Matriarchy is defined in terms of a 'power with' rather than 'power over' paradigm and seems to have a lot in common with the democracy you describe - "equal voice, in agency, in relationship [and] in interdependence". I invite you to check out Oxford Bibloiography's section on Modern Matriarchal Studies - https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0113.xml
Lovely article Brian that's provoked a lot of ideas in my head. I have lots of reactions, but in the interest of brevity, let me say one thing I find puzzling and one thing I like a lot.
1. I find it puzzling that you equate democracy with the opposite of patriarchy. For two reasons: a) surely there are other sources of inequality and violence that remain even when you remove patriarchy. Race and caste come to mind. Is Democracy not concerned with them? Perhaps you mean to say that Democracy is a superset of the opposite of patriarchy? I insert this word of caution because people of color or indigenous people's might say that this is a racially marked idea of democracy. b) Democracy is about how we relate to each other, but also about how we relate to certain institutions, especially the state. What role does the state have in the opposition to patriarchy? Isn't it possible (especially given the current governments in many parts of the world) that states are lagging behind their people's when it comes to the removal of patriarchy?
2. I resonate with your message of hope, that the epidemic of loneliness might be cured by our response to a viral epidemic. Certainly in the short run, and if we are courageous and persistent, we will create democratic institutions that sustain that hope over the long term. Domination led us into the anthropocene so we better find a way out of it!
Also, love the concept of 'cultural somatics'. Will have to learn more about it.
Yes to all of this! Thanks for the thoughts. Two reactions:
1) Carol Gilligan says patriarchy is the opposite of democracy. Where patriarchy depends on separation, hierarchy, domination, democracy depends on equality, agency, and partnership.
2) You are quite right that there are other forms oppression; the first post in this series unpacks bell hooks' coinage of the term "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". Her point is that those other systems could not exist without patriarchy. At this point they're so interwoven that tackling one requires tackling all. To your point, dismantling patriarchy is thin gruel if white supremacy remains in its wake.
I agree that the state is lagging people when it comes to ... well, just about everything, but certainly dismantling patriarchy. Bureaucracies as presently constituted are inherently patriarchal (or capitalist, or white supremacist... systems of domination tend to share common attributes)... so I suspect the state will be on the tail end of the curve when it comes to change (though it's encouraging to see examples where the state is explicitly embracing feminist policy; in New Zealand, in Iceland, even Canada's embrace of a "feminist foreign policy").
Matriarchy is defined in terms of a 'power with' rather than 'power over' paradigm and seems to have a lot in common with the democracy you describe - "equal voice, in agency, in relationship [and] in interdependence". I invite you to check out Oxford Bibloiography's section on Modern Matriarchal Studies - https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780199766567/obo-9780199766567-0113.xml
Lovely article Brian that's provoked a lot of ideas in my head. I have lots of reactions, but in the interest of brevity, let me say one thing I find puzzling and one thing I like a lot.
1. I find it puzzling that you equate democracy with the opposite of patriarchy. For two reasons: a) surely there are other sources of inequality and violence that remain even when you remove patriarchy. Race and caste come to mind. Is Democracy not concerned with them? Perhaps you mean to say that Democracy is a superset of the opposite of patriarchy? I insert this word of caution because people of color or indigenous people's might say that this is a racially marked idea of democracy. b) Democracy is about how we relate to each other, but also about how we relate to certain institutions, especially the state. What role does the state have in the opposition to patriarchy? Isn't it possible (especially given the current governments in many parts of the world) that states are lagging behind their people's when it comes to the removal of patriarchy?
2. I resonate with your message of hope, that the epidemic of loneliness might be cured by our response to a viral epidemic. Certainly in the short run, and if we are courageous and persistent, we will create democratic institutions that sustain that hope over the long term. Domination led us into the anthropocene so we better find a way out of it!
Also, love the concept of 'cultural somatics'. Will have to learn more about it.
Yes to all of this! Thanks for the thoughts. Two reactions:
1) Carol Gilligan says patriarchy is the opposite of democracy. Where patriarchy depends on separation, hierarchy, domination, democracy depends on equality, agency, and partnership.
2) You are quite right that there are other forms oppression; the first post in this series unpacks bell hooks' coinage of the term "imperialist white supremacist capitalist patriarchy". Her point is that those other systems could not exist without patriarchy. At this point they're so interwoven that tackling one requires tackling all. To your point, dismantling patriarchy is thin gruel if white supremacy remains in its wake.
I agree that the state is lagging people when it comes to ... well, just about everything, but certainly dismantling patriarchy. Bureaucracies as presently constituted are inherently patriarchal (or capitalist, or white supremacist... systems of domination tend to share common attributes)... so I suspect the state will be on the tail end of the curve when it comes to change (though it's encouraging to see examples where the state is explicitly embracing feminist policy; in New Zealand, in Iceland, even Canada's embrace of a "feminist foreign policy").