“Dominator” vs. “Partnership” Cultures: A Profound Re-Telling of Human History

“In sum, the struggle for our future is . . . the struggle between those who cling to patterns of domination and those working for a more equitable partnership world.”

— Riane Eisler

Recently, I’ve written a couple of essays about the present global situation. One of those essays focused on the sociocultural dysfunctions of America and the other elaborated how the 500-year history of Western colonialism and imperialism that birthed our modern world has rendered the “problems of America” inextricable from the problems of the human race.

I consider myself a collector of lenses—mental models I can employ at any time to make sense of the world and my place in it. Yesterday I happened to remember one such lens—a truly remarkable one, I think—that I overlooked in the aforementioned essays. Nonetheless, this lens seems to me a kind of keystone that further contextualizes and reinforces my arguments in those essays and has tremendous implications for the predicament we face in the present historical moment.

The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli, 1483-85. Photo Credit: Public Domain

The Birth of Venus by Sandro Botticelli, 1483-85. Photo Credit: Public Domain

A Story of “Dominator” and “Partnership” Cultures

Riane Eisler, a world-renowned Austrian-born American systems scientist, writer, and social activist, has proposed that we ought to understand human cultures and societies in terms of two fundamental categories: “dominator” and “partnership.” In her landmark work, The Chalice and the Blade: Our History, our Future, she suggests that our conventional social categories—religious vs. secular, right vs. left, capitalist vs. communist, Eastern vs. Western, and industrial vs. pre- or post-industrial, etc.—are insufficient to describe the whole of a society’s values, beliefs, and institutions.

Eisler argues that these categories overlook the fact that, historically, many societies in all of the aforementioned categories have been unequal and violent, whereas some societies—the majority of which existed millennia ago—have been much more equalitarian and peaceful. Eisler points out that we lack a frame of analysis that encompasses the differences between these latter societies/cultures and the vast majority of societies/cultures that are prevalent today. Thus Eisler turns to the historical and archaeological record to argue that throughout human history, sociocultural systems have existed on a continuum between the extremes of “dominator” and “partnership” systems. A couple of passages from her website seem a worthy starting point for understanding the definitions and profound implications of these categories:

In the domination system, somebody has to be on top and somebody has to be on the bottom. People learn, starting in early childhood, to obey orders without question. They learn to carry a harsh voice in their heads telling them they’re no good, they don’t deserve love, they need to be punished. Families and societies are based on control that is explicitly or implicitly backed up by guilt, fear, and force. The world is divided into in-groups and out-groups, with those who are different seen as enemies to be conquered or destroyed.

In contrast, the partnership system supports mutually respectful and caring relations. Because there is no need to maintain rigid rankings of control, there is also no built-in need for abuse and violence. Partnership relations free our innate capacity to feel joy, to play. They enable us to grow mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. This is true for individuals, families, and whole societies. Conflict is an opportunity to learn and to be creative, and power is exercised in ways that empower rather than disempower others.

I’m guessing that you, like me, see your own society reflected in the description of the dominator system. Most societies existing today are paternalistic, disciplinarian, materialistic, and hierarchy-based. Judgment from peers, guilt over one’s actions, the threat of force, and fear of alienation or punishment are among the primary dictators of most people’s behavior. Groups of people are labeled, marginalized, and discriminated against based on surface-level characteristics.

Many people tend to believe that these sociocultural norms are simply an expression of “human nature” or just “how life is.” Eisler is offering an astonishing and radically different narrative. She’s turned to history, archaeology, anthropology, mythology, and other fields to conduct cross-cultural comparisons and argues convincingly that for the majority of the last ~37,000 years, humans lived primarily in partnership societies, in a global partnership culture—a state of affairs nearly unimaginable today.

For approximately 30,000 years, Eisler argues, partnership was the norm. She points to numerous societies across continents and throughout (pre-)history that appear to have been devoid of inequality in social relations and without war for many centuries at a time. These societies seem to have cherished the force that gives, rather than takes, life and worshipped the “Great Goddess,” a feminine deity representing fertility, nourishment, and the miracle of creation.



If you appreciate my writing and want me to write more, please support the site. Thanks!


In part because of this recognition of the life-giving feminine, it seems that neither men nor women were considered superior or inferior to one another in these societies. Eisler holds that this most fundamental relationship—between man and woman—formed the basis for all other relationships and institutions in these societies, and thus that people were “linked” by their differences rather than considered “above” or “below” one another. Eisler argues that these various societies were representative of a many-millennia-spanning global trend toward partnership culture.

Rise of the Dominator

Around 5000 BC, though, a new model of social organization began to, well, dominate. In an exceptional article on Vice (highly recommended for further study of this topic) regarding Eisler’s work, Tao Lin explains Eisler’s findings:

“It wasn’t until ~5000 BC that the dominator model appeared in the form of “nomadic bands” from peripheral areas that attacked the preexisting civilizations, which were all partnership societies. Defense mechanisms like trenches and ramparts—previously nonexistent—gradually appeared. ‘These repeated incursions and ensuing culture shocks and population shifts were concentrated in three major thrusts,’ wrote Eisler, calling these ‘Wave No. 1’ (4300-4200 BC), ‘Wave No. 2’ (3400-3200 BC), and ‘Wave No. 3’ (3000-2900 BC). ‘At the core of the invaders’ system was the placing of higher value on the power that takes, rather than gives, life,’ observed Eisler. As the dominators conquered, they also began to suppress the old way of living, which meant suppressing worship of the Goddess, which meant the marginalization of women in general. The Goddess, and women, Eisler claimed, ‘were reduced to male consorts or concubines. Gradually male dominance, warfare, and the enslavement of women and of gentler, more ‘effeminate’ men became the norm.'”

Eisler argues that cultures based on domination arose somewhat spontaneously, probably during a period of relative chaos. This period may have been caused by rising populations, scarcity of resources, natural disaster, or a number of other possibilities. Partnership societies, unprepared in terms of both attitude and technology, were naturally conquered, destroyed, and suppressed by dominator peoples/societies.

The cause of the rise of the dominator system is less important than its implications for the world that would develop over the next 7,000 years (and still exists today)—a world in which the partnership model has been all but forgotten, in which war has become the norm, in which women, poor people, various races/ethnicities, and numerous other groups have been systematically subjugated and oppressed, in which the very possibilities of human life have been greatly restricted by the idea that everyone must “know his place” and submit to authority, or else.

Though the historical dominators have tended to be male (and more recently, on the global stage, white), Eisler holds that her theory of dominator/partnership cultures is not ideology-, gender-, or race-specific. In essence, any human has the propensity to dominate other humans under certain conditions. For Terence McKenna, an American philosopher who praised Eisler’s work, this was an important point:

“I don’t see it as a male disease. I think everybody in this room has a far stronger ego than they need. The great thing that Riane Eisler, in her book The Chalice and the Blade, did for this discussion was to de-genderize the terminology. Instead of talking about patriarchy and all this, what we should be talking about is dominator versus partnership society.”

McKenna, who famously coined the meme, “Culture is not your friend.,” also said this of Eisler’s work:

“Her position is that it is the tension between these two forms of social organization and the over-expression of the dominator model that is responsible for our alienation [from nature, from ourselves, and from each other]. I am in complete agreement with Eisler’s view.”

Re-Imagining

Indeed, Eisler argues that the dominator model of social organization permeates all aspects of life and experience, causing inconceivable pain, repression, and alienation that we take to be normal aspects of the human experience. She asserts that the only way to remedy this situation is to devise social structures and belief systems based on partnership instead of domination:






“We know the pain, fear, and tension of relations based on coercion and accommodation, of jockeying for control, of trying to manipulate and cajole when we are unable to express our real feelings and needs, of the tug of war for that illusory moment of power rather than powerlessness, of our unfulfilled yearning for caring and mutuality, of all the misery, suffering, and lost lives and potentials that come from these kinds of relations.

Most of us have also, at least intermittently, experienced another way of being, one where we feel safe and seen for who we truly are, where our essential humanity and that of others shines through, perhaps only for a little while, lifting our hearts and spirits, enfolding us in a sense that the world can after all be right, that we are valued and valuable.

Our human yearning for caring connections, for peace rather than war, for equality rather than inequality, for freedom rather than oppression, can be seen as part of our genetic equipment. The degree to which this yearning can be realized is not a matter of changing our genes, but of building partnership social structures and beliefs.”

For me, Eisler’s re-telling of history is marvelous and also deeply troubling. Ponder the implications of this work, and you’ll realize that the war, genocide, slavery, oppression, discrimination, and unbounded accumulation of material wealth that have characterized much of recorded history can be traced to this period ~7,000 years ago when the human race began to transition from partnership models of social organization to dominator models. That’s not to say that humans have ever been or could ever be totally non-violent—just that we could arguably be significantly more peaceful, free, and equal than we presently are.

Look around, and in every area of our societies—the family unit, the government, the military, the school system, religious institutions, business organizations—you will find hierarchy-based, authoritarian systems in which some people are considered to be “above” other people. Observe how people tend to interact with or talk about other people, and you will find gossip, judgment, belittling, and manipulation—constant leveraging for a fleeting sense of power and control. Think for a moment about how openly loving, caring for, and being kind to other people is often considered a sign of being “soft” or “weak,” whereas showing little affection, acting “macho,” and never needing another’s help or tenderness is glorified as the image of strength and heroism.

We are living on a planet in which the dominator model of social organization has become ubiquitous throughout most of the human race, shaping our fundamental assumptions about how to design institutions, how to act, and how to treat one another. This is a frightening and tragic situation that has driven our species to the brink of extinction and planetary destruction.

Thankfully, we seem to have managed at least temporarily to quell our urges to drop city-melting warheads on each other, and large-scale war may actually be disappearing. However, environmental catastrophes yet loom on the horizon, and, even if the disasters can be averted, who wants to live in a world where inequality, manipulation, conflict, exploitation, alienation, and violence are so commonplace that we often hardly notice them? Not this human.

Hope

We might be in luck, though. Eisler argues that the last three hundred years or so have seen a strong trend toward a re-discovery of partnership values, and that there may be hope for a kind of renaissance:

“The last three hundred years have seen a strong movement toward partnership. One tradition of domination after another has been challenged – from the rule of despotic kings and male dominance to economic oppression and child abuse.

But this forward movement has been fiercely resisted, and punctuated by periodic regressions. That is the bad news.






The good news is that we do not have to start from square one. Though we still have a long way to go, in bits and pieces the shift from domination to partnership is underway.

There is also strong evidence from archeology and the study of myth that the original direction in the mainstream of our cultural evolution was in a partnership direction. So much that today may seem new and even radical, such as gender equality and a more peaceful way of life, has ancient roots going back thousands of years, before the cultural shift toward domination about 5000 years ago.

During much of recorded history, rankings of domination – man over man, man over woman, race over race, nation over nation, and humans over nature – have been the norm. But in our time of nuclear and biological weapons and high technology in service of the once hallowed ‘conquest of nature,’ high technology guided by an ethos of domination could take us to an evolutionary dead end.

In sum, the struggle for our future is not between East and West, North and South, religion or secularism, capitalism or socialism, but within all these. It is the struggle between those who cling to patterns of domination and those working for a more equitable partnership world.

Each one of us can contribute to the partnership movement. We can change by example, education, and advocacy. We can shift our relations from domination to partnership – starting with our day-to-day relations all the way to how we relate to our mother earth.”

If you pause and reflect, you’ll note that in a little over 150 years, the United States has seen the end of slavery, the attainment of suffrage for all citizens, legislated equality for all genders and races/ethnicities, major strides toward legislated equality for all sexual orientations, paradigm-shattering environmental initiatives, and major steps toward the legalization of cannabis and a saner drug policy generally. The Occupy Movements have challenged systemic economic and social inequality worldwide, and in many places ideas such as universal health care, free higher education, and a Standard Basic Income have been implemented or are taking hold. I take these facts to be indications that a renaissance of partnership values is presently occurring on this planet—that the human race has begun collectively to realize that it now faces an ultimatum: cooperate with each other and the planet, or self-destruct.

Pushing this movement forward begins with each of us—with the day-to-day, unglamorous decisions we can make to treat people as equals, to show respect and kindness, to try to imagine the lives of others, and to openly express and demonstrate love and affection. We can have candid, gentle conversations with others about these ideas. We can support humanitarian projects and political reforms that aim for a more equal, compassionate, open, sustainable society. We can create videos, blogs, music, social media content, and other art or projects that challenge the status quo and contain messages of love and togetherness. The Internet can help us and might just be the supreme tool for greatly accelerating this transition/renaissance. In these ways, we can continue to re-orient the collective human enterprise away from division, inequality, alienation, and domination toward unity, equality, openness, partnership, and love.

If this process is indeed occurring and will continue to occur, it will be a slow one. We shouldn’t conceive of it as something that will occur in our lifetime, but rather, as a revival that began centuries ago and will continue indefinitely into the future. We must think in terms of what one special professor I was privileged to work with calls the “long now”—a term referring to the long-term resonances, amplifications, and ripple effects that can result from the smaller-scale work we are able to do in this moment.

Rather than feeling discouraged by the timescale of this reclamation of partnership values, we ought to feel privileged to be living in the midst of such revolutionary changes, to be working to re-direct several thousand years of cultural momentum, to be contributing to monumental and exciting changes in the human enterprise. Signs abound that this renaissance in human thinking is happening and accelerating, and I for one feel that contributing to its potency and reach is about the most important thing any of us can do.

If this was fascinating, subscribe and follow me on Twitter.

Note: This summary of Eisler’s work is necessarily reductive and incomplete. I tried to touch on the main premises of her argument, but I’ve hardly scratched the surface of her work. If this topic is of interest to you, I highly recommend further study. Start here:



If you appreciate my work and want me to keep doing what I do, consider buying something from the RTM Store or supporting the blog in other ways. Many thanks.

About Jordan Bates

Jordan Bates is a writer and perpetually curious autodidact interested in just about everything. He tweets a lot. He questions all the things. He makes unusual rap songs. He wanders the globe and writes about the most vitalizing, useful, and/or world-changing insights he happens upon. He dreams of a more compassionate, cooperative global community in which every human being's basic needs are met and in which all sentient beings are respected. Befriend him and/or get his best ideas sent to your inbox, if you like. Amor fati, humans.

  • folks should comment because i’d love to have a conversation about this one. one of the more compelling arguments that i think one can level against eisler’s views goes something like this:

    okay, so maybe partnership cultures were widespread at one point, but it appears that dominator cultures arose a fairly short while after the agricultural revolution, which was about the time that the human population began to rise exponentially, so maybe dominator cultures are inevitable with large populations and limited resources?

    i’ll just let that argument hang and see if others want to pick up the thread or start a different one for further discussion. cheers.

    • Jacki

      No, domination cultures are not inevitable given the existence of large populations and limited resources. I think we have to look at the fact that these days (for those of us in developed/first world countries)
      domination culture is the result of a “scarcity mentality” rather than an
      actual state of scarce resources. There are a lot of factors that go into the
      perpetuation of the illusion of scarcity (i.e. the diverting of resources to the military, the diverting of resources toward non-sustainable energy practices, money spent in/on the entertainment industries, money circulating within the ranks of the financial elite, etc.), but when it comes down to it, I think we’ve come far enough in our agricultural development to be able to supply the basic survival needs of most everyone on the planet. I mean, we can defy the effects of seasons with our technology and grow (or import, which
      brings up the benefit of international cooperation through trade) various foods
      year-round, a feat that was inconceivable in the times of the partnership cultures, many of whom drew their ideologies from the cooperative forces of nature as they participated in the planting and harvesting of food.

      Now, I’m not completely convinced that the rise of domination cultures was purely the result of population growth and scarcity of resources, because I think a good bit of it had to do with gender dynamics and the fluctuation of power between matriarchal societies and patriarchal ones. But unfortunately I’m separated from about 90% of my personal library right now and I can’t draw on any of my books to reference my points, and anyway, it would take way too long to try and back that up. (Mostly I’m drawing on memory from *When God was a Woman* by Merlin Stone and *Shakti Woman* by Vicki Noble.) So, I’ll just stick to the here and now.

      In this modern Western culture, at this time, the scarcity mentality isn’t real. Many, if not most of us, have more than enough to survive—or else we have government programs that will (in theory, at least) help when we are not making enough to meet our basic needs. Yet we control many of the world’s resources, and we hoard them all for ourselves. It’s like we’re convinced that we’re dying, that there isn’t enough, that we need more and more and more.

      This simply isn’t true. We are almost competing for the sake of competition, when you really look at it. Even in our “progressive” society, on an interpersonal level we basically compete for two reasons: money/status (survival) and romantic/sexual attention (procreation, which is also, hmm, survival). If our basic needs are being met (food, water, clothing, shelter), we don’t really need to compete for more resources, and with a global population of over 7 billion, we hardly need to worry about dying off for lack of procreation (in fact, we’re threatening our existence with overpopulation). So, in essence, for
      all of our technology and our science and our philosophy, we haven’t overcome
      our basic animal instincts that drive competition in the first place. I don’t
      believe that it is the limitation of resources and the existence of large populations that make domination cultures inevitable, I think the problem stems from our inability to override our outdated evolutionary programming and realize that competition is becoming unnecessary. Really, we’re competing ourselves to death.

      And anyway, we’re wired for cooperation more than competition. We’re a naturally social species. We just haven’t seemed to master interpersonal relationships in the wake of the rise of dominator cultures,
      which ripple out and create the larger social structures that institutionalize
      the competition. And there’s just so much that goes into the social dynamics of
      competitive cultures; we’re talking gender roles, seniority issues, education
      levels, class distinctions, etc. etc., (not to mention the institution of
      fear-mongering set in place to keep us in a survival/scarcity mentality), and I’m not going to dominate the conversation by touching on each one. So, I’ll leave it there for now, as abruptly as this is ending, but I need to relax my brain because it’s trying to follow about five different strains of thought simultaneously :). But, just to tie the end to where I started, if those of us who are living in a society of surplus can learn to override the impulse for competition and accept moderation, we can share our resources with those living in societies that do suffer from real scarcity, and hopefully create more of a global partnership so that humanity, as a whole, can spend less time trying not to die, and more time living…as simplistic and idealistic as it may sound.

      • Jacki,

        your commentary on this topic is extraordinary and adds so much to what i wrote. thank you for taking the time to leave such wonderful words. i would love for you to formalize some of this writing a bit more and publish it on Refine The Mind sometime!

    • Arnt Joakim Wrålsen

      I’ll just note that birth rates tend to be lower in countries that have a stronger “partnership” culture (Western Europe and Canada). I suspect there is a causal link there (though I can’t prove it), because in a peaceful, sharing-based culture people are going to worry less about their future and thus have fewer children.

      As low birth rates is key to long-term sustainability for mankind, this means that we need to change into a partnership culture in order to survive in the long term.

      • interesting point, Arnt. i’m not prepared to make too many claims about the correlation between low birth rates and partnership cultures, but it does make sense that more progressive societies, collectively aware of the dangers of overpopulation, would have fewer children. it’s also just darn expensive to have kids.

    • one word: “scarcity”. You already picked up on that with “limited resources”. Today we have unreal pressure for space,air, & water. This pressure works against a more gentle society. On the other hand, I concur, the Internet is a primitive form of “Mind-link”. Blogs can spread hate and nonsense, but they can also attempt to… make the world a nicer place. Extol feelings. (Hell, I submit I try on mine…)

  • Nick Clyde

    While I agree wholeheartedly with the general sentiment, and I believe this is a useful way of looking at the historical development of humanity, I’m a little wary of oversimplification. Yes, it’s true that the general trend over the last two millennia has been toward greater domination. But I think think it’s important to ask the questions: “Who is dominating whom, and to what degree?” “How is oppression carried out? What tools to dominators use to oppress different groups?” “How have these mechanisms of domination transformed throughout our history?” Having the answers to these questions is an incredibly important first step in being able to dismantle the dominator culture, I think. But of course, this is a very useful distinction to use and it can certainly help orient the oppressed in their efforts to understand their alienation.

    • nick,

      thanks for bringing up a few of the ways in which this is an utterly incomplete analysis of the situation, haha. have you read any foucault? his “discipline and punish” came to mind in response to your question of “how have these mechanisms of domination transformed throughout our history?” . . . and if you’re looking at Western and/or American history, i think “the autobiography of malcolm x” and “a people’s history of the US” by howard zinn are great places to start answering those questions.

      it’s difficult, on the blog medium, to try to deliver big ideas and overarching models and to also fill in all of the holes. it’s impossible, i’d say. i hope that this post in particular inspires people to do further research and to consider the sorts of questions you posed, nick. thank you.

  • Nick Ethan Molchanov-Collins

    Ill jump in real quick and say that I think Eisler is retrieving (in a structurally resonant manner) an early metaphysical philosophy (that of Empedocles), which is a variation on earlier pan-human mythological archetypes (cosmic egg, among others), the function of which is to relate the macrocosm of world/history/experience into a coherent perception of integration with one’s environmental surround (thoughts and words corresponding to elements in the perceptible world in an intimate, dialogic manner). Empedocles cosmology, like Eisler, is a big-picture, holistic view of essential features of existence which undergird the functioning of social-natural order collectively: “although lacking the sense of the ‘one element transforming into another under the positive or negative catalytic influence of a third element, Empedocles’ sphere displays two basic functions of ‘production’ versus ‘destruction’: Love (unity) and Strife (separation) are incessantly involved in a universal cycle, taking the world from A) being a sphere of totally fused elements (Love as all-dominant) via b) a state of total separation of elements, back to c) the sphere of totally fused elements.” Binsbergen comments that, “from a viewpoint of comparative mythology, Empedocles’ Sphere is another variant of the Cosmic Egg, a major theme in cosmogonies distributed over mainly Eurasia and Oceania” (such as the Vedic Hiranyagarbha). (Binsbergen, 169)

    I hold that all religious conceptions and practices are both means to and expressions of a fundamentally unitary form of intersubjective perception (personal godhead experiences, kami or nature spirits, self/soul, total unity, etc.) whose character is guided by feeling-based attractors particular to the individual/s creating or experiencing these perceptual forms. Love as the principle of unitive connection or resonance features as the primary subjective lure for feeling, implicated (by virtue of its connective character) in all these forms (though sometimes drawing attention to itself by means of its opposite: Strife/hate, etc., as well as in a variety of particular forms: platonic, romantic, familial, aesthetic, etc.). This is why religions say God is Love (bc all western ones have Empedocles in the genetic history, ditto eastern forms (Hinduism’s “Ananda” (Love) as Being-Consciousness, satchitananda) – though in our present circumstances we might want to flesh that out a bit and say that this affective dimension is processual and emergent according to the individualized conditions of its experiential-manifestation (in the individual microcosm). Thus, “Metaphysical (or religious/cosmological) categories are not dogmatic statements of the obvious; they are tentative formulations of the ultimate generalities.The verification of a rationalistic scheme is to be sought in its general success, and not in the peculiar certainty, or initial clarity, of its first principles… Philosophy will not regain its proper status until the gradual elaboration of categorical schemes, at each stage of progress, is recognized as its proper objective. In place of the Hegelian hierarchy of categories of thought, the Philosophy of Organism finds a hierarchy of categories of feeling.” -Alf Whitehead

    • nick,

      thanks for pointing out the parallels between eisler’s conception of history and the older mythological motifs that mirror her conception. the similarities are striking. as always, thanks for contributing.

  • Jacki

    I know I wrote a response to the prompt in the first
    comment, but I am starting another thread because there was actually another line of thought that this piece initially drew me towards. So, the Terence McKenna quote: “I don’t
    see it as a male disease. I think everybody in this room has a far stronger ego than they need. The great thing that Riane Eisler, in her book *The Chalice and the Blade*, did for this discussion was to de-genderize the terminology.
    Instead of talking about patriarchy and all this, what we should be talking about is dominator versus partnership society.”

    I do agree that it is very important to take a step away from
    the implications of gender terminology when we’re trying to find solutions to the current societal problems in our world, otherwise at some point the discussion is in danger of devolving into a stalemated round of the historical blame
    game, which in turn continues to perpetuate the ongoing gender wars. However, when we break it down to look for the roots/origins of the nature of the problem (and there begin the search for a solution), I’m not sure that we can
    entirely separate the issue of dominator vs. partnership society from a discussion of gender dynamics. I mean, even the title of Eisler’s work, *The Chalice and the Blade*, is a reference to euphemisms for male and female genitalia, which pretty much implies that at least the masculine/feminine dynamic is at the crux of the dominator vs. partnership discussion. (Granted, I haven’t read *The Chalice and the Blade*, as I was sidetracked from my
    study of Goddess and earth-based religions about a year ago, but many of the works I had read often referenced Eisler’s work, and I am very familiar with the symbolism of the chalice and the blade throughout mythology. But please, correct me if I’m way off base here.)

    When it comes to gender-based terminology, which falls under the broader philosophy of duality, the feminine traits tend to encompass more passive, nurturing, and cooperative qualities, while masculine traits tend
    towards active, assertive, and competitive ones. Domination would then fall under the masculine category. Now, on the individual level, all people, regardless of gender (or gender identity, or sexual orientation), embody both masculine and feminine traits, and so we are not making the argument that men are dominators and women are partners. However, in nature, the male of a species does tend to embody more of the masculine traits, due to his role as protector, while the female will embody more of the feminine traits, due to her role as life giver/sustainer. Ok, so I have laid the groundwork (in a super general and glossy way) for what I’m really trying to get to.

    In order to arrive at the ideal of a modern partnership society, humans would really have to aspire toward the
    higher ideals of cooperation, interdependence, love, and compassion. This is well within our capacities, as we are complex emotional and psychological beings. However, we are also physical beings. We are still in bodies that
    remember being animals. We have hormones, we have pheromones, we are still incredibly wired to fight for our survival, as I discussed in my other comment. So, it’s all about evading death and perpetuating the species, and really, if we’re going to be frank about it, it’s all about sex. Again, The Chalice and the Blade. Now, this is what our socio-cultural foundations are currently founded on (again, see my other comment for more on that argument).

    So, what would this new, ideal partnership society look like, assuming that we find outlets or diversions for our more animalistic impulses? For example, where would males channel the competitive drive of testosterone? Need it manifest as competition, despite the fact that one of its
    primary functions is to drive the male in his competition for a mate? What would a world without competition look like, if it were indeed possible? Would we lose our drive as a species? Perhaps, like you said in your article about auto
    didacticism, we would deemphasize competition in scholastics and instead nurture the natural impulses of human curiosity; perhaps this would then be the primary driving force behind the liberal arts and sciences. Would females begin to abandon their biological impulses to create life within themselves, and channel their nurturing and creative tendencies into birthing new endeavors? And
    would we then make artists of our competitive athletes? Would they push the limits of perfection for the act of beauty itself, rather than the gratification of the victory? How much of our cultural world would be lost, and what would it be replaced with?

    I have so much more to say about this, but in a comment, I
    can only go so far. I guess the point of all this is that I do believe that we can create a world of equality, as Eisler envisioned, but I’m not sure exactly what that will look like. I think it’s important to keep an eye to the future as we’re in the process of tearing down the current socio-cultural institutions that are creating so much suffering. It’s also important to keep the lessons of the past in mind so that we do not repeat the same mistakes. However, we must
    not let our analyses paralyze us from creating real change in the here and now. We are living in a truly unique time where change is really possible, given the knowledge and empowerment that are available to the “average” person. And yes, the change comes on the individual level, in the day-to-day decisions about how we treat one another, how we influence and allow ourselves to be influenced, and how committed we are to the vision of a better world, starting with our internal ones. If we can step away from the need for ego gratification, we will effectively remove the fuel from
    the fire of domination mentalities. We can all aspire to and practice an attitude of tolerance, cooperation, and universal love. We will make mistakes along the way, but we can’t let fear of fucking up get in the way of our momentum.
    There is also forgiveness available in those cases, whether we give and receive it between each other, or within ourselves. Actually, I think forgiveness is very important to our progress, given all the hurt that needs to be healed in
    the world.

    That being said, I am still very curious about what this new
    future will look like. I’m sure plenty of people have started conceptualizing the details of the revolution, so to speak, and if anyone knows of such works, I’d appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Otherwise, hey man, I’m just happy to be here.

    • Jacki

      Nope, nope, sorry I’m writing way too much, but I can’t let this go. I’ve been studying and contemplating this topic for a really long time and I didn’t elaborate on my points well enough to fully express what I’m trying to convey. So, let me begin at the beginning.

      Towards the beginning of your article, Jordan, you said that men and women in partnership cultures were basically equal, that there was no sense of inferior and superior. I think this is close, but not entirely true. In the very early stages of human consciousness, our ancestors did not understand the correlation between intercourse and conception (and again, I’m drawing references from books which I can’t access right now). Pregnancy and birth were processes of complete mystery to them, and they seemed to occur as a sort of magic, and magic then became synonymous with the female gender. Due to the correlation of the 28-day menstrual cycle of a woman with the 28-day cycle of
      the lunar phases (which lined up much more precisely in the absence of
      fluorescent lighting and other electrical interference on the human body), our
      ancestors first believed that the moon impregnated women. If intercourse had
      anything to do with conception, it was only that the phallus opened the path
      for the moonlight to enter a woman’s womb and plant the seeds of life there. So
      there was this magic and mystique surrounding the process of pregnancy and
      birth. Women were literally the gateway between the worlds of life and death,
      and often stood so close to the brink that they themselves would fall backwards
      into death while attempting to bring forth life. So the female gender began to be associated with the forces of life and death, as well as wisdom and mystery.

      This naturally earned women a sheen of reverence, which increased their statuses in their societies, even after humans learned that the man actually did contribute a very important component in the conception process. In her book *When God was a Woman, Merlin Stone details great matriarchal societies in ancient Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilizations in which the women were the public figures, the land owners, the policy makers, the bread winners of the family, and men were the ones who stayed at home weaving baskets and looking after the children. The societal order of gender
      dynamics was basically the opposite of what we have seen most recently, and in
      many cases, continue to see today, with the emphasis on patriarchal religions and value systems. So it seems that gender would have had to play a pretty big role in the switch from partnership societies to dominator ones.

      When the patriarchal religions of the dominator cultures replaced the Goddess with the male God, the female deities were demonized and women were blamed as the origins of sin. Now, dominator societies operate on a basis of scarcity mentality, and their drive comes from a fear of death and a desire to continue the lineage. Women, due to their association with the forces of life and death, were then objects of evil and fear, and the oppression of women was synonymous with the conquering of man over the forces of death and nature. This also entailed a suppression of the sexual urge, perhaps because of the association of the orgasm as “the little death” and therefore, a reminder of mortality, or perhaps because sexuality, as the force of life, was then equally as dangerous and uncontrollable as the force of death. I think that at this point the domination culture, at least in the Judeo-Christian
      manifestation, had also aspired to total control of the common person. Therefore, God and human became distinctly separate entities, and the reverence of females as the creators of life threatened a dominance system that depended so entirely on forcing people to accept submissive roles.

      This is why our entire culture is built on death and sex. Life and death. And I can’t get into a detailed account of how Western society evolved throughout the ages based on the concepts of the suppression of sexuality and the feminine, and there is a pretty big gap in my knowledge of the specific evolution of the Eastern manifestation of this, so anyone who wants to jump in here is more than welcome. But the dominator culture then
      appears to be what it actually is: a value system based on fear and resistance.
      Partnership culture, then, becomes one of love and acceptance. Domination, in
      its fight to evade death, becomes a force of ultimate destruction, while partnership becomes a philosophy of life-affirming “let’s make the best of what time we have.” We can accept the inevitably of mortality and override the animal instincts that drive us to misdirect our survival struggles.

      So I suggest, as a starting place for undoing the effects of a dominator cultural mentality, that we continue in the vein of sexual liberation and the evolution of gender identity. We can consciously begin to heal the wounds of the past when we understand their origins. And back to one
      of my initial points, we must also be conscious of where and how to channel
      this creative, sexual, life-affirming energy so that it does not rise up and overcome our best intentions. We can’t all be celibate monks and nuns, but perhaps we can transcend the barriers that prevent us from reaching a more meaningful union, a deeper intimacy, a togetherness that maybe becomes more than just sexual. We can stop focusing on death and start moving more deliberately towards life, and find that there is more than enough of it to go around.

      (P.S. I’m sorry JB, I’m really not trying to cramp your style. You just touched on a subject that I’m really passionate about and I couldn’t help myself. I swear I’m done now lol. Thanks for allowing me (and everyone else) the space to speak my piece.)

      • please don’t apologize! write this much all the time! this is a beautiful and thoughtful continuation of your other meditations. they’re all great, and i’d love for you to put them together and publish the piece on here, if you want. thank you, thank you, thank you for your groovy thoughts. 🙂

      • Walter

        Why on earth did this happen?
        Why did the reverence for the female subside?
        “When the patriarchal religions of the dominator cultures replaced the Goddess with the male God, the female deities were demonized and women were blamed as the origins of sin.” – Jacki
        Where/when did the patriarchal religions come from?

        Excuse me if I’m just rehashing what I’ve just read.
        I submit that communities, societies and religions (cultures) of partnership became matriarchal dominator cultures.
        Were the men gathering and spreading the idea that they were being dominated, oppressed, powerless to effect their reality of life and death? I’d say so when you think your life is shitty, you do whatever you can to improve it. Usually the last thing you do is change your thoughts, look inward for the solution to your plight. The source is often so convincingly on the other side of your skin.
        The men revolted violently.
        The masculine movement was born and it steamed into the patriarchal dominating culture we now know.

        Coming back around the circle to a culture of partnership takes two. Love, care, compassion will need to go both ways. Tricky now that we as a species have survived through both matriarchal and patriarchal domination. A lack of trust of the opposite gender is deeply engrained in us and is even maintained.
        Any who, what’s the first thing you can do to bring back the partnership culture for your grandchildren, great grandchildren, ad infinitum?

    • jacki,

      thanks for all of your thoughts on this. i agree that gender dynamics can not be dismissed just because we can speak in terms of dominator vs. partnership cultures. men do seem to have a higher propensity for domination, though i think a lot of it is culturally conditioned. i’ve come a long ways in terms of basically letting go of my impulses to assert my ego or to be overly competitive or to form in-groups and out-groups. i’m not sure how much of this stuff was culturally conditioned and how much was to some extent innate.

      i know i may have over-simplified a bit with this summary. it’s difficult not to do so when one’s trying to squeeze a lot of ideas into a blog post. 🙂 once again, your thoughts are expansive and on point and splendid. please keep sharing them, and please consider sharing writing on Refine The Mind sooner rather than later. :))

  • Matt Reinig

    This post reminds me of the book “Ishmael” by Daniel Quinn. He referred the dominator culture as “Takers” and the partnership as “Leavers”. If I recall correctly, there was a point in time where a human decided to take control of his own destiny in the world, rather than leaving it up to nature or the gods. When Man discovered such power, that was the beginning of a revolution of making things suit to his needs and as the population grew, the needs grew larger, spreading across lands like a disease. I am only beginning to scratch the surface of this topic and I’m thrilled to have learned much more! This was a fantastic read (I love your writing style by the way) and I added the book to my wish list!

    • Matt,

      great to hear. thanks for the generous praise and interesting comment. i’ve read “The Story of B” by Daniel Quinn, which explores similar ideas. definitely need to read “Ishmael.” Quinn was kind of the beginning of my exploring this broad topic as well, and yes, please do read Eisler’s book. these are ideas worth considering. take care, man.