A model of society where fear and force maintain rigid understandings of power and superiority within a hierarchical structure.
I first saw the term "dominator culture" in the writing of bell hooks.
She didn't even do much to explain it there, but the phrase just hit me: "That's it!"
I saw many problems that could be traced to racism, but it wasn't always racism. Sometimes it was sexism, or class.
"Patriarchy" sometimes seemed like a better word. It gets used a lot, and it is often accurate.
But then sometimes you notice it isn't a straight top-down model.
I came across the word "kyriarchy", which can be a set of connecting social systems built on oppression. That came from Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza in her book But She Said: Feminist Practices of Biblical Interpretation.
Honestly, the book doesn't have much on kyriarchy. There is a chart, but it is still pretty vertical.
(The book is more a work of exegesis -- critical interpretation or explanation of a scriptural text -- going over the different versions of the Syrophoenician woman requesting healing for her daughter. As far as that goes it is pretty interesting, but it was not what I had been looking for.)
Even racism seemed pretty clear, but then there is how it gets internalized, and how there is racism plus anti-Blackness, which maybe makes "white supremacy" the overarching concept, but then there is still misogyny and misogynoir.
The common thread was that there were those who had a position above others that allowed them to feel superior. Even when they were not openly abusive they would allow oppression to occur. Maybe they felt vaguely threatened, or doubted that things could be that bad for others if it they were not personally experiencing it.
So for that phrase "dominator culture"... okay, that could be any power system, and it does not get enforced merely by those at the top because having someone below them placates even those who are relatively far down but still not at the bottom.
The term itself comes from systems scientist and author Riane Eisler, popularized in her book The Chalice and the Blade (1987).
I recently saw the movie Origin, based on Elizabeth Wilkerson's book Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents (2020) and her writing progress.
If you have read it (or seen the movie), it may make more sense for you to use the word "caste" instead of "dominator culture", and that's fine.
I stick with "dominator culture" because of that moment when I first
encountered it and my feelings about how perfectly it fit. It made a
strong impression on me that still reverberates years later.
It is normal that there will be lots of other words that come up as we look at specific interactions, between individuals and within a society. There are lots of examples and we can spend a lot of time on it. All of those other words that may not describe the whole may still be completely accurate for various facets.
There are two things that I want to point out first, and they are part of what makes it so insidious.
First, even if you are more consciously aware of who is above you, that less conscious awareness of those below you is easily threatened.
Adherence to the status quo is going to benefit the existing power structure. People have a strong discomfort when that status quo is attacked, even mildly. It tends to be emotional rather than intellectual, and it is hard to get people to face it.
Going along with that, we do not think about how much we take it for granted.
I read about The Chalice and the Blade before I read it, and saw that the opposite was "partnership culture".
That gave me low expectations; is it really so helpful if the people in charge are a married couple instead of just the husband?
It's not about that. It's just people being equal and supported.
Here's another thought for you; what is the opposite of patriarchy?
We immediately think "matriarchy", with the women in charge, but what if it's not automatically like that?
More equal societies are generally called matriarchal, usually because some things are passed down along matrilineal lines. Maybe another factor is that we associate patriarchy so much with oppression that we think that the only other option is to give the power to the other gender, but still based on gender.
To be fair, if you are passing down hereditary things from father to son, with paternity being a key issue, it is easy for that to require control of women. Maybe it makes sense that it becomes oppressive, but is it necessary?
What if people just fill different roles based on their skills and their interests and needs?
Can we even picture that?
No comments:
Post a Comment