Patriarchy - Page 2 of 2 - 21st Century Progressivism

Biology versus 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. One theory suggested that human social organization “evolved” through a series of stages. These stages progressed from animalistic sexual promiscuity, followed by matriarchy, and then, patriarchy. Most experts studying this subject have refuted this description(Encyclopedia Britanica, “Evolution”).

Sociobiology

Biological justification for patriarchy did not begin with Charles Darwin, and it did not end with him. Biological theories of human behavior continue to multiply. Today these theories have proponents in the field of Sociobiology. Sociobiological anthropologists attempt to discover characteristics found in all human societies. This approach presumes that such universal traits are based on evolutionary biology and adaptation to environments.¹ Sociobiologists consider patriarchy to be a human universal.

Steven Goldberg

Sociobiologist Steven Goldberg wrote in 1973, “the ethnographic studies of every society that has ever been observed explicitly state that these feelings (feelings of both men and women that the male’s will dominates the female’s) were present, there is literally no variation at all.”² Goldberg’s findings had critics among anthropologists. Concerning Goldberg’s claims about the “feelings of both men and women” Eleanor Leacock countered that the data on women’s attitudes are “sparse and contradictory,” and that the data on male attitudes about male-female relations are “ambiguous.” Also the effects of colonialism on the cultures represented in the studies were not considered.³

Edward O. Wilson

In 1975, Edward O. Wilson published his book, “Sociobiology: The new synthesis”. Scientists objected to his approach. Wilson alleged that sociobiology was a new discipline, but his claims were not new, and had been thoroughly refuted on scientific grounds. The refutations cited the works of Herbert Spencer, Konrad Lorenz, and various scientists, students and teachers. (Gould, Steven J. Against Sociobiology).

Herbert spencer

Herbert Spencer, in 1850, elaborated “an analogy between Society and Organism” in the “Principles of Sociology.” Spencer’s arguments implied that societies all grow in the same way and that, judging by this abstract idea of society, primitive societies had been arrested in their growth. Spencer not only wanted to demonstrate that an evolutionary process was valid but to establish the actual course of social evolution. This led to hypotheses of social conditions in imaginary primeval societies. Relevant works included Sir Henry Maine’s theory of patriarchy, as well as Bachofen’s theory of matriarchy among others.⁴ At the present time, both theories are considered mythological. However, sociobiologists limit their skepticism to primitive matriarchies, which they claim never existed.

Like Spencer in 1850, E.O. Wilson treated behavior and social structure as organs, which are extensions of genes that have survived because of their adaptive value. He speculated that there must be conformer genes; genes favoring spite, homosexuality, creativity, entrepreneurship, drive and mental stamina. “But there is no evidence for the existence of such genes.” On the other hand he said that social unrest is simply maladaptive.

R.A. Sydie: a Feminist Critique of Sociobiology

Sociobiology regards the genetic structure as the prime motivator of social behavior. It follows that natural selection favors individuals who maximize their genetic fitness. A key factor in maximizing genetic fitness is the parental investment in the offspring. Since females have a greater investment than males they behave differently than males. Also, this investment in offspring leads to mutual exploitation between men and women. Conflict arises when both partners try to persuade the other to invest more time.

According to professor of sociology, R.A. Sydie, sociobiologists believe that these theories explain female coyness and male philandering and aggressiveness.⁵

David P. Barash thought they illustrated the biological necessity of women being relegated to the nursery and men deriving satisfaction from their jobs.⁶

Sociobiology and Male Supremacy

The feminists critiqued sociobiology as a discipline. Their main argument was that it continued sociology’s original partiality. Sociology had been partial from its inception because it ignored the viewpoint of women and represented only the male viewpoint. Sociologists Emile Durkheim, Sigmund Freud, Max Weber, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels had all used biology to explain women’s social roles.

Sydie argued that as long as female reproductive capacity is seen as an essential difference, affected very little by social relations, then even Marx’s theoretical equality of ‘true love’ is mythical. (Marx and Engels thought that when private property was abolished, patriarchy would be abolished also. But monogamy would not necessarily disappear; it would be transformed into “true sex love”.) Speaking of sociobiology in particular, Sydie said that its theories propose a biological determination of behavior, the source of which is individual genotypes. With its claim that anatomy is destiny, sociobiology challenges feminist theory.

Patriarchy in anthropology, archaeology and mythology

One danger in presenting anthropological or archaeological data about human societies is the tendency to make generalizations about “the whole development of society.” The idea that a model of human development can be found that will be true for all people, like Bachofen’s theory of matriarchy and Sir Henry Maine’s theory of patriarchy, is based on theories of biological evolution. Such theories when applied to social relations have been discredited. But the tendency persists to use any data for purposes of the debate, either to prove that patriarchy is universal and therefore it must be good, or to prove that it is not.

Probably the best that can be hoped for in presenting evidence is to challenge old assumptions about the study of human culture. One of these assumptions, evolutionary theory, has already been mentioned. Also many theorists fall into the habit of reasoning from modern social conditions and projecting conclusions onto primitive or prehistorical societies. A certain amount of bias will always be present.

Anthropology

First we will look at recent anthropological evidence. The evidence does not support the idea that patriarchy is a natural evolutionary response. In simple societies which match evolutionary conditions women are not occupied solely with caring for children and they contribute about 44% of the food. In one study, one third of the societies studied were egalitarian. The men were not warlike or controlling of women and many other adaptive behaviors evolutionary psychologists would expect were not present.

Mate selection is a core area of evolutionary psychology. It has been shown that choices can be influenced by the observed choices of others. In fact, it is thought that in some cases cultural evolution may change “the extent to which biological evolutionary accounts work at all.” ⁷

A third study suggests that egalitarianism is a matter of degree. Susan Kent found that egalitarianism “is a continuum, not an absolute entity; societies are only more or less egalitarian.” Recent studies show that divisions of work, wealth and political power produce “inegalitarian” social structures. Egalitarianism. (Hunter-Gatherer Wiki. Cited March 18, 2012. Available: Http://foragers.wikidot.com/egalitarianism)

Tradition

As already mentioned, assumptions about patriarchal systems were actually derived from certain interpretations of the Bible. Mythologist Joseph Campbell wrote in “the Power of Myth”, that the Hebrews were part of an invading force consisting of Indo-Europeans and Semites who drove out the goddess sacred to the Canaanite people. Campbell said these goddess-worshipping people were agricultural, whereas the Semites and Indo-Europeans were herding/hunting peoples and natural killers. He lauded the Greeks for the fact that Zeus was married to a goddess, giving them credit for the tradition of the virgin birth, and condemning the Hebrews for having no comparable mythology ⁸.

Archaeology Calls Tradition Into Question

However, archaeological evidence has shown that when the Hebrews began to settle in Palestine, there was already extreme economic stratification under an Egyptian administration. It is likely the Hebrews belonged to marginal units consisting of permanent peoples and nomads with distinct values and principles. “One of the cultural traits of the rulers of Palestine in the Middle Urban age is the custom of burying the dead with their horses and donkeys. The best examples in Palestine of the custom were found by Sir Flinders Petrie at Tell el-Ajjul, “the tell of the chariots,” near Gaza.” This represents Hyksos and not Hebrew influence, as the Hebrews did not bury humans with animals.

Hebrews, Hyksos and Canaanite Divinities

When the Hyksos rule ended in Phoenicia about 1600 BC, it brought no changes to the social and political structure of Palestine. Canaanite divinities were “ruthless, atrocious and fearful”. There was human sacrifice, sacred prostitution, and serpent worship. Totalitarianism virtually enslaved the majority of the population, and so the nobility lived in fortified cities. Archaeologist Emmanuel Anati found a lack of creativity and individuality in the art and material culture in this period and attributed this to the hardships of the feudal system and the brutal religion.⁹

However, there are Biblical claims that the Hebrews slaughtered the inhabitants of Canaan. Bible scholar Jacob Rabinowitz argues that these claims are embellishments added long after the actual event. “There was of course no “conquest” of Canaan, but rather a gradual synthesis of the Hebrew migrants with the indigenous population…it is very important at a certain stage in a nation’s growth to imagine that they were once great bullies.”¹⁰

The fact remains that patriarchal institutions and attitudes are highly influential in Western civilization. The evidence suggests that social stratification and large differences in wealth go hand-in-hand with patriarchy.

Pages: 1 2