1 BEYOND PATRIARCHY: an INTERFACE of EASTERN and WESTERN WOMEN's SCHOOLING CHAPTER I Introduction Most of the Feminists Agree On

1 BEYOND PATRIARCHY: AN INTERFACE OF EASTERN AND WESTERN WOMEN'S SCHOOLING CHAPTER I Introduction Most of the feminists agree on the point that patriarchy is the rule of male in which women's interests are subordinated to the interests of men (Bhasin & Khan, 2000, Uberoi, 2005, Shukla, 2006, Beasley, 2005). Feminist's this particular claim of patriarchy heralds that it truly exists in discriminatory gender relation between a man and a woman under the functional features of patriarchy accounted by anthropologists. For example, universal patriarchal features developed by Redcliff Brown (cited by Uberoi 2005: 96) included four systems: 'descent patrilineal (the children belong to the group of father); marriage patrilocal (the wife removes to the local groups of husband); inheritance (of property) and succession (to rank) are in the male line, and family patripotestal (the authority over the members of the family is in the hands of father or his relatives)' which all are survived by discriminatory gender practices in this or that way. The principal features of patriarchy advocated by Brown could be acknowledged as core areas of study for the feminists to criticize and problematize current gender issues and historical construction of gender and patriarchy (Riger, 1998). Feminists claim that the nature of patriarchy or the rule of male is inherently an oppressive system towards a woman (Weedon, 1992, Shukla, 2006). They also advocate that patriarchal system is comprised with unequal power relations between a man and woman (Weedon, 1992) in 2 which a man by virtue of his dominant power (social, cultural, religious, economic) controls every aspects of a woman's life. Some feminists (like Bhasin & Khan, 2000) have sharply criticized a patriarchal system claiming that such system have been primarily supporting calls for oppression of a woman in every sphere of her social and private life. They further argue that in a patriarchal family (society) a man controls a woman's sexuality, mobility, production and reproduction. Due to the control of a man, he has been playing a prominent role for the systematic marginalization and subordination of a woman values and agenda in every aspects of her ordinary life. To underpin this problem, then, question comes is matriarchy an answer to address women's subordination? It is surprising to refer that in the social history of human beings, true matriarchy did not (and will not) exist anywhere Bhasin (2000:17). In this regard, Bhasin conforms that "actually there is no historical evidence of existence of matriarchy, anywhere". In the same way, some feminists (Uberoi, 2005) argue that the term matriarchy is a myth or an imaginary projection that merely exists in the society. These arguments lead us to the fact that there was no true form of institutionalized matriarchy that existed in human history. However, some anthropologists, like Dube (2005) has claimed that there are some practices of matrilineality experienced in different parts of the world. She has elaborated an example of the Muslim Community, in Lakshadweep Island falling in the South East of India. Dube's account on the practice of Lakshayadwep's matrilineality connotes itself as a partial confluence of matrilineal ideology (Dube, 2005:154), with some reference to the practice of patriarchy. Indeed, such sporadic practices of matrilineality (matrilineal principles of descent, inheritance of succession' has opened up some conceptions on how 3 gender relation varies with the variation of the form and degrees of patriarchy which is inclined towards matriarchy. Although, women in Lakshadweep Island practice of matrialineality have supported claims to reduce women's gender discrimination, it does not offer a model system of true matriarchy because, these 'women are not in a dominant position, in control of state, power, religious institutions, economic productions, trade etc' as argued by Bhasin (2000:17). In this connection, Muslim women in Lakshadweep Island are not in dominant positions in all sectors, but their practices can be acknowledged from the shifting paradigm from anthropological debates of patriarchy to the feminist's paradigm 'which is very much alive and kicking as a central concept of feminist discourse' in reference to the universal form of patriarchy (Uberoi, 2005:94). In this connection, the practice of matrilineality in Lakshyadweep Island has reopened an area to reconceptualize the micro-gender practices adopted by relatively varied cultural cults. In this context, here, I became interested to find the root cause of, why true form of matriarchy did not exist in the history of the world? I am also interested to explore an inquiry on the question "how and when did patriarchy come into existence and what have been its historical forms" generated by Uberoi (ibid: 93) and its gendered ramification in a particular Hindu socio-cultural context. In this connection, this research study explicitly focuses on what are the intrinsic sources that supported measures for institutionalization of the universal prehistory of patriarchy? To find out the answers to these queries, I have tried to examine religious provisions advocated by different prominent religions in the world because religious rules are the oldest and authentic guidelines to construct and regulate a social system (Kaudinyan, 2007). They are the rules for normative social 4 behavior that are considered as akatya (unalterable), and common to everyone for any respective religious society. It applies equally to everybody, encourages everyone to follow its eternal essence, and acts as an adhesive lubricant to tighten psychic and social relation among its members. Actually, religious provisions create a long lasting effect to the society as its nature is spiritual, moral as well as social too and ensures in developing the collective belief among its members (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005:50). To examine the universal form of patriarchy, I revisited the great religious literatures that have been playing a vital role into coding the multifaceted patriarchal intrinsic to the socio-religious rules for the corresponding society. Among the religious provisions I also revisited were Hindu's socio-religious rules, Islamic social rules, Christian socio-religious doctrine and Buddhist's religious doctrine. I have also examined some fundamental similarities and differences advocated by these religious provisions, with a special focus on the difference in power authenticated to a man and a woman by every religion, and its close repercussion in shaping gender relation between a man and a woman. Although, I dedicated my effort to revisit prominent provisions advocated by different religious literatures, I concentrated my focus on the nature and function of Hindu patriarchy framed primarily under the socio-religious doctrine. From my day-to- day experience, what I came to realize is that Hindu patriarchal society covers the micro- practices of bipolar hierarchal gendered activities that are shaped under the patriarchal cosmology. Brown's understanding gave intuition that the overall gender practices are to be analyzed in a continuum; rooted to the far historical period. As per my understanding, 5 Brown's patriarchal features have functioned as an outlined structure under which discriminatory gender practices are evident (Bhasin & Khan, 2000). With a few diffarances as assumed by Derrida (Powell, 2003), Hindu patriarchal system's additional doctrine, namely the patibrata dharma (a system of woman's unconditional loyalty towards her husband forever) has specially contributed for its specificity. To denote its specificity, I have borrowed a word "hetero-patriarchy" coined by Wilkinson (1993b cited in Jackson, 1998:35) and used it in my entire research work. Wilkinson has used this word (hetero-patriarchy) to criticize hetero-normative sexual behaviour as a fundamental feature of patriarchal value. But I have frequently used this word to denote particular Hindu socio-religious practices, primarily based on hetero- normative sexual behaviour that has dominated all other ideals and practices of social life. In this sense, hetero-patriarchy assumes that a man and a woman specific socio- religious system can be regarded as guidelines of hetero-normative social rules (Richardson, 1998) that has significantly contributed for the construction of institutionalized (legalized and normalized) gender relations. For me, as Richardson has argued; Hindu patriarchy is hetero-patriarchy because it's ideal (social, religious and cultural) values and norms are highly associated to the hetero-normative socio-sexual practices which have controlled the whole system of social life. My aim put forth was to use the word 'hetero-patriarchy' instead of using patriarchy is to explore blended form of patriarchal features, and its values within woman specific religious doctrines, and vice versa. Actually, under Hindu religious system, both a man and a woman specific hetero- 6 religious culture equally reciprocates to the survival of hetero-patriarchal ideology and practice. I can agree that Hindu patriarchy is still strong and functioning well because of the existence of women-specific system in the form of patibrata dharma (unconditional loyalty of a wife towards her husband), adhered with the patriarchal features. Indeed, a Hindu religious doctrine, which highly values patibrata dharma, that emphasized immortal relationship between a man and a woman is a unique character of the Hindu system. Ideally, a Hindu religious system

Load more