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.

A Report For an Academy by Franz Kafka

I read the Joachim Neugrochel translation of this story.

I have been reading a collection of short stories by Franz Kafka. The famous author tends to dwell upon common themes. His tales often reflect the alienation of the individual from family, religion, humanity and society. They also commonly express bewilderment in the face of the modern world.  His tales often also include an element of the fantastical and the absurd. The stories are often weird or uncanny in a disturbing way.

Less famous than some of his other works, A Report For an Academy is a short story that looks at society, individualism and behavior in a highly critical light. Like many other Kafka works, it is strange, interesting and thought-provoking.

The story is presented as a speech given by an individual known as Red Peter in front of an unnamed academy. Within the first few paragraphs, it becomes apparent that Red Peter is an ape who has been educated and has reached human intelligence. How and why Red Peter achieved what he did is the crux of his speech. The speaker was captured by a zoological expedition hunting for live specimens. Caged and treated with brutality, Red Peter began to intuitively grasp that the only way to escape captivity and ill treatment was to imitate humans and conform to a certain set of behaviors. Eventually people realized that Red Peter was sentient, and they began to treat him like an equal. The process was difficult, as Red Peter had to adopt certain behaviors that were counter to his nature.  He found some of the behaviors to be abhorrent and harmful, such as consuming alcohol.

The irony in this situation is apparent to the speaker and to the reader. In order to gain his freedom Red Peter had to lose his freedom to be who he naturally was. He had to discard his nature and lose himself in order to be “allowed” freedom. Thus, he argues that the concept of freedom is illusionary,

“But for my part, I did not want freedom then nor do I want it now. Incidentally: human beings all too often deceive themselves about freedom. And just as freedom is considered one of the most sublime feelings, the corresponding disillusion is likewise one of the most sublime.” 

He goes on to talk about the self-suppression of his nature.

“one learns if one must: one learns if one wants a way out; one learns relentlessly. One supervises oneself with the whip; one mangles oneself at the least resistance.”

Obviously, this story has a lot to say about an individual’s place in the world. In order to live in society and be allowed a degree of personnel autonomy, we must conform and make compromises. Kafka goes very hard on this pattern of behavior that all humans, to some degree, must follow.

Kafka wrote dark stories, and he tended not to see much positive in the world. My take is that that this story only presents part of the picture. Living with others and conforming to certain precepts of society is necessary not only for an individual to function, but it is often the ethical thing to do. Much of social behavior is about respecting of other peoples’ rights, empathy towards others and common decency. Kafka does not consider such issues in this story. Had he done so, I think that this would have been a balanced exploration of these issues. However, Kafka is just not the kind of writer to look at life in this way.

With all of that, conformity in many other contexts can be a terrible thing. Religion, tradition and other social pressures can lead to all sorts of irrational and unethical behavior. It can crush an individual’s spirit as well as an individual’s ability to think for oneself. In some situations, forced conformity harms the individual and society. These malevolent effects are best highlighted in this story by Red Peter’s adaption of drinking alcohol.

Kafka is such an interesting writer. His short stories can be both challenging and disturbing. Though he is very negative and dark, he is also thought-provoking and his critiques upon society contain a lot of truth.  Even if one is not completely onboard in regards to his outlook upon the world, his stories are often well worth reading.

Witch Hunts in the Western World by Brian Pavlac

Witch Hunts in the Western World by Brian Pavlac is a comprehensive account of the witch hunts that occurred in Europe and America. This is a nuts and bolts, serious chronicle of events. It is very balanced. The history of witch hunting as it occurred in Europe and America is chronicled. Many individual cases are examined. The ideology behind witch hunting is also detailed, as is the ideology that was espoused by its critics. This book is light on analysis, however.

Witch hunting mostly occurred between 1400 and 1800. It usually originated on the local level. Although the hunts were sometimes taken up by national and religious leadership, a higher level authority more often than not tended to stop or slow the persecutions. It was mostly women who were accused. However, there were some hunts that involved even numbers of men and women and a few that targeted mostly men. The accusations usually involved the use of magic as a means to harm others, as well as consorting with the devil, demons or other witches in various ways.  The accused would often be tortured. Under torture, the victims often implicated many others so the circle of accused witches grew. Thus, while some persecutions involved only one or two individuals, others turned into mass hunts involving hundreds of people. Those convicted were often, but not always, executed. People were often burned alive. This book details one story after another of brutal torture and execution. Thus, many readers will find this work disturbing. War, religious arguments and other social pressures often helped to kindle the fires.

Many scholars and religious leaders supported the persecution. Multiple books and tracts were written that encouraged it. However, others opposed it. Some famous thinkers were opponents who spoke and wrote against it. Rene Descartes and Erasmus were among the notable opponents.

The author writes of Descartes.

“his “Cartesian doubt”  required proof for something so fantastic as witches. His promotion of the scientific method showed that witches could not be proven as real. The tenets of rationalism fortified the skeptics of witch hunting.”

This book reads a little bit like a textbook. Pavlac does not embellish his writing much. There is a little analysis, but it is fairly sparse. One interesting thing that the author does is that he briefly surveys various theories on the underlying cause of these historical events. He does explain which theories he favors and why he favors them.

One area that the author does explore is the view that witch-hunting represented an anomaly for Western society and for Christianity. The author explains that prior to 1400, when people dabbled in magic, it was considered silly superstition. Many theologians and religious and political leaders dismissed it at harmless and not worth the attention of authorities. It was starting around 1400 that this attitude changed. Dabbling in magic became a serious offense and a capital crime. After 1800, the more relaxed view returned.  The author writes,

“Before 1400 witches did not concern most educated people in Europe. In 1600 most educated people saw witches as a danger to society. By 1800 almost no educated people believed that witches existed at all.”

Pavlac sees the changes as originating in variations in ideology. With that, the analysis here is sparse. I wanted to know more. Despite the author’s clear intent to provide a balanced, unbiased view, the text could have dug deeper into the underlying causes of these events.

I chose this book as I was looking for general history on witch hunting in Europe and America. Several historians had either written or told me that many of the popular books out there contained poor research or were too agenda driven. This book was recommended as one of several good sources.

This is a good book for a reader who wants to know the facts related to witch hunting in Europe and America. I learned a lot from it. With that, it seems primarily aimed at students and academics. Folks looking for an engaging read might want to look elsewhere. For those who are very interested in the subject, this book as part of a broader reading plan is invaluable for its completeness and objectivity. I recommend this work for readers who are so inclined.

Anthony Trollope's The Eustace Diamonds and Anti - Semitism

The Eustace Diamonds by Anthony Trollope is in many ways a great book. My general commentary on the work is here. However, I want to write a few words concerning something that is not so great about it. The novel contains a nasty streak of anti-Semitism.

First, I will note accusations of bigotry and sexism against authors of older works is fairly common. Sometimes these accusations are based on statements or actions that an author committed or made that are not directly related to their writing.  In other instances, such charges are made based on subtle or scant evidence. Joseph Conrad has been accused of racism based on his novella Heart of Darkness. At the very least, the purported racism inherent in Conrad’s book is far from clear and open to debate. Sadly, the anti-Semitism in the Eustace Diamonds is in the text, and it is far from subtle.

In the book, several characters who are Jewish are described using negative and despicable stereotypes. The portrayal character of Mr. Emilius is an unfortunate example of this.

Mr. Emilius is an Anglican preacher who was formerly Jewish. Again and again, he is portrayed as being endowed with the worst Jewish stereotypes and is portrayed as “greasy,” “oily,” and as a liar and a conniver.

He is described as follows,

“The man was a nasty, greasy, lying, squinting Jew preacher”

Disparaging comments about his physical features, which also reflect stereotypes, are also included in numerous passages,

“He was a dark, hookey-nosed, well-made man, with an exuberance of greasy hair, who would have been considered handsome by many women, had there not been something, almost amounting to a squint, amiss with one of his eyes”

The Jewish character of Mr. Benjamin is also portrayed using similar odious stereotypes. The word ‘Jew’ is used numerous times in the text, usually paired with negative or disparaging language.

One can argue that anti-Semitism was a product of the times that Trollope was writing in, but there are some facts to consider. Other writers and thinkers who were contemporaries of Trollope vocally opposed anti-Semitism. In Our Mutual Friend, Charles Dickens spent many pages defending Jews and criticizing anti-Semites.  Friedrich Nietzsche, in multiple essays, threw his trademark scorn at anti-Semites and defended Jewish people. These are just a few examples.

With that, when it comes to reading older works, it is not uncommon to encounter bigotry, sexism and indefensible beliefs. The Old Testament, The Koran and much of Greek literature contain misogynistic and homophobic passages and are often pro-slavery. William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice was terribly anti-Semitic.  More recently, H.P. Lovecraft’s stories contain some overtly racist passages. The list of examples of this sort of stuff is lengthy.

However, I must admit to being extra disappointed in Trollope. Having read quite a few of his novels, these passages not withstanding, his books often embody wisdom and balance. Even when he seems to support institutions and social conventions that I find questionable, he does so in a moderate way. He seems to show understanding for people and ideas that are different. He often shows sensitivity towards women’s issues. The basic morality that he conveys in his books seems solid. For all of these reasons, this ugly streak of anti-Semitism is especially surprising and disconcerting.

These passages are part of the text. One of the many functions of novels is that they allow an author to communicate ideas. Such ideas are fair game for analysis and criticism. This is a set of ideas that Trollope includes in this book that are odious and should be identified and commented upon as such. It is important for those of us who like Trollope and admire other values that he espouses recognize this shortcoming and acknowledge that this set of ideas is terrible. I believe that we need to look at literature through a critical lens. This means analyzing a book’s contents, celebrating the good, criticizing that with which we disagree and calling out the truly awful.