Difference between revisions of "Kyriarchy"

From Categorism.com
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 1: Line 1:
−
This concept will go through a major update, where kyriarchy is seen as being intertwined with categorism rather than being a part of categorism.
+
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, {{H:title|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.  
  
−
Basically: While kyriarchy is that those categories which are assigned power in a society are the categories which are assigned power in that society, categorism is the prejudices and bigotries and systems of discrimination used to uphold such powerstructures - especially when those powerstructuires are unfair and thus hard to justify without foul play.
+
* '''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.
  
−
The Greek word κύριος/kyrios means "lord or master". In this context, it refers to the power of dominant groups, whatever groups that might be, and to the structures that reinforce such power. Coined by Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, the term Kyriarchy refers to a social system, or set of connecting social systems, that is built around dichotomous categorization of people, with domination of one group and the oppression & submission of the other.  
+
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.
  
−
For example men as a group having power over women as a group, or white people as a group having power over people of color as a group. These individual phenomena has been studied by feminist researchers under the name of patriarchy and by post-colonial researchers under the name of colonialism. The concept of Kyriarchy takes an intersectional approach to this phenomena, so that several power dynamics can be explored simultaneously: The same person may belong to the  privileged group as well as the oppressed group. Strongly related concepts are “[[Cultural Imperialism]]” as used by by Iris Marion Young and “Symbolic Violence” as used by Pierre Bourdieu. Both talk about dominant groups using social reality to ensure their power of disempowered groups. In the categorism model, they are both included in the Kyriarchy facet, being regarded as simply different names for, and perhaps slightly different interpretations of, the same phenomenon. (In Swedish: kyriarkat)
+
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?
  
−
==Kyriarchy as a facet of categorism==
+
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.)
−
Something is a facet of categorism when it [[Levels of categorism|on some level]] and based on a categorization of people is an expression of [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]], [[discrimination]], or some combination thereof. Kyriarchy is in itself a matter of discrimination, as it makes it harder for people outside of the dominant groups to participate in society. It often also has prejudice and bigotry woven into it, as justifications for the discrimination. Kyriarchy also fuels other kinds of discimination, prejudice and bigotry.  
+
  
−
==Interactions with other facets and abstractions==
+
== 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.
  
−
This [[facet of categorism]] is an expression of: [[prejudice]], [[bigotry]] and [[discrimination]] on the [[systemic level|systemic]], [[structural level|systemic]], [[discursive level|discursive]] and [[dogmatic level|systemic]] levels. In some cases also the [[Legal level]], and in the case of [[apartwelt]] even the [[international treaties level]].<br>
+
* When the categorization being used is... > > ...the kyriarchy is known as
−
 
+
* Gender, with men as the dominating category > > Patriarchy
−
It is likely to intersect with facets such as:
+
* Free citizens versus slaves/serfs > > Slavery
−
* ''[[Denial of agency]]'':  Dominant groups preventing people in subordinate groups from standing up for themselves. Such as mainstream society silencing the people in an ethnic minority. Or the mainstream within the minority group silencing women or GSM (gender and sexual minorities) people within the ethnic group. 
+
* White citizens versus black slaves > > Racist slavery
−
* ''[[Demonization]]'' or ''[[Infantilization]]'': Bad traits gets constructed as associated with the underprivileged or oppressed category of people. Also, traits associated with the category gets constructed as bad. It goes both ways, and in both cases makes it harder for these people to succeed in society.
+
* White citizens versus black citizens > > Segregation
−
* ''[[Internalized Categorism]]'': When bad traits gets constructed as associated with the underprivileged or oppressed category of people, these traits sometimes becomes internalized and turned into a destructive identity.
+
* Citizenship, globally > > Apartwelt
−
* ''[[Supremacism]]'': Meanwhile, good traits gets constructed (and often internalized) as image (and self-image) of people in the dominant category.
+
* Mainland versus colonists versus natives > > Colonialism
−
 
+
* Age, for all ages > > Senioritycracy
−
As well as with [[abstractions of categorism|abstractions]] such as:
+
* Age, through a distinction between adult and child > > Adultcracy
−
* ''[[Zero-category]]'': Invisibilizing the fact that every person belongs to many categories.
+
* Experts and laymen > > Meritocracy
−
 
+
* Nobles and commoners > > Aristocracy
−
==Kyriarchy and foci of categorism==
+
* Elected and regular citizens > > Democracy
−
Examples of applying this facet to a particular [[foci of categorism]] can include:
+
* Those who speak for God(s) vs those who don't > > Religious Theocracy
−
* ''[[Misogyny]]'': The intersection between the facet kyriarchy and the focus misogyny is commonly known as "patriarchy", and here called by that name. (Note that while some people instead use the word in different ways, such as being a catch all term for all forms of structural misogyny, the word is here used simply as the intersexction between kyriarchy and misogyny.) 
+
* Those who speak for [x] vs those who don't > > Secular Theocracy
−
** [[Individual level]] and [[group level]]: While patriarchy itself is too abstract for these levels, patriarchal structures, discourses, dogmas and so on can empower facets such as male [[supremacism]] and [[infantilization]] of women at the individual and group levels.
+
* Elites vs regular people > > Ogliarchy
−
** [[Systemic level]]: In a society where people systematically encounter almost exclusively men in positions of validated/unquestioned authority, their minds are likely to associate maleness with power and femaleness with lack of power.
+
* Capital owners vs regular people > > Capitalism
−
** [[Structural level]]: A society can have many kinds of structures holding women back. Such as social norms that blame women for having children or for not having children, disqualifying them from careers on the basis of having children or for perhaps maybe having children at some point in the future. Or for being "abnormal" by not having children or for not staying home with them.
+
−
** [[Discursive level]]: Constructing the language so that it constructs women/femininity as being inferior and constructs the same behavior as being cool when a man does it but shameful when a woman does it. For example, constructing the same behavior as a boy being "assertive" and a girl being "bossy".
+
−
** [[Dogmatic level]]: Religious theology or political ideology positioning women as being inherently inferior and/or inherently assigned to a subordinate position.
+
−
** [[Law level]]: Most countries used to have laws that enshrined male dominance, such as allowing only men to vote or to run for office. Some countries still have some such rules.
+
−
** [[International treaties level]]: If two or more nations have ever entered a treaty where they promised each other to hold women back and help each other to ensure male dominance, [[contribute|please send information about it]]!
+
−
 
+
−
== in example texts==
+
−
 
+
−
* [[A frivolous arrest]]:  As a person who belongs to two stigmatized categories (in this case women & people of color) is accused of belonging to a third stigmatized category (in this case sex workers), she is indirectly given a chance to save her dignity by distancing herself from this third category - thus contributing to the stigmatization and othering of "those people". This chance is presented not only to her as an individual, but to everyone who want to defend the dignity of the first two categories.
+

Revision as of 12:03, 31 January 2021

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, Template:H:title 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
Retrieved from "http://categorism.com/w/index.php?title=Kyriarchy&oldid=1253"