Kyriarchy

From Categorism.com
Revision as of 11:33, 31 January 2021 by Xzenu (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

In any society, a lot of social power is structurally held by certain categories of people. When referring to this dynamic itself, regardless of what category is the dominating one, we call it kyriarchy. The word derives from the words “kyrios”, which means “lord” or “master”, and patriarchy, {{Hover Note that the word “patriarchy” has several widespread meanings which are very different from each other. When two persons argue an done claim that the society they live in is a patriarchy while the other claims that patriarchy doesn't even exist, the two of them might actually agree regarding society while simply using very different definitions of patriarchy.}} which in anthropology means}} a society where the leaders are men. The concept of kyriarchy can be divided into three fields of power. These three core aspects of kyriarchy are prestige, ownership and leadership. There is also an important distinction to be made between on one hand de facto kyriarchy and on the other hand formal kyriarchy. While de facto kyriarchy is about how much of society's prestige/ownership/leadership is actually being held by people in the dominating category, formal kyriarchy is a matter of laws and other rules which declare that society's prestige/ownership/leadership must be held by people in the dominating category.

  • Prestige: People who belong to the dominating category are seen as having more knowledge, wisdom, reliability or similar than those who doesn't belong to it. Thus the opinions, counsel or advice given by people in the dominating category.
    • De facto prestige kyriarchy: People with high prestige typically belong to the dominating category, and social expectations makes it easier to get one's opinions and advice accepted if one belongs to the dominating category.
    • Formal prestige kyriarchy: Laws or similar state that those who belong to the dominant category should be treated as wiser, more trustworthy et cetera.
  • Ownership: Important socioeconomic resources such as ownership of land, money and corporation stocks are held primarily by persons who belong to the dominating category.
    • De facto ownership kyriarchy: Most of the socioeconomic resources are owned by people who belong to the dominating category. People who belong to the dominating category can on average be expected to have much more buying power than those who do not belong to it, which makes it to at least some extent rational for those who want to make good business deals to cater primarily to the dominant category.
    • Formal ownership kyriarchy: Laws or similar state that the socioeconomic resources should be held by persons who belong to the dominant category.
  • Leadership: Important positions of leadership and policy-making are held primarily by persons who belong to the dominating category.
    • De facto leadership kyriarchy: Most of the leadership/policymaking power is held by persons who belong to the dominant category.
    • Formal leadership kyriarchy: Laws or similar state that the leadership/policymaking power should be held by persons who belong to the dominant category.

While every society is a kyriarchy in on way or another, specific foci of kyriarchy does not have to be all or nothing: A society can have a certain amount of kyriarchal structures in regards to a specific categorization, rather than being an outright kyriarchy in regards to that categorization.

Note that this definition of kyriarchy doesn't in itself include any distinction regarding whether (or to what extent) the power dynamic is being fair and constructive or is being unfair and oppressive. Whether a certain form of kyriarchy should be regarded as a good thing, as a necessary evil, or as needlessly oppressive garbage depends on many factors which can all be summed up in a single question: Does this form of kyriarchy require categorism to be justified? In other words: Does this power dynamic exist for reasons which are good in themselves and is better than any available alternative, or does the power dynamic need to be upheld through prejudice, bigotry and discrimination for it to be perpetuated?

Also note that for a certain form of kyriarchy to be something which actually exist in a certain society, this kyriarchy need to be de facto or formal or both. This distinction is needed to be made against more nonsensical ideas about kyriarchy, such as the ones we can call “a priori kyriarchy theories”, “hive-mind kyriarchy theories” and “masquerade kyriarchy theories”. In this context, the term “a priori” refers to word-play where a certain category of people will by definition be seen as holding the power regardless of what's actually happening in society, such as deciding that if a person holds any power then this person does by definition belong to whatever specific group has been designated as the dominant one. (To avoid this kind of short-circuited logic, the term kyriarchy should always be used as a general term which doesn't refer to specific categories of people.) The other two terms are referring lines of thought which very easily cross over into conspiracy theory territory.:“Hive-mind” refers to the idea that everyone in a certain category of people would somehow be a unified entity which functions as if it was a person, rather than an abstract categorization of actual persons, while “masquerade” refers to the idea that the de facto power held by a certain category of people would secretly be much greater than official assessments and evidence would show. (Example: The idea that the Jewish minority would be ruling the world through working as a unified force and through wielding secret power. Note that while the idea that Jews are secretly running the world is used exclusively by antisemites, the idea itself isn't inherently antisemitic.)

Foci of Kyriarchy

The concepts of kyriarchy and categorism are general, not based on specific categories or categorizations. Yet, each case of kyriarchy or categorism is in a form based on some specific categorization. These specific forms are here called foci: “Foci of kyriarchy” in the case of kyriarchy, and “foci of categorism” in the case of categorism.

  • When the categorization being used is... > > ...the kyriarchy is known as
  • Gender, with men as the dominating category > > Patriarchy
  • Free citizens versus slaves/serfs > > Slavery
  • White citizens versus black slaves > > Racist slavery
  • White citizens versus black citizens > > Segregation
  • Citizenship, globally > > Apartwelt
  • Mainland versus colonists versus natives > > Colonialism
  • Age, for all ages > > Senioritycracy
  • Age, through a distinction between adult and child > > Adultcracy
  • Experts and laymen > > Meritocracy
  • Nobles and commoners > > Aristocracy
  • Elected and regular citizens > > Democracy
  • Those who speak for God(s) vs those who don't > > Religious Theocracy
  • Those who speak for [x] vs those who don't > > Secular Theocracy
  • Elites vs regular people > > Ogliarchy
  • Capital owners vs regular people > > Capitalism