(taken from some readings)

from Kandiyoti, ‘The Patriarchal Bargain’

Deniz Kandiyoti says that patriarchy is not monolithic–it exists in different forms across different countries, continents, cultures and religions. She presents two general examples of forms that patriarchy can take: The example from Sub-Saharan Africa, and classic patriarchy from the Middle East and the Asian subcontinent.

Sub-Saharan Africa: Autonomy and Overt Resistance

Some general characteristics of African patriarchy include variation from one culture to the next, but in general involve:

• Some degree of economic independence (the Yoruba of West Africa are a good example. They have a strong presence in West African markets, especially in Nigeria–Boserup talks a little of them in the ‘semi-male towns’ chapter);
• Polygyny more prevalent (than in Arab/Middle Eastern cultures);
• Division of labor, responsibilities requires many women to have income–women in Africa are responsible for so much of the household’s productive economic and farming activity, that options that might include seclusion in the house, or greater control over women’s movement, butt up against economic realities and household survival;
• Room for negotiation of roles, responsibilities–this is more over in many parts of Africa. Women actually have some latitude to contest the status quo (keep in mind, however, the pluralist/structural notions of power … which do you think would best explain the outcomes of household or community struggles, and why?);
• Women often retain ties to their own kin group–yes, patrilocal residence usually rules, but families, especially mothers, will fight to keep their daughters as close to home as possible, allowing for the possibility of greater control to be exerted by the daughter’s family should any conflicts arise;
• Women’s labor access is affected by co-wives, daughters–we’ve discussed this. Polygyny can provide economic benefits for women.
• Women’s status is affected by production of male offspring, but probably to a lesser extent than in the classic patriarchal arrangement.

In general, women have greater autonomy, and their resistance is likely to be more overt, more open than under classic patriarchy.

Classic Patriarchy: ‘The bargain’

In the classic example of patriarchy, patrilocal residence and patriarchal authority are critical components. Classic patriarchy cuts across religions, and can be found among Hindu, Moslem, and Confucianist (China) cultures. Some of its characteristics include:

• Girls given away at a very young age to patriarchal household (headed by eldest male, husband’s father)
• Subordinate to all men, elder women. The mother-in-law plays an important role in perpetuating the ‘bargain’;
• Generally women have fewer ties to, less contact with their own kin groups;
• Women’s status is severely affected by their ability to produce male offspring;
• Often a women’s brother may play the role of protector (in cases of harsh treatment by members of the husband’s family), if the woman has a brother. His ability to do this will obviously be affected by the proximity of the two households;
• Seclusion of women is generally considered to be a mark of household status, prestige, and often more common among households with more formal education;
• The classic bargain is characterized by a cycle of subordination and authority. Women essentially move into the household, and are subject to the authority of their husband’s mother (the mother-in-law). They ‘pay their dues,’ in essence their labor and their children become the property of the household, knowing that at some point, they will have the authority of a mother-in-law if they produce sons, their sons marry and their wives move into the household.
• The role of women’s sons is critical in this cyclical process–women, according to Kandiyoti, are preoccupied with ensuring the life-long loyalty of their sons, attempting to make the conjugal bond of son and wife secondary to the mother-son filial bond. This can take the form of social control, suppressing romantic intimacy between son and wife. We’ve all at least seen the controlling mother-in-law movie plot …

Hence the ‘bargain.’ Women are presumably willing to endure this, if at some point, they produce the sons, and their sons bring wives into the household, and they then have control over their own daughters-in-law. Now we’re talking about patterns here–and one is not going to see this played out in this fashion in every household. But it is more likely in the ‘classic’ patriarchal household than the African example, for instance, for reasons discussed above.

What might change this cyclical process? Kandiyoti mentions market forces–for example, as the importance of income in the household increases, women are more likely to enter the workforce, making their control by the mother-in-law more difficult (questions surrounding how the income is disposed will likely be sources of conflict as well). There may be other forces that work against the status quo–low food prices for agricultural producers (to mollify urban populations and keep bread and grain prices low), the creation of a consumer class and increased importance of luxury consumption can also place greater emphasis on household income and a woman’s earning potential. Women may have more independence early in their time in the husband’s household, but less authority later on as well over their own daughters-in-law. There are also more cases where the husband may leave the extended household to set up his own household, thus reducing his mother’s ability to control him and his wife (decreased incidence of patrilocal residence).

A case where economic forces might be leading to changes in the strength of the authority of mothers-in-law within the patriarchal household. Forces in some cases opposed to development efforts. See the irony? Go figure …

Homa Hoodfar and the ‘return to the veil in Egypt’

It is often assumed that wearing of the veil by Moslem women is equivalent to oppression and victimization, and that those who go back to wearing it are returning to backward ways.

Islam–where is it most prevalent in the world?

North Africa, Sahel, Middle East, Central and South Asia:

Source: Pew Forum

The 5 pillars of the Islamic faith include (being generic here …):

• Profession of faith to Allah, Mohammed as his prophet
• ritual prayer (5 set times every day)
• giving of alms
• participating in Ramadan (a month of fast)
• attempting to make a pilgrimage to Mecca (the hajj)

Islam is somewhat different than other major religions to the extent that it prescribes many facets of daily life for its followers, through the Quran, including dress (especially for women). While there are various interpretations and scriptures dealing with women and dress, with extreme forms illustrated by ISIS practice that women must be accompanied by a man and wear a full-length burqa in public (when they had a legitimate reason to be in public … ) or pay the price, the wearing of some sort of veil is common practice. In some countries we get mixing of religious prescription with national law.

In Iran, wearing of the veil was form of resistance against the regime of the Shah in the 1970s. After the Iranian revolution and the installment of the Islamic Government by the Ayatollah Khomeni, the wearing of the veil became law.

In Egypt, the wearing of the veil has been debated among women, and many urban women have fought for the right to choose whether to wear it. However, more and more women are returning to the veil, and many of these woman are among the most educated classes.

But according to Hoodfar,  women are wearing them for different reasons-the ‘modern’ veil is different than the traditional veil (worn by urban lower classes)–it’s a veil with ‘style’ that differentiates educated from lower classes (so class distinction is important).

But why return to a veil that the previous generation had struggled to get rid of?? Some reasons mentioned include:

• Economic reasons–Less expense in clothes (for professional women, whose numbers are increasing);
• Avoidance–Less harassment from men, especially in public (who may show no respect for ‘Western women who dress provocatively’);
• Honor, public image–Wearing the veil may bring a married woman more honor for herself and for her husband, and reduce the pressures felt by the husband to keep ‘control’ over his wife (e.g., for projection of a certain public image that brings prestige and less scrutiny to the household);
• class separation–as mentioned, some wear it to differentiate themselves from lower income classes of women, who wear more traditional, less fashionable garments)

Is this change a good or bad thing?

• Some women report that the veil serves as a sort of passport to greater economic, cultural assimilation–a ‘cultural compromise’ that brings less public scrutiny and criticism
• It also puts a ‘cap’ on consumption (expenses for clothes, cosmetics, especially for women in the workforce);
• Does it change power relations? Does it affect lower classes? Does it divide women?

Ashfar: Women and the state in Iran

We may not think of Iran as a bastion of feminism, but women have made many gains historically there. These include the right to a formal education (1910), abolition of the wearing of the veil (1936), suffrage (right to vote,1962), the right to abortion on demand (1974), and a ban on polygyny/right to support after divorce (1976).

Things changed after the Islamic revolution in 1979, however. Some changes included:

• All women judges, law students were dismissed and Islamic law (the Sharia, based on the Quran) instituted;
• Conservative religious leaders became more politically important, and were used to reinforce conservative interpretations of the Quran;
• Women were essentially excluded from public, legal spheres (after decades of open participation);
• Changes were seen (by male Islamic scholars) as ‘Women’s emancipation’ from the evils of Western societies; there was a sense that women had lost the ‘holiness of motherhood’ and an effort to ‘recapture’ it.

In this climate, donning the veil represented ‘a symbol of liberation, resistance to capitalism, and revolutionary aspirations.’ Non-compliance was tantamount to treason to the revolution.

Here is an example of the importance of the state over women’s lives, which changed dramatically after 1979. Women still do not enjoy the rights and freedoms they once did, however enforcement of Quranic interpretations regarding women’s behavior have become somewhat more lax over the last 30+ years. Iran has been a success story in terms of slowing its population growth through public awareness, education and access to birth control. How is this different from the Egyptian case? (think about the country’s politics; class differences in Egypt; populism in Iran … ). You might also think about Weber and authority and legitimacy, and how these changed under the Ayatollah to the detriment of women.

• Kandiyoti, Deniz. 1997. Bargaining with patriarchy. Pp 86-92 in Visvanathan, Duggan, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader. London: Zed Books.
• Hoodfar, Homa. 1997. Return to the veil: Personal strategy and public participation in Egypt. Pp 320-25 in Visvanathan, Duggan, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader. London: Zed Books.
• Afshar, Haleh. 1997. Women, marriage and the state in Iran. Pp 317-20 in Visvanathan, Duggan, Nisonoff and Wiegersma (eds) The Women, Gender and Development Reader. London: Zed Books.