Male Dominance Research Paper

The intellectual history of the theory and practice of male dominance is summarized under four major headings, indicating different arguments and time periods. A common thread uniting these arguments is the belief that the biological differences of male and females make male social dominance natural and hence socially desirable. These arguments are reviewed below along with a brief summary of dissenting views.

1. The Misogyny of Early Greeks and the Public /Private Split

Although some scholars look as far back as ancient Mesopotamia for the beginning of the historical process by which male dominance became institutionalized in Western societies (Lerner 1986), the modern arguments for male dominance can be traced to the thought of the early Greeks from Hesiod to Plato and Aristotle. In her treatment of women in Western political thought, Okin (1979) says that from the very beginnings of Greek literature ‘strong misogynic strain is obvious.’ According to Hesiod, for example, the first woman brought evil and misfortune to the world and the degeneration of the human race.

From Hesiod to Aristotle, the highest words of praise were for males who fulfilled the role of the Homeric aristocratic man. Bravery, skill in warfare, and wealth were manly virtues that no woman could attain. Women were confined to the domestic domain where they were to be quiet, virtuous, beautiful, skilled in weaving and household accomplishments, and above all, faithful to their husbands (Okin 1979).

Plato and Aristotle claimed that ‘natural differences’ constituted the foundation for segregated male–female social domains, but used this fact to make very different arguments. Plato sought ways to reduce natural differences so that males and females could be equal while Aristotle used natural differences as an argument for the inferiority of women. Plato’s utopian view of sexual equality in the Republic exposes the central assumption underlying the Western definition of equality: for X to be equal to Y, X must be the same as Y. Plato argues that women in his Utopian city can only be in a position of equality with men if they became like men. To establish equality, he claimed that jobs must be assigned on the basis of ability not sex. Unlike his contemporaries, Plato believed that there was no difference between the sexes apart from their roles in procreation and physical differences in strength. He felt that women were the wasted sex because their creative and social energies were not sufficiently deployed for the purpose of society and the common good (Okin 1979).

Given the sex role expectations and beliefs of his time, Plato’s view was revolutionary with implications for sexual equality that have yet to be realized. Aristotle’s approach on the other hand was in keeping with his time. Aristotle accepted the world as it was and developed a philosophical framework to explain it. He also focused on ‘natural differences’ but departed from Plato in asserting that because women are

‘naturally’ inferior to men, they are therefore ‘naturally’ ruled by them (Okin 1979). Aristotle expanded the concept of ‘natural’ to apply not just to biological sex differences but to sex-linked social traits acquired because of the sexual division of labor due to biological differences. By this schema women’s social fate was doubly determined first by her procreative function and second by the assumption that female sex roles follow ‘logically from the single fact that women bear children’ (Okin 1979).

2. Arguments over Patriarchal Rule vs. the Social Contract in the Se enteenth and Eighteenth Centuries

The term ‘patriarchy’ is very old, first applied to the male leaders of the tribes of Israel whose power was based on kinship not ‘contract.’ Pateman (1988) says that this changed in response to the controversy that raged in seventeenth-century England about the legitimate source of power in society and how power relations were to be regulated and maintained. Pateman (1988) divides this discussion into two camps: the patriarchalists and the social contract theorists. The patriarchalist approach was represented by the then widely influential book of Sir Robert Filmer, Patriarcha. Filmer broke with the biblical tradition associating patriarchy with paternal power by arguing that paternal and political power were ‘not merely analogous but identical’ (Pateman 1988). Filmer argued for absolute monarchy on the patriarchalist grounds that ‘kings were fathers and fathers were kings’ (ibid). Pateman labels Filmer’s view ‘classic patriarchalism’ as opposed to traditional patriarchy which she defines as paternal rule of the family. Filmer’s addition was to make the procreative power of the father in the family the origin of political right in society (Pateman 1988).

Filmer’s theory was short lived due to the success of counter arguments proposed by John Locke and Thomas Hobbes. These philosophers argued that all men are ‘naturally’ free and political right can only be imposed by contract not by patriarchal fiat. Hobbes and Locke separated paternal from political power and claimed that ‘contract was the genesis of political right’ (Pateman 1988). However, they did not include women in their notions of contract and political right. Women continued to be subordinated to men as fathers and husbands. Hobbes conceived of the family as patriarchal ‘wherein the Father or Master is the Sovereign,’ and Locke concluded that there is ‘a Foundation in Nature’ for the legal subjection of women to their husbands (Okin 1979 quoting Hobbes and Locke).

The arguments for the subjugation of women articulated by the social contract theorists leads Pateman to distinguish a third type of patriarchal argument, ‘fraternal patriarchy.’ According to this argument, although the father no longer figures as the primary power figure women are still not the equal of men. Men now rule the public domain not as fathers but as men. In the family context, women are subordinated first to their fathers and then to their husbands. In the context of public life they are subordinated to men (Pateman 1988). Pateman (1988) calls this ‘modern patriarchy’ because it is based on the rule of law and ‘structures capitalist civil society.’

3. Darwinian Thought Reflected in Nineteenthcentury Evolutionary Models of Cultural Stages

Another source supporting the argument of fraternal patriarchy or male dominance came from Darwin’s evolutionary theory of The Origin of the Species published in 1859 and his theory of sexual selection published in The Descent of Man in l871. Darwin’s evolutionary theory legitimized nineteenthcentury notions of progressive development from the primitive to the complex and encouraged organic analogies leading to reductionist explanations in which ‘natural tendencies’ were elaborated with terms like ‘survival of the fittest’ and ‘reproductive success.’

In The Descent of Man Darwin described the mechanism of sexual selection to explain the evolution of human sex differences. Like natural selection in evolution, Darwin’s notion of sexual selection was based on the idea of strife and competition for mates. Building his argument by analogy with animals, Darwin claimed that as there could be no dispute that bulls differ in disposition from cows, human males also differ from females. ‘There can be do doubt,’ he said ‘that the greater size and strength of man, in comparison with women … are due in chief part to inheritance from his half-human male ancestors.’ Darwin said that such characteristics ‘would have been preserved or even augmented during the long ages of man’s savagery, by the success of the strongest and boldest men, both in the general struggle for life, and in their contest for wives.’ He measured a man’s success by the number of children they left as compared with their ‘less favoured brethen’ (Darwin 1936). Sanday (1996) argues that the Darwinian concept of reproductive success and sexual competition became the basis for popular and psychoanalytic views regarding the naturalness of male sexual aggression making it incumbent on women to protect themselves from rape and sexual coercion.

In the second half of the nineteenth century the evolutionary paradigm was applied to notions of cultural progress. Patriarchy was no longer seen as the universal model for human affairs for to do so would be to equate patriarchy with the primitive, ‘savage,’ stage of human culture. A number of scholars posited cultural stages in which patriarchy was presented as the epitome of social order as opposed to matriarchy which was associated with less advanced social forms. The most important book sparking interest in ancient matriarchies was the publication in 1861 of Bachofen’s Das Mutterrecht. In this book Bachofen is content to give women a high position but only at a low level of evolutionary development. Bachofen introduces the term ‘mother-right,’ which he defines in terms of female rule (gynecocracy) and customs giving mothers control of their children. Thus, in motherright societies, naming followed the mother’s line; the child’s status was determined by the mother’s; all property rights were passed from mother to daughters and not to sons; and the ‘government of the family’ fell not to the father but to the mother. ‘By a consequent extension of this last principle,’ Bachofen said, ‘the government of the state was also entrusted to the women (Bachofen 1967). According to Bachofen, mother-right societies constitute the second stage of evolution after ‘primitive promiscuity’ and before ‘the victorious development of the paternal system.’ He associates mother-right with ‘the pre-Hellenic peoples’ and ‘patriarchal forms’ with Greek culture (1967). His preference for one over the other is seen in his conclusion that paternity represents a ‘triumph’ because it ‘brings with it the liberation of the spirit from the manifestations of nature, a sublimation of human existence over the laws of material life’ (Bachofen 1967).

Although Bachofen never used the term matriarchy, preferring instead the terms gynecocracy or motherright, his definition of mother-right in terms of female rule established the subsequent use of the term matriarchy to mean the mirror image of patriarchy. The anthropological concern with the issue of matriarchy vs. patriarchy, or female vs. male rule, begins with a debate sparked by Henry Maine’s 1861 publication of Ancient Law and John McLennan’s 1865 publication of Primiti e Marriage. While Maine argued that the patriarchal family and paternal authority was the primordial family form, like Bachofen McLennan argued that matrilineal descent and the maternal family came first, a relic of a primitive state when there was no fixed marriage, so that paternity was not recognized as a social tie and maternity furnished the only relation on which kinship and the family could be founded. A similar argument appears in the better known 1877 book, Ancient Society, by Lewis Henry Morgan, one of the founding fathers of anthropology. The subtitle of this book betrays the common framework of the times: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Sa agery through Barbarism to Ci ilization.

In an 1896 article published in the monthly review, The Nineteenth Century, another of the founding fathers of anthropology, E. B. Tylor, comments favorably on McLennan’s contribution and introduces the notion of ‘the matriarchal family system.’ Tylor amasses an impressive array of ethnographic facts to support his contention that there were many communities in which women enjoyed ‘greater consideration than in barbaric patriarchal life.’ However, half way through the article Tylor rejects the term ‘matriarchal’ for taking ‘too much for granted that women govern the family.’ In its place he substitutes the term ‘maternal family’ on the grounds that the actual power is always in the hands of brothers and uncles on the mother’s side. Tylor reaches this conclusion despite the considerable evidence he presents for female familial and social authority. For example, he provides a striking nineteenth-century description of the authoritative role of the senior woman in the matrilineal long house of the Minangkabau of West Sumatra, to this day known to anthropologists as the largest and most stable matrilineal society in the world (see discussion below). Thus, although Tylor comes close to rejecting the male dominance thesis on empirical grounds his conclusion falls into line with the historical tendency to assert its universality.

4. The Anthropological Debate Regarding Universal Male Dominance in the Twentieth Century

Tylor’s ambivalent position with respect to the issue of male authority marked a great deal of anthropological discussion in the twentieth century. Much of this discussion revolved around the issue of who holds ultimate authority in matrilineal societies. The early twentieth century saw the demise of the term matriarchy, a victim both of the tendency to confine its meaning to exclusive female rule and the exhaustion of the evolutionary paradigm. However, one anthropologist, Rivers (1924), cautioned that abandonment of the assumption of primitive matriarchy should not result in reverting to Maine’s doctrine of the priority of father-right, which Rivers noted was still prevalent ‘in writings on the history of political institutions.’ According to Rivers, Maine’s theory of primordial patriarchy was ‘even more untenable’ than pronouncements concerning the priority of mother-right. Yet, subsequent scholarship did just what Rivers predicted and reverted to an updated version of Maine’s argument. In 1961, the topic of matriarchy was revisited by anthropologist David Schneider in Matrilineal Kinship, the book he edited with Kathleen Gough. This book was published 100 years after the publication of Bachofen’s Das Mutterrecht. In his theoretical introduction, Schneider (1961) rejects Bachofen’s claim of ‘generalized authority of women over men,’ in matrilineal systems. Schneider (1961) claims that in all unilineal groups, be they patrilineal or matrilineal, the role of women as women is defined in terms of her child-rearing responsibilities and the role of men is defined ‘as that of having authority over women and children.’ According to Schneider, positions of highest authority within the matrilineal descent group will, therefore, ordinarily be vested in statuses occupied by men.’

In the early 1970s the notion of primordial matriarchies at the dawn of human history was revisited by feminist activist theorists outside of anthropology. By way of response, anthropologists argued for universal male dominance. In their widely influential edited volume, Rosaldo and Lamphere (1974) stated that evolutionary theories positing an earlier stage of human development’ in which ‘the social world was organized by a principle called matriarchy, in which women had power over men’ could be dismissed on both archaeological and ethnographic grounds. Going one step further, they made their famous (but later retracted) statement: ‘It seems fair to say then, that all contemporary societies are to some extent maledominated, and although the degree and expression of female subordination vary greatly, sexual asymmetry is presently a universal fact of human and social life’ (Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974; but see also Rosaldo 1980 and Lamphere 1995).

5. Dissenting Views

Several anthropologists took exception to the claim of universal male dominance. Annette Weiner’s (1976) ethnography of Trobriand mortuary ceremonies demonstrates that women in kinship-based societies do not live in the same world as women in latecapitalist societies, a lesson Eleanor Leacock’s (1981) work also teaches. Weiner pointed out that in societies like the Trobriand’s the political does not stand alone in an isolated sphere at the apex of social power but functions in conjunction with the cosmological. Even if men dominate the political, their activities are controlled by the larger sociocultural system in which both men and women play defining roles.

In a cross-cultural study of female power and male dominance, Sanday (1981) also takes exception to the conclusion of universal male dominance, demonstrating that there are many societies in which women participate in the economic and political domains of public life. Departing from the standard argument hinging dominance on biological differences and male political activities, Sanday utilizes a large sample of band and tribal societies to investigate the empirical correlates of male and female power. She finds that male dominance is associated with misogyny, male segregation, combativeness and competition leading to significant levels of interpersonal violence, an ideology of male toughness, masculine-defined religious symbolism, and environmental stress. Female power, on the other hand, is associated with respect for the public roles of women, female religious symbolism, reverence rather than exploitation of nature, nurturing paternal roles, an ethic of respect for the individual and social cooperation in decision making.

By the end of the twentieth century, backed by longterm ethnographic research (see Lepowsky 1993 and articles in Sanday and Goodenough 1990) and new theoretical approaches (see Ortner 1990, 1996), the male dominance approach was largely abandoned by cultural anthropologists. Ethnographies of societies like the matrilineal Minangkabau of West Sumatra demonstrated a model of power unlike any posited for the so-called male dominated societies. Summarizing many Minangkabau studies, Nancy Tanner and Lynn Thomas (1985) note that in Minangkabau society there is ‘far more centrality and authority for women, specifically as mother and senior women,’ than previous models admit such as the one proposed by Schneider (see above).

In her long-term study of the Minangkabau, Sanday (2002) reaches the same conclusion. She finds that men and women share many of the same functions, such as ‘childrearing, agricultural labor, and decision making’ much in the manner that Plato dreamed of but with important differences. Whether functions assigned to the sexes overlap or differ, they serve the same ends—nurturing and care for lineage members. Such values are ideals expected of all cultivated, cultured Minangkabau individuals, not just women. The public nature of these ideals ensure the well-being of the elderly and sick and the economic security of the mother–child unit independently of the father’s support. Among the largest ethnic groups in Indonesia and known there for their commitment to democracy and equality, the Minangkabau proudly refer to themselves as a modern ‘matriarchate’ and distinguish their system from others which take the patrilineal approach. Their social ideology reflects on the social costs of male dominance and the benefits of incorporating family values and women in the public domain of status of privilege.

In sum, although the ethnographic record demonstrates that male dominance subordinates women in the public arena of political discourse and economic opportunity in some societies, this is not a universal condition. To claim that it is reifies male dominance and displays a teleological approach to human social affairs.

Bibliography:

1. Bachofen J J 1967 Myth, Religion, & Mother Right: Selected Writings of J J Bachofen. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
2. Darwin C 1936 The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preser ation of Fa oured Races in the Struggle for Life and the Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex. The Modern Library, New York
3. Lamphere L 1995 Feminist anthropology: The legacy of Elsie Clews Parsons. In: Behar R, Gordon D A (eds.) Women Writing Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
4. Leacock E B 1981 Myths of Male Dominance. Monthly Review Press, New York
5. Lepowsky M 1993 Fruit of the Motherland: Gender in an Egalitarian Society. Columbia University Press, New York
6. Lerner G 1986 The Creation of Patriarchy. Oxford University Press, New York
7. Okin S M 1979 Women in Western Political Thought. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
8. Ortner S B 1990 Gender hegemonies. Cultural Critique 14: 35–80
9. Ortner S B 1996 Making Gender: The Politics and Erotics of Gender. Beacon Press, Boston
10. Pateman C 1988 The Sexual Contract. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
11. Rivers W H R 1924 Social Organization. Knopf, New York
12. Rosaldo M Z 1980 The use and abuse of anthropology: Reflections on feminism and cross-cultural understanding. Signs 5(3): 389–417
13. Rosaldo M Z, Lamphere L 1974 Woman, Culture and Society. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
14. Sanday P R 1981 Female Power and Male Dominance: On the Origins of Sexual Inequality. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK
15. Sanday P R 1996 A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial, 1st edn. Doubleday, New York
16. Sanday P R 2002 Women at the Center: Journey into the Heart of Matriarchy. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY
17. Sanday P R, Goodenough R G (eds.) 1990 Beyond the Second Sex. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, PA
18. Schneider D M 1961 Preface, introduction. In: Schneder D M, Gough K (eds.) Matrilineal Kinship. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
19. Tanner N, Thomas L L 1985 Rethinking matriliny: Decisionmaking and sex roles in Minangkabau. In: Thomas L, von Benda-Beckmann F (eds.) Change and Continuity in Minangkabau: Local, Regional, and Historical Perspectives on West Sumatra. Ohio University Press, Athens, OH pp. 45–71
20. Weiner A B 1976 Women of Value, Men of Renown: New Perspectives on Trobriand Exchange. University of Texas Press, Austin, TX