Fictional Matriarchies

In the course of reading and choosing what books to read, sometimes one book leads to another. Sometimes I read a series of books on the same topic. This often happens with non – fiction, but it can happen with fiction. A recent reread of Pamela Sargent’s The Shore of Women led to several people recommending Sheri S. Tepper’s The Gate to Women's Country as a similarly themed story. As I found Sargent’s speculations on gender to be particularly interesting, I read Tepper’s work a few weeks later. Having found the theme of both books interesting, I was reminded of having heard about an earlier work called Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. This book seemed like an important precursor to later books depicting fictional matriarchies. Thus, I also read Gillman’s novel.

I think it is relevant to note a few of my observations about supposed read life matriarchies. A Google search indicates that there are several definitions of the term matriarchy. For the purpose of this post I will define the concept as a society where women have significantly more political, social, and economic power then do men.

From time to time there appear claims that some real life matriarchy exists or existed in an obscure area of the world. There are also claims that all of human society was once matriarchal. Though a detailed discussion of this issue is beyond the scope of this post, everything that I have ever read from credible sources indicates that no true matriarchy exists, or has ever existed. I should note that there are indeed matrilineal societies. A matrilineal society is a system where ancestral descent, names, inheritances, linages, etc., are traced through mothers instead of fathers. Often folks identify these societies as matriarchies. Based upon the definition that I am using here, they are not matriarchies. A good piece by social anthropologist Liza Debevec explaining the difference is here.

As for the fictional matriarchies, I think that an exercise comparing and contrasting the three works mentioned above will be fruitful. All three authors described societies that easily fit within the definition of matriarchal. It also seems that these books share a common influence. The newer novels seem to have been influenced by Herland. As I observed in my commentary on The Gate to Women's Country, it seems possible that Tepper read and was influenced by Sargent’s book.

One commonality between these books is that all three authors see the differences in men and women to be a combination of biology and culture. This is in contrast to the many folks today who insist that gender differences are entirely cultural. If one were to accept that gender is entirely a cultural construct, a matriarchy in some instances would be a mirror image of a patriarchy. Stories depicting simple role reversals between genders exist, but they seem dull and in my opinion are not an accurate refection of reality.

All three authors suppose that one of the biggest differences between large groups of men and women is the level of violence between the groups. I think that all three authors are correct here. Large groups of men are on average, more violent then large groups of women. I think that there is clear evidence that there are biological differences that account for this. It seems that these authors agree. With that, history and current events show that culture also has a great effect on how violent people will be. This also seems to be factored into all these works.

One cannot draw conclusions or make assumptions about individuals based on these averages. I think that Sargeant gets it right for women, despite the differences inherent in large groups, some of the women in her world are violent. This is reflective of reality. Tepper depicts a world where some men are violent some are not. Again this is true of real life. Gilman on the other hand depicts an all - women society that is one hundred percent non - violent. I think that this is unrealistic.

There are also important differences in the way that the authors foresaw their respective societies. Tepper’s society is the most interesting and I would argue the most realistic. In her world, some men live with the women of the cities. That is in itself is more plausible then total gender segregation.

Both Sargeant and Gillman depicted societies where the genders are completely segregated. Gillman and Tepper created societies that were better off due to a preponderance of power vested in women. In fact, Gillman’s Herland was a utopia. Gillman clearly laid - out and believed that a better and egalitarian society would come about but only if men learned from women. Sargeant’s society was depicted as being harmful to both women and men due to gender segregation and the power imbalance.

Tepper seemed to be saying that a better society based on egalitarianism was impossible due to a percentage of men who were genetically disposed to be violent. Her solution was selective breeding that would lead to a world where men were less violent. Sargeant’s message was that an egalitarian society based on gender equality would be the most beneficial.

I would be remiss if I did not mention another fictional matriarchal organization, perhaps better described as a society.  This fictional creation was Frank Herbert’s  Bene Gesserit sisterhood found in his Dune books. The Bene Gesserit are an ancient society of women who have mastered great intellectual, psychic and physical powers. Herbert’s fictional group differs from the above depictions in that the Bene Gesserit could never include all women. It was a group of elites. Early in the Dune books the sisterhood was depicted as mix of good and bad, but as more unsympathetic then sympathetic. However, as the series progressed, it seemed that Herbert’s affection for his own creation grew. Several books late in the series centered on the Bene Gesserit and the stories were populated with sympathetic women who were its leaders and members. It is significant that unlike most other groups in Herbert’s Universe, the Bene Gesserit were attempting, at least on some level, to safeguard humanity’s future. Most of the other groups that Herbert created, were interested only in their own power. With that, Herbert’s sisterhood practiced violence. However, they did so more judiciously then other groups in his Universe.

It is unsurprising that there were similarities and differences between all of the above visions. I think that it would be difficult to find one hundred percent agreement between any two people on these issues. With that, I think that the similarities between these authors’ creations are reflective of reality that gender differences are a combination of nature verses nurture and that the propensity for violence is one of the biggest differences between large groups of men and women.

Exploring gender issues is common in fiction. Many non - science  - fiction writers, from Jane Austen to Chinua Achebe as well as many others have done so.  However, through the medium of science fiction and fantasy, authors can explore territory that more conventional writers cannot. I found that reading all of the above books to be interesting, insightful and entertaining.  

My commentary on The Shore of Women by Pamela Sargent is here.

My commentary on The Gate to Women's Country by Sheri S. Tepper is here.

My commentary on Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is here.

Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman

Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman was published in 1915. It tells the story of an expedition to a remote, mountainous area that stumbles across a society that is utopian and entirely comprised of women.

The expedition is comprised of three men. Their personalities and initial beliefs concerning gender are important in terms of the book’s themes. Terry O. Nicholson is a womanizer and a sexist who views women as children. Jeff Margrave idolizes women and can be described as chivalrous.  Vandyck "Van" Jennings is the story’s first person narrator. His attitudes on gender are the most enlightened of the group. He sees women as equals.

The expedition uses a biplane to access a plateau inaccessible by land. There they find Herland, a civilization comprised only of women. Thousands of years earlier, Herland was cut off from the other parts of earth by a volcanic eruption. Most of the men were killed in  the eruption and an ensuing civil war. The women found a way to reproduce by Parthenogenesis, or without sexual intercourse. 

Gillman uses the trio’s stay in Herland as a vehicle for all sorts of social commentary. The women of the country have created a utopia. There is no violence. Everyone is mentally healthy and most are physically fit. The women have achieved a high level of intellectual, technical and moral development. Cooperation is paramount and there is almost no competition. The society is socialist.

This book is very funny. Van, Jeff and Terry’s interaction with the woman of Herland are often satirical. The satire is effective.  Terry in particular, is completely out of his element and though he is a popular and confident man in his home country, comes off as pretentious and buffoonish in Herland.

The women of Herland, as observed by their male visitors, exhibit few of the traditional feminine traits. The big exception is in the attitudes toward motherhood. Gilman sees motherhood and a set of behaviors associated with it as the primary difference between men and women when the effects of culture and sexism are removed.  Most of the virtues of Herland derive from the ethos that has formed has around motherhood.

The concept is described by Moadine , one of the teachers assigned to the men,

““The children in this country are the one center and focus of all our thoughts. Every step of our advance is always considered in its effect on them— on the race. You see, we are MOTHERS,” she repeated, as if in that she had said it all.“

Later, Van observes,

“There you have it. You see, they were Mothers, not in our sense of helpless involuntary fecundity, forced to fill and overfill the land, every land, and then see their children suffer, sin, and die, fighting horribly with one another; but in the sense of Conscious Makers of People. Mother-love with them was not a brute passion, a mere “instinct,” a wholly personal feeling; it was— a religion. “

There is a lot more incorporated into the text related to this belief system and religion and how they are ingrained into the society of Herland.

As the months go by, each of the novel’s protagonists falls in love and marries a local woman. This leads to even more social commentary related to gender, psychology, religion, etc. It also leads to what is, in my opinion, Gilman’s most problematic contention. All of the male characters find that when  women are seen as competent, intelligent, confident and serious, sexual attraction to those women decreases.

At one point Van observes.

“I see now clearly enough why a certain kind of man….resents the professional development of women. It gets in the way of the sex ideal; it temporarily covers and excludes femininity. “

The narrative and characters seem to support the contention that the above is a universal fact that relates to sexual attraction. The novel’s protagonists go on to enjoy a more platonic and in eventually their view, a purer form of love without a sexual component.  The philosophical implications of this are further explored in the text.

While the above is likely to be true for some people who are attracted to women, it is clearly not the case for many others. The above characteristics do not exclude or hinder attraction for many, perhaps the majority of people. For some, the opposite is true. Intelligence, assertiveness and competence can be very attractive in both men and women. On this point, Gilman has gotten it wrong. Of course this book was written in 1915 so perhaps such a misunderstanding concerning this aspect of human attraction sexuality was understandable.

Based upon both the text and some biographical information that I read about Gilman, she believed that there were both biological and cultural differences between the ways that men and women usually behave. She was socialist who believed in a social progress. Her views were egalitarian. However, she believed that it was women who would likely lead great social change. The society that Gillman envisions here fits neatly within the author’s views.

I think that Gillman gets it right when she observes that the difference between men and women is a combination of biology and culture. Though I think that she attributes too many aspects to culture, considering the fact that was writing in 1915, I find her views more accurate then many who write and philosophize about gender issues today.

While I do not believe in socialism (I define socialism as a system in which most of an economy is collectivized through government or other means), I do believe that society can improve. Poverty and violence can be lessened. In fact, these ills have been reduced in many nations since Gillman’s time. The author has put a lot of thought into ways to alleviate these ills.

Ultimately I found this book to be very worthwhile. It is an interesting and entertaining story. It is funny. While the characters are not extremely complex they are interesting. As I often write: one does not have to agree with all of the author's views to find her speculations fascinating. Many of her observations on gender, violence, poverty, etc., are still very relevant in our time. I recommend this book to anyone interested in gender issues, as well as anyone who likes stories about fanciful societies.