❖ Is Patriarchy Truly a Historical Issue? ❖
An Analytical Perspective on Patriarchy in Light of Yuval Noah Harari's Work
A number of liberal women and some non-Islamist scholars in our society often lament that our social fabric, religious thought, and interpretation of Shari'ah are deeply rooted in patriarchal biases. Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens is frequently cited among such circles, forming the intellectual foundation for many of their critiques.
"Why has human society always been patriarchal?"
Harari presents three scientific theories to explain the patriarchal structure of ancient and modern societies:
This theory posits that men were physically stronger, thus more useful in agrarian societies. Tasks like tilling the land, harvesting crops, and defending territory required muscle power—traits more commonly found in men.
However, Harari raises two major objections:
❖ While men may be stronger, women are more enduring, especially in bearing fatigue, illness, and physical labor.
❖ Women have been historically excluded from roles that did not require physical power, such as priesthood and intellectual leadership.
Furthermore, social status is not always linked to physical power. For instance, elderly individuals, though physically weak, often command higher societal respect than the physically strong youth.
According to this theory, men are more aggressive and hence more likely to dominate through warfare and political power.
But Harari questions:
❖ If men fought the wars, did they also necessarily lead them?
❖ Enslaved Africans worked in cotton fields, yet white men held ownership and control—indicating labor does not equate to leadership.
❖ Success in battle demands strategy and cunning, qualities commonly associated with women. So, why didn’t women become dominant leaders?
This evolutionary theory claims that early males competed to impregnate fertile females, requiring strength and aggression. Meanwhile, pregnant women became physically vulnerable and dependent on male protection—thus reinforcing patriarchal dominance.
Harari rejects this theory as well:
❖ There is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.
❖ If women were truly so vulnerable, why didn’t they form alliances like female elephants, who protect each other in herds?
This entire debate arises from a specific ideological stance. If one is influenced by Western liberalism and equality-based frameworks, then patriarchy seems problematic.
However, in religious and traditional civilizations, this question never surfaced as a concern.
Western thinkers judge human history through a single, subjective definition of justice, assuming non-Western women must also feel oppressed. Yet, millions of women do not perceive themselves as victims.
When confronted with this contradiction, liberals often reply that such women have been "conditioned" to accept oppression—yet they fail to realize that Western thinkers themselves may be equally conditioned by their own culture and ideology.
Harari himself admits to failing to find a conclusive answer. This in itself raises the question:
❖ Is patriarchy even a real issue? Or simply a theoretical construct born from Western ideology?
It appears that questioning patriarchy is more of a philosophical discussion, influenced by Western assumptions, and does not necessarily reflect the lived experiences of women in all societies.
An Analytical Perspective on Patriarchy in Light of Yuval Noah Harari's Work
✦ The Liberal Critique of Patriarchy
A number of liberal women and some non-Islamist scholars in our society often lament that our social fabric, religious thought, and interpretation of Shari'ah are deeply rooted in patriarchal biases. Yuval Noah Harari’s book Sapiens is frequently cited among such circles, forming the intellectual foundation for many of their critiques.
✦ Harari’s Central Question:
"Why has human society always been patriarchal?"
Harari presents three scientific theories to explain the patriarchal structure of ancient and modern societies:
① The Theory of Physical Strength
This theory posits that men were physically stronger, thus more useful in agrarian societies. Tasks like tilling the land, harvesting crops, and defending territory required muscle power—traits more commonly found in men.
However, Harari raises two major objections:
❖ While men may be stronger, women are more enduring, especially in bearing fatigue, illness, and physical labor.
❖ Women have been historically excluded from roles that did not require physical power, such as priesthood and intellectual leadership.
Furthermore, social status is not always linked to physical power. For instance, elderly individuals, though physically weak, often command higher societal respect than the physically strong youth.
② The Theory of Aggression
According to this theory, men are more aggressive and hence more likely to dominate through warfare and political power.
But Harari questions:
❖ If men fought the wars, did they also necessarily lead them?
❖ Enslaved Africans worked in cotton fields, yet white men held ownership and control—indicating labor does not equate to leadership.
❖ Success in battle demands strategy and cunning, qualities commonly associated with women. So, why didn’t women become dominant leaders?
③ The Theory of Patriarchal Genes
This evolutionary theory claims that early males competed to impregnate fertile females, requiring strength and aggression. Meanwhile, pregnant women became physically vulnerable and dependent on male protection—thus reinforcing patriarchal dominance.
Harari rejects this theory as well:
❖ There is no scientific evidence to support this hypothesis.
❖ If women were truly so vulnerable, why didn’t they form alliances like female elephants, who protect each other in herds?
✦ The Underlying Assumption: Is Patriarchy Even a Problem?
This entire debate arises from a specific ideological stance. If one is influenced by Western liberalism and equality-based frameworks, then patriarchy seems problematic.
However, in religious and traditional civilizations, this question never surfaced as a concern.
Western thinkers judge human history through a single, subjective definition of justice, assuming non-Western women must also feel oppressed. Yet, millions of women do not perceive themselves as victims.
When confronted with this contradiction, liberals often reply that such women have been "conditioned" to accept oppression—yet they fail to realize that Western thinkers themselves may be equally conditioned by their own culture and ideology.
✦ Conclusion: A Theoretical or Real Problem?
Harari himself admits to failing to find a conclusive answer. This in itself raises the question:
❖ Is patriarchy even a real issue? Or simply a theoretical construct born from Western ideology?
It appears that questioning patriarchy is more of a philosophical discussion, influenced by Western assumptions, and does not necessarily reflect the lived experiences of women in all societies.
