Gutema Imana Keno: Some Notes on the Past of Oromo Society: The Story about Akkoo Manooyyee in Focus

Dr. Gutema Imana Keno (Haramaya University) discusses Some Notes on the Past of Oromo Society: The Story about Akkoo Manooyyee in Focus.

Summary

Imana (2023) firmly rejects Bamberger's (1974) hypothesis that the prevalence of the myths of matriarchy only justifies the existing patriarchy rather than recalling a historical transition from matriarchy to patriarchy. Imana relies on the consistency of the myths of the Oromo culture to that matriarchy was a historical fact in that culture.

While Imana (2023) is a valuable contribution for the study of matriarchical myths, the evidence presented does not convincely refute Bamberger (1974).

Historical Timeline

Imana (2023, p.4) writes:

Though the beginning and end of each of the categories of time indicated above cannot be known, the scanty but existing oral traditions of the Oromo seem to indicate the fact that for a long period before the emergence of patriarchy, Oromo society used to be matriarchal, or at least matrilineal. However, it should be underscored that the patriarchal system of the Oromo that came possibly with the gradual decline of the matriarchal system was not similar to the patriarchal system of the Westerners presented in different literature. Oromo society had never practised a hierarchical system of rule or governance, unlike western societies and the Abyssinians. Oromo society has been exposed to the Abyssinian's hierarchical political structure and alien cultures mainly since the beginning of the second half of the 19th century (Jalata and Schaffer, 2013).

The patriarchal system of the Oromo seems to have been started sometime before the beginning of the Gadaa system [>5,000 years ago] with the gradual rise of the system of private property and the development of marriage culture and the consequent men-headed families. Until then, it seems that women played unequivocal roles as mothers, leaders, and organizers of their society for thousands of years (Infs: Gabramlaak, Abduqaadir, and Ahmad Galatoo).

Emphasis Mine

Imana does not consider matriarchy and patriarchy to be hierarchical system of rule or governance. Imana is confused about these terms. Matriarchy and patriarchy are systems in which political power is vested primarily with a particular gender.

Imana follows Engels (1942, p.44) in that the patriarchy arose to take ownership of private property (herds in a pastorial society).

Against Bamberger

Imana (2023, p. ) writes:

Bamberger, in her 1974 work, specifically argued that stories and fables about female rule in ancient times do not reflect a previous history of matriarchy but instead were "social charters" created for male dominance. Considering the stories about the rule of women in Amazonian societies, she came to the conclusion that the stories themselves justify the rule of men by providing an alternative to an imagined society dominated by women. According to her, the stories justify the fact that women did not know how to handle power properly when in possession of it and, consequently, justify the inferiority of their present position. Therefore, according to her, stories about matriarchy are arguments for patriarchy. However, it is difficult to dismiss the stories about matriarchy as the orchestration of men to deny women political power. If women did not occupy any significant political power in the ancient past and if they were not threats to men’s power, what forced men to ideologically contest for power? It is also odd to discredit stories about matriarchy to functionally justify that men were in rule from the beginning and women were always subordinate to men in all aspects. The fact that stories about matriarchy exist in different parts of the world and in different societies seems to strongly suggest that there was a time when women had a certain political power, whether it was under a matriarchal system or under other socio-political arrangements. In this paper, therefore, the denial of the existence of the matriarchal period in human history is considered to be counterfeit and problematic.

Emphasis Mine

Imana does faithfully sumarise Bamberger (1974). Imana rejects Bamberger's arguments by saying the prevalence of the same structure to these myths indicates the historical reality of matriarchy.

Discussion

Both Bamberger (1974) and Imana (2023) agree on the same structure for the myths:

1. Matriarchy existed since time eternal
2. Men are eventually oppressed by the matriarchy
3. Men overthrow the matriarchy
4. There can be no return to matriarchy

There is a wide variance in the reasons and nature of the oppression of men by the matriarchy. For Bamberger, this variance indicates that these myths are ahistorical and only serve to justify the current status quo of a patriarchy.

Conclusion

The structure of the matriarchical myths from the Oromo culture matches that was articulated in Bamberger (1974). This similarity does not refute Bamberger's hypothesis, rather the similarity strengthens the hypothesis.

The existence of these matriarchical myths in both hunter-gathers and pastorialists refutes the acquisition of private property as the impetus for the rise and evolution of the patriarchy.

References

Bamberger, J. (1974). The myth of matriarchy: why men rule in primitive society. Women, culture and society, 263-80.

Engels, F. (1942). The origin of the family. Current Book Distributors.

Imana, G. (2023). Some Notes on the Past of Oromo Society: The Story about Akkoo Manooyyee in Focus. East African Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 8(1), 1-16.