Patriarchy

Patriarchy (from Greek: patria meaning father and arché meaning rule) is the anthropological term used to define the sociological condition where male members of a society tend to predominate in positions of power; the more powerful the position, the more likely it is that a male will hold that position. The term "patriarchy" is also used in systems of ranking male leadership in certain hierarchical churches or religious bodies (see patriarch and Patriarchate). Examples include the Greek Orthodox and Russian Orthodox churches. "Patriarchy" is also used pejoratively to describe a seemingly immobile and sclerotic political order.

Definition

The term "patriarchy' is distinct from Patrilineality and Patrilocality. "Patrilineal" defines societies where the derivation of inheritence (financial or otherwise) originates from the father's line; for example, a society with matrilineal traits such as Judaism provides that in order to be considered a Jew, a person must be born of a Jewish mother. "Patrilocal" defines a locus of control coming from the father's geographic/cultural community. In a matrilineal/matrilocal society, a woman will live with her mother and her sisters and brothers, even after marriage. She doesn't leave her maternal home. Her brothers act as 'social fathers' and will hold a higher influence on the women's offspring to the detriment of the children's biological father. Most societies are predominantly patrilineal and patrilocal, but this is not a universal (see: matriarchy).

Patrilineality

Patrilineality (a.k.a agnatic kinship) is a system in which one belongs to one's father's lineage; it generally involves the inheritance of property, names or titles through the male line as well.

A patriline is a line of descent from a male ancestor to a descendant (of either sex) in which the individuals in all intervening generations are male. In a patrilineal descent system (= agnatic descent), an individual is considered to belong to the same descent group as his or her father. This is in contrast to the less common pattern of matrilineal descent.

The agnatic ancestry of an individual is that person's pure male ancestry. An agnate is one's (male) relative in an unbroken male line: a kinsman with whom one has a common ancestor by descent in unbroken male line.

In medieval and later Europe, the Salic Law was purported to be the grounds for only males being able for hereditary succession to monarchies and fiefs, i.e in patrilieal or agnatic succession.

The fact that the Y chromosome is paternally inherited enables patrilines, and agnatic kinships, of men to be traced through genetic analysis.

The line of descent for monarchs and main personalities is almost exclusively through the main male personalities. See Davidic line.

Patrilocality

Patrilocality is a term used by social anthropologists to describe a socially instituted practice whereupon a married couple lives with or near the family of the husband.

A patrilocal residence is based on a rule that a man remains in his father's home after maturity. When he becomes married, his wife joins him in his father's home, where their children will be raised. These children will follow the same pattern: Sons will stay, and daughters will move in with their husbands' families. Household sizes grow greatly as this process continues.

Families living in a patrilocal residence generally assume joint ownership of domestic sources. The household is led by a senior member, who also directs the labor of all other members.

This practice is found in roughly 69% of the world's societies.

Paternalism

Image of traditional cultural paternalism: Father Junipero Serra in a modern portrayal at Mission San Juan Capistrano, California

Paternalism refers usually to an attitude or a policy stemming from the hierarchic pattern of a family based on patriarchy, that is, there is a figurehead (the father, pater in Latin) that makes decisions on behalf of others (the "children") for their own good, even if this is contrary to their opinions.

It is implied that the fatherly figure is wiser than and acts in the best interest of its protected figures. The term is used derogatorily to characterize attitudes or political systems that are thought to deprive individuals of freedom, only nominally serving their interests, while in fact pursuing another agenda.

Forms of Paternalism

Family

Paternalist attitudes in a family are typically used to restrain children from activities the parents perceive to be dangerous, immoral or otherwise inappropriate. These may include punishment of various sorts, such as corporal punishment, curfew, denial of food or money, obligation to carry out certain chores in the house, etc. in order to correct the behaviour of the child.(Elsworth, T aka Gio (2006)

Activities that parents may seek to restrain include suicide, drug abuse, premarital sex, theft, exposure to "bad company", refusal to eat food, etc.

Which paternalist attitudes are deemed acceptable varies greatly in different cultures. The activities that the children must avoid varies even more greatly, depending on country, region and on the single family's microculture. Deciding which activities must be restrained and how is a classical cause of disagreements among parents.

In some countries, some forms of paternalistic restraint are illegal, such as corporal punishment in Scandinavian countries.

Government

Laws that force citizens to conform to a certain set of rules, that are in name thought for their own safety, can be defined paternalistic. Some citizens feel that they can look after themselves, and that the government should not tell them what is best for them; hence the negative connotation that the word "paternalism" has in such a context.

Laws that can be perceived, to varying degrees, as paternalistic are:

• Laws to make usage of seatbelts and bike helmets compulsory
• Bans on gay marriage and Laws against sodomy
• Anti-abortion laws
• Curfews and daylight saving time
• Laws banning drugs such as cannabis, or alcohol
• Social welfare programs

These laws are usually passed by the lawmakers to ensure that a certain behaviour, deemed by the lawmakers to be harmful to society, is banned or reduced.

The arguments of opponents of such laws are usually about the inherent reduction in the citizens' freedom caused by such laws; the citizens should, in the view of the critics, be responsible of their own actions. However, it is possible that citizens are indeed ignorant of some danger, and a law imposing a certain conduct is beneficial to society: in many countries, seatbelts were not much used in cars until they became compulsive by law. Some critics argue that if the citizens are ignorant then they should be informed of the dangers somehow, and that if they still want to take the risk they should be allowed to do so. In other cases, such as smoking, the single citizen's conduct (smoking in public places) is negatively affecting others.

One of the most famous examples of paternalistic legislation is the era of Prohibition in the United States, when alcohol was deemed an illegal substance.

Economy

Paternalism can be found also in an economic context. A large corporation may make decisions that have large social costs—such as pollution—in the neighborhoods of its operations and worldwide. The corporation may argue that the benefits of corporate activities, including the polluting ones, will lead to net benefits for those affected, that the benefits will trickle down to others, etc.

Employers can use paternalistic arguments to justify rules and restrictions on their employees' activities. International institutions such as the International Monetary Fund are perceived by some to be paternalistic when they suggest some course of action to certain governments, even if that could lead to negative short-term consequences, suggesting it will result in long-term benefits.

Philosophical Background

Among many family-state paradigms in traditional cultures, that expressed in some Greek philosophy is particularly familiar in the West. The family as a model for the organization of the State is an idea in political philosophy that originated in the Socratic-Platonic principle of Macrocosm/microcosm, which states that lower levels of reality mirror upper levels of reality and vice versa. In particular, monarchists have argued that the state mirrors the patriarchal family, with the subjects obeying the king as children obey their father.

The family-state paradigm was often expressed as a form of justification for aristocratic rule as justified in observations of the cosmos.

Plutarch records a laconic saying of the Dorians attributed to Lycurgus. Asked why he did not establish a democracy in Lacedaemon (Sparta), Lycurgus responded, "Begin, friend, and set it up in your family". The Doric Greeks of Sparta seemed to mirror the family institution and organization in their form of government^[4].

Aristotle argued that the schema of authority and subordination exists in the whole of nature. He gave examples such as man and animal (domestic), man and wife, slaves and children. Further, he claimed that it is found in any animal, as the relationship he believed to exist between soul and body, "which the former is by nature the ruling and the later subject factor" ^[5]. Aristotle further claimed that "the government of a household is a monarchy since every house is governed by a single ruler"^[6]. Later, he said that husbands exercise a republican government over their wives and monarchical government over their children, and that they exhibit political office over slaves and royal office over the family in general^[7].

Arius Didymus in Stobaeus, 1st century A. D., wrote that "A primary kind of association (politeia) is the legal union of a man and woman for begetting children and for sharing life". From the collection of households a village is formed and from villages a city, "So just as the household yields for the city the seeds of its formation, thus it yields the constitution (politeia)". Further, he claims that "Connected with the house is a pattern of monarchy, of aristocracy and of democracy. The relationship of parents to children is monarchic, of husbands to wives aristocratic, of children to one another democratic"^[8].

Modern thinkers have taken the paradigm as a given in societies where hierarchical structures appeared natural.

Louis de Bonald wrote as if the family were a miniature state. In his analysis of the family relationships of father, mother and child, De Bonald related these to the functions of a state: the father is the power, the mother is the minister and the child as subject. As the father is "active and strong" and the child is "passive or weak", the mother is the "median term between the two extremes of this continuous proportion". Like many apologists for family-state paradigm, De Bonald justified his analysis by quoting and interpreting passages from the Bible:

"(It) calls man the reason, the head, the power of woman: Vir caput est mulieris (the man is head of the woman) says St. Paul. It calls woman the helper or minister of man: "Let us make man," says Genesis, "a helper similar to him." It calls the child a subject, since it tells it, in a thousand places, to obey its parents" ^[9].

Louis de Bonald also sees divorce as the first stage of disorder in the state (the principle of macrocosm/microcosm). He insists that the deconstitution of the family brings about the deconstitution of state, with The Kyklos not far behind ^[10].

Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn draws a connection between the family and monarchy.

"Due to its inherent patriarchalism, monarchy fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of a Christian society. (Compare the teaching of Pope Leo XIII: 'Likewise the powers of fathers of families preseves expressly a certain image and form of the authority which is in God, from which all paternity in heaven and earth receives its name— Eph 3.15') The relationship between the King as 'father of the fatherland' and the people is one of mutual love"^[11].

George Lakoff claims that the left-right distinction in politics reflects a difference between perceived ideals of the family; for right-wing people, the ideal is a patriarchial family based upon absolute morality; for left-wing persons, the ideal is an unconditionally loving family. As a result, Lakoff argues, both sides find each others' views not only immoral, but incomprehensible, since they appear to violate each sides' deeply held beliefs about personal morality in the sphere of the family ^[12].

Opponents of Paternalism

Opponents of paternalism, such as John Stuart Mill, claim that liberty supersedes safety in terms of actions that only affect oneself. Advocates of paternalistic policies claim that an overarching moral system overrides personal freedom in some circumstances, such as a religious, ethical, or philosophical doctrine, and will argue that while it is not moral to deprive someone of their liberty in a general situation, it is correct in that specific instance.

In favour, it could be said that every state is "paternalist" to a degree. Even the state's creation and protection of individual property rights might be interpreted as "paternalistic". The descriptions of the origin of the state by Aristotle see it as an extension of the family, and this description seems a lot more realistic than the social contract analogies of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and Rawls.

Libertarians are seen as generally being opponents of paternalism. Few political theorists, even Libertarians, have ever completely rejected paternalism. Robert Nozick, who is generally seen as a founding father of modern libertarianism, still talked of exceptional cases of immoral behaviour where society should intervene. John Stuart Mill said that some offensive behaviour that could take place in private should be banned in public (e.g. sexual acts). Mill also said that anyone who commits a crime whilst drunk should be banned from drinking thereafter. Schopenhauer wrote that the state should be restricted to "protecting men from each other and from external attack".

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• ^ Plutarch: The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, trans. by John Dryden and revised by Arthur Hugh Clough, The Modern Library (div of Random House, Inc). Bio on Lycurgus; pg 65.
• ^  Politics, Aristotle, Loeb Classical Library, Bk I, §II 8-10; 1254a 20-35; pg 19-21
• ^  Politics, Bk I, §11,21;1255b 15-20; pg 29.
• ^ Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, ed. By M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, l995.
• ^  Hellenistic Commentary to the New Testament, ed. By M. Eugene Boring, Klaus Berger, Carsten Colpe, Abingdon Press, Nashville, TN, l995.
• ^  On Divorce, Louis de Bonald, trans. By Nicholas Davidson, Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, l993. pp 44-46.
• ^  On Divorce, Louis de Bonald, pp 88-89; 149.
• ^  Liberty or Equality, Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, pg 155.
• ^  George Lakoff, What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don't, ISBN 0226467961

In anthropology

Human societies, whether they are ancient, indigenous or modern industrial, have been described in Anthropology in terms of either patriarchal or matriarchal systems. Between these polarities lie a number of social structures which include elements of both systems (see above under Patriarchy a discussion of the terms patrilinial and patrilocal ).

Anthropologist Donald Brown has listed patriarchy to be one of the "human universals" (Brown 1991, p. 137), which includes characteristics such as age gradation, personal hygiene, aesthetics, food sharing, rape, and other sociological aspects, implying that patriarchy is innate to the human condition. Margaret Mead has observed that "... all the claims so glibly made about societies ruled by women are nonsense. We have no reason to believe that they ever existed....Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home."

Societies have developed out of patriarchal cultures. Institutions of religion, education, commerce retain patriarchal practices. In Muslim counties today, patriarchy in the form of divided roles between of women and men into the domestic and social spheres is distinctly visible. In Europe and America whose cultures are based on a Christian model, political and religious power continues to exert a strong influence. The ideas of Age of Enlightenment philosophy, and Revolutionary movements including Feminism have brought about changes creating wider possibilities for both women and men. Marxist ideals support the advocacy of egalitarianism between the sexes, but these aspirations have been overtaken by authoritarian forms of political organisation in communist states. In China, for example, where by law the National People's Congress is composed of an equal number of men and women. There are, however, no women within the Politburo of the Communist Party of China, the agency that actually rules China. Prior to its dissolution, the Soviet Union's Congress of People's Deputies likewise consisted of equal numbers of men and women. Its successor, the Duma, which has governing authority, at present has only 35 woman deputies among the 450 members.

This longstanding thesis has raised political opposition. The Modern Matriarchal Studies organization has held two conferences Luxembourg (2004) and San Marcos, Texas (2005) so as to redefine the term "matriarchy." www.hagia.de/ (hagia being derived from the Greek hagios or "holy"}. Various chairs, called "priestesses" in the group's literature, conducted workshops and at the end of the conference declared that “International Matriarchal Politics stands against white supremacist patriarchal capitalist homogenization and the globalization of misery. It stands for egalitarianism, diversity and the economics of the heart. Many matriarchal societies still exist around the world and they propose an alternative, life affirming model to patriarchal raptor capitalism."Societies of Peace Declaration (2005), 2-3

Chinese Patriarchy

Mencius outlined the Three Subordinations: A woman was to be subordinate to her father in youth, her husband in maturity, and her son in old age.

Repeated throughout ancient Chinese tradition, the familiar notion that men govern the outer world, while women govern the home serves as a cliche of classical texts.

In the Han dynasty, the female historian Ban Zhao wrote the Lessons for Women to advise women how to behave. She outlined the Four Virtues women must abide by: proper virtue, proper speech, proper countenance, and proper merit. The "three subordinations and the four virtues" became a common four-character phrase throughout the imperial period.

As for the historical development of Chinese patriarchy, women's status was highest in the Tang dynasty, when women played sports (polo) and were generally freer in fashion and conduct. Between the Tang and Song dynasties, a fad for little feet arose, and from the Song dynasty onwards footbinding became more and more common for the elite. In the Ming dynasty, a tradition of virtuous widowhood developed. Widows, even if widowed at a young age, were expected to not remarry. If they remained widows, their virtuous names might be displayed on the arch at the entrance of the village.

Symptoms of patriarchy in 20th and 21st century China include the immense pressure on women to get married before the age of 30 and the incidence of female infanticide associated with China's one child policy. However, footbinding has been eradicated and trafficking in women in China has greatly reduced.

In gender studies

In gender studies, the word patriarchy often refers to a social organization marked by the supremacy of a male figure, group of male figures, or men in general. It is depicted as subordinating women, children, and those whose genders or bodies defy traditional man/woman categorization.

In such a context, qualifying something as "paternalistic" implies a pejorative meaning, having similiar assiciations as "chauvenistic." However, a man or woman can behave in a paternalistic manner. For instance, many activists during the Women's Health Movement criticized doctors for being patriarchical. While most doctors were male, many female doctors encountered the same accusations because they also engaged in behavior that subordinated women.

Feminist view

Many feminist writers have considered patriarchy to be the basis on which most modern societies have been formed. They argue that it is necessary and desirable to get away from this model in order to achieve gender equality.

Feminist writer Marilyn French, in her polemic Beyond Power, defines patriarchy as a system that values power over life, control over pleasure, and dominance over happiness. She argues that:

It is therefore extremely ironic that patriarchy has upheld power as a good that is permanent and dependable, opposing it to the fluid, transitory goods of matricentry. Power has been exalted as the bulwark against pain, against the ephemerality of pleasure, but it is no bulwark, and is as ephemeral as any other part of life...Yet so strong is the mythology of power that we continue to believe, in the face of all evidence to the contrary, that it is substantial, that if we possessed enough of it we could be happy, that if some "great man" possessed enough of it, he could make the world come right.

According to French:

It is not enough either to devise a morality that will allow the human race simply to survive. Survival is an evil when it entails existing in a state of wretchedness. Intrinsic to survival and continuation is felicity, pleasure [...] But pleasure does not exclude serious pursuits or intentions, indeed, it is found in them, and it is the only real reason for staying alive"

The latter philosophy is what French offers as a replacement to the current structure where, she says, power has the highest value.

Gender-issues writer Cathy Young, by contrast, dismisses reference to "patriarchy" as a semantic device intended to shield the speaker from accountability when making misandrist slurs, since "patriarchy" means all of Western society. She cites Andrea Dworkin's criticism, "Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

Bibliography

• Pierre Bourdieu, Masculine Domination, Polity Press 2001
• Robert Brown, Human Universals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press 1991
• Margaret Mead, . (1950). Male and Female, Penguin, London.
• Maria Mies, Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labour, Palgrave MacMillan 1999

External links

• Cattle ownership makes it a man's world New Scientist (1. October 2003): Early matrilineal societies became patrilineal when they started herding cattle, a new study demonstrates
• Debate Between Mark Ridley and Stephen Goldberg on the Inevitability of Patriarchy
• The Return of Patriarchy by By Phillip Longman
• Chart and explanation of patrilocal residence

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Patriarchy  ^history
• Chinese_patriarchy  ^history
• Patrilineality  ^history
• Patrilocal_residence  ^history
• Paternalism  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Patriarchy"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.