SOCIOLOGICAL BULLETIN

58 (2), May – August 2009, pp. 253-272

© Indian Sociological Society

Patriarchy:
Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings

Uthara Soman

Patriarchal power relations mainly denote a gender-linked allocation

of social roles which are the product of everyday interactions and
practices. This paper describes patriarchy and discusses how it
operates in social life, defining and controlling gender roles. Some
theoretical postulates are examined and availed to interpret how
patriarchal norms and associated subordination is socialised and
internalised in women. Empirical studies conducted among highly
educated professional women are reviewed to identify the zones in
their life where patriarchy rules and to assess how far they have been
successful in improvising and innovating patriarchal norms.

[Keywords: capital; gender power relations; habitus; patriarchy;

women professionals]

Patriarchy denotes a social structure where the actions and ideas of men
are dominant over those of women. This circumstance of male domi-
nance is reflected in correlative inequities throughout the society, the
foremost being in the family domain where the father or eldest male is
considered the patriarch or ‘head of the household’. Patriarchal societies
have customs or laws, where wives and children in a family are owned
by the father or nearest male relative. Patriarchies are patrilineal where
descent and inheritance is reckoned through the male line. Upon
marriage, the wife’s family name is changed to that of her husband or the
family name of the husband is added to the name of the wife, while the
husband’s name remains unchanged. Similarly, children are given the
family name of their father. Patriarchal norms are maintained through a
254 Uthara Soman
variety of ways which includes upbringing (reflecting the expectations of
parents, peers, self), discrimination (in hiring, promotions, giving credit,
giving opportunities, etc.), social arrangements (such as family, church,
competitive hierarchical occupations, gender division of labour, etc.),
force (rape, battering, harassment), lack of facilities (for childcare, contra-
ception, training, etc.), and laws and policies (which lead to exclusion
from occupations, unequal wages, age discrimination, etc.).
Although patriarchy rules the social relations even in symbolic
domains defining the meaning of women, patriarchal power relations rest
in the ideological foundation of gender-linked delineation of social roles.
Patriarchy assigns ‘gender’ a particular socio-cultural meaning in every
society. According to Brian Martin (1990), masculinity is naturally seen
to have dominance, confidence, strength, competition, and rationality as
its differentiating features; in contrast, femininity is linked to submission,
nurturing, caring, sensitivity, and emotionality. Men are expected to
exhibit masculine behaviour and women are expected to exhibit feminine
behaviour, though in practice few people meet their gender stereotypes in
all ways and circumstances. Masculine values are the ones valued most
highly for positions of power, and people (men or women) in such
positions are expected to behave appropriately. Ironically, such
constructed patterns of masculine or feminine behaviour are used to
justify men holding powerful positions and most women being relegated
to subordinate positions. In this paper, an attempt is made to unveil the
different dimensions of such traditionally established gender power
relations1 by dotting on a set of theoretical frameworks on patriarchy. In
the process, it is also hoped to unravel the possibilities of modification in
gender relations, provided the women act according to determinate
conditions and precise strategy.

Theoretical Postulates

In analysing gender inequality,2 the perspectives held by feminist theories

are important, although they contrast markedly with one another. While
liberal feminists look for explanations of gender inequalities in social and
cultural attitudes, they are charged of not acknowledging the systemic
nature of women’s oppression in society. Radical feminists, who accuse
them of encouraging women to accept an unequal society and its
competitive character, believe that men are responsible for and benefit
from the exploitation of women, especially in the domestic sphere.
Marxist feminism has a different view: as Friedrich Engels argues, that
under capitalism, material and economic factors underlay women’s
subservience to men, because patriarchy has its roots in private property.
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 255
Seeking to defeat both patriarchy and capitalism, socialist feminism calls
for the restructuring of family as a means to end domestic slavery and the
introduction of some collective means to carry out childrearing, caring,
and household maintenance. Different from all the above theoretical
perspectives, postmodern feminism challenges the epistemological idea
that there is a unitary basis of identity and experience shared by all
women. It encourages the acceptance of many different standpoints as
equally valid, acknowledging the existence of many different individuals
and groups, all of whom have very different experiences such as hetero-
sexuals, lesbians, black women, working-class women, etc. (Giddens
2006: 469-75).
Since different perspectives have been put forward by sociologists,
anthropologists, and ethnographers in theorising patriarchy, we shall
focus on some of the most important among them for a better explanation
and understanding of the phenomenon. W. Walby (1990: 20) has
distinguished two distinct forms of patriarchy: private and public.
‘Private patriarchy’ is the domination of women which occurs within the
household at the hands of an individual patriarch. It is an exclusionary
strategy, as women are essentially prevented from taking part in public
life. ‘Public patriarchy’, on the other hand, is more collective in form.
Women are involved in public realms, such as politics and the labour
market, but remain segregated from wealth, power, and status. Along
with her theoretical postulates on patriarchy, stratified gender power
relations in the private sphere, termed as ‘patrifocality’ by N. Gupta and
A.K. Sharma (2002), and patriarchy operating in the public sphere,
discussed by Lindsey German (2006) and Martin (1990), will be examined
in this paper. Apart from this, the materialistic perspective of Heidi
Hartmann (1981) on patriarchy and her analysis of the Marxist theory of
family, the Foucauldian perspective (Foucault 1979) regarding female
sexuality and reproduction, and the viewpoints of Sandra Bartky (1977),
who worked on Foucault, femininity, and the modernisation of patriarchal
power, and the theoretical accounts of R.W. Connell (1987, 2001, 2005)
with reference to ‘gender regime’ needs to be discussed for an in-depth
understanding of what patriarchy and associated subordination of women
actually means.
Walby defines patriarchy as ‘a system of social structures and
practices in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women’ (1990:
20). This definition underlines the importance of viewing patriarchy as a
structural phenomenon rather than one perpetuated by the individual
exploitative man.
256 Uthara Soman
Walby is concerned with the depth and interconnectedness of gender
inequality when she puts forward the six structures composing patriarchy
that are independent as well as interacting with one another as follows:

1. Production relations in the household: Women’s unpaid domestic

labour, such as housework and childcare is expropriated by her husband
or cohabite.
2. Paid work: Women in the labour market are excluded from certain types
of work, receive lower pay and are segregated in less skilled jobs.
3. The patriarchal state: In its policies and priorities, the state has a
systematic bias towards patriarchal interests.
4. Male violence: Women routinely experience and are affected in standard
ways by male violence which is patterned and systematic.
5. Patriarchal relations in sexuality: This is manifested in “compulsory
heterosexuality” and in the sexual double standard between men and
women where different rules apply for sexual behaviour.
6. Patriarchal cultural institutions: A variety of institutions including
media, religion and education produce representations of women within
a patriarchal gaze. These representations influence women’s identities
and prescribe acceptable standards of behaviour and action (Giddens
2006: 473).

As she distinguishes, all these six structures composing patriarchy are

operating in the private and the public spheres of social life, dominating
the lives of women. This patriarchal logic is rigorously practised in the
Indian context, particularly as stratified gender power relations in the
private sphere, termed as ‘patrifocality’, which has been characterised by
Gupta and Sharma as

subordination of individual interests to the welfare of the family; gender

differentiated family roles with females being associated with the private
sphere; gender differentiated family authority structure (with authority of
same generational males over socially equivalent females, such as husbands
over wives, brothers over sisters); family control of marriage arrange-
ments; patrilineal descent, inheritance and succession; patrifocal residence,
with daughters shifting allegiance to husband’s family after marriage; and
an ideology of appropriate female behaviour that emphasises chastity,
obedience and modesty (2002: 902).

Patrifocality is not reducible to a fixed set of criteria; it fluctuates in

content and severity according to myriad social factors including region,
caste, and class. Central to this ideology is the principal concern with
female sexual purity and family responsibility (Derne 1994; Chanana
2001), where women are prohibited from having prolonged contact with
unrelated men, engaging in travel without a proper male escort,
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 257
exercising authority in household decisions, or maintaining a residence
separate from their families (Chakravarthy 1986; Mukhopadhyay 1994;
Subrahmanyan 1998).
Apart from patriarchy operating in the private sphere, oppression
which exists in the public sphere is also intense. In a patriarchal society,
women’s pinnacle of achievement is relished as marriage and
motherhood and they are left with the responsibility for childbirth and
childcare. This explains why women’s exclusion and marginalisation
continues unceasingly in the public sphere. Women’s roles as mothers
structure their whole lives due to which many of them opt for part-time
working, followed by unequal and generally low pay. Critically, there is
no reason why women should care for children and perform the bulk of
the housework, just because they give birth to children. But, in a world of
privatised reproduction, of a rigid sexual division of labour, where jobs
are not paid at the same rate as for men, there is really no alternative for
most families. It ‘makes sense’ for the woman to be the one to stay at
home, and so the circle continues (German 2006).
With regard to oppression in public sphere, Martin (1990) views
patriarchy as a set of social relationships which provide for the collective
domination of men over women. It is manifested in unequal salaries for
similar work, in discrimination, in legal inequality, in unequal expecta-
tions, in patterns of interpersonal dominance and submission, and in
patterns of rape and other direct violence. Especially vital to patriarchy is
the control by men on most key positions in dominant social structures:
government, state bureaucracy, corporations, the military and professional
bodies. Particularly important are the gender-typing of particular tasks,
work styles and occupations, and the association of top positions with
masculine values of competition, individualism, emotional aloofness, and
instrumental rationality.
The modern connection between patriarchy and bureaucracy can be
seen as one of mutual mobilisation, where men misuse bureaucratic
power resources to sustain their power over women, while elite
bureaucrats use patriarchal ideology to sustain the bureaucratic
hierarchy. In a typical bureaucratic hierarchy, whether a state agency, a
corporation, or a trade union, the top positions are cornered by men.
Women are relegated to the lower rungs such as typists, process workers,
or cleaners. Within the private sphere of top male bureaucrats, it is the
wives who do most of the childrearing and housework, also providing
emotional and career support to their husbands. The power, prestige, and
privileges enjoyed by the top bureaucrats thus depend on the subordinate
position of women both in the private and public realm. To maintain the
status quo and inbuilt power structure, the top bureaucrats, in turn, use
258 Uthara Soman
their power in the bureaucracy to contain women in their subordinate
roles. This can take place in several ways:

• formal exclusion of women from top positions;

• discrimination against women in hiring and promotion;
• promoting conformity to the bureaucratic values of emotional aloofness
and technical rationality as a means of deterring or restraining women
who operate best in an environment providing emotional support and
opportunities for co-operative work;
• creation and maintenance of gender-linked job categories, which tie
women into lower-level positions;
• maintenance of male career patterns which require mobility, full-time
work, and no interruptions (for example, childbearing);
• maintenance of on-the-job work organisation which excludes integration
of childrearing and work, and opposition to alternatives such as inde-
pendent work at home or neighbourhood-based decentralised office
arrangements;
• supporting other elite groups with similar practices, such as when trade
union elites do not protest against corporate sexism; and
• lobbying and applying political pressure to maintain policies that keep
women in subordinate positions.

In these and other ways, the power that men have as top bureaucrats is
used to keep men collectively in a dominant position over women. Thus,
bureaucracy is mobilised by men to support patriarchy.
The continued oppression in the context of women’s role as child-
bearer and -rearer has been explained by Hartmann from a materialistic
perspective, where she defines patriarchy as ‘a set of social relations
between men which have a material basis, and which, though hierar-
chical, establish or create independence and solidarity among men that
enable them to dominate women’ (1981: 14-15). ‘The material base
comes from “men’s control over women’s labour power”; this control is
constituted by restricting women’s access to important economic
resources and by disallowing women any control over female sexuality
and especially female reproductive capacities’ (Tong 1989: 180). For
Hartmann, patriarchy is in the material realm, through control of
property, through laws and customs affecting women’s sexuality and
reproduction, and through daily activities whereby men reinforce the
inequalities. Analysing the Marxist theory of the family, Hartmann
(1981) claims that Marxism is ‘sex-blind’: it can explain why people are
in certain places, but cannot explain why these people are women. It
locates women’s oppression historically, or locates its continued
existence in the individual responsibility for reproduction, which, in turn,
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 259
structures the whole of women’s lives. It also proposes a solution to the
problem in terms of socialism which would break down both the material
conditions which create women’s oppression and the ideas which have
arisen from them – ideas with which we are so familiar, about the family
and childcare being natural, women in the home being natural.
In the context of power and domination exercised over women,
Michel Foucault’s ideas regarding female sexuality and reproduction (see
Foucault 1979) need attention as they deal with the cultural definitions of
normal and abnormal behaviour regulating people’s ideas about their
bodies, and what they should and should not do with them. For example,
having a child out of wedlock or exploring sexuality with more than one
partner could lead to being diagnosed of mental imbalance and distur-
bance. Only by living a normal healthy family life – a virgin before
marriage, faithful and productive afterwards – she could save herself
from the suspicions of mental imbalance. Not doubting on human
biology being pretty uniform, Foucault argues that sexuality is a socio-
cultural creation. It is the product of particular set of historical
circumstances.
Supporting this view, Bartky (1977) observes that feminine body
itself is a mark of inferiority. Feminine body-discipline is deeply
insidious with particular norms of diet, exercise, movement, smiles,
make-up, and skin care, rendering women as docile and complement-
companions of men. As women have internalised this discipline and its
conception of femininity, their adherence to it seems voluntary and
natural, and any refusal to practise this discipline reflects non-conformity
to the knowledge and skills that are central to women’s so-called
identity. Similarly, when a biological bond between a woman and her
child has been created, any inability to subordinate all other interests to
being a mother can be perceived as a sign of psychological disturbance.
Mothers are expected to guarantee their commitment and parenting
ability towards the safety and health of their children and finding
motherhood as difficult, exhausting, and stressful are against normality,
even inviting medical intervention. Thus, by analysing various practices
and discourses aimed specifically at women and the different aspects of
the feminine body-image, the ‘disciplinary regime of feminity’ has been
brought to light. For Foucault, the female body seems to possess no
specificity apart from the male norm. It has been argued by feminists that
this silence on the question of the production of female bodies
reproduces sexism endemic in supposedly gender-neutral social theory.
To overlook the forms of subjection that engender the female body is to
perpetuate the silence and powerlessness of those upon whom these
disciplines have been imposed (Kattakayam 2006: 457-64).
260 Uthara Soman
In Gender and Power (1987), The Men and the Boys (2001), and
Masculinities (2005), Connell sets forth one of the most complete
theoretical accounts of gender, as he integrates the concepts of patriarchy
and masculinity into an overarching theory of gender relations.
According to him, gender relations are the product of everyday
interactions and practices. The actions and behaviour of people in their
personal lives are directly linked to collective social arrangements in
society which are continuously reproduced over lifetimes and generations;
but they are also subject to change. Connell identifies three aspects of
society – labour, power, and cathexis (personal/sexual relationships) –
which interact to form a society’s gender order. Here, labour refers to the
sexual division of labour both within the home (such as domestic respon-
sibilities and childcare) and in the labour market (like occupational
segregation and unequal pay). Power operates through social relations
such as authority, violence, and ideology in institutions, the state, the
military, and domestic life. Cathexis concerns dynamics within intimate,
emotional, and personal relationships, including marriage, sexuality, and
childrearing. Through these three areas of society, gender relations are
structured on a societal level in a particular gender order. Connell uses
the term ‘gender regime’ to refer to the play of gender relations in
specific institutional settings such as family or state (Giddens 2006: 462-
63).
Thus, all through these theories, we have seen how patriarchy operates
in the private and the public domains of society: dominating, oppressing,
exploiting, marginalising and subjugating women, and making them the
vulnerable other. Situations are the worst when they bear these atrocities
being denied of adequate food, basic education, access to immediate
resources, timely medical help, or even control over their own sexuality
and reproduction. Although being part of a historically enforced traditional
ideology, it does not make sense to continue such crude discriminative
practices in a more productive age of modernisation, intellectual rigour,
and technological advancement. Women’s sufferings need to be sensitised
and the need to redefine woman’s status has to be addressed. As Connell
says above, gender relations, though reproduced continuously over life-
times and generations, are also subject to change. Hence, in an effort to
trace the scope for transformation or improvisation in the patriarchal
norms, let us interpret patriarchy in terms of a conceptually appropriate
theoretical framework which can address the need to redefine the status
of women in society.

Interpreting Patriarchy through Bourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology

Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 261
To understand how patriarchy and the associated disciplinary regime of
femininity is socialised and internalised by the society and to work out
the possibility of transformation in the norms, it is necessary to focus on
the reflexive sociological works of Pierre Bourdieu, particularly about
the relationship between habitus, field, and practice. According to
Bourdieu (1977), ‘habitus’ are the mental or cognitive structures through
which people deal with the social world. It is the series of internalised
schemes through which they perceive, understand, appreciate, and evaluate
the social world. Habitus produces as well as it is produced by the social
world. It is a structure that structures the social world as well as is
structured by the social world. In his words, it is the ‘dialectic of the
internalisation of externality and the externalisation of internality’ (ibid.:
72). Being an internalised structure, habitus constrains thought and
choice of action. It provides the principles by which people make choices
and choose the strategies that they employ in the social world. But it is
also enabling as it works as a set of loose guidelines of which actors are
not necessarily aware. Even though they are deeply rooted, they leave a
great deal of room for improvisation and are easily applied to new
settings. Habitus is acquired through repetition like habit, as a result of
long-term occupation of a position within the social world. Those
occupying similar position in social structure will have the same habitus,
and it varies depending on the nature of one’s position.
To Bourdieu, the concept of ‘field’ denotes the network of relations
that exists apart from individual consciousness and will. The occupants
of positions within the field may be either agents or institutions, and they
are constrained by the structure of the field. Social world consists of a
number of fields such as artistic, religious, economic, domestic, etc.
According to Bourdieu, field is an arena of struggle, a competitive
market place in which various kinds of capital (social, economic, cultural,
symbolic) are employed and deployed. The position of various agents in
the field is determined by the amount and relative weight of the capital
they possess. It is out of the relationship between habitus and field that
‘practices’, cultural practices in particular, are established.
According to Bourdieu’s theory of practice, individuals are guided in
their practices by habitus which is a loose set of guidelines, allowing
them to accommodate to new situations and innovative practices. Habitus
structures his or her social practices reproducing the agent’s objective
conditions of social existence. Pointing that the relation between social
structure, habitus, and social practice is not a simple, linear, casual, and
mechanistic one, Bourdieu explains that individuals who share a structural
or class position have similar repetitive experiences which produce a
common habitus. Such common habitus structures their social practices –
262 Uthara Soman
sets out guidelines and limits but allows for individual innovation.
Therefore, individuals are neither totally free agents nor passive products
of social structure; social life is neither exclusively subjective (made up
of only meanings and voluntary actions) nor exclusively objective
(driven by social structural processes).
The theoretical framework put forward by Bourdieu, focussing on
the concepts of habitus, field, and practice, can be used to explain
patriarchy and the adherence of men and women towards its norms. The
conception of habitus can be applied to patriarchy where it should be
perceived as a guideline, directing social relations. In a patriarchal
society, men internalise their relative hierarchical position and establish
solidarity in their behaviour pattern, enabling themselves to dominate
women. They also find it difficult to admit their problems or short-
comings in the effort to sustain their superior image as achievers.
Women, on the other hand, conform naturally and voluntarily to their
subordinate status as a result of their long-term exposure, occupation,
and socialisation in such a social setting. Patriarchy, as a habitus, is
socially constructed as a result of historic circumstances; as the women
are habituated to it over generations, they are unable to identify and
assess critically the domination, exploitation, and subjugation exercised
over them by men. Patriarchy constrains their thoughts, actions, and
choices, and eventually, living in compliance with patriarchal norms and
principles becomes normal for their social existence. They deny auto-
nomy, depend on protection, and struggle for the best deal possible for
themselves and their children.
Patriarchal relations manifest in different fields of life such as
domestic, artistic, religious, economic, bureaucratic, etc. Repetitive
observance of patriarchal norms in these fields further cements the bonds
of patriarchal social relations underlining the fact that it structures and is
structured by the social world. Even then, the attitude and mindset
towards patriarchy depends and varies in accordance with the family
background, education, social class position, and social setting in which
he or she is encultured. The relative position of women in the fields as
well as the degree and extent to which they are dominated by men
depends upon the various kinds of capital (economic, cultural, social,
symbolic)3 which they possess . Thus, even though patriarchy is deeply
rooted in the society, it operates only as a set of loose guideline as
habitus, leaving room for improvisation and innovation on the basis of
the capital and associated power acquired by women. Hence, it is not
only constraining, but also enabling. When Bourdieu states that social
life is neither exclusively subjective nor exclusively objective, it implies
that women are neither free agents nor passive products of patriarchal
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 263
social structure. Scope for improvisation and innovation unravels the
possibility of modifications in the patriarchal social structure. Figure 1
explains how patriarchal norms are reinforced in the society and interprets
its innovation and improvisation based on the theoretical framework put
forward by Bourdieu, focussing on the concepts of habitus, field, and
practice.

Figure 1: Patriarchy in terms of Bourdieu’s Reflexive Sociology

Conformation &
habitualisation

Socialisation & Externalization

internalisation & reinforcement

Patriarchal
norms
Habitus

Fields of life
domestic, economic, artistic,
religious, bureaucratic etc.

Capital of agents
economic, cultural,
social, & symbolic

Innovation/ improvisation
in patriarchal gender relations
and associated norms
264 Uthara Soman

Empirical Findings

At this juncture, it would be ideal to apply this theoretical perspective on

a particular group of women who have acquired the cultural, economic,
social and symbolic capital necessary for bringing about improvisations
in the patriarchal social order. Besides belonging to the newly flourishing
economic class, women working as professionals in the Information
Technology (IT) sector would be an appropriate choice as they meet the
required criteria of education, financial assets, skills, and social ties.
Kerala society has been mainly patriarchal and patrifocal even among the
castes that are explicitly matriarchal, and women are defined in terms of
their male relatives, to whom they are expected to sacrifice their
individual identities (Renjini 2000). Hence, studies conducted on women
IT professionals working in Kerala context will be analysed to
understand how patriarchy works on women empowered 4 with cultural,
economic, social and symbolic capital. They are individuals who share
similar structural or class position due to their job status in a particular
state and have similar repetitive experiences which produce a common
habitus. Such common habitus structures their social practices – sets out
guidelines and limits, but allows for individual innovation. Empirical
studies conducted on them shall be reviewed to identify the zones in their
life where patriarchy still rules and also to assess how far they have been
successful in improvising and innovating patriarchal norms.
Meredith Anderson and Wesley Shrum (2007) examine the social
implications of a specific relationship between gender inequity and
information and communication technologies (ICTs) under conditions of
patrifocality that characterise the Indian subcontinent. Research in Kerala
has allowed them to witness the development and manifestation of this
latent social change caused by the diffusion of ICTs. Their data show
heightened awareness of international professional contacts and oppor-
tunities among women in IT. What bears emphasis is that there remain
rigid restrictions on physical mobility for women as well as in
interactions between men and women. When limits on physical mobility
are strictly enforced, opportunities to create and maintain professional
ties that are facilitated by ICTs represent a circumvention of constraints:
an avoidance of restrictions, but not a violation of norms. They are not
prevented from contacting men and their purity is not impugned by
conversing with men over the internet in an unsupervised fashion. Nor
are temporal restrictions (for example, sending emails from home at
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 265
night) relevant to the conduct of interpersonal relations. The ability to
bypass spatial and temporal constraints that are conventionally enforced
by both male and female family members and internalised by women
themselves is what Anderson and Shrum mean by ‘circumvention’.
A survey conducted among the women IT professionals of
Technopark, Kerala (Arun and Arun 2001, 2002) has identified that the
IT firms were keen to recruit professionals, irrespective of gender, with
the necessary expertise or potential in engineering and computing. The
competitive and marketised nature of work in software has also facilitated
the reproduction of the existing environmental gender relations. No
immediate gender differences in relation to technology, language, or
team-work practices could be detected, though women were less likely to
perceive skill-development opportunities within their work place than
men. However, within the notions of working flexibly and working under
pressure, there were some clear differences. For women, burdened with
traditional expectations of performing particular roles in the family and
in society, meeting the job expectations was harder than it was for men.
Thus, while the initial basic pay rates may be relatively equal and while
salaries may be high for women compared to work in other sectors,
appraisal systems can still have a tendency to create divergence between
the economic benefits for men and women. Both men and women with
children and other domestic responsibilities found these market-driven
work practices stressful, particularly as teams worked in an extremely
competitive way to finish projects before deadlines. It was women who
typically took time off from work when some one was sick at home.
Many women discontinued software work on becoming pregnant or
having children unless they had additional support from other family
members. Finally, the implications of market-based job flexibility
worried women because of their concerns about long-term income
security, which is generally absent in the software sector.
Apart from the studies conducted in Kerala, a survey of IT pro-
fessionals in Chennai, conducted by Fuller and Narasimhan (2007:121-
50), also reveals that both sexes have equal technical skills, though
women are sometimes said to make better managers. On the technical
side, therefore, the make-up and leadership of project teams is unaffected
by gender considerations. Married women professionals who feel
empowered as software professionals and continue to work after
marriage and childbirth invariably regard their responsibilities to their
husbands, children, parents and other close kin as most important and
consistently give their families higher priority than their work. Further-
more, because men know that women place family first and also believe
that this is right, they do not criticise women for their sense of priorities
266 Uthara Soman
if at all they come to the office late or leave early. Moreover, the Indian
IT companies do not underpay or exploit women, and they give many
young women software engineers a felt equality with men and a sense of
empowerment – or ‘individual autonomy’. With this empowerment,
young women IT professionals appear to command greater respect and
have more bargaining power within their families – particularly over
their own marriages – than women earlier had. It may be partly because
they bring so much money home and women living with their husband’s
families can better resist exploitative demands from their mothers-in-law.
Unmarried women stressed that they will insist on a husband who allows
them to continue working. While female IT professionals prefer husbands
who are also in the industry, males tend to prefer wives who are not. A
common stereotype about IT professionals concerns their alleged sexual
misconduct. This is plainly related to suspiciousness about the moral
conduct of young, independent women working long and late hours
alongside men, which is a source of great anxiety for many of these
women’s parents. As is very common in India, parents particularly worry
that their daughters may acquire a bad reputation, so that their marriage
prospects will be seriously damaged.
Here, it becomes necessary to incorporate the studies conducted on
some other professional and highly educated women in India, so as to
draw a more generalised view on the subject under discussion. Let us
analyse the report of National Commission for Women (2002) on the
Status of Women Scientists in Science and Technology/Research and
Development Institutions in Delhi. A total of 280 women scientists
working in a variety of institutions were studied. Concentrating on the
problems faced by women scientists as a result of their dual responsi-
bilities of household and work, the study found that they are mainly
concerned about two family responsibilities that have significant bearing
upon their careers – household chores and childcare. They feel that they
loose a number of opportunities due to their inability to travel, except to
a very limited extent, for purposes of work. This, in turn, affects their
meetings with other scientists, opportunity to establish and maintain
research contacts, attend conferences or gain specialised training. The
primary source of satisfaction in their life is growth and development of
children. Of course, Indian women being socialised in patriarchal
societies are tuned to be more nurturing, more caring, and more
supporting of relationships than men; this is reflected in their
commitment to family. But the study noticed a slight but definitely
perceptible difference in the opinions of younger women (below 40 years
of age) about their roles in the family in relation to their husbands,
children, and other relatives. They are ambitious, have plans for their
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 267
careers, and expect their husbands to play an important role in bringing
up their children. Even if they do take a ‘major share’ of the responsi-
bility in looking after the children, it is because they have to and they are
certainly not happy doing so.
Women’s chances of obtaining senior and more influential
administrative positions are also affected by their gendered socialisation
and the consequent social restrictions placed upon their mobility and
behaviour. This retards their ability to communicate informally and
network with other scientists which leaves an impression among the
seniors that women scientists are less effective in accomplishing
objectives, simply because of their gender identity. Women also
complained about their inability to get things done effectively on a day-
to-day basis. If they have to stay late in order to complete some adminis-
trative tasks, they found it very awkward to go home after sundown, even
though security was not the problem. Their family did not appreciate it,
and the neighbours gossiped. They are also unable to interact freely with
higher authorities; this acts as serious barrier to their advancement as
scientists. Respondents in this study remarked that, though research grant
decisions can be influenced by informal chats and interactions between
scientists and funding agency officials, women are not expected to ‘go
down to that level’ as their actions will be misinterpreted. Those who
complained were fairly successful scientists; they have been successful
in getting grants for research and have a number of publications to their
credit. But, according to them, the effort that they have had to put in has
been substantially higher than that of men in similar situations.
The study also makes an effort to enumerate the gendered cultural
assumptions that unconsciously discriminate women and are potential
barriers to the entry and progress of women in sciences. First and most
common is the assumption that one has to work long hours to demon-
strate commitment. Women who cannot or do not spend as much time in
their work places as their male colleagues are automatically regarded as
less dedicated. Here, the study finds that women tend to give better
‘quality time’ to their work that compensates for their shorter working
hours, and that their time management in terms of output is believed to
be better than men. Secondly, a prevalent and preconceived notion is that
family commitments are incompatible with scientific competence. Single
mindedness, that is absorption in science to the exclusion of all else in
life is perceived as an essential quality for a successful scientist. But the
study identifies that it is not single-mindedness but perseverance and
dedication that helps women to be a good scientist. Thirdly, men tend to
regard assertiveness as a quality essential for leadership and believe that
strong cultural biases tend to make women less assertive, which auto-
268 Uthara Soman
matically excludes them from leadership positions. But here also the
study acknowledges that it is not assertiveness, but the thoughtfulness,
tolerance, and nurturing that equips women to fully realise the potential
of one’s team.

Interpretation of Findings in Terms of Patriarchy

From the above empirical studies, it can be inferred that married women
professionals who regard their responsibility towards family as more
important than their career, are those who have been socialised and
internalised patriarchal values. Consequently, they find it difficult to
meet job expectations and are less likely to perceive career development
opportunities due to the restrictions placed in their physical mobility and
social behaviour. Men, not criticising the attitude of their women
colleagues assigning priority to family, are silently and indirectly
reinforcing the patriarchal norms. Suspicion and worry among family
members regarding the alleged sexual misconduct due to long and late
hours of work alongside other men ideally reflects the patrifocal ideology
which imposes ban on the same emphasising female sexual purity. Less
preference for women IT professionals as wives by their male colleagues
may be due to different reasons. Being the products of patriarchal society,
they may dislike their wives working long and late hours along side other
men which may also invite unwanted criticism regarding their morality.
The ideologically appropriate female behaviour emphasising obedience
and modesty are not expected from the high-income earning women who
are equipped in terms of their skills and professional competence.
Moreover, as men working in IT also have high income, they are not in
need of the earnings of their wives, who have to compromise their
domestic responsibilities due to job demands. The overall review shows
that working women professionals invariably need the support of family
members to meet their domestic responsibilities. In most cases, the role
will be played by their parents or in-laws and, when they become old or
sick, unable to perform the household chores, irrespective of men,
women are found to quit their jobs at the midst of their careers to take
care of their aged parents or teenaged children. They regard childcare as
an acute problem which compels them to take leave from their career in
spite of the fact that re-entry into the profession is difficult because of
age-based restrictions. This also brings out the patrifocal ideology which
associates woman with the private sphere, expecting her to subordinate
her individual interest for the welfare of her family. As Bartky (1977)
says, mothers are expected to guarantee their commitment and parenting
ability towards the health and safety of their children. In all the instances
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 269
above, we have seen how patriarchal norms as habitus are internalised,
habituated, and reinforced in men as well as in women as normality.
But certainly, there are instances where we can find the ‘patriarchal
habitus’ getting innovated or improvised on the basis of the capital
acquired by women. For example, absence of immediate gender
differences with respect to technology, language, or teamwork practices
has led to the willingness of IT firms to recruit professionals irrespective
of gender. Here, women have improved their competence and have set
apart the patriarchal priorities through skill development. Despite the
restrictions placed on mobility and interaction with men, women are
availing the opportunities offered by internet to converse and maintain
their professional ties with their male colleagues, challenging the spatial
and temporal constraints placed over them by the patriarchal norms. The
definitely perceptible attitudinal change among younger women
scientists towards family responsibilities, expecting their husbands to
take the major role in the upbringing of children, clearly indicates their
deviation from patriarchal norms. Similarly, though advances and
privileges in scientific career is more accessible through informal means,
women, due to their social and cultural barriers, are forced to resort to
the less effective formal channel. Consequently, they are labelled as less
efficient. But, in spite of this, if the women scientists are successful in
getting recognition and privileges in their career by putting in
substantially higher amount of effort, it can be inferred that they are
successfully utilising the capital acquired by them in improvising and
innovating their professional situations which are the product of
patriarchy. Through proper time-management and qualities of
perseverance, dedication, thoughtfulness, tolerance, and nurturing, they
are excelling in the professional arena; fully realising the potential of
one’s team.
Thus, we can conclude that with regard to the norms related to
morality, household work, childcare and domestic responsibilities,
women are still under the clutches of patriarchal priorities. But with
regard to handling technology, language, and teamwork practices,
women have excelled themselves and equalled men. Achievements with
respect to education, professional competence, earning power, and social
ties have enabled them to challenge patriarchal norms with respect to
gender-differentiated social roles, mobility restrictions, interactions with
unrelated men, family control over marriage arrangements, and
exercising authority in household. Not violating the patriarchal norms as
such, they are avoiding the restrictions placed on them by highlighting
the necessity to meet their professional demands.
270 Uthara Soman
Conclusion
Understanding patriarchy explains why women constantly fight for their
rights and sometimes struggle just to survive free from the power and
domination of men threatening them. As being competent educationally,
financially, socially as well as in terms of their skills, women pro-
fessionals have been successful in challenging patriarchal norms to a
considerable extent. Economic role outside the society has earned them
financial independence, more bargaining power within the family, and a
sense of being empowered, enhancing their role in decision-making
which their elder generation seldom had. Even then, they regard their
responsibilities to their husbands, children, parents, and other close kin
as most important and consistently give their families higher priority than
their work. It can be inferred that, though women have entered the public
sphere and have become a part of the market forces, they are consistent
with their association with the private sphere and associated responsi-
bilities which is the patriarchal norm. To quote Foucault, ‘as soon as
there is a power relation, there is a possibility of resistance. We can
never be ensnared by power: we can always modify its grip in
determinate conditions and according to a precise strategy’ (1988: 123).
What bears emphasis is that they have availed their cultural, economic,
social, and symbolic capital to modify the grip of patriarchal power
relations according to the precise strategy of avoiding restrictions.
Women are exercising their ability to bypass the constraints that are
conventionally enforced by both male and female family members and
internalised by women themselves.
This strategic path traversed by the women professionals in placing
themselves out of patriarchy has the potential for being a prescriptive
model in adding transforming thoughts to the process of redefining the
status of women in the larger society. Amartya Sen’s words emphasising
the active role of women’s agency 5 seem strikingly apt to the context:
‘No longer the passive recipients of welfare-enhancing help, women are
increasingly seen, by men as well as women, as active agents of change;
the dynamic promoters of social transformations that can alter the lives
of both men and women’ (2000: 189). The greatest advantage that comes
out of an analytical study of patriarchy is the sensitivity it creates about
the marginalised role played by femininity. Only from this sensitivity of
their unequal state of being, a feminist worldview can be developed
enabling women and men to free their minds from patriarchal thought
and practices and at last to build a world free of dominance and
hierarchy, a world that is truly human.
Patriarchy: Theoretical Postulates and Empirical Findings 271
Notes

I am extremely grateful to my supervising teacher Prof. Jacob John Kattakayam for his
timely support, encouragement, and expert guidance. Sincere thanks to the anonymous
referee and other experts for their valuable comments and suggestions on earlier versions
of the paper. I am indebted to Dr T.S Sivapriyan for his constructive criticism and
constant prodding without which this paper would not have been written.

1. Gender power relations refer to the socially patterned interactions between men and
women in the society which are based on power.
2. Gender inequality refers to the differences in status, power, and prestige enjoyed by
women and men in various contexts.
3. Economic capital denotes wealth, material and financial assets; cultural capital
denotes credentials, skills, titles and knowledge; social capital stands for social ties
and confidence; and symbolic capital stands for honour and prestige.
4. Women’s empowerment, according to Naila Kabeer (2001), is the process by which
women redefine and extent what is possible for them to be and do in situations where
they have been restricted, compared to men, from being and doing. It is about gaining
autonomy and control over one’s life, which includes many dimensions such as
economic, social, and political.
5. ‘Women’s agency’, the concept put forward by Sen (2000), implies that women act
as agents of social change. The main parameters identified by him include the pursuit
of goals and objectives that a woman has reason to value and advance; taking the
responsibility of doing things or not doing things or doing things in the way they
want, and exercising the freedom to question and challenge established values,
traditional priorities, and the dominance of received and entrenched norms.

References

Anderson, M. and Wesley Shrum. 2007. ‘Circumvention and social change: ICTs and the
discourse of empowerment’, Women studies in communication, 30 (1): 229-53.
Arun, Shoba and Thankom Arun. 2001. ‘Gender at work within the software industry: An
Indian perspective’, Journal of women and ethnic minorities in science and
engineering, 7 (3): 217-31.
––––. 2002. ‘Gender, ICTs and development: The case of Kerala, India’, Journal of
international development, 14: 39-50.
Bartky, Sandra.1977. ‘Foucault, femininity and the modernisation of patriarchal power’,
in Diana Tietjens Meyers (ed.): Feminist social thought: A reader (92-111). New
York: Routledge.
Bourdieu, Pierre.1977. Outline of a theory of practice. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Chakravarthy, R. 1986. ‘Productivity of Indian women scientists’, Productivity, 27 (3):
259-69.
Chanana, K. 2001. ‘Hinduism and female sexuality: Social control and education of girls
in India’, Sociological bulletin, 50 (1): 37-63.
Connell, R.W. 1987. Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics.
Cambridge: Polity.
––––. 2001. The men and the boys. Berkeley and Los Angeles: Allen and Unwin.
––––. 2005. Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity.
272 Uthara Soman
Derne, S. 1994. ‘Arranging marriages: How father’s concerns limit women’s educational
achievements’, in C.C. Mukhopadhyay and S. Seymour (eds.): Women, education,
and family structure in India (83-101). San Francisco: Westview Press.
Foucault, Michel.1979. Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin.
––––. 1988. Politics, philosophy, culture: Interviews and other writings (ed. by Lawrence
D. Kritzman). New York: Routledge.
Fuller, C.J. and Haripriya Narasimhan. 2007. Information technology professionals and
the new-rich middle class in Chennai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
German, Lindsey. 1981. ‘Theories of patriarchy’, Journal of international socialism,
Second series. 12.
Giddens, Anthony. 2006. Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Gupta, N. and A.K. Sharma. 2002. ‘Women academic scientists in India’, Social studies
of science, 32 (5-6): 901-15.
Hartmann, Heidi. 1981. ‘The unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism: Towards a
more progressive union’, in Lydia Sargent (ed.): Women and revolution: A
discussion of the unhappy marriage of Marxism and feminism (1-42). Boston:
South End.
Kabeer, Naila. 2001. ‘Reflections on the measurement of women’s empowerment’, in
Discussing women’s empowerment: Theory and practice (Sidas studies), 3: 19-
39. Stockholm: Swedish International Development Corporation Agencies.
Kattakayam, J. John. 2006. ‘Power and knowledge: Some reflections on contemporary
practices’, Sociological bulletin, 55 (3): 449-67.
Martin, Brian. 1990. Uprooting war. London: Freedom Press.
Mukhopadhyay, C.C. 1994. ‘Family structure and Indian women’s participation in
science and engineering’, in C.C. Mukhopadhyay and S. Seymour (eds.): Women,
education and family structure in India (103-32). Boulder: Westview Press.
National Commission for Women. 2002. Status of women Scientists in S&T/R&D
institutions in Delhi. New Delhi: Society for Environment and Development.
Renjini. 2000. Nayar women today: Disintegration and matrilineal system and status in
Kerala. New Delhi: Classical Publishing Company.
Sen, Amartya. 2000. Development as freedom. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Subrahmanyan, L.1998. Women scientists in the third world: The Indian experience. New
Delhi: Sage Publications.
Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist thought: A comprehensive introduction. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Walby, W. 1990. Theorising patriarchy. Oxford: Blackwell.

Uthara Soman, Research Scholar, Department of Sociology, University of Kerala,

Kariavattom, Thiruvananthapuram – 695581
Email: utharasoman@gmail.com