The Psychology of Patriarchy; Part 1

I don’t class myself as a raging feminist (though I have sympathy for the feminist cause) but due to covering it in great detail and having several friends who champion feminism, I feel the need to support them with what I see as an explanation of how psychology has contributed to keeping this thought system in circulation throughout the world.

Patriarchy literally means ‘rule by the father’ and its overthrow is one of the main aims of the feminist movement; patriarchy is the domination of women by men and of younger men by older men in all walks of life (Millet).

In this blog I shall attempt to explain how psychological theories have contributed to the perpetuation of patriarchy and patriarchal behaviour, and to do so will be covering two theories; The Social Learning Theory of Henri Tajfel and the Social Learning Theory of Bandura.

Social Learning Theory was developed by Tajfel to explain the existence of discriminatory behaviour and prejudices, and centres around three stages.

These three stages are social categorisation; where an individual categorises themselves into a group, termed an ‘in-group’, by attributes such as sex( definitely sex in this case), social identification; where the individual, having categorised themselves into the ‘in-group’, begins to parrot their beliefs  (here that women are inferior to men) and social comparison; where the members of the ‘in-group’ compare their beliefs to those of the ‘out-group’ –those who are not the same sex as them- and, to ensure the self-esteem of their group, denigrate and discriminate against them.

This demonstrates a potential method of perpetuating patriarchal thought; men have created a belief in their superiority to woman in all walks of life in order to protect their own self esteem and group identity. They therefore treat women in a manner befitting this belief, by denying them the opportunity for employment or advancement, and before this denying them the right to education, the vote and other key rights which identify women as equal to men. Examples of this are identified by Engels, who sees the removal of the ‘mother-right’ to inheritance change so that the inheritors are almost invariably down the male line. Ironically, this theory can also be used to explain some of the more extreme ends of feminist thought, in particular difference feminism, which stresses the superiority of women over men due to their differences.  

However, the fact that this theory may go some way to absolving men from the blame of causing patriarchy (here seen as driven by the unconscious need to ensure the self-esteem of their group) may make this unattractive as an explanation to feminists. The fact that resolution can only be achieved from a merging of beliefs and groups into one huge ‘in-group’ is another problem; if patriarchy (and difference feminism) teaches that differences such as biology are intrinsic and that it is not possible to overcome them, then this reduces the potential solutions for the patriarchal problem.

The second possibility is the Social Learning Theory of Bandura, which looks at the influence of role models on the behaviour and later beliefs of children. In an experiment conducted by Bandura Ross and Ross into just such a phenomenon, they recorded that children who observed an adult physically striking a doll were more likely to be violent towards the same doll then children who had not observed the adult, and were also more likely to precisely imitate the actions of the adult if the adult was the same sex as the child (boys observing an aggressive male model averaged 104 aggressive acts as opposed to 48.4 when observing an aggressive female model). It was also found that boys are on average more aggressive than girls (an average 270 aggressive acts compared to an average 128).

The theory holds that children imitate role models whose behaviour they can observe, and the role models must be similar to, and yet more powerful than, the children. As feminists hold that patriarchy is perpetuated through the household and the family unit, with the father as the most powerful figure over the rest of the family, then here we have the perfect model; boys see a role model similar to them by sex but holding greater status due to age, with patriarchal beliefs, and are thus likely to imitate this behaviour in life, especially as it is rewarded with status in the home (as head of the family). This also explains why, in Social Identity Theory, men separate into in-groups and out-groups along biological lines (as it is seen as the distinguishing feature for SLT role models in this situation).

Despite the seeming culpability of psychology therefore in ensuring the perpetuation of patriarchy, there is a glimmer of light; SLT may provide the answer to changing thought through the use of role models. If influential role models in the media were to espouse gender equal views, and denounce patriarchal thought, then SLT holds that this would affect the beliefs and behaviour of people in society and help correct wrongs. As this is also a wider platform than the family unit it will reach a wider audience and encompass both adults and children.

In my next blog I will be looking at other explanations of patriarchy, and how psychology has influenced feminism in general, with a special focus on Juliet Mitchell, the feminist psychoanalyst.

Happy blogging.

Are we genetically wired to obey orders?

As my quote from C.P. Snow suggests, I’m interested in the human drive to obey. Over the decades, many psychologists have also been interested in this, as part of another human drive; to understand why.

Indeed, the most infamous experiments into obedience were conducted by Stanley Milgram in 1961 and 1962, in order to explain the actions of Nazi concentration camp guards during the horrors of the Holocaust who used the argument that they were only following orders’.

Armed with little more than a fake newspaper advertisement, lab coat and imperatives as verification of his authority figure, Milgram’s researcher was able to convince 100% of his participants to deliver potentially fatal electric shocks to a complete stranger, who they had been informed, had a heart condition. Indeed, some 65% proceeded to shock this man (who was in fact a confederate-an actor- who remained safe and unharmed) up to a level of 450 volts, when he appeared to all intents and purposes to have died where he sat.

The results of this laboratory experiment caused unease amongst many, as cultural factors such as the strict fascist mind set in Nazi Germany as opposed to the more liberal U.S seemed to have no bearing on whether or not people obeyed figures of authority. This raised the truly sobering thought that any normal man or woman may be capable of acts of genocide, regardless of race, culture or ethnicity, just because they are told to.

This view is supported by the findings of Meeus and Raajmakers in 1986, conducting an experiment into the obedience of the Dutch people in insulting and verbally abusing potential job applicants. Despite the Netherlands being specifically selected as a study for cross-cultural verification due to its liberal nature, the results were depressingly familiar; 22 of the 24 participants concluded the experiment by delivering all 15 abusive comments.

These experiments are taken in different cultures with different levels of liberal thought permeating their society, across a period of two decades, and demonstrate very similar findings. One of the only variables which remained the same is the fact that the participants were human, which raises the question, are we genetically predisposed to be obedient to authority figures?

Certain aspects of Milgram’s study may support this theory; though many of his participants cried, suffered bouts of nervous laughter and in some cases even had seizures due to the ‘moral strain’ they were under, they continued to obey orders, suggesting a strong compulsion, almost need to continue, even against their own better judgement. Once more, this raises disturbing ideas about automatons, brainwashing, and other dark imagery of the worst that humanity is capable of.

The truth of the matter is far less melodramatic, and can probably be traced back to the age of early man. At this stage, leaders of small social groups influenced day to day decisions which impacted upon the lives of their groups, and the decisions of good leaders were thus followed without question or cognitive reasoning as to why they should be followed; they simply kept you full/happy/alive. The gift of hindsight allows us to identify this as a strong possibility, with those that followed orders surviving to pass on this trait, whilst the more rebellious members of primitive man met an early demise (if only they’d listened).

This genetic code can be seen to have become formalised, with the belief in the Great Chain of Being placing authority figures as being of greater moral, spiritual and physical worth than their followers, as well as through divides in class and gender; people obeyed these fairly meaningless cultural distinctions due to a biological instinct to obey authority figures, through an unconscious belief that they would provide what was required by the masses.

This explains issues such as the slaughter of innocents by soldiers at war, racial and sexual discrimination in all walks of life, as well as the feudal system in general. Indeed, the genetic urge to obey is so strong that it takes truly momentous events to break the ingrained need to follow figures of authority. For example, it took the death tolls of the First World War to show us that following the aristocracy because they were authority figures did not end well for those concerned.  The German Reformation demonstrated changing attitudes towards the clergy, with acceptance of their limitations and encouraging their removal as secular authorities. Disobedience, we therefore learn, is a painful and unsavoury experience bought only through intense struggle.

But of what of those who disobey? The ‘2 in 24’ as found by Meeus and Raajmakers, what does their behaviour demonstrate? Are they the results of centuries of disobedience, a particular personality type, perhaps a genetic divergence which highlights the survivalist aspects of the individual over the blind obedience to a pack leader? They could be either one of these things or all.  It is my personal belief that the rise of education, the development of moral codes and methods of cognition that has caused the rise of disobedience in culture. If obedience is genetic, encoded and unconscious in many cases, disobedience demonstrates the conscious evaluation of an order and the decision to ignore, contradict or contravene it. By that I don’t mean that those who obey don’t evaluate what they’re being asked to obey, I merely make the point that disobedience requires this evaluation in every case; if you are given one option, to obey, you are likely to do so without cognitively assessing that option. If given the choice to obey or disobey, you MUST evaluate the two and choose from this the best option.

Thank you all for reading my maiden blog, I hope this wasn’t too long winded or boring. The above issue is far from exhausted, there is still much more to come, but I hope that was informative.  As previously stated, any comments or suggestions are more than welcome, and, on the above note, I order you to read my next article.

Happy blogging.

Hello everyone

Welcome bloggers to the flagship message from my blog, Journeys of a Mind Voyager. Pretentious self-endowed titles aside, my name is Tom; I’m 18 and an aspiring Psychologist. Since the age of 15 it’s been my ambition to pursue Psychology as a career in the wider world, and it’s partly this ambition which drove me to make this blog.

I have fairly modest plans for the blog, and I see it as a place to view my opinions on issues and debates in psychology, as well as act as a bit of an archive for studies and experiments which I find particularly interesting from a personal view, as well as a possible revision tool for students going through GCSE, AS and A2 exams. I’m also fully open to suggestions and comments about potential blogging topics, so feel free to message me and I shall endeavour to do my best. I hope to post fairly regularly so watch this space.

I’m new to this blogging lark so please be nice. Happy blogging!