From our discussions in the network so far, it is clear that patriarchy is a very complex concept. On an intellectual level, it is used to describe manydifferent aspects of power-over relationships between men and women, andoften, of power-over relationships generally. In addition, people at anindividual level have complicated and varied feelings around the word. Ibelieve that all of our feelings, and the needs which underlie them, must bedealt with if we are to be able to resolve our conflict around this issue.
Our feelings seem to come from our 'experience' of the word - i.e. thecontext in which the word has been used in relation to ourselves (forinstance, as a word which has helped liberate some women through the 'naming'of their oppression, as a weapon of personal attack against some men), andfrom our attitude towards the specific concepts which form part of thedefinition of patriarchy as we each understand it.
There also appears to be a third source of strong feelings around the word inour particular situation, which is our decision to consider whether or not itshould appear in the ANN's principles - that is, to see how the concept fitswithin the guidelines which tell us whether or not we 'belong' to thenetwork. It seems to me as though many people (including myself) are veryscared that our particular conception of patriarchy and our strong feelingsattached to it will not be heard, understood or accepted by others, and thatwe will be judged and rejected, thus losing our sense of connection andsafety within the group. I have noticed from my own feelings, and thebehaviour of other people, that this fear seems to be making us feel 'urgent'about getting ourselves heard and convincing others that we are right, whichin turn prevents us from listening to anyone else.
One way to help deal with these feelings is for us to agree at the Gatheringthat our sharings and discussions will not lead to a decision being made onwhether or not 'patriarchy' is included in the principles. People will stillhave different levels of fear around not being heard and being judged, butthis should at least remove some of the pressure.
My second suggestion is an idea for a process we could use at the Gatheringfor dealing with the feelings around our conceptions of patriarchy. I suggestthat, as individuals, we have time to consider three questions: 1) 'What arethe specific concepts within patriarchy as I define it which bring up strongnegative or positive feelings for me and what are the sources of thesefeelings?'; 2) 'What is it that I fear will happen to me if patriarchy is/isnot included in the principles?'; and 3) 'What do I need within the networkto feel safe?'
Our answers to these questions could then be shared in small groups (of sameor mixed sex, depending on what individuals feel comfortable with) usingreflective listening. Then our answers to question 3 could be shared with thewhole group. At some later stage, we could then collectively consider thequestion 'How can everyone's needs for safety be met? By including'patriarchy' in the principles? By not including it? By some otheralternative?'
By way of example, I would like to give my answers to the first threequestions.
I feel positive about the word 'patriarchy' when it is used to describepower-over relations between men and women (and the promotion of themasculine ideal amongst men). This is because, as a woman resisting my owngender oppression, it is important for me to name the specific structurewhich causes this oppression. In order to feel safe, I need to know that thepeople around me also accept that, within the culture we live in, men as agroup are socialised to use power-over behaviour in relation to women as agroup. However, I also have some negative feelings about the word'patriarchy' which I will explain in more detail, as they more directlyaffect my attitude towards including the word in the ANN's principles.
I feel uncomfortable when 'patriarchy' is used to describe power-overrelationships other than those specifically related to gender issues. This isbecause, if the power-over relations of the state or class system, forinstance, are called 'patriarchal', it seems to me that this implies thatunequal gender relations are the primary source, or cause of all the otherpower-over relationships in our culture. The idea that this premise is truemakes me feel angry and scared, for the following reasons.
For me, to accept that unequal gender relations are the primary power-overrelationship is to accept the idea that men as a group are biologically morepredisposed to using power-over behaviour than women. This is because ifmen's power-over behaviour is 'primary', by definition, it cannot have adeeper underlying cause or preceding factors which contributed to itsdevelopment - it simply 'is'.
The idea that men are biologically more predisposed to using power-overbehaviour than women makes me incredibly angry, because it means that Icannot acknowledge men's value and sacredness as individual people, or feelthat I have a shared humanity with them. And my personal experience (of menwho use power-with and women, including myself at times, who use power-over)tells me that women and men are fundamentally the same in terms of our basicneeds, weaknesses and spiritual, emotional and intellectual capabilities. Myexperience tells me that I do not have to feel that men are 'other', and Iget angry when people tell me that I should deny this experience.
In addition, if it is the case that patriarchy is the primary source of allpower-over relationships, for me this then implies that unequal genderrelations deserve more of our attention than other forms of power-over,because it makes sense to put most of our energy into transforming the coreproblem. This idea also makes me very angry, because it 'ranks' individualpeople's different experiences of oppression - it denies that people'sfeelings around their class or race oppression, for example, are as valid orworthy to be considered as particular women's feelings around their genderoppression. If I deny the equal validity of someone else's feelings andexperience, then I cannot feel their true value as a person and fear that Itoo, have no inherent value.
So, in order to feel safe in the network, I need to know that everyoneaccepts all people's experiences of oppression (including my own) as equallyvalid. For this reason, I would not like the word 'patriarchy' (or'pro-feminist') to be included in the ANN's principles if this is the onlyoppression which is explicitly named. My fear is that this would represent aculture within the network where ranking people's feelings is consideredacceptable, and that my own feelings will be open to attack and judgment. Ineed to have my feelings and experience acknowledged and respected by others.
Lastly, here are my observations of how the conflict has been dealt with sofar. As I see it, the process has been dominated by three older men in thenetwork1 and has been shaped as a 'win/lose' debate. This means that thesethree people dominated the discussion of the issue at last year's Gathering,and that many others, particularly women, felt trapped by the process thatwas being used - to join the debate they felt they had to use the sameoppositional, power-over approach, otherwise, they had to tell themselvesthat their feelings on the issue weren't strong enough (or important enough)to warrant speaking out.2 While I feel that they were not aware of what theywere doing, I am extremely angry that the three people concerned behaved in away which denies everyone's equal right to contribute - I feel angry becauseI have spent a great deal of my life listening to older men present theirfeelings and ideas as if they are more worthy of attention than otherpeople's, particularly women's.
I have the greatest hope that this situation will not continue for long,because I do trust that the three men concerned can take responsibility fortheir behaviour, and that we will now be able to consciously choose moreeffective processes for dealing with the issue. In fact, since the Gathering,we have started to use more appropriate processes which value everyone'scontribution. I still do have a fear, however, that the same dynamics willarise at this year's Gathering and so I have been thinking about how I mightrespond if this is the case. If it is not possible to change the dynamic bypointing out that it is occurring, I think I will withdraw from the processat that time, and continue to try to organise an alternative process. For me,it is not OK to spend a disproportionate amount of my time and energyfocusing on a few people's feelings at the expense of others.
I believe that it is possible for us to resolve this conflict and see this asan opportunity for us to develop our capacity to deal with difficult issuesin the Network.
Anita McKone
Footnotes:
1. I have communicated with these three people personally prior topublication of this article.- return to text
2. Thanks to Karen Rosauer for her observation of this.- return to text