The concept `patriarchy', while being vital for feminist analysis, has been criticised for not being able to deal with historical and cross-cultural variation in the forms of women's subordination. This paper presents a new way of theorising patriarchy to meet these objections; one which is flexible enough to take account of its various forms, but rigorous enough to be an effective tool for analysis. It leaves behind base-superstructure models of patriarchy in which there is only one base, which have led to many of the rigidities which have been identified, arguing instead for a model of patriarchy as six partially-interdependent structures. The paper concludes with a discussion of the different forms of patriarchy in recent British history.
Les théories féministes ont assigné des significations variées au concept de 'patriarchié'. Dans cet article, j'identifie deux conceptualisations principales de 'patriarchie' que ľon retrouve dans la littérature: 1/ patriarchie en tant que dominance male, une caractéristique de la société; et 2/ patriarchie en tant que système autonome. La deuxième école de pensée a spécifié un concept de système 'sex/gender' qui représente un progrès théorique considérable. Je critique certains usages représentatifs de 'patriarchie' pour leur réductionnisme, et en particulier pour leur compréhension superficielle de la structure sociale et leur postulat ?un désir de pouvoir inné chez les hommes. Si ľon veut donner au concept de 'patriarchie' la moindre puissance analytique, son référent devra être constitué de ľintégration des processus de reproduction générationnelle, de reproduction des individus dans leur vie quotidienne au moyen du travail domestique et matemel, et de la production ?idéologie et ?identité sexées. Plus généralement, la compréhension de ľinégalité entre les sexes requiert que nos objets ?analyse incluent les niveaux structurel et individuel.This paper examines the different meanings that feminist theorists have given to the concept of 'patriarchy.' Two major conceptualizations appear in the literature: 1/ patriarchy as male dominance, a characteristic of society; and 2/ partriarchy as an autonomous system. Within the second school of thought, the specification of a 'sex/gender system' represents an important theoretical advance. I criticize representative treatments of 'patriarchy' for their reductionism, especially their crude understanding of social structure and their assumption of an innate male desire for power. I argue that if the concept of 'patriarchy' is to be given analytical depth, then its referent must be the integrated processes of generational reproduction, the reproduction of individuals in their daily lives through housework and motherwork, and the production of gender identity and ideology. More broadly, an understanding of gender inequality requires analysis both at the level of social structure and at the level of the individual.
Pateman's The Sexual Contract advances 2 related assertions: that modern patriarchy takes contractual form and that contract relations are inherently patriarchal; thereby implying that the social contract is simultaneously a sexual contract. Criticises Pateman for dealing with possessive individualism in 'kettle logic' terms and argues that the book fails to demonstrate the contractual foundations of modern patriarchy. Includes Pateman's reply. (SJK)
