meaning
a : a statement made to influence the opinions or actions of others. Her representation of the situation was very confusing. He was accused of making false representations. b chiefly British : a formal and official complaint about something. Our ambassador has made representations to their government.
Representation Definition & Meaning
Representation definition: The act of representing or the state of being represented.
Representation
Define representation. representation synonyms, representation pronunciation, representation translation, English dictionary definition of representation. n. 1. The act of representing or the state of being represented. 2. Something that represents, as: a. An image or likeness of something.
Representation
Depicting or 'making present' something which is absent (e.g. people, places, events, or abstractions) in a different form: as in paintings, photographs, films, or language, rather than as a replica. See also description; compare absent presence.2. The function of a sign or symbol of 'standing for' that to which it refers (its referent).3.
Represent Definition & Meaning
The meaning of REPRESENT is to bring clearly before the mind : present. How to use represent in a sentence. to bring clearly before the mind : present; to serve as a sign or symbol of; to portray or exhibit in art : depict…
Representation (arts)
Representation is the use of signs that stand in for and take the place of something else. It is through representation that people organize the world and reality through the act of naming its elements. Signs are arranged in order to form semantic constructions and express relations.. Bust of Aristotle, Greek philosopher. For many philosophers, both ancient and modern, man is regarded as the ...
Political Representation
Political representation occurs when political actors speak, advocate, symbolize, and act on the behalf of others in the political arena. In short, political representation is a kind of political assistance. This seemingly straightforward definition, however, is not adequate as it stands. For it leaves the concept of political representation ...
PDF THE WORK OF REPRESENTATION
Stuart Hall. 1 REPRESENTATION, MEANING AND LANGUAGE. In this chapter we will be concentrating on one of the key processes in the 'cultural circuit' (see Du Gay et al., 1997, and the Introduction to this volume) - the practices of representation. The aim of this chapter is to introduce you to this topic, and to explain what it is about and ...
Representation
representation, in government, method or process of enabling the citizenry, or some of them, to participate in the shaping of legislation and governmental policy through deputies chosen by them.. The rationale of representative government is that in large modern countries the people cannot all assemble, as they did in the marketplace of democratic Athens or Rome; and if, therefore, the people ...
Why Representation Matters and Why It's Still Not Enough
Representation should never be the final goal; instead, it should merely be one step toward equity. Having a diverse cast on a television show is meaningless if those storylines promote harmful ...
Representation (mathematics)
Representation (mathematics) In mathematics, a representation is a very general relationship that expresses similarities (or equivalences) between mathematical objects or structures. Roughly speaking, a collection Y of mathematical objects may be said to represent another collection X of objects, provided that the properties and relationships ...
Representation
Representation (politics), political activities undertaken by elected representatives, as well as other theories. Representative democracy, type of democracy in which elected officials represent a group of people. Representation in contract law, a pre-contractual statement that may (if untrue) result in liability for misrepresentation.
What is Representational Art? (Explained with Examples)
The latter type of art is known as representational art. Representational arts are artworks that depict real situations. The sources of inspiration for a representational work are generally real objects, people, or scenes. For instance, the painting of a cat is considered to be representational art because it describes a real-world subject.
What is the biblical meaning of the number 2 and its representation of
According to biblical numerology, numbers have symbolic meaning that reflects messages from God and higher spiritual truths. In the Bible, the number two is frequently used to symbolise concepts ...
What Is the Project Management Triangle?
Project management triangle definition. The project management triangle is a model that shows how the balance between three constraints—scope, time, and budget—affects project quality. Affecting one constraint will mean adjusting one or both of the others to maintain quality. It's also called the triple constraint model or the iron ...
Angles: Definition, Representation, Types, Examples, and FAQs
In this article, we will learn about the definition and parts of angles in Geometry, their representation, examples, and types like acute angle, right angle, obtuse angle, etc. along with FAQs. Angle Definition An Angle is a shape or space formed at the meeting point of two intersecting rays.∫
Meet the Capricorn Spirit Animals & What They Mean
However, this does not mean they should make commitments they cannot keep or take on duties they cannot manage. One positive trait of Capricorns that is often underappreciated is that they are solid as rocks, uncompromising and sincere. One of Capricorn's greatest strengths is its keen sense of duty, which makes its representatives excellent ...

Definition of representation – Learner’s Dictionary

representation noun ( SPEAKING FOR )

Translations of representation

Learn more with +Plus

Definition of 'representation'

representation in British English

In other languages representation

Browse alphabetically representation

Related terms of representation

Wordle Helper

Scrabble Tools

Did you mean representation ?

representation

Other results

rep·re·sen·ta·tion

Representation

Recently viewed (0)

Related Content

More Like This

representation

Related content in Oxford Reference

Definition of represent

Examples of represent in a Sentence

Word History

Dictionary Entries Near represent

Cite this Entry

Kids Definition

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Popular in Grammar & Usage

Bibliography

Political Representation

1.1 Delegate vs. Trustee

G. Democratic Representation

Support SEP

Why Representation Matters and Why It’s Still Not Enough

How representation can help

When representation is not enough

What is Representational Art? (Explained with Examples)

Definition Of Representational Art

A Brief History Of Representational Art

The Importance Of Representational Art

Representational Art Serves As A Guideline For Artistic Merit

Representational Art Serves As A Starting Point For Artworks

Representational Arts Is Easily Accessible

Artists Who Have Created Well-Known Representational Works of Art

Paul Cezanne’s Masterpiece, Four Apples

Joaqun Sorolla’s Valencian Fishermen

Stanley Spencer’s Turkeys

Algernon Newton’s The Surrey Canal, Camberwell

A Few Final Thoughts About The Representational Style

More From Artistry Found

Can An Artist Have Multiple Styles? (Explained)

Similar Posts

Street Art vs Graffiti (How are They Different?)

What is Traditional Art? The Present Day Concept and Revival

The Beginner’s Guide To Conceptual Art: What’s The Big Deal?

What is Folk Art? (Explained)

What Is The Main Subject Of Persian Landscape Art? (Explained)

What is the biblical meaning of the number 2 and its representation of unity?

Embracing Unity in Diversity

Restoration of Unity in Christ

The Church: Body of Christ

Ecclesiastes: Strength in Unity

Unity in Diversity

Jesus' Commissioning of Disciples

Two Tablets of the Law

Noah's Ark: Preservation of Unity

Adam and Eve: Unity in Marriage

Creation Story: Heaven and Earth

Duality and Partnership

Symbolism of Numbers in Scripture

Lines and Angles

Angles Definition, Types and Examples

Quadrilateral

Euclidâ€™s Geometry

3D Geometry

Conic Section

Angle Definition

Arms of an Angle

Interior Angle