In some regards, life on Earth seems to depend on some basic inequalities. For example, differences in size, height, strength, speed and endurance advantages some and disadvantages others. Depending on another for survival is another type of inequality. Being able to adapt to change increases one’s likelihood of survival as well.
In this regard, inequality is natural, a normal part of existence. In fact, the exploitation of such inequalities supports and perpetuates life on this planet. Darwin said as much. Evolutionary theory does as well. At one point, we, homo sapiens, replaced our Neanderthal cousins. Lions kill and eat gazelles. Some iguanas in the Galapagos Islands were able to become great underwater swimmers in order to reach edibles; those who couldn’t died.
In such cases, this natural inequality is an example of power-over. Yet, it hardly seems fitting to call out a lion for killing what it needs to sustain itself or one iguana for swimming better than another. There are many theories as to why homo sapiens surpassed Neanderthals, but I doubt it was out of some master plan to eliminate the competition. I guess what I’m getting at is: power-over can function in a morally neutral way.
But not all forms of power-over do. Neither are all forms of inequality natural. Perhaps, the biggest perpetrator of such exploitation of inequality is patriarchy. But, it hasn’t used only inequality as the basis of its exercise of power-over. Basic differences, such as skin color, age, sex, religion, geographical locations and so on, have become additional types of inequalities. So, too, have the differences between humans and animal and nature and culture. Patriarchy morphed these ‘inequalities’ into injustices.
As forms of injustice, these socially constructed differences have three basic outcomes. First, they create a hierarchical system which privileges a select few. Second, this system threatens our survival and the health and welfare of the planet. Third, in order to perpetuate this system and its privileges, efforts are taken to control others and reinforce this type of power-over.
Perhaps what is most disturbing about the socially constructed understanding of inequality under patriarchy is that we are often led to believe that these inequalities are natural when that couldn’t be further from the truth. For example, patriarchy argues that men’s inherently larger size and strength give them power over women. Two outcomes of such fallacies are rape and domestic violence. These also happen to support patriarchy’s efforts at control.
Likewise, patriarchy encourages racism and even suggests that racial differences are something ‘natural’: enter scientific racism and race theory. Patriarchal racism warns of the dangers of black people, particularly young black men, which has led to the murder of countless of black people in the United States by members of law enforcement. Anti-Semitism is another form of such racist thinking. Jews have been killed on account as well as Jewish homes, synagogues, cemeteries and other places have been damaged. Skin color and religion here are the basic differences that have become inequalities and injustices.
Patriarchy also suggests that it is ‘natural’ for humans to eat animals. ‘Scientific’ evidence suggests that since humans have (two small) canine teeth, then we must have eaten animals in the past. In addition, human diets require protein and the ‘best’ source of said protein is animal meat. A basic difference has become an exercise of killing, control and power over.
I could continue with examples ad nauseam, but I won’t. Rather, I want to focus on a keyword in this discussion: natural. We seem to have two distinct understandings of the term. First, natural means that we can observe some inherent differences between various forms of life on this planet. These natural differences may confer some advantages or disadvantages. Yet, this inequality operates within what one could call a morally neutral position.
Second, patriarchy’s concept of ‘natural’ is anything but morally neutral. Even the most basic of differences are laden with value judgments and distinctions of superiority and inferiority. It is clear that patriarchy has concocted an elaborate tale to make these differences turned into inequalities seem ‘natural.’ ‘Natural,’ here, is socially constructed to bolster power over and control.
At the same time, these ‘natural’ inequalities affect our lives, our opportunities and our experiences. Being cognizant of the effects of these socially constructed differences is crucial. Working against the injustices of such inequalities is essential.
Perhaps one day soon we’ll be able to say the following about inequality: differences such as skin color, religion, sex, species and the like aren’t attached to value judgments. They are just facts. Like, today is it cold, my shoes are two different colors, or my sweater is blue. For a long time now, our differences haven’t had an elaborate system of inequality in place to mitigate them. Differences make us unique but they don’t make us better. We celebrate and embrace our differences. Everyone and everything is different and that makes us all equal.
Ivy Helman, Ph.D. is feminist scholar and faculty member at Charles University and Anglo-American University in Prague, Czech Republic where she teaches a variety of Jewish Studies and Ecofeminist courses.
12 thoughts on “On the ‘Naturalness’ of Inequality by Ivy Helman”
It is now not so certain that homo sapiens replaced the Neanderthals, the latest research is that they mated. Non-Africans carry Neanderthal DNA, so the Neanderthals survive in us. https://www.today.com/health/how-much-neanderthal-dna-do-humans-have-what-does-it-t126372
Moreover, scholars are increasingly questioning the idea of survival of the fittest as understood in the post-war period “the naked ape” etc. See the work of Franz de Waal and others.
I do agree with you that culture constructs what it considers “the natural” to its own ends. In Women at the Center Peggy Reeves Sanday notes that the egalitarian matriarchal people of Indonesia recognize what they call the bad aspects of “nature” while constructing a culture that celebrates the good aspects of nature.
It is up to us, as you say.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I am so glad that you brought up the point about Neanderthals Carol – I believe we presently carry about four percent of their genes…and this idea of survival of the fittest, from my point of view is just the opposite of how Nature actually works. This survival of the fittest theme seems more like patriarchal bias.
I find this article a bit ridiculous. What is the point of it?
Injustices are a “morphed” form of inequalities, by patriarchy, which is the exploiter extraordinaire of inequality … yet exploitation of inequalities ‘supports and perpetuates life on the planet’ … and LIFE depends on inequality. Wow!
Morally neutral ?! Does she mean ethical?? Again, what the heck is this about??
LikeLiked by 1 person
Trying to figure this out. Predator vs prey is a far concept, from social hierarchies that evolved from agriculture in homo sapiens. (patriarchy)
Prey and predator are equals. If the prey dies off, the predator is sure to follow with it. I.e. Haast’s Eagle. (Especially, since some predators evolved only to eat certain prey.) Also, fairly certain we evolved to eat meat and plants.
One predator is equal to the set of obligate preys, or preys with the obligate nutrients. Only for beings at the same https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trophic_level in the adjacent food web do the predator and prey equal, like between cannibals, rivals, or competitors.
Plants /are/ meat; plant meat is pith whereas animal meat is flesh.
I love those two color shoes, thanks Ivy. Bio-diversity is essential for a strong and productive environment, the same is true for so many other situations. How about our own diversity here at FAR, the number of voices, and perspectives, and unique personalities — so wonderful — thanks Carol, and everybody, for Feminism and Religion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I like your point about how patriarchy makes us believe that injustices are natural inequalities. And yes wouldn’t it be amazing if we were able to recognize all our differences in a morally neutral, non-judgemental way. And if we were able to pause, and take a deep breath, whenever someone differs from us in opinions or thoughts or life styles, or whenever someone challenges our own views and our own comfort zone, before judging them, before innerly giving up on ever understanding them sincerely, before giving up on embracing our differences. Not sure if it will ever happen though.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We celebrate and embrace our differences. Everyone and everything is different and that makes us all equal.”
Yes, and it is said that change is a constant of time. It that’s true, we are always seeing a new perspective, whatever we thought we had worked out perfectly, changes anyway.
By definition a theòry is a proven hýpothesis. There can’t be several unless they explain different things.
A lion’s not a it, dolt.
By definition anything that exists is natural, where nature determines what may so and not exist. The artificial is natural but not innate or native. The supernatural is not natural. So you didn’t disprove the subject of your handwavey premise at all.
Then you conflated a race with a religion.
Then you alluded to a time where value doesn’t exist but didn’t explain how that could be so. There are so many different moralities that inequality is not morally neutral but indeterminate or ambigvus.
Such an important distinction:
“First, natural means that we can observe some inherent differences between various forms of life on this planet. These natural differences may confer some advantages or disadvantages. Yet, this inequality operates within what one could call a morally neutral position.”
Great point! Patriarchy is the reverse.
I enjoyed reading your spin on perspective and gender.I believe the essential point you make is that morality is a human construct; nature does not require it and we live in a world universe constantly changing and forever evolving. Patriarchy is not part of that evolution; however it is a human construct. That is my take on it……