Patriarchy is a social structure in which men have power over women. Etymologically, the term derives from the ancient Greek “patriarches” meaning older males, and refers to the paternal ruler of families, tribes or churches. In classical anthropology, “patriarchal structure” refers to families, social groups, work and political structures in which men hold the positions of power(1). For European and North American feminists, patriarchy is a social system of masculine domination over women(2). In the Lebanese context, feminist anthropologist Suad Joseph has defined patriarchy as “the privileging of males and seniors and the mobilization of kin structures, kin morality, and kin idioms to legitimate and institutionalize gendered and aged domination”(3). The same system is also often referred to as “abawiya” in Arabic and in some activist communities, which highlights the figure of the father as the patriarch.
Patriarchy as a structure of oppression (rather than structure of kinship as Joseph conceptualizes it) was initially theorized by US-based, 1960s “radical feminists” (see Feminism). They defined it as the primary, fundamental social division in society and argued that it was being maintained through men’s control over women via the institution of the family, rape, violence and denial of bodily autonomy(4). Marxist feminists split from the initial radical feminist groups; they rejected the individualistic assumptions on which the radical feminist notions of patriarchy were based(5). For Marxist feminists, men’s domination over women is a result of capitalist exploitation and is dependent on class relations, as well as a result of systemic and institutional discrimination(6) (see Power). In the late 1960s, Marxist feminists focused on understanding how patriarchal arrangements dictate women’s performance of unpaid housework and care labor(7) (see Work).
“Dual systems theory”, proposed by Heidi Hartmann in 1979, was meant to be a synthesis of radical and Marxist feminist positions, and argued that capitalism and patriarchy were interdependent, mutually-beneficial but distinct systems of oppression(8). In a later formulation which drew and expanded on the “dual systems” paradigm, bell hooks spoke of “imperialist white-supremacist capitalist patriarchy” in order to emphasize the intertwined functioning of several systems of oppression(9). Theories of patriarchy were a core issue in the 1970s Anglo-American feminist movement, but this type of totalizing theorizing lost its appeal as post-colonialism, post-structuralist deconstruction and identity politics became more visible in 1980s and 1990s academia and grassroots progressive politics.
Hisham Sharabi’s thesis on the “neopatriarchal”/neotraditional organization of Arab societies (published in 1988) has proved very influential in public discussions on patriarchy, kinship and political structures in the MENA region. Sharabi argues that the Arab world’s relations of social and economic dependency with Europe have led to a postwar “distorted and dependent capitalism” which created a petty bourgeoisie whose mentality was patriarchal (i.e., traditional – in his understanding) in spite of certain modern trappings. Sharabi’s book problematizes the continued dominance of “the Father” in family and society and the power of extensive kinship networks.
Building on the works of known feminists such as Nawal Saadawi and Fatema Mernissi and departing from their critiques of patriarchy specifically as male domination over women, Sharabi also argued (in passing) that such a distorted, simultaneously traditional and modern system is doubly oppressive to women(10). However, for him, the nuclear family (as opposed to the extended family) is inherently democratic, a form which enables equalitarian, romantic love, a social institution which provides “the necessary (but not sufficient) ground for the liberation of women”(11). Such a stance can be contrasted to European and North American feminist critiques of the nuclear family and the division of labor within it.
Arab gender scholars have contested the European and North American feminist formulation of “patriarchy”. They also pointed out that patriarchy is not immutable or inflexible, even in apparently highly traditional societies. Anthropologist Suad Joseph showed how Western psychoanalitical notions about anti-patriarchal struggle as the quest for individuation and autonomy cannot describe the way in which her Lebanese informants, men and women, conceived of themselves as a part of others, intimately connected to extended families, albeit ones structured by age and male privilege. She highlights, however, significant fluidity in relationships within and between families as well as the importance in Arab contexts of brother-sister dynamics in reproducing patriarchal power(12).
While characterizing the Arab countries as the “patriarchal belt” or “classical patriarchies”, Deniz Kandiyoti nevertheless argues that women actively or passively resist men’s domination and renegotiate gender relations. In her examples, women relied on strategies such as manipulating the affection of their husbands or sons to ensure some power positions and status within families. She calls such attempts at making an unjust system temporarily work in one’s favor “patriarchal bargains”. Some women might be skeptical towards anti-patriarchal (i.e. feminist) organizing because a potential new system offers them no guarantee of even the possibility of bargaining – a fear which should be treated seriously and respectfully by activists, as Kandiyoti suggests(13).
Recent manifestations in popular culture in the Arab world and Lebanon (such as television shows) suggest a reinforcement of patriarchal structures by stressing that masculinity is public whereas femininity should be confined in the realm of the private(14). In this context, NGOs and activists try to spread the use of the term “patriarchy” (batriarqiyya or ‘abawiyya) in order to question the system. Still, the meaning is obscure for a majority of people and its signification often distorted. The idea is misunderstood or sometimes not understood at all, leading to accusations of man-hate rather than widening the debate.
