Thanks, Hilary! I appreciate your regular readership and appreciation.
I don't want to take too much credit for the main point, though. I definitely picked it up from others, and have really just added a few of my own reflections.
I certainly hope you’re right. I just wish I can live long enough to see it. (I’ll be 71 in a few weeks.). I grew up and lived most of my life in Hawai’i, a very communitarian place that was invaded first by whalers, then Christian missionaries, and finally the kingdom was overthrown with help from the Marines. And they keep building more and more ugly cement buildings. One of these days the island of O’ahu (my home island) is going to sink!!
I hope I'm right (and that Prof. Eisler is right) too! Whether either of us will live to see it (I'm 55), I don't know. History does sometimes have moments of rapid transition. Certainly, a change that would bring about the end of Patriarchy would be a very very big change and it's hard to imagine what that would be besides a worldwide cataclysm of some sort.
The story of Hawai'i is such a tragic one, and it's more likely we'll see that place free before Patriarchy falls because the US empire won't last forever and seems to be in a decline already. If there's still a memory of communitarian times there, that's a big advantage. I wish you and all of us the best, and thanks for reading!
This is a fantastic essay. I totally agree, I used to work in domestic violence and I believe the techniques used there are the same ones scaled up in globalist capitalism, it isn’t men bad, women good, it’s a whole world view shift that’s needed. Personally I have found that fighting that viewpoint on its own terms is wasted effort as it is a shapeshifter. Trying to do good by trying to be good I think is a better strategy. But loving your work!
'So, Nature itself—because we perceive it as herself—is debased.'
A very interesting point, Kollibri. I've never thought of it like that....that such a perspective makes us perceive the Earth as something we disrespect and can exploit for our greed.
I get it. Patriarchy/Matriarchy—Mother Earth. We all need more wise women elders who know the womb to take the lead and bring us back together. How many feel a desire to do that and be that for others? How many are doing that for more than just a select personal few? Or have we lost our way? The atomization and breakdown of community means that fewer and fewer of us have this kind of thing in our daily life. Of course we have only ourselves to blame. It is a nice theory anyways. Next time get a grandma to say to us. See if it makes a difference.
I don't see it as a choice between Patriarchy and Matriarchy, but rather a choice between structures that are based on authoritarianism and those that are based on consensus and egalitarianism. In the field of anthropology, it is widely accepted that many/most (though not all) pre-Agricultural societies were not Patriarchal and were far more egalitarian. There's a lot of scholarship supporting this "nice theory."
For summaries of the hypothesis in the popular press, see:
For a deeper dive in the peer-reviewed literature, one starting point is the paper the Guardian is based on, where the references at the end provide multiple trails to follow:
"Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands"
On the subject of Matriarchy, I agree with Gerda Lerner, author of "The Creation of Patriarchy," who wrote:
“Those who define matriarchy as a society where women dominate over men, a sort of inversion of patriarchy, cannot cite anthropological, ethnological, or historic evidence. I think one can truly speak of matriarchy only when women hold power over men, not alongside them, when that power includes the public domain and foreign relations and when women make essential decisions not only for their kinfolk but for the community. In line with my earlier discussion, such power would have to include the power to define the values and explanatory systems of the society and the power to define and control the sexual behavior of men. It may be noted that I am defining matriarchy as the mirror image of patriarchy. Using that definition, I would conclude that no matriarchal society has ever existed.”
In sum, I'd say that it's not about wise women elders leading, but about wise people leading, within a structure that is based on consensus rather than hierarchy. This can (and did, and does) take many diverse forms, and the post-Patriarchal era we eventually enter will have its own characteristics.
I certainly agree that human communities have suffered atomization and breakdown. I'd say that started with Agriculture/Patriarchy, but has been greatly exacerbated by more recent factors including industrialization and Capitalism. The post-WWII era has been marked by especially drastic atomization and in the US I would point to suburbanization and the mass media.
Is this a form of gendered finger pointing or does it help us see how all of us are complicit in a deeper and more fundamental dynamic? Would you kindly restate what that deeper dynamic is, in your view? If it is something that can help me then I need to hear it again.
Personally, instead of saying we are all "complicit" in a deeper dynamic, I would say that we are *trapped* or *enslaved* in a deeper dynamic. None of us chose the inequitable societies we live in. We were born into them and had them foisted upon us. We don't have much freedom when we are forced to pay for the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc.), and without real freedom, we cannot meaningfully "comply" with anything.
Which isn't to say we don't have agency to do the best we can within the prison that is contemporary society. I'd go so far as to say that, to whatever degree we have agency, we have *responsibility* to act.
The deeper dynamic of what's-going-wrong can be described many ways (and other people have done a much better job than me) but I'd say it's about an authoritarian hierarchy that oppresses individual humans, classes of humans, and non-human life. Colonialism, white supremacy, the Church, militarism--these are all expressions of that deeper dynamic, as is Patriarchy.
The point of my essay was just to point out that Patriarchy, as an authoritarian set of values in that deeper dynamic, targets not just women as individuals and as a class, but anything perceived as feminine, which includes Nature itself (herself). I'd add that my implication was that environmentalists and environmental activism would benefit by considering Patriarchy in their overall analyses and actions.
Excellent piece! Good point that patriarchy is not just about men dominating women. It goes so much deeper than that.
Thanks, Hilary! I appreciate your regular readership and appreciation.
I don't want to take too much credit for the main point, though. I definitely picked it up from others, and have really just added a few of my own reflections.
I certainly hope you’re right. I just wish I can live long enough to see it. (I’ll be 71 in a few weeks.). I grew up and lived most of my life in Hawai’i, a very communitarian place that was invaded first by whalers, then Christian missionaries, and finally the kingdom was overthrown with help from the Marines. And they keep building more and more ugly cement buildings. One of these days the island of O’ahu (my home island) is going to sink!!
I hope I'm right (and that Prof. Eisler is right) too! Whether either of us will live to see it (I'm 55), I don't know. History does sometimes have moments of rapid transition. Certainly, a change that would bring about the end of Patriarchy would be a very very big change and it's hard to imagine what that would be besides a worldwide cataclysm of some sort.
The story of Hawai'i is such a tragic one, and it's more likely we'll see that place free before Patriarchy falls because the US empire won't last forever and seems to be in a decline already. If there's still a memory of communitarian times there, that's a big advantage. I wish you and all of us the best, and thanks for reading!
This is a fantastic essay. I totally agree, I used to work in domestic violence and I believe the techniques used there are the same ones scaled up in globalist capitalism, it isn’t men bad, women good, it’s a whole world view shift that’s needed. Personally I have found that fighting that viewpoint on its own terms is wasted effort as it is a shapeshifter. Trying to do good by trying to be good I think is a better strategy. But loving your work!
'So, Nature itself—because we perceive it as herself—is debased.'
A very interesting point, Kollibri. I've never thought of it like that....that such a perspective makes us perceive the Earth as something we disrespect and can exploit for our greed.
I get it. Patriarchy/Matriarchy—Mother Earth. We all need more wise women elders who know the womb to take the lead and bring us back together. How many feel a desire to do that and be that for others? How many are doing that for more than just a select personal few? Or have we lost our way? The atomization and breakdown of community means that fewer and fewer of us have this kind of thing in our daily life. Of course we have only ourselves to blame. It is a nice theory anyways. Next time get a grandma to say to us. See if it makes a difference.
I don't see it as a choice between Patriarchy and Matriarchy, but rather a choice between structures that are based on authoritarianism and those that are based on consensus and egalitarianism. In the field of anthropology, it is widely accepted that many/most (though not all) pre-Agricultural societies were not Patriarchal and were far more egalitarian. There's a lot of scholarship supporting this "nice theory."
For summaries of the hypothesis in the popular press, see:
"Early men and women were equal, say scientists"
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/may/14/early-men-women-equal-scientists
and
"Why our ancestors were more gender equal than us"
https://theconversation.com/why-our-ancestors-were-more-gender-equal-than-us-41902
For a deeper dive in the peer-reviewed literature, one starting point is the paper the Guardian is based on, where the references at the end provide multiple trails to follow:
"Sex equality can explain the unique social structure of hunter-gatherer bands"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5139#bibliography
On the subject of Matriarchy, I agree with Gerda Lerner, author of "The Creation of Patriarchy," who wrote:
“Those who define matriarchy as a society where women dominate over men, a sort of inversion of patriarchy, cannot cite anthropological, ethnological, or historic evidence. I think one can truly speak of matriarchy only when women hold power over men, not alongside them, when that power includes the public domain and foreign relations and when women make essential decisions not only for their kinfolk but for the community. In line with my earlier discussion, such power would have to include the power to define the values and explanatory systems of the society and the power to define and control the sexual behavior of men. It may be noted that I am defining matriarchy as the mirror image of patriarchy. Using that definition, I would conclude that no matriarchal society has ever existed.”
In sum, I'd say that it's not about wise women elders leading, but about wise people leading, within a structure that is based on consensus rather than hierarchy. This can (and did, and does) take many diverse forms, and the post-Patriarchal era we eventually enter will have its own characteristics.
I certainly agree that human communities have suffered atomization and breakdown. I'd say that started with Agriculture/Patriarchy, but has been greatly exacerbated by more recent factors including industrialization and Capitalism. The post-WWII era has been marked by especially drastic atomization and in the US I would point to suburbanization and the mass media.
Is this a form of gendered finger pointing or does it help us see how all of us are complicit in a deeper and more fundamental dynamic? Would you kindly restate what that deeper dynamic is, in your view? If it is something that can help me then I need to hear it again.
Personally, instead of saying we are all "complicit" in a deeper dynamic, I would say that we are *trapped* or *enslaved* in a deeper dynamic. None of us chose the inequitable societies we live in. We were born into them and had them foisted upon us. We don't have much freedom when we are forced to pay for the necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, medicine, etc.), and without real freedom, we cannot meaningfully "comply" with anything.
Which isn't to say we don't have agency to do the best we can within the prison that is contemporary society. I'd go so far as to say that, to whatever degree we have agency, we have *responsibility* to act.
The deeper dynamic of what's-going-wrong can be described many ways (and other people have done a much better job than me) but I'd say it's about an authoritarian hierarchy that oppresses individual humans, classes of humans, and non-human life. Colonialism, white supremacy, the Church, militarism--these are all expressions of that deeper dynamic, as is Patriarchy.
The point of my essay was just to point out that Patriarchy, as an authoritarian set of values in that deeper dynamic, targets not just women as individuals and as a class, but anything perceived as feminine, which includes Nature itself (herself). I'd add that my implication was that environmentalists and environmental activism would benefit by considering Patriarchy in their overall analyses and actions.
Hope that helps.