The Inevitability of Patriarchy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| The Inevitability of Patriarchy | |
 |
|
| Author | Steven Goldberg |
|---|---|
| Country | United States of America |
| Language | English |
| Genre(s) | Non-fiction (Sociology) |
| Publisher | William Morrow and Company |
| Publication date | 1973 |
| Media type | print (hardback) |
| Pages | 256 |
| ISBN | 978-0-6880-0175-9 |
The Inevitability of Patriarchy is a book by Steven Goldberg published by William Morrow and Company in 1973. The theory proposed by Goldberg is that social institutions, that are characterised by male dominance, may be explained by biological differences between men and women (sexual dimorphism), suggesting male dominance (patriarchy) could be inevitable.
Goldberg later refined articulation of the argument in Why Men Rule (1993).[1] The main difference between the books is a shift of emphasis from citing anthropological research across all societies, to citing evidence from the workforce in contemporary western societies.[2]
This article summarises Goldberg's argument as originally published in the United States (US), but revised in various places for release in the United Kingdom (UK, 1977). It also refers to some of the more notable essays in peer-reviewed academic debate about the book, which included one whole serial of the journal Society in 1989. Goldberg's theory continues to be cited, at least until 2007;[3] however such references are normally to the expanded and further revised edition of the theory in Why Men Rule, and can be found at that article.
A revised edition of the book was published in 1993 as Why Men Rule.[4]
Contents |
[edit] Abstract
Goldberg reviews literature, gathering evidence from expert witnesses (both primary and secondary sources) to demonstrate that each of three distinct patterns of recognised human social behaviour (institutions) has been observed in every known society.[5] He proposes that these three universal institutions, attested as they are across independent cultures, suggest a simple psychophysiological cause, since physiology remains constant, as do the institutions, even across variable cultures—a universal phenomenon suggests a universal explanation.[6]
The institutions Goldberg examines are patriarchy, male dominance and male attainment.[5] The hypothetical psychophysiological phenomenon he proposes to explain them, he denotes by the expression differentiation of dominance tendency.[6][7] He explains this refers to dominance behaviour being more easily elicited from men on average than from women on average. In other words, he theorises a biologically mediated difference in preferences.
Goldberg next provides expert witnesses from several disciplines regarding correlations between behaviour and the hormone testosterone, which are known to be causative in several cases, including dominance preference. He concludes with the hypothesis that testosterone is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition for the development of the institutions he examined.[8] In other words, without testosterone, the institutions would not develop—it must be part (but not all) of an explanation for their universality.
Finally, Goldberg proposes that if patriarchy is indeed biologically based, it will prove to be inevitable; unless a society is willing to intervene biologically on the male physiology.
[edit] Overview
Inevitability starts with a quote that summarises the main "nature over nurture" point of the book.
- Numquam naturam mos vinceret; est enim ea semper invicta
- Custom will never conquer nature, for it is always she who remains unconquered
- — Marcus Tullius Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, c. 45 CE.
The book has ten chapters divided into four parts (I–IV), and an addendum. The five chapters of the first part outline Goldberg's theory of patriarchy. The second part contains two chapters of engagement with alternative views. The third part speculated about possible cognitive differences between men and women. Goldberg considered this to be merely a potential second line of evidence;[9] however, evolutionary biology (since the late 1970s), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI, since the early 1990s), and study of sexually dimorphic gene expression in the brain (since the turn of the millennium), have all since demonstrated that Golderg somewhat underestimated the biological arguments that would later be advanced to explain male dominance preference and behaviour on the grounds of cognitive differences.[10] Part four consists of a single chapter of general sociological commentary on broader community discussion of the relationships between men and women. The addendum that concludes the book was offered in support of the anthropological consensus described in chapter 2 of part I, but has been considered by some to be the most valuable part of the total work,[11] including Goldberg himself.[12]
[edit] Criticism
 |
The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2009) |
In Key Issues in Women's Work (2nd ed., 2004), Catherine Hakim, author of "Developing a sociology for the twenty-first century: Preference theory", compared three competing theories of male dominance, preferring Goldberg's and gave three reasons for her choice.[13]
- "The evidence is consistent with, and supports, Goldberg's theory".[14]
- Goldberg's "is the only theory that can explain some of the more inconvenient facts about women as well as men".[15]
- "No other theory has been offered which can explain women's rejection of females in authority".[14]
She commented that Goldberg's theory "contrasts interestingly with the mind-games that Western intellectuals like to play",[16] and concluded, "Goldberg's theory of male dominance and patriarchy is unassailable".[17]
Nevertheless, Goldberg's theory still has critics. These are mainly of three kinds. The first, represented by evolutionary biology, thinks a full account of the biological basis for the universality of patriarchy requires more evolutionary framework.[18] The second has become decreasingly popular as sociobiology has established itself as a discipline.[19] Until about the 1990s, sociology generally considered male dominance to be adequately explained without reference to biology. More recently, third wave feminism has begun to incorporate some acceptance of sexual dimorphism into their theoretical treatment of gender.[20] Finally, some subtle anthropological questions remain regarding the definition of what consititutes patriarchy in a society.
[edit] Selection of criticism 1973–1993
- Eleanor Maccoby, "Sex in the social order", Science 182 (November, 1973): 469ff. [Review of The Inevitability of Patriarchy]
- Eleanor Leacock. 'The Invitability of Patriarchy'. American Anthropologist new series 76 (1974): 363-365.
- Frank B Livingstone. 'The Invitability of Patriarchy'. American Anthropologist new series 76 (1974): 365-367.
- Steven Goldberg. 'Response to Leacock and Livingstone'. American Anthropologist new series 77 (1975): 69-73.
- Eleanor Leacock. 'On Goldberg's Response'. American Anthropologist new series 77 (1975): 73-75.
- Frank B Livingstone. 'Reply to Goldberg'. American Anthropologist new series 77 (1975): 75-77.
- Joan Huber. 'The Invitability of Patriarchy'. The American Journal of Sociology 81 (1974): 567-568.
- Steven Goldberg. 'Comment on Huber's Review of the Inevitability of Patriarchy'. The American Journal of Sociology 82 (1976): 687-690.
- Joan Huber. 'Huber's Reply to Goldberg'. The American Journal of Sociology 82 (1976): 690-691.
- The October–November issue of Society 10 (1989) was devoted to discussion of The Inevitability of Patriarchy. It contained two essays by Goldberg and seven by critics.
[edit] See also
- books describing biological influences on gender roles, written for non-specialists
- Brain Sex (1989)
- The Blank Slate (2002) — Pulitzer Prize finalist in 2003
- other books by Goldberg
- related articles
[edit] Notes and references
- ^ "A much more precise, developed and persuasive (though repetitive) version of his theory was published in 1993 under the new title Why Men Rule." Catherine Hakim, Key Issues in Women's Work: Female Heterogeneity and the Polarization of Women’s Employment, 2nd edition, Contemporary Issues in Public Policy, (Routledge Cavendish, 2004), p.4.
- ^ "In his first book, the emphasis was on anthropological research evidence showing that no society had ever existed in which women ruled. In his more recent book the emphasis shifts to contemporary societies and the evidence that within the workforce vertical job segregation is pronounced. All other hierarchies are also dominated by men." Hakim (2004): 5.
- ^ M. Apostolou, "Sexual selection under parental choice: the role of parents in the evolution of human mating", Evolution and Human Behavior 28 (2007): 403–409.
- ^ Why Men Rule, Full Record, Library of Congress
- ^ a b Chapter 2 Inevitability (1977).
- ^ a b Chapter 3 Inevitability (1977).
- ^ UK edition, original US edition used the term aggression.
- ^ Inevitability (1977): 131.
- ^ Introductory Note to chapter 8 of Inevitablity.
- ^ "Goldberg remains at the level of proximate causes and fails to link them to their ultimate causes." Stephen K. Sanderson, The Evolution of Human Sociality: A Darwinian Conflict Perspective, (Rowman & Littlefield, 2001), p. 199.
- ^ Daniel Seligman, "Why Men Rule: A Theory of Male Dominance", National Review, 4 April, 1994.
- ^ "Cultural anthropology has given the world a priceless treasure ... the ethnographic descriptions of many hundreds—or thousands, if one counts less formal works—of societies and the incredible variation they have demonstrated. In the future, when the homogenization of the world has made all societies more alike than different, only these ethnographies will stand against the human ethnocentric tendency to think things had to be the way they are." Steven Goldberg, quoted in William Helmreich. "Steven Goldberg, Iconoclast: The Most Controversial Professor in America", Heterodoxy 2 (September 1994): p. 12.
- ^ Hakim (2004).
- ^ a b Hakim (2004): 119.
- ^ Hakim (2004): 6.
- ^ Hakim (2004): 206.
- ^ Hakim (2004): 211.
- ^ Goldberg "fails to see that male behaviour is incomprehensible except conjointly with female behaviour, and that sexual dimorphism in size, behaviour, physiology, and indeed, everything, is only understandable within the evolutionary paradigm of sexual selection, parental investment, and fitness maximization." Pierre L. van den Berghe, (1997), p.3.
- ^ "In the 1970s and 80s, the contribution of ethology to the natural sciences was recognised by the award of Nobel Prizes in 1973 to Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen and Karl von Frisch for their work on animal behaviour. Then in 1981, Roger Sperry, David Hubel and Torsten Wiesel were awarded the prize for their wok in neuroethology. ... Meanwhile, aided by some fresh ideas from theoretical biology, a new discipline called sociobiology was emerging that applied evolution to the social behaviour of animals and humans. Sociobiology, like behavioural ecology, is concerned with the functional aspects of behaviour in the sense raised by Tinbergen." John Cartwright, Evolution and Human Behavior, (MIT Press, 2000), pp. 25–26.
- ^ Among popular writers, Naomi Wolf has expressed openness to this.
[edit] Bibliography
- Baillargeon RH, Zoccolillo M, Keenan K, Côté S, Pérusse D, Wu HX, Boivin M, Tremblay RE. "Gender differences in physical aggression: A prospective population-based survey of children before and after 2 years of age". Developmental Psychology 43 (2007): 13–26.
- Downes, Stephen M. "Evolutionary Psychology". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008.
- Knight, Melvin Moses. "The Matriarchate and the Perversion of History". Journal of Social Forces 2 (1924): 569–574.
- Lewens, Tim. "Cultural Evolution". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2007.
- Montagu, MF Ashley. "Introduction" to Marriage Past and Present: A Debate Between Robert Briffault and Bronislaw Malinowski. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1956. [transcript of 1931 debate]
- Morgan, Lewis Henry. Ancient Society: Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery through Barbarism to Civilization. London: Macmillan & Company, 1877.
- Schlegel, Alice. Male Dominance and Female Autonomy: Domestic Authority in Matrilineal Societies. New Haven, Connecticut: Human Relations Area Files (HRAF) Press, 1972.
[edit] Refs for later use
- Hildred Geertz, The Javanese Family, (New York: Free Press, 1961), p. 107.
- Lewis Henry Morgan, League of the Ho-de-No-Sau-Nee or Iroquois, (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1901), p. 315.
- "Men have always been the leaders in public affairs and the final authorities at home." Margaret Mead, review of Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Privative Societies, Redbook (October, 1973): 48.
[edit] External links
- Goldberg, Steven. The Inevitability of Patriarchy. New York: William Morrow and Company, 1973.
