My post of two days ago was a response to Haig Patapan’s new book, The Modern Tyrant. While the book is very good, I took issue with the fact that Patapan skirts, so to speak, the gender issue. That he takes it as a given that a tyrant is a man – a “he” not a “she.”
I do not argue that this is wrong. I argue that we cannot or at least we should not make this assumption without discussion.
For the purposes of this post, I accept the point. I accept that nearly all modern tyrants are men. Further, nearly all tyrants have always been men. Which inevitably raises the question of why. Why is it that some men tend to be tyrannical while hardly any women tend to be same – even when, as they occasionally are, in leadership roles? Is it that men, generally the physically stronger of our species, have historically been more able to be all-controlling? Or is it that men want it more than women? Want more fervently and frequently than women not merely to exercise power but to exercise total power over near everyone and everything.
Suffice here – this is a post not a book – to say that any attempt to answer questions about gender differences as they pertain to leadership and followership must begin with, and maybe even end with, the fact that we, we humans, are great apes. We humans are great apes who are extremely closely related to two other species of great apes: chimpanzees and bonobos. We three share a common ancestor as well as more than 96 percent of our DNA.
All well and good – though in a discussion about power the similarities and differences among the three species of great apes can be said to raise as many questions as give answers. For chimpanzees are known, like humans, to be aggressive. Moreover, it is the male of the species who is nearly always the aggressor both within chimpanzee groups and without. Bonobos, in contrast, are far less aggressive. They don’t generally engage in warfare, and they don’t generally intentionally kill each other. Further, and to the point that I make here, unlike chimpanzees among whom males dominate, among bonobos it is females who typically reign supreme.
So, when males dominate aggression, especially but not exclusively physical aggression, is a predictable byproduct. In contrast, when females dominate, physical aggression is far less frequent. Therefore, while among bonobos there are instances in which dominant females form coalitions, particularly against problematic males, bonobos tend naturally toward more peaceable conflict resolution than chimpanzees. Which is to say that compared with chimpanzee leaders (who are males), bonobo leaders (who are females), are less naturally disposed to leading by exercising power and more naturally disposed to leading by exercising authority and influence.
Which returns us to humans. Humans share a common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos. Which means that we bear similarities to both species. However, when it comes to leadership and followership, a cursory look suggests that our resemblances to chimpanzees are significantly greater than to bonobos. Overwhelmingly our leaders are as they have always been – men not women. Which goes a long way toward explaining why overwhelmingly the modern tyrant is as tyrants have always been – men not women.