Anneke van Baalen, HIDDEN MASCULINITY, Max Weber's historical sociology of bureaucracy.
Amsterdam 1994. Chapter 3 Private versus public sphere: the origins of household and kin group.
3. The household and its masculine authority
With his presentation of 'the household' as a stable economic formation of which sexual and
siblinghood relationships are 'the normal, though not the only elements',
24
Weber introduces
the individual, masculine element which transforms his concept of 'traditional social order'
into 'traditional masculine domination' into his discussion of 'original' social-economic
relations. According to him 'the household' is one of the most important social-economic
formations, since it is the basis of patriarchal domination.
25
Weber's 'household' therefore is no egalitarian formation. He views it as the basis of loyalty
and authority; authority, however, according to Weber is derived from 'superior strength' or
from 'practical knowledge and experience'. These bases of 'authority' in themselves do not
imply that authority is only exercised by men; Weber's formulation, however, excludes the
possibility that women can claim authority over men. For he sees this authority as
'the authority of men as against women and children; of the able-bodied as against those of lesser capability; of
the adult as against the child; of the old as against the young
.'
26
The basis of masculine authority therefore can not be found in the social relations of the
household; it lies outside of it, as an unexplained datum; for he neither does explain why
men would possess more strength or practical knowledge and experience than women, nor
why women would obey them if they had, since physical or psychical violence of men would
not have been legitimized in any way.
This lack of sociological explanation of the origins of masculine authority corresponds to a
lack or explanation of the origins of the household in which it is exercised. According to
Weber the household, like the 'maternal grouping', is a 'secondary' social formation: it 'does
not seem to have existed * under conditions of foraging',
27
but only in case of 'a certain
degree of organized cultivation of soil'. However, in agricultural societies it was preceded by
more egalitarian social relations:
'However, even under the conditions of a technically well-advanced agriculture, the household is often secondary
with respect to a preceding state which accorded more power to the inclusive kinship and neighborhood group on
the on hand, and more freedom to the individual vis-a-vis the parents, children, grandchildren, and siblings on the
other hand
.'
28
Here again democratic, non-proprietary, matrilinear kinship relations appear on the
conceptual horizon as a possible foundation of the social order; but again they are
interpreted as a later development, a 'secondary formation' of women and children that
exists alongside military men's organizations:
24
ES p. 358, WG p. 213.
25
ES p. 359, WG p. 214: 'It is the fundamental basis of loyalty and authority, which in turn is the basis of many
other groups'; ES p. 1006, WG p. 580: 'The roots of patriarchal domination grow out of the master's authority over
his household'.
26
ES p. 359, WG p. 214.
27
The translators have succeeded here in expressing two prejudices in Weber's innocent sentence: they
translate 'unter den Bedingungen rein okkupatorischer Nahrungssuche' with 'in a primitive economy of hunters
and nomads', not only adding the unnecessary word 'primitive', but obscuring that 'okkupatorische
Nahrungssuche' may include 'gathering'; this common omission is based on the - incorrect - assumption that in
all societies hunting is done by men, and on the even more incorrect notion that women's work is of no
importance. Their term 'nomads' probably refers to cattle herding, which also is presumed to be done by men. As
it is relatively young, it is not of interest to a discussion of origins.
28
ES p. 358, WG p. 214.
57
 |
 |
 |