In respect to the key variable of dominance in the relationship, the results on American couples has found that equal power relationships are predominant. Dominance is so intrinsic to human social relationships that we don't even notice it. The truth is, however, dominance permeates many aspects. Tonic, Dominant and Subdominant (Pre-Dominant). This chapter is a short review of the basic concepts concerning the relationship between tonic, dominant and.
Similarly, chimpanzees, with whom humans share ninety-nine percent of our genes and from whom we may have diverged as little as five million years ago, are highly social animals who display a very low degree of male dominance, hierarchy, or aggression. The male dominant savannah baboons live in game parks where predators and humans are concentrated in numbers far beyond those likely in aboriginal conditions. There is considerable evidence that such stressful circumstances, especially captivity, markedly increase hierarchy and aggression.
Many scholars now suggest that the normal behaviour patterns of our primate ancestors involved sharing and cooperation rather than aggression, male dominance, and competition. Among chimpanzees and orangutans, sex is usually initiated by the females, and their choices seem to have little to do with the males' rank. Of course, the capacity for aggressive and dominant behaviour was undoubtedly an important part of primate survival, but this is not the same thing as having such behaviour determined by our genes.
In general, research is demonstrating that the primates are capable of highly adaptive learning. A no less reductionist approach to the origins of gender inequality is found in the theories of sociobiology. Individuals are believed to be driven by their genes to maximize their "inclusive fitness"; they strive, that is, to maximize the number of their genes passed on to the next generation, even if this lessens their individual fitness.
Thus there is a genetic base for altruism, and such behaviour will be directed toward those to whom the organism is most closely related, with proportionately less investment in more distant kin or strangers. Applying these theories to humans, E. Wilson suggests that occasional examples of helpful behaviour toward non-related persons are explained by an additional concept that takes care of the residual cases: Successful cultural behaviour is transmitted between generations and cultures through the genes.
The origins of sexual inequality are seen as an outcome of genetically programmed male behaviour derived from the species' hunting heritage and continuously selected for since by war and imperialism. In hunter-gatherer societies, men hunt and women stay at home. This strong bias persists in most agricultural and industrial Societies and, on that ground alone, appears to have a genetic origin.
My own guess is that the genetic bias is intense enough to cause a substantial division of labor even in the most free and most egalitarian societies.How to Be a Better Dominant
Even with identical education and equal access to all professions, men are likely to continue to play a disproportionate role in political life, business, and science. This is reinforced by the different genetic strategies required by males and females in order to maximize their inclusive fitness. Since males produce literally millions of sperm, any male has a better chance of fathering many individuals if he spreads his sperm widely rather than investing in a few children, who could be killed.
There is thus a genetic base for male promiscuity. Females, on the other hand, can produce relatively few eggs over a lifetime. The sociobiologists thus argue that it is an adaptive genetic trait for females to desire a monogamous union. Women also, they assert, have a genetic bias toward concentrating their reproductive interest on men who are socially, economically, or educationally superior to them, as well as physically fit enough to provide for them and their children. Thus patterns of male domination and female subordination, as well as the sexual double standard, are seen as an outcome of genetically determined mate selection.
This assumption suffers first of all from a confusion of analogy similar traits due to similar functions with homology common genetic ancestry. As Richard Lewontin, specialist in population genetics at Harvard, notes: The logic is circular. For one thing, it is well known that in societies based on kinship as an organizing principle, expediency rather than actual blood relationship dictates the interactions between individuals.
Through the fiction of adoption, complete strangers are assimilated into the group and treated as if they were brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, etc. Although mutual aid is certainly a factor in most relationships between people, genetic relatedness is clearly not the primary factor in such kinship systems.
Among the Trobriand Islanders, for example, a sister's son has more rights to a man's goods than his own son, though his own son carries more of his genetic material. Among the Lakher of Southeast Asia, a child is considered related to his mother only by virtue of her marriage to his father.
If they are divorced, the cooperation and interaction of mother and child cease. In some African and Native American tribes a woman becomes a female husband, and is considered the parent of the children her wife bears by various lovers. The child's loyalty is to the social, not the biological, parent. And in many societies, of course, loyalty and sharing extend far beyond the family.
In answer to these criticisms, sociobiologists have recently attempted to explain cultural variability through the theory that genes and culture "co-evolve. As various critics have shown, this theory is seriously flawed. Moreover, the mechanisms of inheritance are complex and poorly understood. Biologists are beginning to recognize that they are an outcome of the dialectical interaction of biology with environment.
Such an atomistic view fails to take account of culture as a system of interrelated traits. It is an explanation that discounts the inventiveness of human minds and ignores the fact that lack of genetic programming is probably the most important adaptation humans have made.
There is evidence from recent ecological research, for example, that rates of change in the incidence of genetically determined traits in a population are very low, and that it takes even longer for a trait to become established at the level of the group than in the case of individual selection.
If it took genetic changes in a population to adapt to new circumstances, humans would probably have died out long ago. Most acquired cultural behaviour is thus likely not genetic even if it is adaptive. The evidence suggests only that the big brain provides the potential for problem-solving ability such as the invention of the aeroplanenot the determination of specific behaviour such as male promiscuityhowever widespread its manifestations in time and place.
In most though not all populations, the average male is taller than the average female, both at birth and after puberty, though the average difference between the sexes is a matter of inches, while the normal range of variation within each sex is more than two feet.
Males are also heavier and seem to have greater physical strength, though again the variation among individuals of the same sex is far greater than the average variation between the sexes.
But physical sexual dimorphism cannot explain the different roles of the sexes, and far less male dominance, as Leibowitz points out in this volume and elsewhere. Among a group like the seventeenth century Iroquois, a strong emphasis on male physical prowess was fully compatible with a high position for women, and indeed there is little evidence that men in most foraging societies use either their strength or their weapons as a means of controlling women.
Although recent studies have repudiated the idea that there are significant sex differences in intellect, analytical powers, social skills, or personal motivation, there does seem to be a strong difference in physical aggression that appears at least as early as the kindergarten years.
High levels of the male hormone testosterone have been correlated with high levels of aggression, and injections of testosterone increase fighting behaviour in rats. Margaret Mead found that women among the Tchambuli were more aggressive than men, that women and men were equally fierce among the Mundugamor, and that neither men nor women were aggressive among the Arapesh. The explanation of social behaviour such as aggression by a single biological factor, moreover, reflects a central weakness of almost all biological determinism.
The methodology of such reductionist theories generally involves introducing a disruption of the organism's normal functioning and then explaining the normal working of the organism by its response to the disturbance. The result "confuses the nature of the perturbation itself with the 'cause' of the system's normal functioning.
Thus, injections of the female hormone oestrogen also increase fighting behaviour in rats while injections of testosterone into the pre-optic area of a male rat's brain stimulate maternal nest-building behaviour. Studies of humans do not show consistent correlations between hormone levels and aggression. When low dominance monkeys are placed with monkeys toward whom they can safely act aggressively, their testosterone levels go up; when they are returned to an established group to whom they must defer, their testosterone levels fall dramatically.
When this was stimulated electrically in laboratory animals, increased fighting resulted. However, when this was done in monkeys who were released into the wild the result was increased grooming behaviour.
But the dominance in humans of the cerebral cortex means that what we do with our biological capacities is almost entirely a matter of learning. The difference in aggression between boys and girls should be considered in light of the different socialization given them.
The vital impact of expectations can be seen in studies of persons born as hermaphrodites: This was true "even for those individuals whose sex of rearing contradicted their biological sex as determined by chromasomes, hormones, gonads, and the formation of the internal and external genitals. Even where such differences may be established, it is by no means justified to assume, as most of these theories do, that a sex difference explains a sex inequality.
This is a conceptual leap made by a number of other authors, who start from the fact that most societies do recognize and define different social and symbolic functions for the sexes.
These authors argue that the origins of inequality lie not in naturally different abilities or temperaments, but in cultural attempts to explain or control women's central role in reproduction. Woman's biology does not make her weaker, less intelligent, or more submissive than man, but it does make her society's source of new members.
According to this school of thought, cultures tend to interpret or organize motherhood in ways that accentuate differences between the sexes and lead to sexual assymetry. There are quite a number of variations on this theme, offering a cultural or symbolic explanation for gender inequality, One such variation is the psychoanalytical interpretation that postulates a universal male fear of female reproductive powers.
Starting from the fact that large numbers of primitive societies believe menstruating women to be dangerous to men and animals, proponents of this view argue that men fear and hence attempt to control female sexuality and reproduction. This suggests that fears about female sexuality and reproduction are less cause than symptom of social tensions in male-female relations.
Girls learn their gender identity by imitation of a particular, individual female, which leads them, she argues, to relate to others in a particularized and personalized way.
They become more present-oriented and subjective than boys, who must learn to identify with a sex that is frequently absent and less accessible and who can only do so by learning an abstract male role. Although Chodorow perceptively analyzes the reproduction of sex roles in male dominant societies, her work does not really address the origins of male dominance, as she assumes much of what needs to be explained: Even where women are primarily responsible for child care, however, and males do work away from the domestic arena, it does not follow, except in an already sexist society, that a boy should move from defining himself as not-woman to denigrating women in general; and it is even less logical that such childhood denigration which females also frequently direct against males could in and of itself produce the institutionalized subordination of adult women.
Another theory based on reproductive roles emphasizes symbolism rather than psychodynamics. Nature, she argues, is in turn seen as lower than culture, so that women are perceived as lower in the social scale and subject to the restrictions that culture puts on both nature and the domestic unit. Ortner and Whitehead assert that "the sphere of social activity predominantly associated with males encompasses the sphere predominantly associated with females and is, for that reason, culturally accorded higher value.
In the first place, the association of women with nature and men with culture is far from universal. Many ancient societies had androgynous deities that reflected an integration of both male and female principles with natural and cultural forces.
Among the Sherbro, children are considered close to nature, but both adult men and women are associated with culture. Sperm, incidentally, are thought to belong to a kin section designated as passive and associated with the moon, calm water, and temperate weather. For the Haganers, the wild and domestic "are in an antithetical rather than a hierarchical, processual relationship.
It is true that men tend to be associated with the political sphere in most societies where this sphere exists. The political arena, however, is not the only public arena in non-state societies, for many vital collective decisions are made within the domestic grouping. But a remarkably consistent aspect of simple societies is the fact that political leadership confers neither power nor prestige, and is frequently ignored by domestic groups.
Denise Paulme points out that in many African societies. An appeal addressed by a woman to other women will reach far beyond the boundaries of a single village, and a movement of revolt among women will always be a serious matter, even if its immediate cause should be of minor importance.
Dominance - Wikipedia
Men may also be associated with the destructive acts of war and personal rivalry. Among the Iroquois, men were more likely to engage in individualistic behaviour that required social control, while "feminine activities. They help us understand the dynamics of sexual inequality in a way that the articles in this volume do not even attempt.
Ultimately, however, they cannot explain the origins of gender inequality, as they assume universal psychological associations that do not withstand detailed examination. Divale and Harris assert "the existence of a pervasive institutional and ideological complex of male supremacy in band and village sociocultural systems. What, they ask, are the origins of such a phenomenon? They suggest that the origins of the male supremacist complex lie in warfare, which places high value on male qualities and allows women to be used as rewards for male valour.
Warfare, in turn, stemmed from population pressure, especially after the Neolithic Revolution resulted in a more sedentary life style and starchy diets, causing an increase in fertility. The most efficient way to limit population, in the absence of birth control, was to reduce the numbers of potential mothers through female infanticide. To justify killing female babies, however, the male supremacist complex outlined above was necessary.
This necessitated rearing females to be passive. In important ways, the argument advanced here seems to us to be circular. In this analysis, warfare arises to enforce female subordination; yet warfare also presupposes female subordination, in order for women to be used as rewards for male warriors. Warfare is a consequence of female infanticide, helping to create balanced sex ratios through the death of adult males; but it is also a cause for such infanticide, providing its main justification.
One reads Divale and Harris in vain for an actual explanation of the origins of male domination and warfare. We only learn their supposed functions. But to say that a phenomenon sustains male dominance is not to say that it caused it. And the consequences of a male supremacist complex or of warfare should not be used to explain their origins. Equating the two, as functionalist theories like this do, allows the specific historical developments to be interpreted as inevitable, when in fact the question is why alternatives were not chosen.
Indeed, a major flaw in the argument of Divale and Harris is the assumption that the route of warfare and patrilineal organization was the most common or most successful path for Palaeolithic and Neolithic societies. Their sample of band societies is drawn mostly from twentieth century ethnographies of collecting economies severely influenced by Western culture and imperatives; it undoubtedly distorts our concept of the nature of Palaeolithic band and Neolithic village society.
Thus the prevalence of warfare asserted in their Table IX p. For example, Napoleon Chagnon, the original ethnographer of that prototypical macho' and warlike society, the South American Yanomamo, suggests that warfare was a recent introduction, and this view has been corroborated by other researchers.
The Bushman band, for example, has at its core a group of related brothers and sisters, but its membership is highly variable and fluctuates according to seasonal conditions.
Indeed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, one might assume that improved farming techniques might have eased population pressures in some areas. Even if we accept the assumption that population increase was the problem faced by Palaeolithic and Neolithic societies, we would question first whether female infanticide was the only solution. It is well known that pre-industrial cultures have many artificial means of controlling births, apart from infanticide.
Many primitive societies abandon the aged and infirm without faltering in their extreme respect for old age. Indeed, one could as easily read the evidence presented by Divale and Harris to show that female infanticide arose to balance out deaths from warfare, though we decline to use the same mechanical approach even in reverse.
We must look elsewhere for an explanation of the historical evidence for increasing male dominance in advanced horticultural and early state societies. A more complex theory purporting to explain that evidence is offered by Parker and Parker. The Parkers believe that human biology and sexual dimorphism predisposed men and women to play certain roles in the division of labour. The requirements of male tasks, combined with a biopsychologically-based male vulnerability greater susceptibility to disease, death, and so on resulted in a situation where the male labour supply was relatively costly and inelastic not easily substitutable.
In order to induce males to come forward in adequate numbers and with the requisite skills to perform the social tasks needed by an increasingly complex socioeconomic system, it was necessary to devise some sort of reward. In addition, the Parkers assert that male dominance had adaptive advantages which were reinforced through time associeties became more complex, requiring ever greater levels of technological skill.
A growing body of research lends credence to the counter-assertion that women in collecting and in simple horticultural societies undertook tasks that demanded as much brawn, as well as brain, as did male tasks. In non-sedentary Bushmen bands, for example, a combination of birth-spacing average of four years and sharing of child care tasks enables many women to range far from home in search of food. In any case, the cross-cultural record demonstrates more variability in the assignment of tasks, and much greater socio-political variation, than is suggested here.
We would not deny that there is a general pattern in the division of labour. Indeed, our own article suggests that there were some consistent patterns in early societies in which males took on more geographically far-ranging assignments that frequently involved more risk though not more brain or brawn than women's tasks. But the social exchange theory fails to explain why male tasks "universally" receive recognition and valuation.
If male supremacy was a reward, what precisely was being rewarded? The Parkers seem to think that in early societies it was the male capacity for heavy work, whereas they suggest that later it was male "skill. Furthermore, skill is a matter of training, so we have to ask why males were given that training and assigned tasks requiring a high level of skill.
There was a problem providing the content you requested
It is commonly accepted that women were the first potters: How and why did pottery become a male-dominated craft, and why weren't the inventors of this important manufacture given social rewards? It was not skill, but the social relations accompanying the development of craft specialization that must have determined that men should be trained in these tasks.
Why did women have low status in slave societies, such as fifth-century Athens, where free men took few risks and did little work? Why, conversely, have women had high status in many societies, from ancient Crete to the seventeenth century Iroquois, where males undoubtedly did take great physical risks? The answers to these questions must lie not in the nature of the work itself, which the Parkers themselves admit is not intrinsically hierarchical, but in the origins of the hierarchy itself.
These, we would suggest, lie in the relations of work, the issue of who controls whose labour. To explain the origins of female subordination we need a theory that accounts for the control of women's work by men. Such a theory cannot be derived from the nature of men's and women's tasks on their own, nor from any inevitable technological tendency, because human cultures have exhibited too much variation to postulate any necessary relation between a task or a tool, on the one hand, and a particular social relationship of superiority or subordination on the other.
In the first place, many observers have simply been unable to divest themselves of their own cultural preconceptions. Male ethnographers have dealt with male informants, accepting any uncomplimentary remarks these may make about women as the social reality, and ignoring equally disparaging comments about men made by women.
Tonic, Dominant and Subdominant (Pre-Dominant)
Considerable selection is also used in choosing examples. Often there is no linguistic mechanism whatever for comparison. What we find is an absolute respect for.
Two major geographical areas where extreme male domination of women is well-documented in non-state societies are Melanesia and South America. But Melanesia is an area where rapid socioeconomic and status differentiation had taken place prior to Western observations, and the status of women seems to have been declining from a previously higher position.
- "Explanations" of Male Dominance
Among the Mbuti "both men and women see themselves as equal in all respects except the supremely vital one that, whereas the woman can and on occasion does do almost everything the male does, she can do one thing no male can do: Male dominance is a material fact, with concrete repercussions for women, in most of the world, and our egalitarian examples come from relatively isolated simple societies.
Long before Western trade and colonialism had even arisen, ancient societies in the Middle East, Mediterranean, and British Isles had gone through earlier processes in which the position of women had deteriorated. What is required, then, is a theory that explains why male dominance, though not inevitable, was a likely outcome of processes connected with socioeconomic expansion and increasing social complexity. One theory that has been advanced to explain the evidence suggesting a decline in a formerly high position for women is that of the matriarchy.
According to this view, women were once pre-eminent in economics and politics, but matriarchal rule was overthrown by men at some early point in human history. The theories cited above all contain one or both of the following fallacies: In common practice harmony, it is the chord that requires resolution. Due to strong placement of the leading tone of the key as the third of the chord, it urges itself upwards to the tonic triad.
Dominant harmonies come in a few flavors: V7 adds the weight of the tritone, created between the third and seventh of the dominant seventh chord.
In this harmony, not only does the leading tone reach upward to the tonic root, but the seventh pulls downward to the third of the tonic triad. This is a fundamental force of nature in tonal music. The resolution and function are the same. Think of this chord as a Dominant seventh flat 9 without the root. As we shall see, this chord has an ability to spin music to distant keys when spelled in different ways.
We say this in the C minor fugue from the Bach Toccata, you may recall. In later 19th century harmony and ultimately in Musical Impressionism, the stress of the dominant seventh type chord is placed in a broader harmonic context where the chord takes on a different emphasis, one of dynamic coloration. Increasingly, in part because the ear had had centuries to get accustomed to the sound of the major triad with the lowered seventh, the chord became less and less demanding of resolution and more of an accepting coloration with evocative poetic overtones.
In Ravel and Debussy, for example, dominant seventh chords simply float along, often moving in parallel motion without any need or resolution. This is in part what gives impressionistic music its soft, brushed-over quality.
Subdominant Subdominant has two characteristics: In terms of harmonic dualism, always recall that we can create all the notes of the justly-tuned major scale by going up by fifths from, say C. The F can only be found by finding the reciprocal fifth of the tonic, the generating tone of the generating tone. This gives the entire realm ruled over by the subdominant a more inward and mysterious quality.
The C triad, when the subdominant of the subdominant the Bb is added, pulls tonal music into the subdominant, which is perhaps more like moonlight to the bright sunlight of the Dominant realm. Recall that all other secondary domninant: The subdominnat realm is as far from tonic as tonal music can venture.