Patriarchal Hierarchy, Democracy and the Future
Patriarchal Hierarchy, Democracy and the Future
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware of that fact; and it is a fact. For that
reason, and despite all the wishy-washy feel good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have
always organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based “government” was along the lines of
families and clans and essentially hued to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit. The patriarch ran it because he built it and
from the start it was his responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest patriarch
becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of horses, and more than likely families with idiots for
patriarch probably took care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that patriarchs who couldn’t carry out their survival
responsibilities didn’t last long. One way or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more
capable took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of clan merging done under patriarchs
who had shown themselves to be capable, and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with
family patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture made it possible for clans to settle down.
And kings became kings in one of two ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t
mean he did everything. His women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those usually
centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan
councils to assist in carrying out orders and policies as they were directed. Kingdoms were similarly constructed.
And most patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy. Oligarchy came up with a new basis for
elitism – wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the oligarchy patriarch. In representative
democracy the people, in some form or another, took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy
highlights the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self interest. Regardless of the degree of
patriarchal responsibility assumed by either oligarchs or monarchial patriarchs the degree of entitlement was
always equal or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed in Albion’s Seed by David Hackett
Fischer was that it was condescending, while the “hegemonic liberty” they espoused was liberty for the elite to lead
and control without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they deemed expedient. That is, they saw
themselves as patriarchs in a very traditional sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is representative democratic patriarchy.
Beginning with traditional liberalism, the move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of both
responsibility and power. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling themselves through a
collective determination of rules and responsibilities. It is still quite evident, however, that we are not all equal in
talent, knowledge and motivation and therefore those who are deemed able by the voters will assume the duties of
ruling the others – within the defined rules and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect
them, and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In their minds, our elected
leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs; they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also
privileges that one would expect would go along with them.
The drift is unmistakable, far more so in some locales, Eastern Asian societies for example and to a lesser extent
European, where social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive drift? Plato, with his
philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so, and so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the
philosophical justification of absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively few are
qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the patriarchs – accepted by the others. Democratic
societies would not necessarily disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do wish to, and are
deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’t; in other words they should rule as “the people”
would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would rule, so the will of the people is a moving
target. And as life – and economics – becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those same people, with limited world view
knowledge, and less detailed technical knowledge can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that they know much better than “the
people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The people of a democratic republic tend
toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who comes out ahead, is frame of reference:
one side argues that in the longer term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that that might be all well and good in the long term, but they
are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part
of the democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both ways, but are inclined to be
impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining ascendency. Impatience is a powerful force in the American culture.
The drift suggest greater egalitarianism among the people with steady development of elitism among the
patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the patriarchal positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with democracy only providing a new way to
determine elite. So how should our hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Weath? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however, would in its turn do whatever can be
done to influence the process of selection so as to remain among the elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process we must recognize that the line
between them and selection is tenuous – and fragile.
Can democracy survive in its current form? Considering its age it must be accepted as still experimental – and it
is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So how will that evolution progress? The most important
advantage selection by the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the West, that democracies
have a strong middle class that is wedded soley to neither birth nor wealth as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it chooses to do so; and that middle class is
crucial to the success of modern nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much power
is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The struggle will go on.
People are not equal and anyone who thinks and observes is well aware of that fact; and it is a fact. For that
reason, and despite all the wishy-washy feel good emotionalism devoted to the subject, human societies have
always organized themselves into hierarchies. The original hierarchical based “government” was along the lines of
families and clans and essentially hued to either patriarchy or the so called rule of the jungle. Genghis Khan is a
perfect example of how a rule of the jungle structure was put together from scratch.
On the smallest scale we need merely observe the primitive family unit. The patriarch ran it because he built it and
from the start it was his responsibility. The clan model grew from that, presumably with the strongest patriarch
becoming the patriarch in charge; think lion prides or herds of horses, and more than likely families with idiots for
patriarch probably took care of that in similar fashion.
It is logical to assume, considering the importance of survival, that patriarchs who couldn’t carry out their survival
responsibilities didn’t last long. One way or the other, either the entire clan ceased to survive or someone more
capable took over responsibility. In this way there was almost surely a lot of clan merging done under patriarchs
who had shown themselves to be capable, and when this occurred clans expanded, but still hierarchically, with
family patriarchs subordinate to clan chiefs.
Patriarch model clans eventually morphed into kingdoms as agriculture made it possible for clans to settle down.
And kings became kings in one of two ways: they were born to the patriarchy or they took it over by force. Such
models are interesting because they were essentially anchored in responsibility: the patriarch had it all. That didn’t
mean he did everything. His women folk, for example, had their own responsibilities to fulfill and those usually
centered on infant children and the household; on the other side all patriarchs also had their lieutenants or clan
councils to assist in carrying out orders and policies as they were directed. Kingdoms were similarly constructed.
And most patriarchs – and many kings – took their responsibilities very seriously.
Subsequently two more models developed – oligarchy and democracy. Oligarchy came up with a new basis for
elitism – wealth – and clan leadership responsibility was assumed by the oligarchy patriarch. In representative
democracy the people, in some form or another, took over the responsibility for selecting the leadership. Oligarchy
highlights the other side of patriarchy – and monarchy – and that is self interest. Regardless of the degree of
patriarchal responsibility assumed by either oligarchs or monarchial patriarchs the degree of entitlement was
always equal or greater. An interesting view of “royal” responsibility, expressed in Albion’s Seed by David Hackett
Fischer was that it was condescending, while the “hegemonic liberty” they espoused was liberty for the elite to lead
and control without interference while “caring for” their underlings as they deemed expedient. That is, they saw
themselves as patriarchs in a very traditional sense.
All this is background for the subject I wish to address, and that is representative democratic patriarchy.
Beginning with traditional liberalism, the move to democracy was based on a more egalitarian sharing of both
responsibility and power. “The people,” variously defined, were to take a hand in ruling themselves through a
collective determination of rules and responsibilities. It is still quite evident, however, that we are not all equal in
talent, knowledge and motivation and therefore those who are deemed able by the voters will assume the duties of
ruling the others – within the defined rules and responsibilities. All well and good; “the people” elect them, re-elect
them, and replace them at their pleasure, but for many reasons it’s not that easy. In their minds, our elected
leaders’, they have become society’s new patriarchs; they see themselves as such – with responsibilities, but also
privileges that one would expect would go along with them.
The drift is unmistakable, far more so in some locales, Eastern Asian societies for example and to a lesser extent
European, where social privilege – patriarchy – is more readily accepted. Is this a positive drift? Plato, with his
philosopher kings (The Republic) would probably say so, and so would Thomas Hobbes, who believed in the
philosophical justification of absolute monarchy. Their argument would likely have been that relatively few are
qualified to lead and they, logically, should be the leaders – the patriarchs – accepted by the others. Democratic
societies would not necessarily disagree – not all wish to rule – but would argue that those that do wish to, and are
deemed best qualified, be responsible to all the rest that don’t; in other words they should rule as “the people”
would have them rule.
Alas, the people are divided, and every bit as selfish as those who would rule, so the will of the people is a moving
target. And as life – and economics – becomes more and more complex, the people become less and less able to
know and understand what is really in their best interest. Furthermore, those same people, with limited world view
knowledge, and less detailed technical knowledge can be manipulated. By whom? By those who would maintain
their elite positions as rulers – patriarchs – who are generally convinced that they know much better than “the
people” what is good for them.
We are faced with the traditional social extremes: order and anarchy. The people of a democratic republic tend
toward anarchy and their patriarchs lean toward order. In a perfect world a democratic republic would balance those
two Inclinations; can ours? The difference, aside from the part about who comes out ahead, is frame of reference:
one side argues that in the longer term providing maximum flexibility to motivation and rewards for innovation will
achieve the best results for all. The other side allows that that might be all well and good in the long term, but they
are not likely to live long enough to enjoy the benefits. In between, of course, is continual compromise which is part
of the democratic process. All indications are that our populations want it both ways, but are inclined to be
impatient, and impatience seems to be gaining ascendency. Impatience is a powerful force in the American culture.
The drift suggest greater egalitarianism among the people with steady development of elitism among the
patriarchal class; that is, those who gain the patriarchal positions are likely to strive to maintain them. It seems that
the human condition leans strongly toward government of elites; with democracy only providing a new way to
determine elite. So how should our hierarchical elite be chosen – and maintained? Birth? Weath? Power? Or
selection? We would say, of course, selection; our patriarchal elite, however, would in its turn do whatever can be
done to influence the process of selection so as to remain among the elite, which is as one would expect it to be.
But looking at the influence of birth, wealth and power on the selection process we must recognize that the line
between them and selection is tenuous – and fragile.
Can democracy survive in its current form? Considering its age it must be accepted as still experimental – and it
is evolving, in many different ways in different places. So how will that evolution progress? The most important
advantage selection by the people has over traditional patriarchal elitism is, at least in the West, that democracies
have a strong middle class that is wedded soley to neither birth nor wealth as means for selection, and have
access to information that can be used to determine qualifications, if it chooses to do so; and that middle class is
crucial to the success of modern nation states, making its members the ultimate adjudicator over how much power
is held for the people, and how much is surrendered to the elite. The struggle will go on.