Systemic Centralizations of Power
April 21st, 2006 by AndyEmpires always guarantee the status quo of privilege and oppression through a centralization of power. During the time that Paul was writing to the Colossian church, the Roman empire used many systems to centralize power. One is referred to as paterfamilias, which was a patriarchal structure of marital, familial and economic relationships. This patriarchal structure relegated wives, children and slaves to little more than property of male Roman citizens. This system centralized power among males and was passed down from father to father with the emperor being the “father supreme”.
Another system in those days was the patron-client relationship. This was in some ways similar to the lord-peasent relationships of the feudal societies during the middle ages. The wealthy and powerful patrons would bestow certain benefits to their ‘clients’ in exchange for their allegiance and praise. The patrons leveraged their power over clients by withholding or threatening to withhold basic resources. class was obviously important to this system, with many layers of patron-client relationships existing among the various socioeconomic classes. There were, of course, other ways that power was concentrated in the Roman world but I’m afraid I may have lost some of you already with the history lesson so let’s move on…
So let’s start talking about today. I think we should look to global structures because folks who pull the strings on the world scene have long since been beyond the scope of any single government. In this day and age I think that the patron-client system of the Roman world sounds a lot like the policies of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund that keep countries in the global South dependent by means of structural adjustments and perpetual debt. Regardless, it is hard to deny the systemic centralization of power that they represent in the global economy.
And despite all protestations to the contrary, the corporate landscape is overwhelmingly the domain of the white male. Most major corporations use the equivalent of slave labor to produce clothing, toys, tools and some foods. And would I be wrong to suggest that these products are produced in factories that are filled with a majority of women and children? What is clear is that power in the global economic system is primarily centralized with the male gender. A quick glance at the boardrooms of the largest multinationals would prove this point i think.
To my eyes imperialistic centralizations of power abound in our global systems. But hey, I may be way off base here. What do your eyes see?
subscribe to posts, or
Centralization of power by the male gender is not only found in global systems–it is also found in the church. While it is easy (and true!) to point the finger at large corporations, the church has not had a great track record in this area either. The people “pulling the strings” are still pretty much male….
Comment by Sandy — April 26, 2006 @ 10:53 am
This is just a thought re: Sandy’s comment… First, I agree with Sandy, but I’m not sure what, if anything, can be done about it. Of course, right, I benefit from having opportunities that I may not of had if I weren’t male (except for little things like shorter life expectancy, higher rates of suicide, tendencies toward isolation, addictions, etc.). I get it. But… does society benefit from men being in leadership roles as well? Socially, in almost every culture, boys are encouraged to assume leadership roles. Young men, over the years, have then been more experienced than young women at leading others by the time they hit the work force. That is the same in the church, the workplace, many recreations, whatever. Why is it that many mothers have encouraged their sons to take responsibilty for “the strings” that are to be pulled? Why do most women still wait for THE GUY to pop the question? Would we benefit as a society from young men taking MORE responsibility for our collective harmony and well-being? These, BTW, are sincere questions, not rhetorical ones that I have answers for already. Help me out.
I also disagree with Sandy, too. I know many men that seem to be pulling the strings that answer to women, myself included. Many comedians have made a living ripping on ‘macho’ husbands that are in the ‘dog house’. This can’t be disregarded.
So, centralization of power amoung the male gender certainly undeniable in some aspects, but even the president has to go home after work.
Comment by Chad — April 28, 2006 @ 11:53 am
I think for the most part Sandy is on to something. The Roman Empire gave way to the “christian empire” or “christendom” and, I think, held on tight to the patriarchal centralization of power. To this day the church still struggles to free herself from this.
I think we as a society and as a church would greatly benefit from more women in significant leadership and policy making roles. Women, I think, do a much better job of listening and embracing the other. How much war and violence is caused by little more than a narcistic male ego? I think quite a bit. If Christ’s alternative community is to embrace and love the other than shall we not look to our sisters to lead the way? It would be a tradgedy, however, if when given leadership we asked them to lead as men do. This happens often and sadly, completely misses the point (in my opinion).
Comment by Andy — April 29, 2006 @ 12:39 pm
I would say to you, Chad, that society benefits when the most qualified people assume leadership roles, whether that is male or female. Young women receive leadership role training–but this training isn’t acknowledged as such by society. I learned more from my mother about leadership as she raised her family and worked outside the home and at church than I ever did from my father. By men pulling the strings, I was thinking particularly of the issue of women being ordained as pastors. This was not possible until recently in the CRC (my background). The church hierachy was male, and the decision makers on this issue were male. A female friend of mine in seminary had to take an evaluation on her church planting skills–she didn’t do very well until people began to realize that she was being evaulated on the strengths that men have brought to that position–but as a women she brought a different perspective and different strengths. And I will be very honest–saying that women have power because they are married to the boss is offensive to me, and probably to many women, and seems dismissive of the problems women face, whether that is in the church, the work force or in politics.
Comment by Sandy — May 2, 2006 @ 10:49 am
Sandy, great comments. Thanks for your candidness. I don’t mind being offensive, but I don’t want to do it out of ignorance. After reflecting a bit, I appreciate that saying that women have power because they are married to “the boss” is offensive to you. If I can stay on this subject, I want to learn more, and I’m a bit stuck in some traditional ways of thinking re: gender roles.
First, I have no problems with women in leadership inside or outside the church. I agree that the most qualified people should be in leadership roles (with many exceptions for unqualified leaders-in-the-making). I also recognize that white men have been given opportunities through devlopment and mentoring relationships that have passed the baton of institutional power from white male to white male since our country’s founding. I ALSO recognize that many or most of the white males that aquired that power originally did so through a corrupt moral value system that subjugated women and children and exploited natural and human resources. But, I STILL think this whole gender/leadership subject is slippery for me to engage (mostly b/c I automatically lose a few credibility points due to my gender and phenotype… not that I’m whining). I think if there is ever to be a solution to the gender and racial gaps (re: hiring, placement, wages differences, etc.) in our country, some grace and trust needs to be extended to and earned by the “white male”. The frustration is that every time people venture to converse around inequities, someone’s ignorance is exposed and “the other”’s suspicions are reinforced. All of the “us”/”them” stuff becomes more entrenched. In a subversive culture, we should stay at the table long enough to grow in knowledge and trust of one another, given that it is Jesus’ table and not the table of traditional powers. Please continue to put up with me as I wade through years of indoctrination as a typical white Evangelical male into a more enlightened and harmonious way of living.
Maybe it does a disservice to women to expect them to lead the way a man is expected to lead (as in your - Sandy’s - friends situation), but do we do any harm to males by expecting them to do a better job of listening and embracing the other? In my opinion, no. I don’t think that nurturing is the realm of the female gender, and I don’t think that courage and initiative are exclusively male. The leadership of the subversive kingdom should look nothing like the leadership of the kingdoms of this world, so… why do we keep talking about leadership and gender roles on the world’s terms? Church leadership continues to look like worldly leadership, and its not just b/c the church is lead by men. It’s because we have accepted the world’s leadership principles. We need a different way to talk about leadership.
Until we have a new language of leadership, I don’t think it’s dismissive to say that women often wield a different kind of power than men. In fact, Andy, I think you were encouraging (as I read it) the promotion of women to positions of leadership in order to take advantage of their empathy and gentle persuasiveness. By saying that, I don’t mean that that is the only kind of power a woman should have. I also acknowlege that many women also possess the capacity to lead in other ways. I was more or less trying to make a point that there are more kinds of power than the variety we usually esteem.
By the way, it was with much anxiety and wordsmithing that I crafted this post, but this media will never do justice to the word “communication”. sigh of exhaustion
Comment by Chad — May 2, 2006 @ 8:36 pm
too true my friend… well said though, i think. thanks.
Comment by Andy — May 2, 2006 @ 9:14 pm