Gender Roles in Ancient Societies

When most people think of the ancient societies when it comes to gender roles they think back to women giving birth to children, raising those children, preparing all the meals, tending to the housework and being all around subordinate the male of the household. This however isn’t true for every society in the ancient world. In fact there are plenty of societies that were matriarchal and where woman dominated the household. Likewise there were societies where men and women shared responsibilities equally.
Let’s start with the “Viking Age.” The men of this age were always painted in the light of being extremely masculine, full of brute force and strength. There have been countless tales of Vikings descending on a town, overtaking it and making it a colony of their own. There is also much evidence that they took the women from those towns and made them their own brides (Jesch 1991).
Now women couldn’t actually be Vikings since the Norse word vikingar applies strictly to men. The women did play a very large role in the Scandinavian towns (in Norway, Finland and Sweden) as well, if not more in the Scandinavian colonies (Faroe, Iceland, Greenland). While the Viking men were away or dead (since women were windowed quite often do to the warring nature of the Viking men) the woman ran the towns. They took care of the farming and trading within the village or town. There is even evidence of women entering into the world of commerce. Excavation of multiple Scandinavian graves of woman yielded merchant’s scales and weights. A parallel can then be drawn between these roles of women in this age to women in America who took care of the work while the men were at war (Jesch 1991).
It is interesting to point out that many societies didn’t publicize their gender roles very well (thus leading to very little about it in historical literature) most of the information gathered is at burial sites. This is evident in the Viking Age as I mentioned above as well as many other parts of the world. Perhaps the best example of this is the Mayan culture.
There were actually a handful of Mayan societies that were matrilineal the foremost being Tonina. Tonina was a city which became matrilineal after the death of the powerful leader Lady K’awil. She is proof that women were involved in politics in ancient Mesoamerica when she assumed the mantle of power after the failure of two male leaders. Lady K'awil's reign is documented by murals which depict her seated on a throne with captives at her feet. More evidence of her power was buried along with her in her tomb (Bell 2002).
What is also interesting about the Mayans was that their supreme deity was the Moon Goddess which is very different from a lot of other societies at the time whose supreme deities were usually male. The Moon Goddess is depicted in murals and other forms of art. However, these were not the only forms of art for the ancient Maya. Textiles were an important aspect of ancient Mayan life that was produced by women. Woman also played a big role in the religious aspect of the culture. While boys were being trained to hunt, the girls were taught how to prepare the religious shrines (Bell 2002).
Also it is interesting that the concept of gender in ancient Maya art is ambiguous; it is difficult to identify the gender of some figures simply because one couldn’t survive without the other. Specifically images of heir recognition, “this duality is explicit: there is a male figure on one side of the newly-anointed, and a female figure on the other side” (Bell 2002).
Even though there is a sense of duality and equality in the society there is also a lot of evidence that women were considered the superior. This is due to childbirth which as for mentioned in my last post is something that only woman are biologically capable of. This then makes the argument the gender roles in some societies are based on the physical aspect of the “sex” of the person.
The mythology and power associated with the ability to create life was one which men tried to emulate. Men would participate in the act of bloodletting their own genitals to create something new from their blood. Instead of giving birth to life they would give birth to new eras through this symbolic gesture of menstruation. This was a ritualized act using the skin were stingray spines, obsidian blades, or other sharp object to pierce the skin. The blood was allowed to drip on cloth, which was then burned (Gustafson 2002).
We can then draw the conclusion that not every society was male dominated in the ancient world though it is safe to say the majority of them were. When looking back at Ancient Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Asian countries, etc. the women were for the most part subordinate towards the males thus drawing up the gender roles that many societies used in the past and still used today.


References:
Women in the Viking Age by Judith Jesch (Woodbridge, Boydell, 1991).

Bell, E. E. “Engendering a Dynasty: A Royal Woman in the Margarita Tomb, Copan.” In Ancient Maya Women. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press, 2002

Gustafson, L. S. “Mother/Father Kings.” In Ancient Maya Gender Identity and Relations. Westport: Bergin & Garvey, 2002

Image Courtesy of earthrites.org

What is Gender?

This is a question that has been on the minds of us anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, psychologists and the like since the word came about. How is it different from sex and is it the defining factor that makes a person who they are? How then go they relate to the concepts of male and female, masculine and feminine?

Let’s first start out by separating “gender” and “sex.” Sex is the physical and biological characteristics that separate both men and women. So for example: women menstruate but men don’t, women have ovaries but men have testicles, women can lactate but men can’t and men have robust (massive, thick) bone but women have more gracile (smaller, thinner) bones. Thus the terms “female” and “male” are categories of sex (World Health Organization).

Gender then is much different. Instead of being defined by the physical attributes, gender is the “socially constructed roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given considers appropriate for men and women” (World Health Organization). So for example: in most of the world women do more housework than men, men are more likely to hold positions of power in most countries than women, in the U.S. men make more money than women, in Viet Nam men are more likely to smoke than women and in many parts of the Near East men are allowed to drive cars but women are not. Thus “feminine” and “masculine” are categories of gender.

Already can you see some problems with figuring out just what gender is? From there though we look at the first part of what the definition of gender is: “Socially constructed roles.” So which society and which roles? Already I can poke tons of holes into the concept of gender. Does this mean that gender then is different from one society to another depending on their roles? Then we come to the next stop in this study, what are “gender roles?” Are they somethings that are mandated by societies, by individuals or is there commonality between them?

Yes I realize that there were a lot of questions there but let’s face it this whole discussion is bound to bring up tons of questions. I am here not to answer the questions but to theorize some possible answers based on studies done of different cultures. So gender roles are what? Well anthropologists have come up with this general definition which isn’t any better than the definition of gender: “A gender role is a theoretical construct in the social sciences and humanities that refers to a set of social and behavioral norms that, within a specific culture, are widely considered to be the norm” (Webster’s Dictionary).

So then once again the question becomes: what is the norm? As I stated about in the examples of gender, different cultures and societies have different norms. Some societies consider sex and gender to be the same; others consider it very different and even others don’t even recognize the concept of gender at all. It then becomes increasingly frustrating to me to think that our “roles” in societies are defined by our physical appearance. On the flipside is it not due to the physical but based solely on the cultural and social factors?

This then leads to the next part of gender: gender identity. The question then becomes what is gender identity and can one identify with a gender identity that doesn’t match up with their “sex?” Gender identity is then defined as the gender (or multiple or even lack thereof) a person self-identifies as. It is not necessarily based on a person’s sex, either real or perceived, and it is distinct from sexual orientation (which is a whole separate issue). It is then one’s internal, personal sense of being a man or a woman. So we can see that this is much different than the gender roles. The gender roles are dictated by the society while the gender identity is dictated by the person internally.

Like I mentioned above there are two “main” genders but there are many other cultures that have other genders present. For example “androgyny” (the mix of masculine and feminine traits) is considered to be a third gender and some societies have five or more genders. This then leads to the last part of gender which is “gender expression.” This then takes a mixture of sex, gender roles and gender identity and showcases the individual through external ways (haircut, behavior, clothing, body movements, etc).

So here’s the part where I tell you you’re all entitled to your own opinion about these concepts but from an anthropological perspective and from MY perspective “sex” and “gender” are two completely unrelated ideas. If I had my way the word “gender” wouldn’t exist just like I think the term “race” shouldn’t exist (which is a whole separate issue). These next couple of blog posts I will focus on different cultures around the world going back from the dawn of man to the present day. There I will show that there are many different ideas of what really “gender” is and what “gender roles” are.

Image Courtesy of http://www.amerika.org/wp-content/uploads/50smom.jpg

My Journey through the World of Anthropology

Usually I reserve my blog for educating the masses on anthropological topics that are interesting to me, topical, important or pulled from my studies in college. Today I’m going to take the opportunity to talk a little bit about myself and where my anthropology degree has lead me to at the present moment and will lead me (hopefully) in the future.

It is first important to note that I actually did not start out as anthropology major in college (shocking I know!) but rather a forensic science major. Of course I was focused mainly on forensic anthropology, specifically the human skeleton and decomposition but heavy on the science side. Things changed drastically when I took my first cultural anthropology class. I fell completely in love with anthropology (archeology, cultural and biological aspects) and more specifically with other cultures and other culture’s objects.

I started to drift farther away from the biological side (though of course still took classes on it) and studied heavily on the archaeological side especially when it came the archaeology of cultural beliefs. Along the way I took Human Evolution classes, forensic archaeology classes, GIS classes, Primitive Warfare classes, Landscape archaeology classes, mythology classes, Russian, Mesopotamian, and Native American history classes and so on. In the process realized that I didn’t have to limit myself to one specific area of anthropology in my undergrad and strove to learn all I could about every aspect of anthropology. It’s true my focus was mainly on archaeology, specifically that of the Near East and North American Indians, but I expanded it to many other aspect.

Then came the defining moment in my anthropological studies: working at the anthropology museum. Not only did I get to handle all the amazing hominid casts, human bones, animal bones and artifacts galore but I even designed a specific exhibit as well as a whole museum section. Of course what was the subject I was given to design? Why biological anthropology of course (specifically Human Evolution for the exhibit I created)! It seemed that my undergrad came full circle and I realized a career I could take all my knowledge of anthropology and apply it to: Museum Curator/Exhibit Designer.

That was my plan for quite awhile and I had very lofty aspirations. I wanted to work for the Smithsonian, something that as a child I had always dreamed of doing, but never knew the right route to take to make it there. I spent my last semester and time after I graduated applying to every possible position in the Smithsonian that I was qualified for as well as many other Federal government museums (mostly park service). I made it to the second round for a few and even got an interview at the Smithsonian itself! I made contact after contact, but they all had the pretty much the same news to tell me. It was either “I was qualified, but someone they hired was more qualified (i.e. had a Masters degree)” or “We’re under cutbacks due to the economic downturn.” Frustration is putting it very mildly on how I felt.

Then something quite wonderful happened. I went in for an interview at Laurel History Museum and they loved me and wanted me to work in their collections department right away! The catch: it was volunteer work. But hey, it was work and it was a museum so I jumped at the chance. I quickly progressed and joined both the collections and the exhibit committees which was great but just one little snag: I wasn’t making ANY money. Still keeping the dream of the Smithsonian and other big museums alive I continued to apply but got the same results. In the meantime I wanted to keep my knowledge of anthropology fresh, while being able to combine my two passions of writing and anthropology together. Thus Bones, Buried Treasures and Beliefs was born. Once again though, it was something that I loved, but something that I made zilch off of.

Finally, I began to face the reality that I wasn’t going to get something in my field that paid right out of college. I began looked for office jobs, or what a lot of people in my field consider “selling out.” Then a new host of problems I ran into became possibly even more frustrating: I was almost too qualified for most of these jobs. Once again I guess the gods were watching out for me because something amazing happened: I found a job. This wasn’t just a normal office job either; this was a job working for a government contracting firm that has contracts with half of the federal government agencies I dreamed about working with when I was starting out in the anthropology major. Even more exciting though was when I found out that they were getting into the field of GIS. This was how I knew I was in the right place.

The GIS class I took in my undergrad was perhaps my favorite class. The ability to take maps and convert them into these databases and 3D image models was amazing to me. It combined my love for technology and my love for archaeology. Not only that but it lead me to create my proposal for the geospatial relationship of Hoodoo artifacts at Mid-Atlantic sites (which I will hopefully get to present at next year’s Mid-Atlantic Archeology Convention). I fell in love, but it fell by the wayside with my new love for museum studies. Since being at this firm though, my love for it has reawakened and even inspired me to apply to the GIS Masters Program at the University of Maryland.

So the point is no matter what area of anthropology you’re interested in you’ll get to where you need to be. You could be like me and want to study everything you can possible get your hands on. Now many people wonder why I spent so much time studying anthropology and continuing to study anthrolopology when I have an “office job” and am getting more into the technical aspect of things. I answer them with five words: I love anthropology, always will. I would never want to settle studying something that I wasn’t interested in, in order to get that “perfect, high pay” job right out of college that everyone strives for. All my action and decisions were obviously done for a reason.

Right now I have the best of all three of my worlds. I work at a steady job, getting to work with government contracts, while working to pay for my Master’s degree, I volunteer at a museum that I’m in love with and I get to continue to write my heart out (and hopefully very soon will get my first novel published). This is where I’m supposed to be right now, I know that now. If you had told me four years ago when I started college what I’d be doing now, I probably wouldn’t have believed you but now I wouldn’t change it for the world.

Image Courtesy of teachersnetwork.com

Marriage in the World of Firefly

So I couldn’t help myself; my post yesterday on marriage got me thinking about Firefly. Lately I feel like everything I talk about makes me think about Firefly but I digress. For those of you who have never seen on episode, or the movie Serenity well first shame on you and second this whole post will probably go over your head. So what does marriage mean in the world of Firefly where we have tons of different planets with different cultures, companions that you can pay money to show around and “play house” with and with the alliance that is breathing down the neck of most of the planets?
Weirdly enough things actually have stayed the same when it comes to all these different ideas of marriage in this futuristic universe. With the frontier land on many of the outer planets we have societies starting back up and having similar customs to societies of old such as marrying someone to pay off a debt of the family or town. An example of this is the marriage (although a sham by a devil woman played by the immensely gorgeous Christina Hendricks) of Mal and Saffron. Well really this can be shown as three different examples but we’ll start with the first one. She was supposedly given to Mal as a “gift” from the town elder. According to her story, Saffron had been waiting at the maiden house where she was to be married off to whoever came along. She talks about these awful men that her fellow maidens had been married off to and how she was lucky to get such a kind, gentle man. She also asks at one point if Mal is going to kill her because she has not pleased him, citing that others at the maiden house have been put to death for that very reason.
Of course this was all a fake, which leads me to my next example of marriage in Firefly: the sham marriage. Unfortunately Saffron not only married Mal to sell him out to people who wanted to strip Serenity but married tons of other men as well. She even marries Mal’s war buddy Monty under the guise of Bridget. Once Monty figures out who she is calls her a “devil woman” and leaves her on a desolate moon. We then learn that she also married a wealthy man named Durran who she married under the guise of Yolanda. At one point Mal even refers to her as “Yosafbridge” to accommodate all her guises. We can then liken her to all the money/power hungry women that get married purely for those reasons or even the black widow.
Then there is yet another form of marriage we can liken Mal and Saffron’s too: the drunken Vegas wedding. Mal was pretty drunk the night he “married” her and didn’t even realize that he was marrying her. That though was an example of the Triumph Settler’s wedding ritual. Mal was crowned with a wreath which represents his sovereignty, then drinks of her wine and then there was a dance with a joining of hands. All of this though never crossed Mal’s mind that this was a marriage ceremony that he went through. This then could be the equivalent to “The Hangover” type wedding.
Okay enough about that marriage (all though it is the most fascinating and complex, yet fake one) let’s move on to the other marriage: Zoë and Wash. Now if there was ever an odd marriage, it would be them but that’s the beauty of it and it works. You have Zoë who’s this beautiful, military-esque, Amazon woman and then you have Wash who is a comical, somewhat wimpy mechanic. Their marriage is lovable even though even W ash says “Not everyone gets me and Zoë at first” (Firefly 2002).
We see Zoë’s feelings about marriage come out when she is confronted by Saffron about cooking her husband dinner. Zoë looks at Saffron like she is crazy and later talks to Wash about how Saffron is subservient to Mal in every way and how a woman shouldn’t be like that. Zoë also fires back when Wash “defends her” going on about how it’s always like the man to jump in and defend a woman of Saffron’s likeness. On the flipside when Saffron is trying to seduce Wash she mentions that she felt that Zoë didn’t respect Wash to which Wash fires back his famous line “Not everyone gets me and Zoë at first.” This line like I mentioned earlier I feel sums up Zoë and Wash’s entire marriage.
We also see what both Mal and Jayne feel about marriage in wake of the appearance of Saffron. When first realizing that he’s married to her, while standing in the cargo bay, Mal starts freaking out about it thus “hurting Saffron’s” feelings in the process. Jayne then speaks up, saying that if Mal didn’t want her he would gladly take her. Later in the episode Jayne even tries to trade his favorite gun for Saffron citing “Come on Mal, I’d treat her okay…” which I think pretty much sums up Jayne’s take on what he thinks a marriage is. Mal gets annoyed with him firing back that she isn’t a piece of property to be bartered, that she is a human being thus showing part of his view on the subject.
So what have we learned from this study? Well mainly that all the types of marriages, and thoughts of marriages that we have now will probably still be around in hundreds of years to come. Things might change a little bit or even become somewhat retroactive as well. I leave you then with the words of Malcolm Reynolds: “Well, yeah, last night I was [pleased]. Had some mulled wine, pretty girl gave me a hat made out of a tree. Nobody said I was signing up to have and to hold” (Firefly 2002).

Rites of Passage: Marriage

In my last post I talked all about adulthood and what the really means in a society. Between my thoughts and the comments of some other we pretty much concluded that adulthood is unique to each individual culture and society. Also it was pointed out that the “rites of passage” that I mentioned (sweet 16, getting a car, getting a job, etc) are not really “rites of passage” like the elaborate ceremonies in other cultures. The same can all be said about another rite of passage: Marriage.

Many of you know how I feel about marriage and if not think about how my journey into “finding myself” and becoming an adult has no mention of a spouse. It’s true I’m a very cynical person, but I’m talking about the concept of marriage as a whole, not love. Let’s take a step back and look at marriage in the United States first. First off we have crazy one night celebrity weddings, drunken Vegas weddings, weddings that are showcase for the parents of the bride, weddings that are broadcast nationwide and then you have the simple madly in love sharing their love with their family and friends weddings. Talk about a mismatch of ideas and practices yet the government still wants to restrict marriage (though don’t get me started on that issue…).

Now many of you might yell at me for this next part, but bear in mind that I’m looking at it from an anthropological perspective. Marrying out of love is something that has only become popular in the past couple of centuries. Marriage was, to many in ancient times, the same thing as their journey into adulthood. Girls would be married off at a young age for many different reasons and they were hardly ever love. There are many examples even in the Judeo-Christian Bible of girls being married off to satisfy their family debts. This still goes on in some societies around the world. So once again I point out that “love” and “Marriage” being intertwined is a newer concept.

So before one enters into a marriage they go through the rite of passage of the actual wedding. I happen to be one of those people who thinks the thought of parading yourself and spouse in front of hundreds of people to say “I love you” and want to spend the “rest of my life” with you (Yes they are in quotes for a reason, I’m not just quote happy) is an unnecessary measure. What I do like though is the rituals that many other cultures have that are associated with the wedding (imagine that a pagan like me who loves rituals…).

My favorite of all the wedding rituals happens to be the Russian wedding. First of all it is important to note that like in many European countries this is a multiple day event, sometimes even lasting a week. The first step in the wedding is the vykup nevesty which means “Paying of the Ransom,” and yes it is what it sounds like. The groom shows up with money or jewels to “pay” for his bride. This is all done in a very comical way even sometimes the bride hiding and him having to find her, or even a friend dressing up as the bride to fool the groom.

The next part is the actual wedding ceremony which consists of three parts: the optional traditional service, the betrothal and then the main service in either a church setting or the civil setting. During the civil ceremony, the parents give the couple two crystal glasses, which they break. The more pieces it breaks into, the more years of happiness they have. It is also customary for the married couple to release either balloons or two white doves to symbolize their love and partnership which is written in the sky for all to see. The bride also releases another balloon with her maiden name written on it, symbolizing her new life journey with her husband. After all of this the couple and their guests embark on a tour of the city where they have the opportunity to take pictures at historical landmarks.

Then comes the best part (well at least I think so): the reception. At the reception instead of toasting with champagne or wine like we do here in America, they toast with shots of vodka. The first toast is made to the newlyweds and after the first shot, the guests begin to shout Gorko, Gorko, Gorko, Gorko means “bitter.” To combat the bitterness, the couple must kiss for a long time. The second toast is made to the parents. Then the new couple dances the first dance of the night. As the night continues the guests dance, sing, play games, and make toasts (thus getting incredibly drunk). This celebration lasts several days, as the family continues to eat, drink, and celebrate. This part of marriage I could definitely get into.

The Russian example is just one in many elaborate rituals an ceremonies surrounding marriage. Once again though at its core marriage isn’t about love, religion or any of the other things it has been turned into. It is about two people entering into a partnership that they will both benefit from. Some marry out of necessity, some out of tradition and some out of love. Now we Americans marry out of love along with stupidity, drunkenness and greed.

Now let’s go back to the definition of what marriage is, which has to be broken down by cultures. There is no one umbrella definition for marriage which is why it irritated me when people use the argument “Same sex marriage is going to change the definition of marriage.” David Schwimmer, an anthropology Professor from the University of Manitoba says in the best. He talks about how in general, Western cultures consider marriage as “an exclusive and permanent bond between a man and a woman that is centrally concerned with assigning sexual rights in each of the partners and establishing parental responsibility for the children of the union” (Schwimmer 2003).

Traditionally, it also organizes parents and children into domestic groups in which basic roles are distributed. Variations and changes, such as same-sexed marriages, are seen as an affront to a divinely ordained order. However, other cultures have developed very different conjugal arrangements, which suggest “that other solutions to basic human problems have worked in different social contexts and that changes in Western patterns might not necessary lead to social and moral decay” (Schwimmer 2003).

So that fuels the fire that there is no one definition of marriage. Elaborate ceremonies and rituals aside marriage is something that is so much different at its core in so many different societies. There are some anthropologists that devote their whole life to studying marriage and trying to find out just what it is.

References:

“Defining Marriage” by: Brian Schwimmer, Department of Anthropology, University of Manitoba
September 2003

Rites of Passage: Adulthood

In the past couple of months a lot of things have happened to transition me firmly into “adulthood.” I got a full time job, cut my hair shorter, started paying off student loans, applied for Grad School and last night officially bought a car under my name. All these things are the staples, the milestones if you will, in the journey to becoming an adult. Or so this is what our society says.
This then got me thinking about all the societies and cultures out there, past and present. The definition of adulthood and the milestones involved with it are completely different than ours. The official definition of adulthood is “the period of time in your life after your physical growth has stopped and you are fully developed” (Webster’s Dictionary). So what it seems to come down to is a biological condition. On the other level it’s defined as the “state (and responsibilities) of a person who has attained maturity” (Webster’s Dictionary). So basically if we combine that together on an anthropological level we can determine this definition of adulthood: The period of time in your life after you are fully developed and you have taken on responsibility after attaining mental maturity.
Already we can see tons of holes in that definition. First, everyone matures physically at different rates, especially when it comes to the different sexes so how do we calculate that? Second, what exactly defines mental maturity? Lastly, what sort of responsibilities are we talking about? These questions are the ones that cause all these different staples of the journey into adulthood in different societies.
So let’s start with our society then. In American culture initial adulthood starts at puberty, thus fulfilling the biological requirement. Then you have the usual graduating from High School and going either into college, trade school, traveling around the world or right into a job. Then after any of those you journey into your “career” whatever that may be. At that point some move out of their parents’ house (some even before this) and take on the responsibility of paying for their own rent, insurance, bills, etc. Thus you have reached the pivotal point in adulthood.
Other societies are nothing like this, especially when you look at past societies. In most hunting and gathering societies adulthood was achieved at the same time biological maturity did. Boys became men around the ages 13 – 15 and jumped right into foraging for food and killing animals for sustenance, fur and other things. Girls matured usually around this same period and tended to the household of their parents or they married another man in the tribe and took to his household. In some other societies during times of war a boy would become an adult as soon as he could fight properly and in some just wield a weapon. They were then sent off to fight alongside their fellow clansman/tribesmen.
These two examples are still going on now in some parts of the world. They then would constitute the taking on of responsibilities as part of biological/mental maturation thus becoming an adult.
When we think about it, all of these things even in our own society are rites of passages. Even though I usually don’t like quoting Wikipedia I really like their definition of rite of passage: “A rite of passage is a ritual event that marks a person's progress from one status to another. It is a universal phenomenon which can show anthropologists what social hierarchies, values and beliefs are important in specific cultures.” So the journey into adulthood itself is a rite of passage and then there are various others associated with it. For example graduating from High School/College, getting a job, getting a car, etc. are all rites of passage for our society. In the other societies, taking on the responsibility of hunting, caring for the household and going off to war would be the rites of passage. Now those might not seem like the other ritual events that you think of when you think of rites of passage (wedding ceremonies, bar mitzvahs, ritual dances, etc) but at their core they are.
What it comes down to on a personal level is that my journey into adulthood started with my going through puberty, becoming a “woman” and everything, but it is still ongoing. There are many rites of passage along the way that I still have to go through. What defines these in my opinion is based on the different cultures and societies. Everyone’s is different and goes through different stages. There are anthropologists out there who spend their whole life studying these rites and delving more into this whole concept of “adulthood.” The before mentioned just happens to be my take on it so go ahead and put your own takes in, you know I love discussing things! (Pending that Blogger decides to actually let me comment on my blog).

Marcus Aurelius: Order of the Universe, and Man’s Place in that Universe.

Marcus Aurelius was a great political theorist of his time and has greatly influenced the way that the world looks at politics. Marcus rings a bell in most minds as being one of the great Roman Emperors of his time. He ruled Rome from 161 BCE until his death in 180 BCE and was consider to be the last of the “Five Good Emperors” (“Marcus Aerulius web-1). He was best known to the philosophic community as being a great Stoic philosopher. Some even argue that he was the best Stoic philosopher of all times, and really stuck to the Stoic Creed with his theories (Sellars web-1).
Marcus Aurelius’ most famous work was his Meditations. The style of this book is more like a journal that Marcus during his journey through central Europe. In fact the first part of the work reads more like an autobiography, but the entries have no chronology and many theorists suspect that this was written separate from the rest of the work. The rest of the work outlines his theories, mainly regarding his Stoic philosophy (Sellars web-2).
He was greatly influenced by the Stoic philosopher Epictetus, and according to other theorists, Marcus was very familiar with Epictetus’ Discourses. In Marcus’s Meditations he even outlines some of the Stoic Creeds relating it back to political theory (Sellars 2). He mentions the three topoi (according to Epictetus). The three topoi are: desires and aversions, impulse to act and not to act and freedom from deception, hasty judgment and anything related to assents (Sellars web-3).
In this paper, I will examine how Marcus Aerulius viewed the world and man’s place in the world and how that applies to political theory. I will outline what Marcus Aerulius theories were, specifically explained in his work Meditations and explain how they apply to political theory both in his time and in the 21st century. Also in this paper I will provide critiques of other scholars in the field of political science on Marcus Aerulius’s theories.
Before we can understand more about Marcus Aerulius as a theorist and how he influenced 21st century thought, we must first examine his life. He was born Marcus Aerulius Antonius Augustus on April 26th 121 B.C. in Rome. He was taught by Emperor Hadrian, but later was taught by Emperor Antoninus in 138 AD. Marcus was studied rhetoric later in his life by Fronto but later became more interested in philosophy. Later in his life he became Emperor of Rome, and at first ruled alongside Lucius Verus in 161 AD, then by himself in 169. Because of all the attacks that went on through his rule, he was constantly moving around central Europe. During his reign, even with all the moving around he was able to establish four chairs of philosophy in Athens one for each of the four principle philosophical traditions: Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, and Epicurean (Sellars web-1).
Marcus’s life was full of so many different environments and different influences that it influenced his philosophy on life. Most of his philosophy came from the teachings of Epictetus, especially Stoic philosophy which he based his book Meditations on. The focus of Marcus throughout his work is the order of the universe and man’s place within that universe.
P.A. Brunt wrote an article titled “Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations” in which he outlines his interpretations of Marcus Aurelius’s work Mediations and how they can apply to the world. Brunt describes the first part of the work as being an autobiography of Marcus Aurelius’s life because it alludes to his personal experiences and on occasion refers to his family. Brunt also says that the purpose of this first part of the work isn’t to make his own life “a paradigm for the instruction of humanity” (Brunt 8). Thus the first part of Meditations is just Marcus Aurelius talking to himself, since it was never his purpose to create a moral treatise for the masses to read. Brunt then questions if the first part of the work should even be studied along with the rest of the book which takes a more philosophical take.
Brunt then describes the rest of the book as Marcus Aurelius’s outline of the order of the universe and the place that man finds himself in that universe. Marcus Aurelius’s first point in his work is that man should take the gifts from god over everything else, and reject tyranny. This way man remains honest, and virtuous within the world. Marcus Aurelius revels in the idea of the “Stoic” creed and the focus of the individual in society. The individual then becomes responsible for his own actions within the universe otherwise he will feel the repercussions from the order of the universe (Brunt 5).
Throughout Brunt’s article, the word courage comes up a lot when he is talking about Marcus Aurelius’s views of both the leader and the citizens. Courage was a chief idiosyncrasy that Marcus felt everyone should have some degree of. Along with courage, Marcus Aurelius thought one of the biggest problems with man is that it is too easy for him to succumb to earthly sins. Marcus was an advocate for the rejection of temptations of sensual and greedy nature, because these are the marks of tyrannical behavior (Brunt 7).
The concept of “truth-finding and truth-telling” are extremely important and Brunt points out that Marcus Aurelius uses the example of Achilles and Odysseus from Greek history to illustrate this point. Marcus takes this contrast of Achilles and Odysseus from Plato’s teachings. Achilles then is the “most straightforward and truthful of men” where Odysseus is the more typical Greek (Brunt 9).
Brunt focuses on Marcus Aurelius’s views on associates for a good part of his article. Marcus’s chief concern with the associates of rulers is that too much trust is put into them. He believed that man shouldn’t be so trusting of the ones that work under him, because we must “remember that men are but jagged and crooked instruments” (Brunt 12).
Brunt then moves off of Marcus Aurelius’s focus on man, and now takes a turn and moves to Marcus’s focus on the order of the universe and what man’s place is in it. Marcus says that man should be in devout service to the gods and then goes on to define just what “the gods” are. According to Marcus the universe, gods, kosmos, nature, are all interchangeable depending on the point of view and the culture of man. Marcus sticks with his Stoic doctrine and goes on to prove that all laws are bound by the kosmos. He says: “The kosmos consists of passive material and of a casual substance which gives it the form and is the source of every change” (Brunt 15). Marcus here is now talking about the appeal to reason that we all know today as “logos” (Brunt 15).
Brunt then comes to a conclusion about Marcus Aurelius’s philosophy when it comes to man and the universe. Brunt thinks that Marcus Aurelius had a very idealistic look when it pertained to man. It seems that Brunt feels that the ideas that Marcus had, at times contradicted themselves especially when it came to the concept of the truth versus the secrecy of the ruler. Brunt also once again questions the purpose of the autobiographical portion of the work and whether it was necessary, or if the editor who put the work together after Marcus’s death just threw it in for good measure (Brunt 18).
Like Brunt, James Ker wrote an article outlining the philosophy of Marcus’s Meditations, In Ker’s article has a more critical take on Marcus’s work, even going as so far as calling is pessimistic. He calls Marcus “a Stoic half-way to Platonism, so overawed by the brevity of human life within the infinite procession of eternity that he almost lost faith in his own existence” (Ker web-1). Ker, like Brunt, also uses the teachings of Epictetus to explain the Meditations, and how they are very Stoic in their doctrine.
Ker goes onto say not only did Marcus follow the Stoic creed, but that his work Meditations followed the three basic principles of Epictetan disciplines which correspond to the “tripartite Stoic system of logic, physics and ethics” (Ker web-1). This three tripartite system that Marcus uses in his work also correspond to the Epictetan topoi which were mentioned at the begging of the paper (desires and aversions, impulse to act and not to act and freedom from deception, hasty judgment and anything related to assents).
Ker also notices the self-address that is used in Meditations. He then points out that Marcus’ purpose in his writing “was not to invent or to compose, but to influence himself and produce an effect upon himself” (Ker web-1). So basically what Ker is implying was even thought Marcus’s aims were selfish and that he wasn’t planning on writing a moral treatise for the masses, he ended up doing so.
At the end of his article Ker praises Marcus for his philosophy, and even though his motives were selfish and pessimistic he ended up influencing the course of political theory throughout history. He says “what is personal and most distinctive about the text is its emergence from Marcus’s day-by-day attempts to actualize Stoic doctrine within a lived life-not its doctrine or even its imagery” (Ker web-2). So what Brunt regarded as day to day nonsense and unnecessary in general, Ker praises as the one thing that made Marcus’s teachings more understandable to the masses.
So despite the two author’s opinions of Marcus’s work, all can agree that its main doctrine was a Stoic one that taught where man fell in the grand scheme of things. Marcus’s basic belief system that he had still finds its place in the 21st century. He is still heralded as one of the great Emperors of his time. He has even been glorified in many books, movies, and television shows.
Perhaps the most prominent example of this was in the 2000 film Gladiator where Richard Harris played the great Emperor. On his death bed in the film Marcus muttered these words that truly show his influence on the world:
Yet you have never been there. You have not seen what it has become. I am dying, Maximus. When a man sees his end... he wants to know there was some purpose to his life. How will the world speak my name in years to come? Will I be known as the philosopher? The warrior? The tyrant...? Or will I be the emperor who gave Rome back her true self? There was once a dream that was Rome. You could only whisper it. Anything more than a whisper and it would vanish... it was so fragile. And I fear that it will not survive the winter (Harris, Gladiator)
And in the end it is the philosopher in Marcus Aerulius that we remember and his philosophy that we used throughout time that still finds its place in the 21st century.
As mentioned before, Marcus spent a good bit of his work talking about how man shouldn’t succumb to earthly sins such as lust and greed. This is something that in the 21st century we still believe in and try to follow in our everyday lives. Also the concept of rejecting tyranny and the fact that tyranny comes out of succumbing to the earthly sins.
Many rulers of the 21st century have followed the ideas that were outlined in Marcus’s work. One of the most prominent is Bill Clinton who even has a copy of Meditations on his bedside table. He was asked once in an interview what was the most important book to him other than the Bible, and he replied Meditations. Clinton followed the idea that “Individuals however can endure life’s futilities through the performance of duty and the application of reason. Central Stoic doctrines include the obligation to play a role in public affairs and indifference to life’s pains and pleasures” (Coates A12). Clinton really took the idea to hear that he should get involved, obviously going so far as becoming president of the United States and using Marcus’s theories to get him there.
One of main things that Clinton likes about him was “his ability to concentrate Stoic thought into tight, pithy expressions that can be very quotable” (Coates A12). The author of this article though goes onto say that even though Marcus is very quotable his theories can only be in small doses otherwise they become repetitive and increasingly boring.
Despite this feeling that Coates has for his theories, he does call Marcus “no mere philosophical speculator: he was the sole ruler of one of the greatest political entities history has ever known, a man with the weight of the world on his shoulders is ever there was one.” (Coates A12). So we can see that whether the critics are denouncing him, calling him boring, singing his praises, or living by his creeds, Marcus Aerulius still has a strong hold on political theory today in the 21st century.
Marcus Aerulius had a lot of great theories that he outlined in his work. He had great experience with political theory from traveling around so much during his rule so he saw more than the other theorists did. His view of the world and man’s place in it was built off of other theorists, but he put his own spin on it. I agree with his concept that we answer to a higher power and to make that power happy we can’t fall prey to the earthly sins that are around us.
The only thing that was a weakness when it came to Marcus Aerulius was that he had an extremely idealistic view on the world. He wanted man to be perfect and to follow the laws that were set down by the gods strictly. He also wanted the rulers to remain incorruptible and above the rest of the citizens, thus revered by the ruler’s followers. Obviously no one is incorruptible because everyone is human and falls prey to the sins of this earth.
Marcus Aerulius was a great philosopher no matter how he is spun, he was smart, he had the background, he had the knowhow, and he had great theories. It is safe to say though that when he wrote Meditations he didn’t mean for it to be used as a doctrine for people to live their lives, which it did become over the years. It started out as a sort of self-address to point out the flaws in society and how he himself should work to correct those flaws within his own rule. His work has become so much more than that, which we can see since his doctrines are still relevant in the 21st century.
In general political theory shapes our everyday society. Without the great philosophers our government would be in shambles. Everywhere one looks in the government there are influences from political theorists. Our governmental system in general is derived from the Greek philosophers and rulers, our presidents have long quoted and used philosophic doctrines in their presidencies, and our Constitution is derived straight from the basic philosophical ideals of the greats.
Political Theory is open to interpretation. Everyone is always going to have their own take on how the government should run and the structure that it should undertake. Back when the theorists were coming up with their theories about politics a lot of them were scorned for their ideas. Some, like Machiavelli were even hung for their beliefs. This just shows how different people have different opinions and usually the opinions of the majority are the ones that take over.
The theories of the great philosophers not only influence our political system and the governing bodies’ ideals, but our everyday life. Without political theory our society would be in ruins. Forget not having our democracy that we pride ourselves on, we wouldn’t even have a presentable society. Everyday values and morals that we live by wouldn’t exist, and our society would be in ruins if we didn’t have political theory.





















Works Cited
· Brunt, P.A., “Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations”, Journal of Roman Studies 64 (1974):
· Coates, Steve. "The book on Clinton's bedside table.” Wall Street Journal [New York, N.Y.] 20 Jan. 1993, Eastern edition: A12
· Gladiator. Dir Ridley Scott. Perf. Russell Crowe, Joaquin Phoenix, Richard Harris and Connie Nielsen. DreamWorks Pictures, 2000.
· “Marcus Aerulius.” Wikipedia.com. 11 March 2009. 15 March 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Aerulius
· James Ker. . "The Inner Citadel. The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius. "Journal of the History of Philosophy 38.1 (2000): 116-118. Research Library Core. ProQuest. 18 Mar. 2009 http://www.proquest.com/
· Sellars, John. “Marcus Aerulius.” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.com. 2005. The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 13 March 2009 http://iep.utm.edu/m/marcus.htm

Image courtesy of bbc.co.uk