PATRIARCHY: FEMINIST THEORY

the male breadwinner has been absorbed in the workplace

and by the state. Women's productive labor remains undervalued in the workplace, making them dependent on the
state's labor protection policy and social programs, whereas
their reproductive roles are emphasized in the state policy of
many countries.
This is exemplified in the shift of the Dominican economy from one based on agrarian industries to one based on
manufacturing and exporting light consumer goods (Safa,
1995) In the new economy, women are the favored workers
in export processing zones, whereas men have lost their traditional jobs on sugar plantations. Women's earning ability
in the industrial sector may have won them recognition as
well as granted them a greater voice in their families, but
their wage-earning power has not fundamentally challenged
the perception of gender roles (that is, men as the breadwinners) in the workplace. On the contrary, women are the
preferred labor force precisely because of their designated
role as secondary wage earners. Export-oriented industrialization has thus reinforced their subordination through
poorly paid, dead-end jobs, while at the same time resulting in a decline of the total family income that impoverished
the average families. Hence, women's participation in paid
work cannot simply be taken as a sign of liberation but is a
result ofloca1 economic restructuring within the global context, which brought both positive and negative effects to
women's and men's lives. To focus on the change in women's
status at home, and especially on the conjugal bond, thus
misses the crucial and defining features of the new international division of labor.
See Also
ANCIENT INDIGENOUS CULTURES: WOMEN'S ROLES; ANCIENT
NATION-STATES: WOMEN'S ROLES; ANTHROPOLOGY;
COLONIALISM AND POSTCOLONIALISM; DIVISION OF LABOR;
GLOBALIZATION; INDUSTRIALIZATION; MATRILINEAL SYSTEMS;
PATRIARCHY: FEMINIST THEORY

References and Further Reading

Engels, Frederick. 1972. The origin ofthe family, private property
and the state. New York: International.
Etienne, Mona, and Eleanor Leacock, eds. 1980. WOmen and colonization: Anthropological perspectives. New York: Praeger.
Fernandez-Kelly, M. Patricia. 1983. For we are sold, I and my people: WOmen and industry in Mexico's .frontier. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Kung, Lydia. 1994. Factory women in Taiwan. New York: Columbia University Press.
Mies, Maria. 19 85. Lace makers ofNarsapur: Indian housewives in
the world market. London: Zed.

Nash, June. 1988. Cultural parameters

of sexism
and racism in
PATRIARCHY:
Feminist
Theory
the international division of labor. In Joan Smith, Jane
Ara Collins,
Wilson
Terence K. Hopkins, and Akbar Muhammad, eds.,

Racism. sexism. and the world system. 11-38. New York:

Greenwood.
Routledge International Encyclopedia of
Safa, Helen I. 1995. The myth ofthe male breadwinner: WOmm
Women:
Global Women's Issues and
and industrialization in the Caribbean. Boulder, Col.: WestKnowledge.
Eds. Cheris Kramarae &Dale
view.
Stone, Linda. 1997.
Kinship
and gender:
An introduction.
Boul-Pp.
Spender.
New
York:
Routledge,
2000.
der, Col.: Westview.
1493-1497
Weiner, Annette B. 1976. WOmen ofvalue. men ofrmown: New
perspectives in Trobriand exchange. Austin: University of
Texas Press.

Anru lee

PATRIARCHY: Feminist Theory

Patriarchy is a cardinal concept of the radical second-wave
feminists, who define it as "a system of social structures, and
practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit
women" (Walby, 1990: 214). This use of the concept of patriarchy has enabled the development of some of the most significant feminist ideas and programs worldwide; at the same
time, the concept has been criticized, modified, and in many
cases abandoned.
The Context for the Term Patriarchy

The feminist concept ofpatriarchy as a widespread social system of gender dominance evolved in the context of the
emerging North American and European women's liberation
movements and the intellectual and political climate of the
late 1960s to 1970s, which emphasized large-scale social systems and structures--capitalism, colonialism, and racism. In
particular, Marxism, with its compelling explanation of
inequality and a charter for social change, provided one of
the most influential models for progressive thinking. Feminists borrowed these frameworks and described male-female
relations as colonial or class relations, but also concluded that
women's subordination could not be explained by, or with
the terms of, those other systems of inequality. The rubric of
patriarchy presented one particularly influential effort toward
developing a general theory of sex-gender oppression.
In her groundbreaking book Sexual Politics. Kate Millet
(1970 ) introduced the feminist use of the term patriarchy. The
term patriarch derives from the Old Testament paternal ruler
of a family, tribe, or church, and patriarchy is a formal sociological or anthropological category for societies organized

1493

PATRIARCHY: FEMINIST THEORY

into kinship groups and governed or dominated by the elder

male. Commentators of all stripes agree that these archaic
societies and early civilizations were patriarchal; some refer
to these social forms as "classical" or "historical" patriarchy.
The innovation of radical feminists was to reinterpret
patriarchy as a distinct and intractable social system parallel
to--yet preceding-class and race stratification. In this view,
both the "feudal character of the patriarchal family" and "the
familial character of feudalism" (Millet, 1970: 33) endure.
Therefore, most, if not all, of the societies we know ofincluding socialist and revolutionary societies-remain
patriarchal. It is important to understand the feminists' use
of patriarchy as a strategic and political redefinition-"a
struggle concept," as Maria Mies explains, "because the
movement needed a term by which the totality of oppressive and exploitative relations which affect women could be
expressed as well as their systemic character" (19 86: 37)

Patriarchy Redefined
Succinctly, in the radical feminist understanding, patriarchy
is a "sexual system of power in which the male possesses superior power and economic privilege" (Eisenstein, 1979:17). In
a more elaborate definition provided by Marilyn French, patriarchy is "the manifestation and institutionalization of male
dominance over women and children in the family and the
extension of male dominance over women in society in general. It implies that men hold power in all the important institutions of society and women are deprived of access to such
power. It does not imply that women are either totally powerless or totally deprived of rights, influences, and resources"
(French, 1985: 239; see also Lerner, 1986: 238-239). In this view,
the United Nations, the highlands of New Guinea, France,
and Cuba can all be seen as patriarchal social forms.
The political view captured by the term patriarchy is
different from those conveyed by the phrase "male chauvinism," a now outmoded term that emerged around the
same time, or the widespread term sexism. Compared with
sexism, the feminist concept of patriarchy is more radical,
in the sense of challenging the very definitions and standards
of equality. Whereas "male chauvinism" and "sexism" imply
that the problem of women's inequality has to do with individual men, and that the path to change lies in reform, education, and incremental steps, the theory of patriarchy
implies that the problem is society itself and calls for revolution of, or escape from, the patriarchal status quo.
Fundamental to this feminist theorizing is the understanding of patriarchy as institution or system, a powerful
mode of organizing society, culture, and individuals. The
rubric of patriarchy opened up an intellectual and imaginative space, and provided a vocabulary and model for under-

1494

standing male dominance and female subordination as systemic, political, and self-reproducing. This view understands
politics as "a set of stratagems designed to maintain a system,"
and therefore patriarchy as "an institution perpetuated by ...
techniques of control" (Millet, 1970: 23, note I). The feminist projects since the second wave-whether they use the
term patriarchy or not-have elaborated on this premise by
showing how many mundane, seemingly private and personal experiences operated as the stratagems and tactics that
underwrote and reproduced a social system of gender
inequality. In this systemic view, such disparate phenomena
as wedding rituals, civil law, occupational structures, housework, conversational styles, and psychiatry are seen in a new
light as the creations and mechanisms of a patriarchal order.

Variations of Patriarchy
Even working with a similar model, feminist theorists and
activists bring different understandings and emphases to the
analysis of patriarchal institutions and the strategies for its
transformation. If patriarchy is a system structured by sex
or gender, was domination based on the role of father, husband, or boss, or simply on maleness? In turn, were women
subordinated by virtue of their role as wives, mothers, and
sex objects, or else more subjectively, through ideology and
psychology?
Materialist feminists or socialist feminists, coming from
Marxist and leftist movements, attempted to ground the
understanding of male dominance in terms of economic
exploitation and control, particularly in the family and labor
markets: "The patriarchal system is preserved, via marriage
and the family, through the sexual division oflabor and society" (Eisenstein, 1979: 17). Although socialist feminists have
debated the complex interconnections between capitalism
and patriarchy, many considered them to form a collaborative system of capitalist patriarchy (Eisenstein, 1979). The
political organizing in line with these theories accordingly
works to change laws, policies, and practices that allow the
exploitation of women's unpaid household labor and underpaid wage work (Delphy, 1984; Eisenstein, 1979; Mies, 1986).
In more recent years, the British sociologist Syvia Walby
(1990) proposed understanding patriarchy as a complex combination of six separate arenas: household work, paid work,
sexuality, cultural institutions, the state, and male violence.
Perhaps the most popularized expression of the radical
feminist theory of patriarchy has been in the interconnected
realms of reproduction, sexuality, and violence. The feminist analysis of rape radically reconceptualized men's sexual
assault on women as a political use of violence that regulated
and punished women and maintained patriarchal power.
Similarly, the concepts of wife battering and sexual harass-

PATRIARCHY: FEMINIST THEORY

ment emerged as political issues because feminists identified

them as patriarchal tactics that effectively kept women subordinate in the home and uncomfortable in the public
sphere. The translation of these feminist discoveries into gender-neutral policies about "spousal abuse" or inappropriate
displays of sexuality at work have, however, erased these radical origins. Relatedly, a very influential if polarizing interpretation of patriarchy, associated with the legal theories of
Catharine A. MacKinnon, locates sexuality as the key tactical arena within patriarchal arrangements. Taking a completely different perspective on patriarchal sexuality, the term
heteropatriarchy emphasizes the specifically heterosexual
character of gender and sexual oppression, similar to the
ideas of compulsory heterosexuality and heteronormativity.
Perhaps paradoxically, but to great effect, the political struggle against these realms of patriarchy has often relied on the
state to intervene in domestic realms.
The radical feminist theories of patriarchy often are
viewed as theories of ideology, analyzing the ways that male
domination is fostered and perpetuated by culture, religion,
and science, as well as socialization and psychic development. Many of the large-scale discussions of patriarchy have
emphasized the role of male-dominated religions (Daly,
1978; Lerner, 1986), "male principles" (French, 1985), and
"patriarchal attitudes" (Figes, 1971), and characterized the
patriarchal worldview as one founded on dichotomies (or
binaries), hierarchies, and power. The view of patriarchy as
most deeply cultural, psychic, and mental-or even spiritual-has motivated the search for alternatives to patriarchal religions and mind-sets, for example, in revitalized
goddess worship or witchcraft or the feminist reinterpretations of orthodox religious traditions (Daly, 1978). In fact,
feminist theology is one domain where the concept of patriarchy continues to hold much relevance. The view of patriarchy as a total system has led to the search for alternatives.
If male-dominated societies position women as objects and
not subjects, one clear political strategy lies in escaping this
society, and building new relationships, pathways, and cultures with other women; indeed, such a vision informed
numerous experiments in separatism and women's culture
mainly in the United States, Europe, and Australia. One
well-known example is Greenham Common, where
throughout the 19 80s thousands of women camped and
protested around the perimeter of a U.S. military base in
England. Other examples from the United States include
rural and urban women's collectives, "womyn's music" and
a nationwide circuit of music festivals, and, on a more modest scale, events such as art performances, social gatherings,
and college classes that create a temporary space dedicated
to women only.

One Patriarchy or Many?

Many feminists who employ an idea of patriarchy insist that
it represents not one monolith but different forms, seeing significant differences from the classic patriarchal families of
antiquity to Chinese extended families to the contemporary
western nuclear family ideal (French, 1985; Walby, 1990). In
the field of women in development, many feminists worldwide have applied the concepts of patriarchy and patriarchal
institutions in evaluating how women's positions have
changed with "modernizing" states and the spread of capitalism (Agarwal, 1988; Moghadam, 1996). Feminists in Asia and
Latin America also have analyzed their societies as patriarchal,
pointing to Confucianism, machismo, and feudalism, for
example. In India, feminists have chronicled the enduring
legacies of patriarchal feudal relations of property, kinship,
and ideology, such as primogeniture and preference for sons.
This use of patriarchy in the global "South" generally refers
to specific social and cultural forms of male domination
rooted in kinship, production, and ideology; today, the patriarchal nature of this 10ca1level is seen as inextricable from economic and gender oppression by colonialist, nationalist, and
capitalist regimes. Such usage differs from the more diffuse
western feminist understanding of society itself.
Others have interpreted patriarchy as one worldwide
system (Lerner, 1986; Millet, 1970). For these feminists, male
dominance over women represents the original social hierarchy, a template from which other forms of exploitation
evolved. Slavery, racism, capitalism, and the exploitation of
nature can all be seen, in this view, as predicated on an initial domination of women by men. Such analyses naturally
raise the question of when and how patriarchy began, and
have prompted research and speculation on what Engels
described as "the world historical defeat of the female sex."
Scholars used history, mythology, classics, and anthropology to propose the overthrow of matriarchal societies or religions and installation of male-dominated civilizations in
Mesopotamia (French, 1985; Lerner, 1986). A vision of patriarchyas global and universal also informed the efforts of
first-world feminists to work with women internationally,
especially in the South, and to establish "global sisterhood"
in a struggle against a presumably similar-if not singleform of oppression by gender.

Limits and Differences

The idea of patriarchy as a single social form across place
and time (which often is mistaken as the only feminist
understanding of patriarchy) has been subject to much criticism for being totalizing, essentialist, and inaccurate. One
of the criticisms of the political theory of patriarchy, especially the notion of one unitary patriarchy, is that it implies

1495

PATRIARCHY: FEMINIST THEORY

a biological basis for a social arrangements (Barrett, 19 80 ;

Rowbotham, 1981). Some discussions certainly suggest that
patriarchy is based, in the final instance, on biology (Eisenstein, 1979; French, 1985). Most agree, however, that "patriarchy's biological foundations appear to be so very insecure"
(Millet, 1970: 31) and stress the social, ideological, and psychic bases of patriarchy more than literal physical sex. It is
worth noting that the concept of patriarchy was developed
before the powerful feminist formulation of gender; hence,
many of these feminists did not deconstruct biological sex
in the way that later theorists did. In considering the spirit
if not the letter of the discourses about patriarchy, it is clear
that these rely on a conceptualization of "sex" that is close
to that of gender, meaning a constructed social status and
"power division" (Millet, 1970).
Many feminists, particularly academic feminists, reject
the radical feminist notion of patriarchy as systematic male
dominance and the belief in one patriarchy that is transhistorical and cross-cultural (Barrett, 1980; Rowbotham, 1981;
"What Comes after Patriarchy," 1998). Marxist feminists, for
example, insisted that much of what counted as the subordination of women was created by capitalism, colonialism,
and world systems. For example, the isolated nature of
women's domestic work, the separation of the private realm
from public life, and the glorification of women as frail
dependents-all of these were a product of the shift from
agriculture to industrial economies. Anthropologists and historians have criticized the ways that radical feminists take
specific practices and relationships out of their particular
cultural and historical contexts.
From the point of view of political change, the theories
of an all-encompassing patriarchy raise troubling questions
about the possibilities and mechanisms of change. The view
that all societies are patriarchal, critics suggest, locks women
into the position of victims and precludes any sense of how
they can resist or change their circumstances, as they do.
What is clear is that one obvious strategy for change explicitlyor implicitly suggested by analyses of patriarchy-that is,
separatism-was unpalatable to most feminists. Moreover,
these critiques also meld with a broader problem within
second-wave, "1970s," or "Euro" feminism: the problem of
addressing seriously the differences among women. By basing the analysis of patriarchal dominance on the powerful but
largely western, white, and bourgeois form of the nuclear family, feminist theorists do not account for the ways that the
public-private divide and forms of family life vary, especially
in terms of race, ethnicity, nationality, and class. Furthermore,
the image of a "global sisterhood" struggling against a "global
patriarchy" obscures the real power that women of racial, economic, or national privilege hold over other women and men.

1496

After Patriarchy?
By the mid-1980s, the use of the concept of patriarchy
waned in academic and many political arenas, perhaps not
coincidentally at the same time that "gender" was becoming a more accepted rubric in academic, public policy, and
activist worlds. Indeed, it is possible to see a transfer of the
intellectual power and political energy associated with
analyses of patriarchy to the newer politics of gender.
Whereas the widespread use of patriarchy in feminist
analysis has declined, the insights that the space of patriarchy allowed continue as key understandings of feminism:
the idea that certain seemingly private and individual interactions, events, and emotions-rape, sexual harassment,
psychiatric diagnoses, and self-sacrifice-are in fact stratagems of a larger system predicated on male-female difference and inequality. Patriarchy helped feminists think
systematically about sex and gender, in ways that borrowed
from, but also necessarily separated from, the Marxist
analysis of capitalism.
The feminist term patriarchy, and the idea of specific
patriarchal beliefs and practices, still serves as an important
politicized term in theology and radical politics and colloquially in feminist circles. The more technical, specific usage
of a kin-based patriarchal social system continues to be used
to describe particular historical moments or lingering ideologies across the globe. The terms patriarchy and, especially,
patriarchal are used as a generic category for all kinds of male
domination. In a number of cases, patriarchal is used as a
modifier to suggest just about any form of ranking or
oppression, so that highly structured and hierarchical forms
of teaching, thinking, theology, or decision making can all
be said to be patriarchal, whether or not they suppress
women in particular. In this usage, the analysis has shifted
away from the systemic social structures to the behavioral
and individual.

See Also
DIVISION OF LABOR; FEMINISM: OVERVIEW; FEMINISM:
MARXIST; FEMINISM: RADICAL; FEMINISM: SECOND-WAVE
BRITISH; FEMINISM: SECOND-WAVE NORTH AMERICAN;
FEMINISM: SOCIALIST; HETEROSEXUALITY; PATRIARCHY:
DEVELOPMENT; RAPE

References and Further Reading

Agarwal, Bina, ed. 1988. Structures ofpatriarchy: State, community and household in modernisingAsia. New Delhi: Kali for
Women; London: Zed.
Barrett, Michelle. 1980. Womens oppression today: Problems in
Marxist feminist analysis. London: NLB.

PEACE EDUCATION

Daly, Mary. 1978. Gynlecology: The metaethics ofradicalfeminism.

London: Women's Press (2nd ed. 1990).
Delphy, Christine. 1984. Close to home: A materialist analysis of
women's oppression. Trans. and ed. Diana Leonard. Amherst:
University of Massachusetts Press.
Eisenstein, Zillah R., ed. 1979. Capitalist patriarchy and the case
for socialist feminism. New York: Monthly Review.
Figes, Eva. 197I. Patriarchal attitudes. Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett.
French, Marilyn. 1985. Beyond power: On women, men, and
morals. New York: Summit.
Lerner, Gerda. 1986. The creation ofpatriarchy. New York: Oxford
University Press.
MacKinnon, Catharine A. 1989. Toward a feminist theory ofthe
state. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchy and accumulation on a world scale:
W0men in the international division oflabour. London: Zed.
Millett, Kate. 1970. Sexual politics. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.
Moghadam, Valentine M., ed. 1996. Patriarchy and economic

development: W0men's positions at the end ofthe twentieth century. Oxford: Clarendon; New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rowbotham, Sheila. 198I. The trouble with "patriarchy." In Feminist Anthology Collective, ed., No turning Back, 30I-369
London: Women's Press.
Walby, Sylvia. 1990. Theorizing patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.
What comes after patriarchy? Comparative reflections on gender and power in a "post-patriarchal" age. 1998. Forum.
Radical History Review 71 (Spring): 53-195.

AraWilson

PEACE AND PEACE ACTIVISM

See CONFILICT

RESOLUTION: MEDIATION AND

NEGOTIATION; PACIFISM AND PEACE ACTIVISM; PEACE

MOVEMENTS;

and VIOLENCE AND PEACE:

OVERVIEW.

PEACE EDUCATION
Peace Education as a Field of Study
The concept and practice ofpeace education exists within the
larger field ofpeace studies. The International Peace Research
Association (IPRA) was established in 1966, and the Peace
Education Commission (PEC) commands a certain status as
the largest commission within IPRA. Members of the PEC

are largely well-established educators, ranging from those

with standard teaching positions to political scientists interested in the dissemination of findings from peace research.
There exists a certain tension within the PEC between those
who see peace education as the act (and ethic) of teaching
for peace (generally educators) and those who view peace
education as a means of teaching about peace (generally
political scientists). Another area of contention is the conflict between regarding peace education as a gender-neutral
issue and regarding it as an issue requiring an awareness of
gender.

Feminist Peace Education

One example of feminist peace education occurs within the
exploration of children's socialization: A peace educator
working from a feminist position analyzes the way that boys
and girls are raised, with an awareness of gendered differences, in an attempt to deconstruct such sex-role stereotypes and concepts as femininity and masculinity
(Brock-Utne, 1989: 153). Feminist peace education attempts
to render visible the long-ignored works and writings by
women for peace, thus creating new models and examples
for both men and women from the ways in which women
work for peace.
In the novel Three Guineas, Virginia Woolf(1938} raised
many questions that are still being asked by feminist peace
educators today. She questioned the ability of women to
assist men in the achievement of peace when women are
themselves so oppressed; when what little education they do
get is not enough to examine peace issues with a view to
enlisting the cooperation of men. Woolf viewed regular education in school as an education for war, encouraging competition and creating a compartmentalized knowledge,
divorcing the issue of social and human concerns from technical issues and concepts. In school the achievements of
women are being ignored and masculine values cherished.
Even after the publication of Three Guineas, the field of
peace education continued to be considered gender-neutral.
It was not until feminist scholars combined peace education
with their awareness of sexism (particularly within the field
of gender-role socialization) that certain gender-specific
questions began to be asked within the fields of peace
research and peace education (Brock-Urne, 1985, 1989; Reardon, 1985, 1988). Such questions included: Do we educate
boys for war and girls for peace? Are girls more socialized in
empathy than boys are? What are the consequences of having those (males) who are socialized both less in empathy
and more in aggressive behavior rule the world? What will
the application of feminist theories to the fields of disarmament and human rights and development mean for the

1497