Topics Feminism

Question Is "Patriarchy" as a corrupting force in society that oppresses women an unfalsifiable theory? I can measure sexism. I can measure bigotry. I can describe a society without sexism. I don't know how to measure patriarchy. I don't know how to describe a society without patriarchy that is just not a description of society without sexism. And yet, I am told that patriarchy is not merely sexism.

Accepted:
July 14, 2007

Comments

As is so often the case in philosophy, so much depends upon how one defines the relevant terms. "Sexism," like racism, is a rather vague concept, or at least a concept with a fairly large number of meanings. So, with any interlocutor you're dealing with, it would be important to acknowledge the definitions in play. I take it that those with whom you've been discussing the issue have claimed something like, "Some patriarchy is not objectionable" or "Some patriarchy is benign."

Certainly. as a term of social science, "patriarchy" should remain as free of moral judgment as possible. In that scientific sense, a society might be described as "patriarchal" without implying a moral judgment about that society. In such a case, however, "patriarchy" is not sexism at all. (Here I'm using "sexism" as a term that carries moral judgment and is not a scientific term.) Rather, patriarchy in a scientific sense is just a certain kind of social structure, one where, let's say, men rule women.

Or perhaps there is a relativistic moral claim at work in what you've been told that turns on the variety of societies, tribal formations, etc. Such a position might use the term, "patriarchy," in a non-scientific way to make the moral judgment that patriarchy is not always bad. In this sense, one might argue that while "patriarchy" might be considered pernicious in some societies, it is not considered so in others. In fact, even in the moral terms of our own society, there are other societies where patriarchy seems to function in a morally good or neutral way. I do think there are many societies (even most) where patriarchy is widely approved. But I must confess that I'm not familiar with a society where's I find this to be a good thing. Perhaps someone with more anthropological knowledge might introduce me to one.

For the sake of an answer to your question here, I wish to use "patriarchy" as a term of moral judgment. Using it in this way, I'd rather advance the converse of what you've been told about patriarchy, what you've been told being the claim that "Not all patriarchy is sexism" or "Some patriarchy is not sexism." Instead, I'd argue that, at least in contemporary Western societies, not all sexism is patriarchy, but all patriarchy is sexism. All patriarchy is sexism because the subordination of women to men is morally indefensible. But some sexism involves issues beyond rule or domination. Sexism does involve domination and subordiination, in particular the subordination of women to men. But it also, I think, involves the limitation of women and men to distinct or separate social roles (what anthropologists, I believe, call more neutrally, "sexual dimorphism"). So, while subordinating women is sexist, assigning women (and men) to certain roles (for example, child care or elementary school teaching) while excluding them from others (say, philosophy professorships) is also sexism, even where those roles may command comparable power.

These sorts of things seem measurable. We can measure, for example, the extent to which women hold positions of power in society (such as CEOs of corporations, government posts, university boards of trustees, holdings of property and wealth). We can also measure the extent to which women and men occupy different roles or perform different functions (caregiver, nurse, physician, lawyer, judge). So, patriarchy can be measured through the methods these sorts of matters can be measured.

Finally, I'd point out that some have defined patriarchy not only as (a) the subordination of women to men but also as (b) the subordination of younger men to older men. One might argue, then, that while the subordination of women to men is sexism, the subordination of the young to the old is not. The subordination of younger men to older men, then, would be patriarchal but not sexist. In any case, the moral standing of this second dimension of patriarchy is, I think, morally complex. For the most part (but not always) I think it morally indefensible, as well.