patriarchy

It has been suggested that Patriarchy (anthropology) be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (December 2008)

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (December 2008)

Patriarchy is the structuring of family units based on the man, as father figure, having primary authority over the rest of the family members. Patriarchy also refers to the role of men in society more generally where men take primary responsibility over the welfare of the community as a whole. This authority often includes acting as the dominant figures in social, economic, and political procedures, including serving as representatives via public office.

Although patriarchy has been the dominant mode of social organization throughout history, many societies have moved towards a more egalitarian form due to the influence of feminism. Most forms of feminism challenge patriarchy as an unjust social system that is oppressive to women. The women's rights movement of the early 20th century (also known as first-wave feminism) sought to bring political equality to women by giving them to right to vote and hold public office. In the 1960s and 70s, second-wave feminism addressed issues of social and economic inequality. This period also saw the rise of feminist theory which brought criticism of patriarchy into academic contexts. These challenges to the patriarchal order produced far-ranging social restructuring in Western democracies.

Etymology and related terms

The usage of the word patriarchy in the sense of a male-oriented social organization started in the English language in the 16th century, from the post-classical Latin patriarchia "office of a patriarch". It is a loanword from Byzantine Greek πατριαρχια "office of a patriarch", in use since the 6th or 7th century for the Christian office, but attested in the 4th century for the headship of a Jewish community, from the Hellenistic Greek term for such a community leader, πατριαρχης.^[1]

The term patriarch, from post-classical Latin patriarcha "chief or head of a family or tribe", Anglo-Norman patriarche was the title of the bishop of any chief sees of the Roman Empire. The Biblical Patriarchs are the heads of the Israelite tribe before Moses. In late medieval use, it could more generically refer to any venerable old man.

The English term is first used in the sense of the societal organization rather than the Church office in the 17th century, by Francis Bacon.^[2]

The adjective for patriarchy is patriarchal; and patriarchalism, or more commonly paternalism, refers to the practice or defence of patriarchy.

Patrimonalism describes the view of a state as the extended household of a monarch or deity.

Some social customs reflect what is termed patrilineality or patrilocality.

Patrilineal describes the custom of tracing descent from paternal lineage. Typically, it also describes the custom of passing family responsibilities and assets from father to son. By contrast, cultures which trace their lineage maternally are called matrilineal.

Patrilocal describes the custom of brides relocating to the geographic community of the husband and his father's family. In a matrilocal society, a husband will relocate to the home community of his wife and her mother (see also marriage). Matrilocality can substantially increase the social influence of women in a culture, however, given that tribal and family leaders are still typically men in matrilocal societies, matrilocality is not equivalent to matriarchy.

By contrast with these other customs, patriarchy can be seen to be distinctly about gender and the nuclear family, gender and public office, and about female-male relationships in general.

Biology v. social construct debate

Starting from a foundation in the theories of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin, many 19th-century scholars formulated a linear theory of cultural evolution.^[3] One hypothesis suggested that human social organization "evolved" through a series of stages: animalistic sexual promiscuity was followed by matriarchy, which was in turn followed by patriarchy. This description was later refuted by most experts studying the subject.^[4]

Most sociologists reject predominantly biological explanations of patriarchy and contend that social and cultural conditioning is primarily responsible for establishing male and female gender roles.^[5][6] According to standard sociological theory, patriarchy is the result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation.^[5] These constructions are most pronounced in societies with traditional cultures and less economic development.^[7] Even in modern developed societies, however, gender messages conveyed by family, mass media, and other institutions largely favor males having a dominant status.^[6]

Benefits of patriarchy

Arguments for the biological and social utility of patriarchy have been made since ancient times. These include elements of Greek Stoic Philosophy and the Roman social structure based on the pater familias,^[8] but are also found in Akkadian records of Babylonian and Assyrian laws. George Lakoff proposes an ancient dichotomy of "Strict Father" as opposed to "Nurturing Parent" models of ethical theory (SFM and NPM).^[9] In general, the main lines of argument are either pragmatic—namely, the reproductive advantages of male-as-provider—^[10] or ethical—that any perceived male authority is contingent upon underlying perceptions of duty of care.

Feminist criticism

Simone de Beauvoir

John Stuart Mill

Throughout history, patriarchy has been the dominant method of organizing human society due to millennia of human experience where male physical strength was the ultimate way of settling social conflicts.^{[citation needed]} John Stuart Mill wrote, "In early times, the great majority of the male sex were slaves, as well as the whole of the female. And many ages elapsed ... before any thinker was bold enough to question the rightfulness, and the absolute necessity, either of the one slavery or of the other."^[11]

During the democratic and anti-slavery movements of early 19th century Europe and America, kingdoms became constitutional monarchies or republics and slavery was made illegal (see abolitionism). The civil rights movements of 20th century America also sought to overthrow various existing social structures that were seen by many to be oppressive and corrupt. Both social contexts led naturally to an analogous scrutiny of relationships between women and men (see Mill above). The 19th century debate ultimately resulted in women receiving the vote; this is sometimes referred to as first-wave feminism. The late 20th century debate led to greater equality for women in social and economic arenas – second-wave feminism. Although often credited with it, Simone de Beauvoir denied she started second wave feminism, "The current feminist movement, which really started about five or six years ago [1970-71], did not really know [The Second Sex]".^[12] Some consider the "second wave" to be continuing into the 21st century, others consider it to be complete, still others consider there to be a "third wave" of feminism active in contemporary society.

In some feminist theories, the opposite of feminism is patriarchy. It is not surprising, therefore, that the word patriarchy has a range of additional, negative associations when used in the context of feminist theory, where it is sometimes capitalized and used with the definite article (the Patriarchy), likely best understood as a form of collective personification (compare "blame it on the Government" to "blame it on the Patriarchy"). The use of the word patriarchy in feminist literature has become so loaded with emotive associations that some writers prefer to use an approximate synonym,^{[citation needed]} the more objective and technical androcentric (also from Greek – anēr, genitive andros, meaning man).

Fredrika Scarth, a feminist, reads Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex to be saying, "Neither men nor women live their bodies authentically under patriarchy."^[13] Mary Daly, a radical feminist, wrote, "Males and males only are the originators, planners, controllers, and legitimators of patriarchy."^[14] Carole Pateman, another feminist, writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."^[15]

Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality. However, Ronald Dworkin has argued that equality is a difficult idea.^[16] It is particularly hard to work out what equality means when it comes to gender, because there are real differences between men and women (see Sexual dimorphism and Gender differences). Recent feminist writers speak of "feminisms of diversity", that seek to reconcile older debates between equality feminisms and difference feminisms. For instance, Judith Squires writes, "The whole conceptual force of 'equality' rests on the assumption of differences, which should in some respect be valued equally."^[17]

Average incomes in the United States (2005)

Some recent feminist writers have shown a tendency to admit misandry among some other members of the movement^[18], and acknowledge real differences in men and women that make diversity a more meaningful aim than reductionistic equality (for example Judith Squires above).

Decades of legislation and affirmative action have not yet changed the fact that western culture is male dominated in terms of male acquisition of territory and resources^{[citation needed]}, and that it remains patriarchal^{[citation needed]}, although women can vote in most countries of the world, and they outnumber men in higher education in many countries.^[19]

However, heads of state, cabinet ministers, and the top executives of major companies are still mostly men (see glass ceiling). Also, women's average income is still significantly lower than men's average income. However, some economists argue that this is primarily due to education and career choices that women and men make, rather than the patriarchy.^[20]

Universality of patriarchy

The universality of patriarchy is a standard finding of cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropology is an empirical (observational) science, based on field work, that produces "pictures" of individual human societies called ethnographies. It is also a theoretical science, called ethnology, comparing and contrasting societies in order to classify and explain the empirical data. Societies have marked differences in the way they exploit resources for survival, the artifacts they produce and in various rituals and other traditions. They also have similarities like marriage, family and the incest taboo. Aspects of human behaviour and social organisation that are common to all known societies are called cultural universals.^[21] Patriarchy is one of these universals.^[22][21][23]

In ordinary language, patriarchy is simply fathers acting as heads of families. However, patriarchy also has two technical uses. In anthropology, it refers—by extension—to men predominating in roles associated with governing societies. In feminism—by a further extension—it refers to the inequality of social roles between men and women. In fact, Gloria Watkins proposed that "the essence of feminism is opposition to patriarchy".^[24] Watkins and many other feminists also consider patriarchy, in their sense of the word, to be universal.^[25]

Nevertheless, there is considerable variation in the role that gender plays in human societies. Although there are no known examples of matriarchal cultures,^[26][27] there are a number of societies that have been shown to be matrilinear or matrilocal and gynocentric, especially among indigenous tribal groups.^[28] Some hunter-gatherer groups have been characterized as largely egalitarian.^[29]

See also

Look up patriarchy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

• Anti-feminism
• Chinese patriarchy
• Domitius
• Gender role
• Homemaker
• Masculinity
• Nature versus nurture
• Patriarch magazines
• Patriarchs (Bible)
• Sociology of fatherhood

Notes and references

Bibliography

• Adeline, Helen B. Fascinating Womanhood. New York: Random House, 2007.
• Baron-Cohen, Simon. The Essential Difference: The Truth about the Male and Female Brain. New York: Perseus Books Group, 2003.
• Beauvoir, Simone de. Le Deuxième Sexe. Paris: Éditions Gallimard, 1949. (original French edition)
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. London: Jonathan Cape, 1953. (first UK edition, in translation)
• Beauvoir, Simone de. The Second Sex. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. (first USA edition, in translation)
• Bornemann, Ernest. Das Patriarchat - Ursprung und Zukunft unseres Gesellschaftssystems, Fischer, Frankfurt am Main 1991 (Original German edition 1975), ISBN 3-596-23416-6
• Bourdieu, Pierre. Masculine Domination. Translated by Richard Nice. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001.
• Brizendine, Louann. The Female Brain. New York: Morgan Road Books, 2006.
• Brown, Donald E. Human Universals. New York: McGraw Hill, 1991.
• Eisler, Riane. ' 'The Chalice and the Blade' '. Harper Collins, 1987. "The most important book since Darwin's ' 'Origin of Species' '--Ashley Montagu
• Jay, Jennifer W. 'Imagining Matriarchy: "Kingdoms of Women" in Tang China'. Journal of the American Oriental Society 116 (1996): 220-229.
• Konner, Melvin. The Tangled Wing: Biological Constraints on the Human Spirit. 2nd edition, revised and updated. (Owl Books, 2003). 560p. ISBN 0805072799 [first published 1982, Endnotes
• Lepowsky, Maria. Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
• Mead, Margaret. 'Do We Undervalue Full-Time Wives'. Redbook 122 (1963).
• Mies, Maria. Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour. Palgrave MacMillan, 1999.
• Moir, Anne and David Jessel. Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women.
• Ortner, Sherry Beth. 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?'. In MZ Rosaldo and L Lamphere (eds). Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1974, pp. 67-87.
• Ortner, Sherry Beth. 'So, Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?'. In S Ortner. Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Culture. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1996, pp. 173-180.
• Pilcher, Jane and Imelda Wheelan. 50 Key Concepts in Gender Studies. London: Sage Publications, 2004.
• Pinker, Steven. The Blank Slate: A Modern Denial of Human Nature. London: Penguin Books, 2002.

External links

• "Cattle ownership makes it a man's world". New Scientist (2003).
• Women’s Status and War in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Reconsideration
• Mary Wollstonecraft. A Vindication of the Rights of Women. Boston: Peter Edes for Thomas and Andrews, 1792.
• Simone de Beauvoir. The Second Sex. Translated by HM Parshley. London: Penguin, 1972.
• "Equality". In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University, 2001.
• Times Literary Supplement review (by Mark Ridley) of The Inevitability of Patriarchy and reply by the author (Steven Goldberg).