Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future

by Riane Eisler, Douglas P. Fry

Nurturing Our Humanity offers a new perspective on our personal and social options in today's world, showing how we can build societies that support our great human capacities for consciousness, caring, and creativity. It brings together findings--largely overlooked--from the natural and social sciences debunking the popular idea that we are hard-wired for selfishness, war, rape, and greed. Its groundbreaking new approach reveals connections between disturbing trends like climate change denial and regressions to strongman rule. Moving past right vs. left, religious vs. secular, Eastern vs. Western, and other familiar categories that do not include our formative parent-child and gender relations, it looks at where societies fall on the partnership-domination scale. On one end is the domination system that ranks man over man, man over woman, race over race, and man over nature. On the other end is the more peaceful, egalitarian, gender-balanced, and sustainable partnership system.
Nurturing Our Humanity explores how behaviors, values, and socio-economic institutions develop differently in these two environments, documents how this impacts nothing less than how our brains develop, examines cultures from this new perspective (including societies that for millennia oriented toward partnership), and proposes actions supporting the contemporary movement in this more life-sustaining and enhancing direction. It shows how through today's ever more fearful, frenzied, and greed-driven technologies of destruction and exploitation, the domination system may lead us to an evolutionary dead end. A more equitable and sustainable way of life is biologically possible and culturally we can change our course.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Feminism, Social Science, Anthropology, Politics, Cultural

376 pages, Hardcover

Published August 13, 2019

About the author

Riane Eisler is internationally known for her bestseller The Chalice and The Blade, now in 26 foreign editions and celebrating its 30th anniversary with a new 2017 epilogue in its 57th US printing, as well as for other award-winning books. She keynotes conferences worldwide, with venues including the United Nations General Assembly and the US Department of State. She is President of the Center for Partnership Studies and has received many honors, including honorary Ph.D. degrees, the Alice Paul ERA Education Award, and the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation's 2009 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award, and is featured in the award-winning book Great Peacemakers as one of 20 leaders for world peace, along with Mahatma Gandhi, Mother Teresa, and Martin Luther King.

She can be contacted at center@partnershipway.org.
Her websites are http://www.centerfor partnership.org, http://caringeconomy.org,
and http://www.rianeeisler.com

Reviews

[Claire · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'd been looking forward to reading this after reading The Chalice and The Blade. Bringing together these two authors has created an immensely readable work that describes how our societies and families and cultures, not to mention our brains, have been shaped by a system of domination that favours hierarchical structures, ranking of one kind over another, authoritarian parenting and leadership, fueled by fear, tamed by punishment, sustained by conditioning that makes silencing and oppression the norm.
"Where humans are controlled by powerful forces at the top of a domination hierarchy".

Despite the narratives that exist that suggest humanity is hardwired for ruthless selfishness and violence, there is abundant evidence, referenced here, that:
"Indicates that humans have also evolved powerful capacities, indeed proclivities, for empathy, equity, helping, caring and various other prosocial acts."

These examples existed in times past and are also present in contemporary Nordic societies, one of the significant differences being a greater sense of partnership and equality between couples and also in the value attributed to "caring industries", a sector of society that has been virtually ignored by academia, and undervalued, underfunded by governments worldwide.

Once we understand these dynamics, of domination versus partnership, and the characteristics of each, the imbalance in the world becomes glaringly obvious. This work gives multiple examples and acknowledges that pockets of the partnership approach do exist and are growing, but there are significant challenges to be addressed before we can truly begin to benefit from the improved standard of living that more 'caring societies' can bring.

I can't recommend this book highly enough for anyone at a loss to why the world seems to have become so divisive and uncaring, this deeply researched, erudite text stands back and shows us where we've been and where we could go, and what policies need to change to bring us to a more humane era.

"Understanding the origins, natures, and impacts of partnership and domination systems on human lives and societies is crucial to human well-being and survival."

[Carmel Hanes · Rating 4 out of 5]

An interesting listen on audible, as I watch an increasing void form between the extremes appearing around me in this fraught country.

Domination versus partnership cultures are explored in depth--past, present and possible future. The authors reject the notion that these differences are driven entirely by religious or political divisions, but are more a result of the disparity between those who need an authoritarian culture versus those who embrace one that is based on partnership and equality; one that is based on fear and punishment versus one that is based on education, sharing, and expansive thinking and problem-solving; differences that begin with child-rearing habits and expand outward into male-female relationships and expectations, rippling further into employment and social structures.

Comparing and contrasting cultures from the past and those currently existing, we see where and how the two kinds of cultures exist politically, socially, economically and religiously. Dividing into these camps allows us to see what is typical in each, and how there is crossover within those four areas that can only be understood through this framework.

The authors posit that domination based cultures tend to show more authoritarian and violent tendencies, more rigid thinking, prefer strength over all other aspects (even to the detriment of the person's own self-interest), and will ignore outside realities in order to cling to inner convictions. Those who embrace this culture tend to come from authoritarian homes and have had this hierarchy embedded/programmed at a cellular level through trauma, which leads to less compassion for others. Black and white thinking is more prevalent than flexible and expansive thinking.

Nordic countries are given as an example of a partnership based culture, with more equality between men and women, more nurturing child-rearing practices, much social support for basic needs, increased value placed on those in care-taking roles, less economic disparity, and increased happiness of citizens.

This was an interesting theory regarding different cultures, and cultures that have succeeded or failed over time. It made sense in terms of what I've seen transpire over the past decade, and from what I know of our history in this country. The authors clearly offer partnership cultures as needed for the continuation of our world and various countries, as well as our environment. I wish I had their optimism.

[Irene · Rating 2 out of 5]

Did not finish at 50%.

The book had started off promising, discussing how social structures at a societal/community and familial levels can embody a continuum between partnership and domination (partnership being about connection, cooperation, caring, empathy, equality, etc.; domination systems being about exploitation and use of force/fear to subjugate others).

However, the authors failed to acknowledge "scale". Whenever a collection of people grows larger and more complex, whether it is a business growing from a small handful of people to thousands, or from hundreds of people to over a billion in society, one cannot operate in the same manner without extreme inefficiencies. For example, in a business or country of 100 people, one cannot act like one is managing 10,000 or 10 million people (e.g., instead of more clearly segmented roles, many roles will need to be shared); similarly, one cannot manage 10,000 or 10 million people like one would for 100 people (i.e., there would be too much organizational inefficiencies).

Thus, although the authors advocate for partnership systems (which I liked the concept of), partnership systems seem to be more possible in smaller populations of people, or at least with low population densities as in the case of Nordic countries. The authors only state the benefits of partnership systems, but offer no guidance on how partnership systems can be adapted to much larger, more complex societies.

For example, the authors do not address how to solve the constant problem of freeloaders (which people tend to be sensitive to, and is more easily detected in small groups).

Partnership systems will easily fail when there are people who want to benefit themselves more without putting in as much work, and oftentimes putting their energy to use in manipulating or exploiting others rather than increasing their own competencies.

Thus, partnership systems, no matter how much it is advocated, would be disadvantageous to such freeloading people. Out of a need of survival or laziness, they will choose domination, especially if they are not competent.

And though I agree with the authors that most people are prosocial cooperators, unfortunately it only takes a very small percentage of people--as little as 5-10% based on my observations in companies and studies in social psychology and political systems--to ruin partnership/trust/cooperation systems. It doesn't take much for people to begin to distrust one another, or feel they haven't been treated fairly, and that is when partnership and cooperation will begin to fail, resulting in a dog-eat-dog, i.e., domination, mentality.

Lastly, the authors had briefly mentioned that partnership does not mean lack of hierarchy; however, it would've been interesting to explore this in depth, which the authors did not do. Rather, their examples were generally on either extremes of the spectrum of partnership/domination (representing no more than 10% of the world population), with clear indications of suppression and human rights violations in cases of domination systems.

Thus, the authors had taken a very binary, simplistic approach. Their studies were too focused on too-small groups, and not enough depth, breadth, or analysis, and lacked complexity and relevant details to establish possible reasons or causes of partnership systems given the extremeness of their examples (essentially chalking everything up to one's perspective as a result of upbringing and culture, and largely ignoring economics, the historical development of cultures and religion, in addition to geography which influences cultural development). There are no suggestions or indications for applications to structured organizations or communities; rather, one can only, at most, apply it on a personal level within one's home.

Disappointing, as I had high hopes for this book and really wanted to enjoy it.

[Robyn · Rating 5 out of 5]

Essential research and a vision for humanity

Understanding that most of our intractable global challenges can be tied to the dominator world view is a starting point for a sustainable and humane world. Much of our public discourse misses the core dysfunction and disease of our patriarchal dominator culture.

[Bryan Alexander]

A passionate call for ending social structures of domination and inequality in favor of cultures of care, this book ranges across history and geography to make its case. Nurturing Our Humanity crosses intellectual fields from brain chemistry to gender studies, anthropology to politics.

And I admit to being torn. On the one hand the book's case is very persuasive. Sexism, racism, cruelty to children, exploitation are clearly awful, both in the present and historically, and we need to stop those behaviors. The authors demonstrate many ways to do so. I was impressed that they also found examples of such problems across the board, in multiple religions and societies.

These systems have key components, according to Nurturing: hierarchies, acceptance or celebration of violence, and naturalizing all of these as the order of things. In contrast, we should strive for horizontal social orders and an ethos of caregiving. (cf 99ff for examples) Again, these all appeal.

I can think of one example of a transition away from those negative ideas in my lifetime. As a child, I learned that bullying was accepted and even celebrated, especially by school and cultural authorities. Yet by the time I become a parent American schools turned strongly against bullying -a clear step forward.

On the other hand... this dichotomy and its call for a new order feel unrealistic to me. It seems based on a partial view of human psychology, underplaying the will to power and competition. I'm not sure that it accounts for the spirit of exploration, of economic growth, or of progress. It seems aimed at a comfortable plateau, and I don't think any social structure at scale could maintain that for long. It's also unclear what the authors want from politics, as they draw on anarchist thought (I wish they'd mentioned Kropotkin for mutual aid) - are they looking for decentralized systems? Or perhaps the book reminds me too much of the classic Saki story "The Toys of Peace." I know my own gender identity might qualify these remarks.

There were other, smaller bits which I disagreed with. Portraying Nietzsche as an authoritarian (142) went out in the 1950s, once scholars won access to the philosopher's pre-Nazified writing. The link the authors want to see between porn and violence (210) has yet to be established, at least in a causal way.

As I dive deeper into my "battle for the future" concept, I wonder about Nurturing Our Humanity. The book seems like a good example of the "demodern" school, focused on repair and healing.

[heidi · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of the best books I've read, period. As someone who compulsively consumes social science texts and cynical long-form news articles, this comprehensive, optimistic take was incredibly refreshing. I will be proselytizing about this book for a while to come.

Eisler and Fry take snippets from the archeological and historical record, infuse them with modern neuroscience, and return to the reader a lesser-cited account of human history rooted in empathy and cooperation. They deconstruct many of the myths about the inevitability of war, rape, and poverty, insisting that they are products of certain cultural contexts which are far from universal.

The authors employ a systems approach: the biocultural partnership-domination lens. Through this lens, we can understand relational dynamics and social/political institutions as the products of primarily partnership or domination orientations. Ultimately, they argue that partnership models work to support human flourishing, while domination models actively create harm for all involved.

"[In] a domination system, familial, educational, religious, political, and economic structures — not an imagined human nature wired for oppression and violence — are what gets in the way of our human capacities, indeed, propensities, for empathy, caring, and mutuality."

Here, we have a negative feedback loop wherein malevolent views around human nature affect our behaviors, which in turn affect our neural patterns, ensuring that these trauma responses persist.

"[D]omination cultures create self-perpetuating patterns of economic scarcity due to misdistribution of resources to those on top, lack of funding for healthcare and education, diversion of resources into weaponry, and destruction of resources through war and other forms of violence. These features of domination systems create stress, and with this, a general sense of anxiety, insecurity, and fear, which affects brain function."

To break the cycle, we must work to rebuild cultural narratives about who we should be, starting from the realm of childrearing. By substituting coercive parenting with loving affection and promoting compassion as a societal value regardless of gender, we will have the necessary foundation to reform our economic structures to incentivize caregiving and collective well-being.

This book is well-formulated, prescriptive, and inspiring. Please pick up a copy.

[Hannah · Rating 3 out of 5]

While I enjoyed the authors’ overall argument that all societies fall somewhere on a spectrum of partnership and domination and their argument for shifting our society to more of a partnership one, the actual substance of their arguments was subpar. My biggest thing was the authors argued the importance of language to change our societies, but they themselves utilize the language they warn against. In the beginning the authors talk about how much of the language we use to describe human behavior is in terms of economics and how that shapes the way we think and value human “productivity”, but then the authors unironically utilize the same economic terms such as “the potential of human capital” as a thing that needs to be realized to shift towards partnership. They try to argue that religion doesn’t have that much influence on whether a society is domination or partnership but then frequently use Christian metaphors to describe human behavior. They frame their main argument through the lens of gender, but often use language that conflates gendered behavior of men and women to biological characteristics of males and females. They call Freud a “brilliant man” who helped us “to understand human behavior”, but then on the very next page acknowledge that Freud was writing about behavior in domination cultures (there’s a lot to be argued too that he was writing about the behavior of white cis gendered men, not simply all behavior under a domination system); so is he writing about innate human behavior or human behavior under a specific type of system? The authors want us as readers and members of a society to be careful with our language but aren’t practicing “what they preach”.

Additionally, the authors rarely, if ever, acknowledge the role that the oppression of races, classes, and abilities also play in creating domination cultures. They focus on a “cultural war” that is often defined on gender lines, but frankly, many of their arguments would probably be better explained by analyzing class disparities, especially considering their analysis of gender was so limited. And if not “better” explained, class or race analysis at least would have bolstered their argument more than focusing on just sexism, as sexism tends to be influenced by classism and racism, especially in the US. For example, the authors often argue that “feminine behaviors” like caregiving are seen as “reproductive” rather than “productive” — that’s class analysis as much as it is gender analysis, but they don’t dive into this distinction between reproductive labor and productive labor as a manifestation of classism at all. They also don’t discuss how this distinction serves to further dominate those who primarily perform reproductive labor by those who primarily perform productive labor. The authors just treat it like women do repo labor and men do pro labor, but even men in domination societies perform reproductive labor such as caring for the elderly. And the authors mention how the “reproductive” labor that women perform is often unpaid but they never once point out that women also perform productive labor, are often co-“breadwinners” with their male partners, and *still* earn less per dollar than men do for said “productive” labor.

Another key feature of their argument that I cannot agree with is they argue that religion, economics, politics, education, etc are all systems that form within societies of partnership or domination, not the other way around, but this feels a bit like a chicken or the egg question. I don’t think this is entirely what the authors are arguing here, as they do try to bring in examples of both religious and secular, capitalist and socialist, democratic and authoritarian societies that fit on both ends of the partnership-domination spectrum. However, they *do* argue that domination and partnership form independent of these characteristics as facets of partnership and domination are found in ALL types of societies; this I find disingenuous. *Can* you argue that religion, economics, politics, etc don’t inform the formation of a partnership/domination system or vice versa? They argue that domination can happen both in religious and secular societies (and similarly, that partnership can happen under either), but they never give an example of a MODERN society that is both religious and partnership based, and they often use the Nazis as an example of a dominating “secular” society. Except the Nazis weren’t secular!! Their laws may not have said “this is because the Bible says so” but the Nazis *did* push what they called “good Christianity” and directly went after an opposing religion. I just don’t think you can completely decouple society from its economic, political, religious, etc structures or historical contexts and found the authors’ arguments were weakened by this splitting of hairs and lack of acknowledgment of historical contexts that form societies.

Lastly, the authors never delve into what drove previous societies from partnerships to dominations, nor do they delve into how societies today can shift to a more partnership society. They present some examples of partnership societies that are on a significantly smaller scale than that of say the US or the EU, and only provide a few action steps to take that, frankly, individuals have no control over. I wanted to like this book so much more than I did. I think it opens the doors for many questions and future research at least!

[Seymour Hersh · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read with nurture in mind

An in-depth well researched book that positions us to plan and act now and in the long term to enable a collaborative society. Not an easy task, but one for all of us to take on.

[Waterg8punkrock · Rating 5 out of 5]

Understanding that most of our intractable global challenges can be tied to the dominator world view is a starting point for a sustainable and humane world. Much of our public discourse misses the core dysfunction and disease of our patriarchal dominator culture.

Domination has brought humanity to a dead-end. Our survival depends on building a new era defined by partnership and cooperation, with humans living as caring, gender equal, planetary citizens.

Anyone who is seeking to understand the current human condition, and wishes for an enlightened way forward, I invite you to read this book.

Embracing partnership with life-affirming purpose may be the only way to save ourselves from ourselves.

She has been transforming my thinking for years now, to the point I no longer think in terms of left/right, conservative/liberal, etc. This has freed me from that sound bite sloganeering we hear. Yes, it's a tough read, but when you hit a bump, just stop and THINK! She offers plenty of resources to dig deeper. Remember, tyrants fear thinking citizens. We are dangerous to them and they know it.

[J Thomas Brown · Rating 5 out of 5]

An Important Must Read Book

I was beginning to believe there was no hope in getting out of the mess mankind had made for itself. This is a well-documented examination of how things got so bad and a positive plan for building a new world based on partnership and respect. A fascinating array of research and findings that refute our old ways of thinking.

[Elizabeth Moro · Rating 5 out of 5]

A culmination of her lifelong work exploring the roots of the feminine and our natural progression back to the partnership model. Riane Eisler's extensive research and attention to history, anthropology, politics...every sector of life will find this an extensive guide to how we can create a better world for all.

[CJ · Rating 4 out of 5]

It took me ages to slog through this, not because I wasn't interested, but because the book often relentlessly documents the effects of domination culture, and as a result, can be...tough to digest.

But, like the other things I have read by Eisler (essays on her website and The Chalice And The Blade), the take away points are extremely useful.

By articulating the fundamental assumptions we collectively get indoctrinated into, she helps us understand the continued ...stuntedness... of folks who remain on paths that are clearly based in "domination" rather than collaboration.

It also helped me understand that though abusive strategies such as "distract, divide and conquer" are often consciously chosen by some actors, they choose those strategies BECAUSE they are profoundly sickened from believing in dominator cultures.

What remains unknown is whether enough people will continue to renounce the privileges we gain from dominator culture to force a collective embrace of a balanced world, or whether those fully consumed by dominator mindsets (who truly a minority of folks at this point in time) will continue to take humanity down a dystopian path.

Yeah, the underlying distinctions between the cultural paths really are -that- important.

[Sunny Optimist]

I recently listened to a presentation by Raine Eisler and was very moved by her description of the polarity of domination (out of balance patriarchy) and partnership (generative feminine of men and women. There are four essences to moving from power over to right relationship that is centered in 1. healing childhood trauma, 2. respect for the feminine (and all difference) 3. Fair economics and 4. Narratives that evoke us to more wholeness and balance. It was very well researched but a wee bit overly rigorous for me in terms of writing style. But a very important book. I am going to go back and re-read her book( 1989) the Chalice and the Blade.

[Andrea McDowell · Rating 4 out of 5]

I like her framing and her thesis, but much of this is a repeat of information I already knew about all of the things that are wrong, and very focused on America. How to go about making things right got a lot less coverage and it's still not clear to me how we move from this 'domination' world we're living in now to one in which 'partnership' and equality is the norm.

However, it's an idea worth exploring and if you read a more typical number of books the information might be less repetitive for you, so I do recommend it.