Patriarchy - some definitions
"(social studies) a form of social organization in which fathers or other males control the family, clan, tribe, or larger social unit, or a society organized in this way
(social studies) Patriarchy is also the control by men, rather than women or both men and women, of most of the power and authority in a society." (Definition of “patriarchy” from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
A more drastic definition comes from sociologist Sylvia Walby: "a system of social structures and practices in which men dominate, oppress, and exploit women"
Duration
Patriarchy ending starts late at history scale at the beginning of the XX century, with women rights to vote and their involvement in all kind of economic, social and political activities.
Patriarchy start was also late but at Sapiens existence scale, around 4000 BCE. For 150000 years or more, before patriarchy, it was rather an egalitarian society.
Patriarchy start was also late but at Sapiens existence scale, around 4000 BCE. For 150000 years or more, before patriarchy, it was rather an egalitarian society.
Unknown root causes?
There is no good explanation for patriarchy. There are biological and sociological explanations. There are theories that support the prevalence of one or other of these explanations. For example, it is described as "a result of sociological constructions that are passed down from generation to generation". There is no answer here. What is the reason for such "sociological constructions" from the first place?
Yuval Noah Harari has some better questions, even he does not have some better answers:
"If this is possible among elephants, why not among Homo sapiens? Women, just like female elephants, need to develop their social skills in order to get help in raising children, and they constantly need to see reality from the viewpoint of another person, their child. Consequently, it is often thought that women have better social skills than men, and in particular, that women are better at understanding the needs, desires and viewpoints of other people. If so, we should expect women to use their superior social skills to cooperate among themselves and to outmanoeuvre and manipulate the aggressive and self-centered men. This did not happen. Why is it that in a species whose success depends above all on social cooperation, individuals who are supposedly less cooperative (men) control individuals who are supposedly more cooperative (women)?
To answer this question, we need to gather insights from biology, psychology, economics and many other disciplines, but all these insights should ultimate connect together to form a historical narrative." (see R1 - Pratik Kanjilal interview with Yuval Noah Harari)
Let start the detective work to see three things: how and when the patriarchy has begun, how was preserved for thousands of years and why now is fading?
It is a huge waste and a huge injustice and we need to know: why?
The beginnings
Here is an archeological based theory of Marija Gimbutas (See R2):
"The movement of three “waves” of Kurgan peoples into Europe introduced an ensemble of technological, social and ideological features, previously unknown in Europe, that spread, in various degrees, among the Neolithic populations. These features include a hierarchical, patriarchal social structure, warfare, bronze metallurgy, weapons, horse riding, pastoral economy, worship of sky gods, ceramics tempered with crushed shell and decorated with stabbed, combed, or cord impressions, solar symbolism, and élite burials under tumuli often with human and animal sacrifice."
Let run this scenario. From other archeological and historical sources, we know that pre-pastoral advanced farmers civilizations from Eastern Europe were less interested in warfare, and the real war times had begun after these new invasions.
What was the novelty of this pastoral civilization?
It was the first time ever when groups of people travel fast for long distances.
It was the first time when a group of men (former hunters) had travel far away from their home and families.
It was the second time when a new kind of civilization "conquer the world" after the farmers' success, several thousand of years before that. But was the first time when this success was fast and the first time when the winner of the benefits was not the whole tribe/family but group of men.
It was the first time when a group of men (former hunters) had travel far away from their home and families.
It was the second time when a new kind of civilization "conquer the world" after the farmers' success, several thousand of years before that. But was the first time when this success was fast and the first time when the winner of the benefits was not the whole tribe/family but group of men.
We have a group of warriors that act independently, gain more resources, and then use these resources to enhance and preserve their power.
Why we do not have women among them? When women choose to not hunt and not fight because was not a matter of interest for them, there are not special benefits from hunting or fighting. When these benefits rise for the warrior horsemen, nobody invite them to split these benefits.
It was a military coup !
Successful warriors gain power and resources and also take the lead of their tribes.
It was a military dictatorships !
From this point, the power and the law of tribes and states was exercised by military for thousands of years, and only in the modern era the political power returns in the hand of the civilians.
With this strong start, the limited physical power differences between men and women and the increased aggressiveness become important and until modern era, women in military was rather an exception. Men keep the military for them, consequently the power in the state and the tyranny in the society. Only from this point we can discuss about "sociological constructions" that preserve this men dominance.
With this strong start, the limited physical power differences between men and women and the increased aggressiveness become important and until modern era, women in military was rather an exception. Men keep the military for them, consequently the power in the state and the tyranny in the society. Only from this point we can discuss about "sociological constructions" that preserve this men dominance.
Final thoughts
People (Sapiens) does not have inhibition to collaborate and build "sociological constructions" in order to persecute others and have benefits to the detriment of other people. They could inherit these constructions from their predecessors as natural, without being conscious of their injustice and falsity. For example, Aristotle consider women as morally, intellectually, and physically inferior to men.
Similar constructions were made to justify slavery and others. The common part is this one: to gain not deserved benefits to the detriment of other people.
References
[R1] Stranger than fiction - Written by Pratik Kanjilal (interview with Yuval Noah Harari)
[R2] The Beginnings of Patriarchy in Europe: Reflections on the Kurgan Theory of Marija Gimbutas, by Joan Marler
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu