I'd like to wade into a rather thorny and potentially controversial topic today. One that raises more questions than it answers.
A number of observations and theories have suggested that human cultures based in the deserts tend to be more patriarchal, more fatalistic, more accepting of inequality, and tend to put more emphasis on military style "honor" than societal justice. So the questions I'd like to address here are whether or not those theories are accurate, whether or not they are relevant in the modern world, and what if anything they mean for human society and global feminism in the context of global warming, forest loss, and desertification. And what should be done about it.
The point of this piece is not to play alarmist, but rather to look seriously at the questions involved. If desert societies tend to be more patriarchal, is it possible that in a world troubled by climate change, forest loss, and desertification, that sexual equality may find itself on at the very least precarious grounds.
Of course, the observation that desert societies tend to be more patriarchal than the ones in forest, oceanside, and grassland areas, is nothing new. And there are different theories as to why this is the case. Some explanations simply point to the fact that closely related primates will behave differently in different environments. Many primatologists will point to the differences between the hierarchical, violent and patriarchal baboons on the harsh savannahs and the more egalitarian and relatively less violent bonobos living in much more lush forests. Of course, the savannahs are not deserts, but proponents of this view argue that primates simply become more patriarchal and violent from living in harsher environments. Of course, the main debate about this explanation is likely to center on the difficulties of going from comparing difference species to comparing different human cultures.
Another explanation for the tendency of desert societies to be patriarchal, is the claim that when resources are scarce it becomes more important to regulate fertility and as a result you see more stringent control on sexuality and marriage and more regulation on the females.
Of course, if these two explanations were the main reason it would be easy enough to say that they are not as likely to become an issue with global warming and forest loss. As serious as those problem are, humans now have modern tools to mitigate resource loss. And control of fertility should not require such stringent behavioral controls with the availability of modern birth control and family planning.
But what if the desert environment in itself does not promote patriarchal societies? Correlation doesn't always point to causation. Could it be that the development of patriarchy was not the result of the actual desert environment but of some historical circumstance that coincided with it? After all, many of the world's deserts lie in a sort of "desert belt" that crosses North Africa, the Middle East, and parts of Asia. And many desert societies that are not as strongly patriarchal or warlike such as the Hopi or the San, are found in deserts outside of the main desert belt.
Could it be that when when grasslands give way to deserts, that more egalitarian societies may also shift to more patriarchal and aggressive societies? Could this be the result of dramatic climate change, rather than an actual desert? Of course, history has generally not shown famine to cause a shift towards patriarchy in modern countries such as China, Ireland, Russia or Ethiopia. So what was the case in the prehistoric or ancient world may or may not translate to modern times. If the disruption of climate change lead to widespread warfare could that have led to a long term cultural shift in a more warlike and patriarchal direction? Could the epidemicity of war be a factor in this?
And while it would be hard to translate between the rise of patriarchy in the ancient world, and how modern humans would react to global problems, it is worth noting that many modern liberal people see patriarchy and militarism as a practical responses to social adversity, regardless of logic or the actual circumstances involved.
Perhaps the most disturbing thing about the rise of patriarchy is how little we truly know about how it actually happened. And if we don't know that much about the origins, we might not be able to see a repeat of such conditions in the future, or on our changing and uncertain planet. But one thing is certain. Now we have the history to know about the evils of a patriarchal society. And while we may not know the preconditions, we can recognize the nature of the beast, and can choose to fight back against it. However, it could become the case that global feminism may increasingly have to operate in the context of global warming, forest loss, and water shortages. And that the consequences of those things on the culture could be worse than most have anticipated.
Say Goodnight Readers!!
No comments:
Post a Comment