4 ms·

What power do the chiefs actually have? The article says that all domestic decisions are made by women, and there is no hierarchy. Sound like "politicians and c

by belorn 8y ago

What power do the chiefs actually have? The article says that all domestic decisions are made by women, and there is no hierarchy. Sound like "politicians and chiefs" are western interpretation of what could possible simply be a figure head or a diplomatic position to do trading with other islands.

rsynnott 8y ago
It’s perfectly possible for women to have a lot of control over society, especially over domestic society, without that society being matriarchal. For instance, Brehon Law gave women rights which were unusual versus other western contemporaries, especially in terms of property, but no-one considers early Medieval Ireland to be matriarchal.
- belorn 8y ago
  Everything is possible but the question remain, what power do chiefs and politicians have in that society? It doesn't seem quite that unreasonable question to ask.
solidsnack9000 8y ago
The power chieftains hold in these positions is usually: * Organising and directing the hunters, and dividing their kill. * The power to declare war, and to divide the spoils. * Powers relating to treaties and trade with other tribes. * Adjudicating disputes between families. The chief and his retinue are often the only recognisable political offices in such societies, in the sense that: * There is an open and explicit process for selecting the office holder. * Everyone openly acknowledges their authority. * They make open proclamations with regards to their rules and determinations. * They are held accountable for their decisions and their outcomes. They constitute the public, universal aspect of power — formal authority. This is not the only kind of power possible. As an earlier poster notes, in most East Asian societies from time immemorial women held the purse strings. Many societies are organised in such a way, that women have great power in aggregate but men hold the official, political positions. Susan Carol Rogers’ “The Myth of Male Dominance: Female Forms of Power” explores this dynamic in French peasant society. Patriarchy and women being in practice more powerful can co-exist. There are virtually (actually?) no matriarchies in history or on the earth today, in the sense that women hold the majority of positions where power is open, accountable and governed by law (or custom). In most historical societies, women held none of these positions. That doesn’t mean they just rolled over and played dead while men ran riot with the power. Perhaps as modernity got underway, the official power of men became much more significant. It wasn’t always the case that getting a new road in your town required approval at the state/province level. Informal, local power receded from view and it was only reasonable that women sought the formal, political kind in modernising societies. This change also makes it hard for us to recognise the importance of informal power in simpler societies.
- belorn 8y ago
  Thank you. The distinction between formal authority and informal power is an interesting model, but I would disagree that patriarchy is then a correct term to use since patriarchy does not distinguish between formal and informal in any definition that I have read. Matriarchy and patriarchy is usually defined by whom holds the primary power in a society. One can't say that women are hold more power in society and then say its a patriarchy, unless we define patriarchy in different terms to that commonly used. It also looks a bit like switching the definition based on needs, like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. I do have a major question however about that list of powers. If a dispute between two families is about marriage, do the male chieftains hold authority to decide on the matter? My guess would be that they do not as that would cross the boundary of power. It sounds more like this society have male gender role that give them official domain over war and trade with other tribes, and a female gender role that give them domain over all other areas. This would be very similar to many other tribal societies, with the rare exception that allow individuals to choose which one of the two roles a person want. Many people object to this classification since it would mean that most historical societies are neither matriarchy or patriarchy but rather structured around gender roles where power is held supreme with in each gender group.
  - solidsnack9000 8y ago
    ...like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. In that situation most of the formal power was held by men. The members of parliament, the generals, the treasurer, the postmaster, the judges -- all were men. If a dispute between two families is about marriage, do the male chieftains hold authority to decide on the matter? My guess would be that they do not as that would cross the boundary of power. It is possible chiefs hold power in that area because marriage is a matter of official, formal record. Having power doesn't mean they don't have to take into account the informal power around them. This is the difference relative to modern societies -- the balance of power between formal and informal power. It sounds more like this society have male gender role that give them official domain over war and trade with other tribes, and a female gender role that give them domain over all other areas. This would be very similar to many other tribal societies, with the rare exception that allow individuals to choose which one of the two roles a person want. Many people object to this classification since it would mean that most historical societies are neither matriarchy or patriarchy but rather structured around gender roles where power is held supreme with in each gender group. When a society is labeled patriarchal it is not, in practice, a statement about all the power in that society. It's hard for anthropologists and historians to gather that information. It's a statement about formal, political power -- about offices which people can be procedurally added to and removed from, in an open and accountable way. There are some societies were women had substantial institutions like this. In modernized liberal democracies -- for maybe the first time in history? -- women participate in men's institutions to a substantial degree, and that is pretty much their only gateway into public life. Matriarchy is the idea -- perhaps comical on the face of it, because anything so symmetrical in its construction should be suspicious, but it was not so back when people were asking this question -- that women would be the presidents and generals and judges and men would basically chill at home and smoke the fish and do the knitting and not (overtly) control public policy. No one has ever found a society like this.

by belorn 8y ago

rsynnott 8y ago

It’s perfectly possible for women to have a lot of control over society, especially over domestic society, without that society being matriarchal. For instance, Brehon Law gave women rights which were unusual versus other western contemporaries, especially in terms of property, but no-one considers early Medieval Ireland to be matriarchal.

belorn 8y ago
Everything is possible but the question remain, what power do chiefs and politicians have in that society? It doesn't seem quite that unreasonable question to ask.

solidsnack9000 8y ago

The power chieftains hold in these positions is usually: * Organising and directing the hunters, and dividing their kill. * The power to declare war, and to divide the spoils. * Powers relating to treaties and trade with other tribes. * Adjudicating disputes between families. The chief and his retinue are often the only recognisable political offices in such societies, in the sense that: * There is an open and explicit process for selecting the office holder. * Everyone openly acknowledges their authority. * They make open proclamations with regards to their rules and determinations. * They are held accountable for their decisions and their outcomes. They constitute the public, universal aspect of power — formal authority. This is not the only kind of power possible. As an earlier poster notes, in most East Asian societies from time immemorial women held the purse strings. Many societies are organised in such a way, that women have great power in aggregate but men hold the official, political positions. Susan Carol Rogers’ “The Myth of Male Dominance: Female Forms of Power” explores this dynamic in French peasant society. Patriarchy and women being in practice more powerful can co-exist. There are virtually (actually?) no matriarchies in history or on the earth today, in the sense that women hold the majority of positions where power is open, accountable and governed by law (or custom). In most historical societies, women held none of these positions. That doesn’t mean they just rolled over and played dead while men ran riot with the power. Perhaps as modernity got underway, the official power of men became much more significant. It wasn’t always the case that getting a new road in your town required approval at the state/province level. Informal, local power receded from view and it was only reasonable that women sought the formal, political kind in modernising societies. This change also makes it hard for us to recognise the importance of informal power in simpler societies.

belorn 8y ago
Thank you. The distinction between formal authority and informal power is an interesting model, but I would disagree that patriarchy is then a correct term to use since patriarchy does not distinguish between formal and informal in any definition that I have read. Matriarchy and patriarchy is usually defined by whom holds the primary power in a society. One can't say that women are hold more power in society and then say its a patriarchy, unless we define patriarchy in different terms to that commonly used. It also looks a bit like switching the definition based on needs, like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. I do have a major question however about that list of powers. If a dispute between two families is about marriage, do the male chieftains hold authority to decide on the matter? My guess would be that they do not as that would cross the boundary of power. It sounds more like this society have male gender role that give them official domain over war and trade with other tribes, and a female gender role that give them domain over all other areas. This would be very similar to many other tribal societies, with the rare exception that allow individuals to choose which one of the two roles a person want. Many people object to this classification since it would mean that most historical societies are neither matriarchy or patriarchy but rather structured around gender roles where power is held supreme with in each gender group.
- solidsnack9000 8y ago
  ...like how a monarch with a queen as supreme formal authority is still not a matriarchy because the overall informal power is held by men. In that situation most of the formal power was held by men. The members of parliament, the generals, the treasurer, the postmaster, the judges -- all were men. If a dispute between two families is about marriage, do the male chieftains hold authority to decide on the matter? My guess would be that they do not as that would cross the boundary of power. It is possible chiefs hold power in that area because marriage is a matter of official, formal record. Having power doesn't mean they don't have to take into account the informal power around them. This is the difference relative to modern societies -- the balance of power between formal and informal power. It sounds more like this society have male gender role that give them official domain over war and trade with other tribes, and a female gender role that give them domain over all other areas. This would be very similar to many other tribal societies, with the rare exception that allow individuals to choose which one of the two roles a person want. Many people object to this classification since it would mean that most historical societies are neither matriarchy or patriarchy but rather structured around gender roles where power is held supreme with in each gender group. When a society is labeled patriarchal it is not, in practice, a statement about all the power in that society. It's hard for anthropologists and historians to gather that information. It's a statement about formal, political power -- about offices which people can be procedurally added to and removed from, in an open and accountable way. There are some societies were women had substantial institutions like this. In modernized liberal democracies -- for maybe the first time in history? -- women participate in men's institutions to a substantial degree, and that is pretty much their only gateway into public life. Matriarchy is the idea -- perhaps comical on the face of it, because anything so symmetrical in its construction should be suspicious, but it was not so back when people were asking this question -- that women would be the presidents and generals and judges and men would basically chill at home and smoke the fish and do the knitting and not (overtly) control public policy. No one has ever found a society like this.