Barrett vs. Hartmann: Defining and Ascribing Patriarchy

          Michéle Barrett rejects the claim that patriarchy is “a primary psychic dynamic of contemporary gender construction” (125). Rather than defining patriarchy so as to include all forms of male domination, thus sufficing it as a systematic explanatory theory, Barrett argues “for a more precise and specific use of the concept of patriarchy (125). Barrett is content limiting the application of patriarchy to the subordinating dynamic of fathers expressing power over women and younger men (125). This definition does not fully address the inter-dependence of men on each other to maintain positions of control; nor does it entail all the social structures used to dominate women. Heidi Hartmann, however, defines patriarchy as a hierarchical set of social relations with a material base that enables the domination of women through the misogynist solidarity of men (101).

          I disagree with Barrett in support of Hartman’s more inclusive understanding of patriarchy as transcending biological hierarchal organization (103). Hartmann reiterates the material base of patriarchy as the means by which men control women’s labor powers (103). Barrett also maintains that the oppression of women has a material base, although outside the immediate definition of patriarchy (124). Hartman explains the labeling of patriarchy as an appropriate application to the present sex/gender system because it accurately “captures the notion of hierarchy and male dominance which we see as central to the present system” (102). Both Hartmann and Barrett address the symptoms of patriarchy. I contend that Hartmann conveys a more precise and appropriately inclusive explanation that nullifies the need for Barrett’s proposition for a concentrated labeling of the concept of patriarchy.