Discover

(Redirected from Patriarchal)


'Patriarchy' describes the structuring of society on the basis of family units, in which fathers have primary responsibility and rulership for the welfare of these units. In some cultures slaves were included as part of such households. The concept of ''patriarchy'' is often used, by extension, to refer to the expectation that men take primary responsibility for the welfare of the community as a whole, acting as representatives via public office (in anthropology and feminism, for example).
The feminine form of ''patriarchy'' is ''matriarchy'', but there are no known examples of matriarchies from any point in history.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} Encyclopædia Britannica says it is a "hypothetical social system".^[7] The Britannica article goes on to note, "The view of matriarchy as constituting a stage of cultural development is now generally discredited. Furthermore, the consensus among modern anthropologists and sociologists is that a strictly matriarchal society never existed."^[7] For more information see the appendix Patriarchies in dispute.
The anthropologist Margaret Mead said, "All the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed. ... men everywhere have been in charge of running the show. ... men have been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home."^[9] For moral comment on this see Feminist criticism below; for a scientific explanation of why see Biology of gender below.

Contents

Etymology

Related words

Related customs

Feminist criticism

Steven Goldberg

Biology of gender

Appendix

Table

List

See also

References

External links

Literature

Etymology

The word ''patriarchy'' comes from two Greek words – ''patēr'' (πατήρ, father) and ''archē'' (αρχή, rule). In Greek, the genitive form of ''patēr'' is ''patr-os'',^[10] which shows the root form ''patr'', explaining why the word is spelled ''patr-iarchy''. The letter ''i'' in ''patr-i-archy'' occurs because ''patēr'' comes into English via Latin, which had a different vowel flavour to Greek in the genitive (''pater''/''patris''). For example, the abbreviation ''DVP'' stands for ''Decessit Vita Patris'' (literally, she died in the life of the father). The basic meaning of the Greek word ''archē'' is actually "beginning" (hence arche-ology)^[11] – the first words of Genesis in Greek (see Septuagint) are ''En archē'' ("In the beginning").^[12] However, ''archē'' is also used metaphorically to refer to ruling, because rulers are perceived to "start" things.^[13] This use of ''archē'' is especially common in compound words, for example ''hier-archy'' and ''an-archy''.

Related words

A ''patriarch'' is a man who has great influence on his family or society. Some historical societies claimed descent from one great man. For example, the Romans believed they were descended from Romulus who founded Rome. The traditional founder of Athens is Erectheus, and of Sparta Lacedæmon. Similarly, the Jewish tradition in the Torah says Jews are descended from Abraham through Isaac. Both the Torah and Qur'an say Arabs are descended from Abraham through Ishmael,^[14] [15] Abraham's first son, Isaac's half-brother. Traditional founders are often called patriarchs. The feminine form of ''patriarch'' is ''matriarch'', for example see Matriarchs (Bible). ''Patriarch'' is also a name for the most senior leaders of Eastern Christianity, roughly comparable to the western ''arch-bishop'' (''archē'' as above).
The adjective for ''patriarchy'' is ''patriarchal''; and ''patriarchalism'' or, more commonly, ''paternalism'' refer to the practice or defence of patriarchy. ''Patron'' is a related word used generically (that is, it is not gender or sex specific). Women and men who provide financial support to activities within a community can be termed ''patrons''. The verb form ''patronize'' can be used positively, to describe the activity of patrons, or negatively, to describe adopting a superior attitude. If the superior attitude is adopted by a man, he can be called ''paternalistic''.

Related customs

''Patrimonalism'' uses the Greek word ''monos'' (μόνος, sole) to describe the view of a state as the extended household of a mon-arch (sole ruler, ''archē'' as above) or deity. There are records of patrimonalism almost as far back as the earliest writing itself (about 5000 years ago). In fact, this is probably because patrimonalism directly facilitated the invention of writing – the first hereditary monarchs gained so much wealth as to need to keep accounts, and enough to pay those accountants. The earliest records of patrimonalism come from Ancient Near Eastern legal documents, the best known being the Code of Hammurabi and the Torah. Some aspects of patrimonalism can still be found in the few remaining monarchies in the world today, for example, British law concerning real estate (see Crown lands), especially in Australia. For more detail regarding patrimonalism see Traditional authority.
Some social customs reflect what is termed ''patrilineality'' or ''patrilocality''.


''Patrilineal'' describes customs where family responsibilities and assets pass from father to son. By contrast, contemporary Judaism considers people to be Jewish if their mothers were Jewish, which makes this aspect of contemporary Judaism matrilineal. Biblical Judaism is, however, a classical example of a patriarchal society. ''Matrilineal'' is a particularly useful term in genetics, where some genetic features are more or less passed via the maternal line, notably Mitochondrial DNA and severe X-linked genetic conditions. An X chromosome from the mother is always passed to offspring, male and female. However, daughters do not receive a Y chromosome, and sons do not receive an X chromosome from their fathers (see Sex-determination system, Heredity and Genetic genealogy).
''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 men in all known matrilocal societies, matrilocality is not equivalent to matriarchy, see main entry Patriarchy (anthropology).
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.

Feminist criticism

Most forms of feminism have challenged patriarchy as a social system that is adopted uncritically, due to millennia of human experience where male physical strength was the ultimate way of settling social conflicts – from war to disciplining children. 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."^[16]
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 has produced far ranging social restructuring in Western democracies – 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'']".^[17] 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 Feminist theory, the opposite of feminism is not masculism but 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 been arguably overused as a rhetorical device, becoming so loaded with emotive associations, that some writers prefer to use an approximate synonym, 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."^[18] Mary Daly wrote, "Males and males only are the originators, planners, controllers, and legitimators of patriarchy."^[19] Carole Pateman, another feminist, writes, "The patriarchal construction of the difference between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between freedom and subjection."^[20]
Most feminists do not propose to replace patriarchy with matriarchy, rather they argue for equality (though some have argued for separation). However, equality is a difficult idea (see Egalitarianism), "People who praise it or disparage it disagree about what they are praising or disparaging."^[21] 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."^[22]
For a leading feminist who writes against patriarchy see Marilyn French; and for one who is more sympathetic see Christina Hoff Sommers.

In summary, recent feminist writers have shown a tendency to admit misandry among some members of the movement, and acknowledge real differences in men and women that make diversity a more meaningful aim than reductionistic equality (for example Judith Squires above). However, the basic issue stands out even more clearly now than at the peak of second wave activism in the early 1970s. Decades of legislation and affirmative action have not yet changed the fact that western culture is male dominated, and that it remains patriarchal. Women can vote in most countries of the world, and they outnumber men in higher education in many countries.
However, heads of state, cabinet ministers and the top executives of major companies are still male dominated (see glass ceiling). Also, women's average income is still significantly lower than male average income.
Feminists are still doing both theoretical and practical work to change things, for what they believe to be the best for everyone; but one man predicted they would not (and will not) change male domination and patriarchy, see below.

Steven Goldberg

Steven Goldberg (born 1941) was chairman of the department of sociology at City College of New York. He is probably the only author to have written two whole books on patriarchy. In his second book on patriarchy he wrote:

His first book was published in 1973 – the early days of second wave feminist activism. Like feminists (and this article), he started with the data that all known societies have constructed patriarchies. This data requires both moral comment and scientific explanation. Consider the theory that "all power corrupts". If all known cases of people with power result in some form of corruption, we need to study both the moral question of eliminating corruption, and the scientific question of how power leads to corruption – perhaps a just society should eliminate power structures, perhaps it only needs to modify them. Another analogy is psychology, it seeks to identify both what constitutes a pathology and what causes it, in order to work out both what to treat and how. In the case of patriarchy, feminism largely provides moral comment, Goldberg tries to provide the scientific explanation. It is important to note that Goldberg's aim is neither to recommend nor to condemn patriarchy, he simply provides a hypothesis to explain it. It is also important to note that science is neither superior nor inferior to ethics. They advance human knowledge in different directions by asking different types of question. Ideally the two assist one another.
In Goldberg's first book, he seeks an explanation for three specific aspects of male dominance behaviour in human societies. Patriarchy is the first of these. He also considers the phenomenon of male status seeking, which he calls "male attainment". He is influenced by Margaret Mead in identifying this phenomenon. She says, "Men may cook, or weave or dress dolls or hunt hummingbirds, but if such activities are appropriate behavior for men, then the whole society, men and women alike, votes them as important. When the same occupations are performed by women, they are regarded as less important."^[23] Finally, he considers the way men seem to dominate in one-to-one relationships with women. Marriage is just one example of such relationships. Goldberg comments, "A woman’s feeling that she must get around a man is the hallmark of male dominance."^[24]
Goldberg proposes the hypothesis that the statistical averages of all these forms of behaviour are partly explained by the necessary (but not sufficient) condition of neuroendocrinological effects – namely, testosterone. The title of his first book makes his hypothesis very clear, it was called ''The Inevitability of Patriarchy: Why the Biological Difference between Men and Women always Produces Male Domination''. At the time he wrote (1973), there were only very limited results from biological researchers to support his hypothesis. The situation has changed a lot since then.
For other writers who make similar points to Goldberg see Steven Pinker and Donald Brown in the literature below.
For current feminists and writers with considerably more biological knowledge than Goldberg, who accept but go beyond the biological, see Helena Cronin and Louann Brizendine.

Biology of gender

The 'biology of gender' is scientific analysis of the physical basis for behavioural differences between men and women. It is more specific than sexual dimorphism, which covers physical and behavioural differences between males and females of any sexually reproducing species, or sexual differentiation, where physical and behavioural differences between men and women are described.
Biological research of gender has explored such areas as: intersex physicalities, gender identity, gender roles and sexual preference.
However, there is a field within the biology of gender which focuses on the physical aspects of patriarchy, and what is the origin of it.

Appendix

;Patriarchies in dispute
The table shows all patriarchal societies that have been ''alleged'' at one time or another to be matriarchal. The list, that follows the table, provides quotes from the first western women and men who studied these societies. In nearly every case it is clear from what these ethnographers report, that the societies were patriarchal not matriarchal, even before changes brought by contact with western culture. What some of the societies ''do'' typify, however, is matrilinearity or matrilocality, ''not'' matriarchy, because of clear features of male dominance, see the main entry Patriarchy (anthropology). This is the evidence that verifies the statements made by Encyclopædia Britannica, Margaret Mead, Cynthia Eller and Steven Goldberg elsewhere in this article, and has been mainly located using their bibliographies. There are a lot of cultural groups in this appendix. No bias is intended against the more than 1,000 uncontroversially patriarchal cultural groups, nor against the few matrilocal or matrilineal cultural groups not mentioned here.
Note: "separate" in the marriage column, refers to the practice of husbands and wives living in separate locations, often informally called "walking marriages". See the articles for the specific cultures that practice this for further description.

Table

Disputed patriarchal cultures

Autonym	Continent	Country	Marriage	Property	Government	Ethnographer	Date	F/M
Alor	Asia	Indonesia			patriarchy	Cora du Bois	1944	female
Bamenda	Africa	Cameroon	patrilocal	only Kom matrilineal	patriarchy	Phyllis M Kaberry	1952	female
Bantoc	Asia	Philippines			patriarchy	Albert S Bacadayan	1974	male
Batek	Asia	Malaysia	patrilocal		patriarchy	Kirk Michael Endicott	1974	male
Boyowan	Australasia	Papua New Guinea	patrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Bronisław Malinowski	1916	male
Bribri	North America	Costa Rica	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	William Moore Grabb	1875	male
Çatalhöyük	Asia	Turkey	na	na	na	James Mellaart	1961	male
Chambri	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Margaret Mead	1935	female
Filipino	Asia	Philippines			patriarchy	Chester L Hunt	1959	male
Gahuku-Gama	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Shirley Glasse (Lindenbaum)	1963	female
Hopi	North America	United States of America	matrilocal	both	patriarchy	Barbara Freire-Marreco	1914	female
Iban	Asia	Borneo	both	neither	patriarchy	Edwin H Gomes	1911	male
Imazighen	Africa	North Sahara			patriarchy	George Peter Murdock	1959	male
Iroqois	North America	North East North America	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Lewis Henry Morgan	1901	male
Jivaro	South America	West Amazon			patriarchy	R Karstan	1926	male
Kenuzi	Africa	Sudan			patriarchy	Ernest Godard	1867	male
Kibutzim	Asia	Israel	neither	neither	patriarchy	Judith Buber Agassi	1989	female
!Kung San	Africa	Southern Africa			patriarchy	Marjorie Shostak	1976	female
Maliku	Asia	India	separate	matrilineal	patriarchy	Ellen Kattner	1996	female
Minangkabau	Asia	Indonesia		both	patriarchy	PJ Veth	1882	male
Naxi	Asia	China	only Mosuo separate	only Mosuo matrilineal	patriarchy	Joseph Francis Charles Rock	1924	male
Nayar	Asia	India			patriarchy	E Kathleen Gough	1954	female
Tlingit	North America	United States of America	matrilocal	matrilineal	patriarchy	Aurel Krause	1885	male
Vanatinai	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Maria Lepowski	1981	female
Wemale	Australasia	Papua New Guinea			patriarchy	Adolf E Jensen	1939	male
Woorani	South America	Ecuador			patriarchy	John Man	1982	male
Yegali	Africa	Madagascar	na	na	na	na	na	na

List

See also

★ Antifeminism

★ Chinese patriarchy

★ Gender role

★ Homemaker

★ Masculinity

★ Men's movement

★ Nature versus nurture

★ Pater familias

★ Patriarch magazines

★ Patriarchs (Bible)

★ Sociology of fatherhood

References

1. Steven Goldberg, ''The Inevitability of Patriarchy'', (William Morrow & Company, 1973).
2. Joan Bamberger,'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society', in M Rosaldo and L Lamphere, ''Women, Culture, and Society'', (Stanford, California: Stanford University Press, 1974), pp. 263-280.
3. Robert Brown, ''Human Universals'', (Philadelphia: Temple University Press), 1991.
4. Steven Goldberg, ''Why Men Rule'', (Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993).
5. Cynthia Eller, ''The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented Past Won't Give Women a Future'', (Boston: Beacon Press, 2001).
6. Jonathan Marks, 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior', in ''The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology'', (Unpublished, 2007), p. 11.
7. 'Matriarchy', ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2007.
8. 'Matriarchy', ''Encyclopædia Britannica'', 2007.
9. Margaret Mead,'Review of Sex and Temperament in Three Privative Societies'. ''Redbook'' (October 1973): 48.
10. William D Mounce, ''The Morphology of Biblical Greek'', (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), p. 209.
11. Bauer, shit, Arndt and Gingrich, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 137.
12. Alfred Rahlfs ed., ''Septuaginta'', (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1979), p. 1.
13. Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich, ''A Greek-English Lexicon'', 3rd ed., (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), pp. 138.
14. Genesis 25:12-18.
15. Sura 37:99-109.
16. John Stuart Mill, ''The Subjection of Women'', (London: Longmans, 1868).
17. John Gerassi, 'Simone de Beauvoir: The Second Sex 25 Years Later', an interview with Simone de Beauvoir, ''Society'' 13 (January/February 1976), pp. 79-85.
18. Fredrika Scarth, ''The Other Within: Ethics, Politics and the Body in Simone de Beauvoir'', (Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield, 2004), p. 100.
19. Mary Daly, ''Gyn/Ecology The Metaethics of Radical Feminism'', (Boston: Beacon Press, 1978), p. 29.
20. Carole Pateman, ''The Sexual Contract'', (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1988), p. 207.
21. Ronald Dworkin, ''Sovereign Virtue: The Theory and Practice of Equality'', (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000), p. 2.
22. Judith Squires, ''Gender in Political Theory'', (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1999), p. 97.
23. Margaret Mead. ''Male and Female''. London: Penguin, 1950.
24. Steven Goldberg, ''Why Men Rule'', (Chicago, Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company, 1993), p. 11.

External links

★ Jonathan Marks. 'Essay 8: Primate Behavior'. In ''The Un-Textbook of Biological Anthropology''. Unpublished, 2007.

★ 'Matriarchy'. ''Encyclopædia Britannica'' Online, 2007.

★ 'Cattle ownership makes it a man's world'. ''New Scientist'' (2003).

★ ''Bible''. Various translations.

★ ''Qur'an''. Translated by M.H. Shakir. New York: Tahrike Tarsile Qur'an Incorporated, 1983.

★ 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 H M Parshley. London: Penguin, 1972.

★ 'Equality'. ''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).

★ Same text as above, without formatting, at archive.org.

★ Phyllis M Kaberry. ''A Study of the Economic Position of Women in Bamenda, British Cameroons''. London: Her Majesty's Stationary Office, 1952.

★ Steven Webster. 'Was it Matriarchy?' ''New York Review of Books'' (1972): 37-38.

★ Phillip Longman. 'The Return of Patriarchy'. ''Foreign Policy'' (2006).

★ Francesca Lunzer Kritz. 'Not Feeling Each Other's Pain: Men and Women Hurt Differently – and Some of The Difference May Really Be in Their Heads'. ''The Washington Post''. 19 December 2006. Page HE01.

★ International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society

★ Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood

★ Regional Masculinities Bibliography Project

Literature

★ Andelin, Helen. ''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)

★ 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.

★ 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.

★ 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.