“Culture is the sum total of the ways of doing and thinking, past and
present, of a social group. It is the sum of the traditions, or handed-down
beliefs, and of customs, or handed-down procedures”.
Page 50, from
Bogardus, 1930: 336
Summary: The
monarchy gender-less succession does away with the cultural traditions of maternal
and paternal lines. The gender-blind ideology has origins in Totalitarian
Communism; Marxist ideology considers cultural traditions, gender roles, and
historical institutions backward influences from the past.
The royal male lines of Europe contributed extensively to the
creation of constitutional monarchies and European civilization. It is misguided to treat as irrelevant the history
and Culture of the paternal royal lines of Europe, since these male lines have
a unique ability for public service.
Gender-blind succession is a big failure in terms of Civil
Rights, since it ignores all working class women and the history/Culture of
their maternal lines. An institution and a group of people that have no history
and Culture lobotomize the ability to function successfully in the future.
Introduction.
The 21st
century has no experts on theories of monarchy; and the reasons for the
monarchy existence are unclear. The European governments think of the paternal
royal lines as an archaic symbol of gender discrimination. For the British and
Commonwealth Monarchy, gender-free succession is an alternative solution to male-primogeniture.
Is this the all inclusive and rational answer to succession?
Gender-blind
primogeniture makes succession the accident of birth; this situation ignores gender
history, Culture, public service, and Civil Rights. The successor at best,
sometimes, is a token female. What are the assumptions behind a gender-less
succession?
If the
paternal lines of European royalty are of no importance to the continuation of extant
monarchies, then a gender-free succession has four assumptions: 1) The monarchy
is separate from the Culture of society, because absolute primogeniture is a
rule that only applies to the monarchy. 2) Monarchy is only a hereditary
institution. 3) It does not matter who is the successor to the crown for as long
as the principle of inheritance is met. 4) The three previous assumptions imply
that the actions of monarchs are inconsequential.
I will argue
that the paternal lines of European royalty are of great importance to the
succession and continuity of extant monarchies; the following four arguments
support my previous assertion: 1) Monarchy is part of the Culture of society
with rules that reflect cultural values and traditions. 2) The British Monarchy
and the other extant European monarchies are not hereditary, instead they are
successive; these institutions derive their success from a Culture of Service.
3) In a monarchy
it matters who is the successor, because the first criterion in succession is
not primogeniture, it is service and accountability. 4) As a cultural institution, the actions of
a monarch are of great importance in representational democracies.
What is the
difference between a hereditary monarchy and a monarchy with a Culture of
Service?
The foundation of a hereditary
monarchy is military support, without other criterion. There are no
succession restrictions that come from laws, history, ethics, Culture, and
religion. In a hereditary monarchy the right of inheritance is absolute, and
the expectation is that the monarch has an unbroken line of descend. For example,
Napoleon Bonaparte was emperor of France, because his monarchy was the result
of military support; but it did not have a historical and cultural foundation.
A monarchy with a Culture
of Service has the following components: Standards of behavior, an old
history, legal traditions, common Culture with the people, and accountability
for these ideals. Culture of Service institution is successive, because the previous ideals act as restrictions on
succession; there is exclusion of some princes/princesses. Frequently, the
ruler is not the senior person of the oldest line. An example of a monarchy
with a Culture of Service is the United Kingdom.
Hereditary monarchies have a short dynastic history.
Monarchies with a Culture of Service have male dynasties that go back hundreds
of years, as is the case with the paternal lines of Europe. The historical
success and longevity of these male lines is the result of the Culture of
Service. The only part that is hereditary
in European monarchies is the continuation of the Culture of Service in the old
royal lines.
The paternal lines of royalty have a pan-European Culture of Service.
The European royal lines had common origins. These paternal lines
either originated through election or were the charismatic pre-Christian lines of European tribes. At the end of
the Roman Empire, the Germanic and Slavic kings who invaded the Roman Empire claimed
descent from pagan deities or mythical heroes.
After the conversion to Christianity of Slavic and Germany
tribes, the European kingship developed a Pan-European Culture of Service. The paternal
royal lines of Europe were able to expand to different corners of Europe. These
expansions across European regions or countries were usually the result of dynastic
marriages between families that had/have a common Culture of Service.
With the exception of William the Conqueror, most of the royal
paternal lines did not originate through military conquest or a coup d’état.
And none of the present paternal lines of European royalty originated through a
violent military take over.
The Culture of
Service made the British Monarchy a success.
The history of the British Monarchy is turbulent, but it has
lasted a thousand years. The success of the
British Monarchy comes from a set of values, useful traditions, and a
Culture that exists in some of the
royal lines.
In the last four hundred years some British kings suffered
decapitation, deposition, abdication; there was exclusion from succession of
some royal lines. In the previous situations some monarchs acted against the
cultural values of the British people. In the long run the British people
decided that the monarchy through some royal lines is an essential part of
their governing Culture.
Why did the British monarchy survive dramatic situations? All
institutions that are long lasting have standards of excellence, principles
that benefit society, and provide political unity. Today the British Monarchy
does not need military force to support its existence. The English/Scottish/British
Monarchy is not an institution separate from the Culture and ideals of society.
In its values, traditions, and practices it mirrors the Culture of the British
people.
If heredity is the reason for the monarchy, can a monarchy be invented?
If hereditary is the reason for the existence of the
monarchy, any dictator would invent a new monarchy; the new monarchy would last
for many centuries or a thousand years. Since the French Revolution, there are
many attempts at creating monarchies by people without a royal line and popular
support. I will include five examples: 1) Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself emperor
in 1804; he made many of his relatives kings, but in 1815 Waterloo ended the
Napoleonic monarchies.
2) Mexican General Agustin de Iturbide was Emperor of Mexico
for less than a year (1822-23). 3) In the early 20th century the
Chinese General Yuan Shikai became Emperor of China for 83 days. 4) In 1925
Reza (Khan) Pahlavi deposed the traditional royal family of Iran and became king
of kings. This monarchy lasted 54 years until 1979, because it had firm
military support. 5) Jean Bedel Bokassa had himself proclaimed Emperor of the
Central African Republic/Empire (1976-79). The historical lesson is that
heredity by itself does not create a monarchy.
Can Native American Cultures
exist without the traditional paternal and maternal lines?
In any society the standards of Culture are learned from father
and mother; continuity of Culture goes back for many generations thanks to traditional
maternal and paternal lines. For example, the indigenous peoples from the
Americas have Native American Culture, because most paternal and maternal lines
exist in their nations for thousands of years before Christopher Columbus. The
argument that ethnic groups do not need maternal and paternal lines to maintain
its values, traditions, concepts, and procedures, is a poor comprehension of
cultural transmission.
What are the consequences of gender-free succession?
A gender-free succession ends the traditional lines of
European royalty, since succession does not require matrilineal or patrilineal
descend. In a few generations the royal families of Europe would only have a
distant genealogical connection with the historical male lines. The paternal genealogy
would not come from the traditional royal lines of Europe: Bourbon, Oldenburg,
Saxony, and Bernadotte. The Culture of Service that exists today in the
paternal and maternal royal lines would disappear from future royal families. This new development in succession questions
the existence of monarchy, since hereditary by itself is not a justifiable
system.
There is nothing wrong with the values and traditions of the
commoners that marry royalty (21st century). But the new members of
the royal families do not have traditions of service. Thanks to gender-blind
primogeniture the new paternal lines of future monarchs would not have examples
of old traditions of service.
A gender-less
succession lacks common ground with democratic societies.
A gender-free succession lacks common ground with democratic
societies, because this is an accidental succession. In representational
societies, leaders do not obtain their public roles through an accidental
demographic assignment, according to the last census. Leaders in government
receive their public roles through election. Democratic societies function
through proven democratic concepts like election, freedom of religion, and freedom
of expression. A gender-less succession is not a proven democratic concept.
Culture-less and gender-less is an ideology from Totalitarian
Communism.
Communism perceives Culture, including gender roles, as backward
influences from the past. In the former
Soviet Union workers were free of traditional gender roles. Women could be
truck drivers or construction workers; but this freedom of employment had
limitations. The workers did not have rights as citizens of an open society;
they were at the mercy of the dictates of the Communist party.
Communist theory “predicts” that a “New Man and New Woman” would
be born under the totalitarian ideology. This “New Man” would be unselfish,
without cultural/ethnic traditions, and no gender prejudices. And a new “utopian
society” would evolve under the Marxist system.
After more than 50 years of Communism in the former Soviet
Union, Cuba, North Korea, and China, the totalitarian ideology did not produce
societies without religion, devoid of cultural identities, and free of gender
roles. The “utopian” society never appeared.
The gender-less and culture-less ideology of Communism
influenced the thinking of the West; some intellectuals from Western countries
applied the culture-less/gender-less ideas of Communism to their societies. For
example, in Australia some intellectuals considered the Culture of the
Aborigines an “inferior influence” from the past; the solution to this
assumption was Cultural Genocide, where
the Cultural examples of aboriginal parents were not good enough for the
indigenous children. In the name of “progress and equality” the government of
Australia took away the children of the aboriginal Australians.
The concept of gender-free succession is like the abuse of
Australian aborigines. In the European situation the cultural examples of
paternal lines are “primitive and worthless influences from the past.” The
treatment of the European royal lines is Cultural Genocide.
http://www-personal.umd.umich.edu/~delittle/Entry%20communism%20and%20marxism%20on%20gender%20v2.htm
Are cultures free of
gender identity, without gender history, and without paternal and maternal
identities?
Cultures or Ethnic groups are NOT gender-blind; this is an
absurd idea. Human beings come with a gender and cultural identities, including
21st century European societies.
Gender is part of our biological nature. In the study of Anthropology,
most societies are either patrilineal or matrilineal; and there are a few
cultures that have a dual matrilineal and patrilineal cultural system.
Gender history and gender in Culture is one of the most
important topics of feminism. Any type of gender-specific history and cultural
awareness is a way to empower women; this is similar to African-American
learning about their history, traditions, and cultural values. Gender-specific
history and traditions empowers both men and women.
Are cultural traditions subject to political ideology?
Surnames are of exclusive paternal line derivation; in terms
of gender-free ideology this represents unequal treatment of women. If
parliament applies the gender-blind ideology to the patrilineal surname tradition,
then surnames would not exist in society. Would the British and Commonwealth
nations accept this idea?
I will provide another comparable example, if the United
Kingdom and Commonwealth parliaments enact laws that abolish male circumcision,
because it is a cultural practice and a tradition from the past. The Islamic
communities of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth countries would feel
discriminated, because male circumcision is a cultural and religious practice
in Islamic societies.
Gender-free succession has no critical thinking.
A gender-free anything has no connection with Civil Rights.
For example, when there is discrimination for race, ancestry, or gender, Civil
Rights legislatures include “race”, ancestry, ethnicity, gender and other
categories. Civil Rights laws are of universal application. These laws apply to
all circumstances, and the unequal situation requires an investigation. Gender-free
succession does not meet the previous criteria.
The new law of succession has no criterion of service. Instead,
gender-blind primogeniture is a seniority system. The British parliament does
not use a seniority system for leadership positions, and in employment
seniority systems are unequal.
Gender-less succession gives the first-born absolute right
of inheritance. History shows that succession is NOT the absolute hereditary right of primogeniture. In the traditional
British Monarchy succession is subject to standards
of behavior and accountability for these ideals. Example, George VI was not
the first-born, but became king, since the marriage of his oldest brother did
not meet the religious standards of the Church of England.
Succession: Standards and Accountability.
What is the evidence that succession is subject to standards
and accountability or a Culture of Service? The following laws hold members of
the royal family accountable for standards of behavior: Bill of Rights (1689),
Act of Settlement (1701), and Royal Marriage Act of 1772.
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is not the representative of
an irrational hereditary tradition. The Queen is the present successor of an
institution with ethical, legal, and religious standards, where accountability
for these standards is more important than an absolute right of hereditary.
This is the reason the Queen is the legitimate monarch, although her Majesty is
not the senior person of the oldest line.
In British Culture it matters who is the successor to the
crown, because monarchs must live their
lives according to standards of behavior. This action is an example for
society; and it symbolically empowers the monarchy, socially legitimatizes the
political system, and permits peaceful changes.
Conclusion
The idea that gender discrimination is limited to the
monarchy is not true; unequal treatment of women still exists in British and
Commonwealth societies. A gender-free succession is a law that only applies to
the monarchy. In contrast to the new law
of succession, British and Commonwealth societies are still patrilineal.
It is an erroneous assumption to think that what applies to
the monarchy has nothing to do with British/Commonwealth Parliaments or the Culture
of the common people.
In the 21st century the monarchy is still a great
success story in a world full of violence and dictatorships, since the monarchy
is a participant and a symbol of the Culture of the British and Commonwealth
governing bodies. The British system of government developed under the reign of
the paternal royal lines. The governing Culture is of monarchical origin. For example,
concepts of respect for rules and accountability developed with the monarchy.
A gender-free succession is similar to a phrase from
advertisement, where someone says that a certain brand is the best, without
evidence; or in the case of the gender-less succession no connection to gender
history, Culture, and universal Civil Rights. And it is hatred of Culture and gender to assume that the royal
paternal lines did not contribute to the creation of constitutional monarchies.
Bibliography
Alfred Kroeber and Clyde Kuckhohn with the Assistance of
Wayne Untereiner and Appendices by Alfred G. Meyer, Culture:
A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Published by The Museum, 1952.
If you would like to contact me or support my research:
John Freeman, Phoenix, Arizona, 85003, USA.
Email: johnralphfreeman@yahoo.com
http://definitionsofaestheticsandculture.blogspot.com/2012/04/believing-with-max-weber-that-man-is.html
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.