Kyriarchy is a term that denotes multiple social systems which remain interconnected or intersectional to one another. The word is no longer used in discussions on understanding submission, exploitation and oppression. Since it is not discussed, it does not mean it is not applicable.
Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza is a Roman Catholic Feminist Theologian who coined the term in her influential work, But She Said, in 1992. The term comprises two Greek words: Kyrios (Lord, Master) and Archein ( To rule, Dominate).
Kyriarchy appears to be difficult, but it is simple and clear. Fiorenza coined it to acknowledge the term as a broader social system that reflects hierarchy, oppression and injustice. To make the term precise, it is imperative to recognise intersectional feminism. To be apparent, kyriarchy is not equivalent but is closer to intersectionality than patriarchy. It encompasses different forms, whereas patriarchy refers to one form of systematic oppression. The most basic difference between patriarchy and kyriarchy is the difference in perpetuating oppression. The former feeds gendered oppression, while the latter intersectional oppression.
In fact, like Kimberle Crenshaw, Fiorenza criticises Western feminism on the grounds of building arguments without focusing on class, ethnicity, religion, etc., which are intersectional in breeding oppression against people. Western feminism covers patriarchy as an analytical tool, but not intersectionality. Kyriarchy can be deemed an ‘upgraded form of patriarchy.‘
In short, kyriarchy refers to the interlocking of institutionalised dominations, such as racism, classism, sexism and other forms that breed submission and oppression, making people privileged and unprivileged, for instance, Muslim men face Islamophobic remarks because of their religion on the one hand, while on the other hand, they are privileged to dominate their women.
As a result of the advent of Black Feminism and Postmodern Feminism, these two concepts of intersectionality and kyriarchy came into existence. The latter is viewed as a pyramidal structure that comprises intersecting social systems of ‘superordination and subordination.’ Kyriarchy refers to the human tendency to dominate people. If there is a white woman who dominates a black woman, then it is kyriarchy. If there is a black man who dominates a black woman, it means the same.
Comparison between patriarchy, kyriarchy and intersectionality
Before delving into the difference between intersectional feminism and kyriarchy, it is imperative to deal with the introduction of these two concepts against mainstream or Western feminism, whose foundation is built upon the realisation of gender as the only basis that makes men universal oppressors and women oppressed. It does not take other factors into account, such as class, caste, ethnicity, region and religion. Mainstream feminism changes the meaning of feminism and remains confined to gender. It does not elaborate that upper-caste women’s experiences can be different from those of lower-caste women; upper-caste Muslim women’s experiences can be different from those of lower-caste Muslim women. Western feminism has nothing to do with intersectionality and kyriarchy.
Within the parameters of feminism, intersectional feminism and kyriarchy emerge as important parts, but they are still ignored in discussions and discourses. Unlike patriarchy, intersectionality and kyriarchy do not remain confined to gender. Kyriarchy encompasses dominating hierarchies, such as sexism, racism, ableism, ageism, antisemitism, homophobia, xenophobia, colonialism, etc. It is even called ‘an extension of patriarchy.’
When it comes to comparing intersectional feminism with kyriarchy, there is a slight difference in meaning. Although the major difference does not seem to exist, it is important to maintain this slight distinction. The former recognises the social systems where people are privileged and oppressed based on class, caste, race, language, culture, etc. People, at the same time, can be oppressed and privileged based on their multiple identities. The latter refers to the more complex social system that creates and perpetuates social hierarchies. Intersectional feminism indeed provides us with an understanding of how multiple forms of oppression intersect, whereas kyriarchy deals with a more comprehensive analysis of the interconnected systems of superordination and subordination.
It is worthwhile to note the most important thing: Crenshaw introduced the term ‘intersectionality,’ which states that realising oppression in line with one single factor (gender or race) overlooks the oppression of the most marginalised. In short, when we mention Islamophobia, Muslim men are the focus, while Muslim women are ignored. Fiorenza followed in Crenshaw’s footsteps and came up with the concept of kyriarchy.
Understanding the application of kyriarchy in practical terms
Kyriarchy is a term that can be taken into account to explain the marginalisation of upper-caste Muslim women despite enjoying certain privileges. So, upper-caste women are privileged in caste and oppressed in gender. In addition, further marginalisation is even shifted to lower-caste Muslim people, who are considered inferior. Hence, this focuses on power relations in a stratified manner. It is mistaken to view Indian Muslims as a homogenous community; it is just a way to overlook the prevalence of the caste system among them. There is no doubt that they are deemed marginalised and Islamophobic remarks are incited against them, but it is important to bear in mind that there is marginalisation among Indian Muslims based on gender, class and caste.
In fact, in the case of NRC-CAA, upper-caste Muslims with resources (social and economic), including women, can provide documents that are expected to be shown during the verification process of their citizenship. Lowered-caste Muslims, including women, are vulnerable to its brunt.
In Muslim educational institutions, upper-caste Sunni Muslims dominate campuses, while lower-caste Muslims struggle to maintain their space. Here, based on sect and caste, people are privileged and oppressed. If we look at the past, there was a prolonged struggle to make educational institutions available to Muslim women. The point is to be noted that the struggle to provide a formal education was aimed at a specific section of women, which comprised upper-caste Muslim women. In this case, upper-caste Muslim women remained privileged. Although upper-caste conservative Muslim men were dissatisfied with women receiving modern education, lower-caste Muslim women remained ignored. Ironically, lower-caste Muslim women remain invisible in discussions, debates, and routine talks. The main reason for this is considering Indian Muslims as a homogenous community, but its homogeneity does not remain the same when it comes to power, privileges and the ownership of resources.
So, Kyriarchy even be used to comprehend the oppression of Muslim women in India. It is applicable to comprehend different institutionalised forms of oppression. Through its understanding, it becomes clear to us that feminism does not only mean to challenge patriarchy but also other forms of injustice.
About the author(s)
As a student of history at the University of Delhi, Nashra Rehman is always elated to share
her understanding of Gender History and an interlink between past and present. She is highly
passionate to inculcate in awakening minds pertaining to “How and Why women are
marginalised” through her publications.
