UC Berkeley

To a greater or lesser extent, human societies are organized around systems of social hierarchy, structures which place individuals in relations of inequality, of social dominance and subordination. The differentiation of various groups of humanity has often been conceptualized as natural or ordained, acting to produce superordinate and subordinate social statuses which maintain the privilege and advantage of those in higher positions. Psychological research, however, shows that understandings of equality and fairness are universally held and that individuals, including very young children, assess events involving unfairness and inequality as wrong, even when authority, rules, or custom deem otherwise. Systemic social inequality may be seen, thus, to contradict values of fairness, rights, and equality, and the psychological question arises, how do those in positions of higher social status reason about and justify their advantage? How do members of superordinate social groups accept and justify social privilege? While it has been suggested that the perspectives of such individuals may be based on self-interest alone, this question has remained open from a cognitive perspective and requires further investigation. In this study, the social system under investigation is gender hierarchy, with a focus on male evaluation of and justification for equality or inequality between females and males. The study was conducted with adult males in rural Lebanon, a site with demographic and sociological evidence of continuing traditions of gender hierarchy, particularly in rural areas. The participants (N = 60; mean age 43.6 years) were presented with five everyday situations in family and work life and asked to evaluate and reason about decision-making power and opportunities between females and males. A sixth situation involving two males was also posed in order to assess similarities and differences in assessments of relations between two males. Results from the study show a tenuous form of gender equality in family contexts—as assessed by Lebanese men—an asserted parity but mutable rights for females (not males), justified with a mix of moral, relationship, and pragmatic reasoning. In work contexts, results show evidence of both gender equality and inequality—equality justified with moral reasoning and inequality justified with male/female social role difference and/or biological difference reasoning. Results further show robust equality between two males, justified with moral reasoning. Overall, there is evidence of emerging norms of greater equity between males and females in Lebanon, but male status continues to be elevated in many contexts due to conceptions of prescriptive male roles and traits and expectations of female deference to family needs.