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.
No comments:
Post a Comment