Partnership Studies 3: Caring Economics and Transforming Dominator Systems

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/07/25

Riane Eisler, an Austrian-born American systems scientist, futurist, and human rights advocate, is renowned for her influential work on cultural transformation and gender equity. Best known for “The Chalice and the Blade,” she introduced the partnership versus dominator models of social organization. She received the Humanist Pioneer Award, and in conversation with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Eisler emphasized the urgent need for humanists to focus on values-based systems and the transformative power of caring economics. Drawing on neuroscience and history, she argues that peace begins at home and calls for a shift in worldview to build more equitable, sustainable, and compassionate societies rooted in connection rather than control. The three books of hers of note that could be highlighted are The Chalice and the Blade—now in its 57th U.S. printing with 30 foreign editions, The Real Wealth of Nations, and Nurturing Our Humanity: How Domination and Partnership Shape Our Brains, Lives, and Future (Oxford University Press, 2019). Eisler, in dialogue with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, explores the contrast between domination and partnership systems, advocating a shift toward caring economics rooted in equity, sustainability, and human connection. She critiques both capitalism and socialism for perpetuating domination structures, particularly in devaluing care work and nature. Drawing from neuroscience, history, and policy analysis, Eisler argues that current global crises—from inequality to climate change—require rethinking economic metrics and investing in policies that reward caregiving and cooperation. Emphasizing transformation over revolution, she calls for changing foundational narratives to create a more humane, partnership-oriented future for all generations.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: So we’ve talked about the Domination Model and the Partnership Model, which you consider antipodes within a comprehensive, holistic framework. We covered the long history of humanity in session two. This session will focus on economics, and it’s July 12th today. Within Partnership Studies, when we examine economics, we see that many societies operate within frameworks influenced by various sources, such as the notion of men as “breadwinners” or the “salaryman” in Japan. How does economics play a key role in maintaining—and even imposing—the Domination Model? Conversely, how does a liberatory framework based on the Partnership Model reframe our understanding of economics?

Riane Eisler: There’s an ongoing debate about socialism versus capitalism, but if you examine it through the lens of the Partnership–Domination Social Scale, you can see that this binary obscures a deeper issue. What many of us who advocate for a more equitable, sustainable, and peaceful future are confronting is domination economics. Whether it involves an Arab oil monarch, an emperor in imperial China, a European feudal lord, or modern neoliberal regimes—despite their branding—these are all variations of domination-based economic structures. Neoliberalism is neither new, not liberal; it is the domination economics of trickle-down. Trickle-down economics is the theory that benefits provided to the wealthy will “trickle down” to those below through investment and job creation. However, critics argue that in practice, it replicates historical patterns where those at the bottom are expected to subsist on the surplus or waste of those at the top—echoing feudal hierarchies. What we are witnessing today is, in many ways, a global resurgence of domination economics, marked by increasing inequality and the consolidation of wealth and power. Thus, the real divide is not simply capitalism versus socialism, but domination versus partnership.

I recall being invited to the Soviet Union. We were hosted in accommodations that even had a grand piano. I was one of two American delegates participating in a peace event in what was then Leningrad, organized by Nordic women advocating for peace. There was caviar on the table, while many ordinary citizens faced shortages of necessities, standing in long queues for items like soap and food. What existed in the USSR was not an egalitarian economy in practice, despite the official Marxist ideology of socialism. Instead, it was a form of state-controlled economic domination. A privileged elite had access to vacation homes—dachas—and luxury goods, while many people lived under strict controls and with limited resources. This dynamic reflects domination not only over people but also over nature—what we might call extractive or exploitative economics.

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx, though radically different in ideology, participated in the assumptions of their time. Their economic models largely ignored or devalued caregiving, emotional labour, and ecological sustainability—what some now call a gendered system of hidden values. These systems placed little to no economic value on care work, which women primarily performed without compensation. In many 19th-century legal systems, including in parts of Europe and North America, women had limited legal standing. A husband could sue for the loss of his wife’s services if she were injured due to another’s negligence, but she could not sue in her own right. This was rooted in the doctrine of coverture, which treated a married woman’s legal identity as subsumed under her husband’s.

This unpaid domestic labour was labelled “reproductive” rather than “productive,” implying it did not contribute directly to the economy—a false dichotomy that persists in many economics curricula today. Neither Smith nor Marx gave serious attention to ecological concerns in their foundational writings. Concepts such as sustainability, environmental justice, and ecological economics emerged much later, in the 20th century, as responses to growing environmental crises. So, to move toward a Partnership Model of economics, we must value care work, sustainability, and equity—areas that traditional economic models have long neglected or suppressed.

Nature, in both  Smith’s capitalist and Marx’s socialist frameworks, was viewed primarily as a resource to be exploited. So, what we have to move toward is what I call a caring economics of partnerism—an economic system that recognizes the measurable value of caring for people from birth onward, as well as caring for our natural life-support systems. Unfortunately, the way we currently quantify economic activity—using measures like GDP and GNP—excludes much of this. A tree, for example, is not counted as part of GDP until it is cut down and becomes a log—until it is dead. That reflects the omission of the natural economy, the volunteer community economy, and the household economy in our current systems, whether capitalist or socialist.

Jacobsen: What would more experimental attempts to account for those unremunerated parts of human activity—those missing from traditional metrics—look like? How would a more holistic analysis be structured?

Eisler: First of all, we are seeing encouraging trends, even as we also see a regression into domination. There are concurrent movements. For example, we’ve seen public policies being introduced—and now some dismantled—designed to reward caring. There’s currently a debate between proponents of pronatalist policies and those advocating for genuine support for caregiving and children. Right now, the U.S. administration is discussing a $5,000 incentive for having a child—that is a pronatalist policy. But California, for example, offers paid parental leave for both mothers and fathers. That’s a partnership-oriented policy.

These kinds of caring policies were pioneered by Nordic nations, which have consistently moved further—always in degrees—along the partnership-domination continuum toward partnership. And this brings us back to what I call the four cornerstones of either a domination or partnership system: family and childhood; gender relationships and rigid or fluid gender roles; economic structure, whether domination or partnership-oriented; and story and language. These are foundational. If we want lasting change, we must act strategically, not just tactically.

Putting out social and economic “fires” is a tactic, but domination systems are constantly producing those fires. Without addressing and transforming the cornerstones, including the economic rewards system, we won’t change the structure. We must begin to reward the work of caring for people from birth and caring for nature.

Jacobsen: Does this imply some form of redistribution of wealth within the system, but not in the conventional ways we tend to think about it?

Eisler: Well, yes, in short. You would see a redistribution of wealth. And we’re starting to see signs of that, even in the United States. For instance, independent caregivers can now earn around $40 per hour, which is a respectable wage. But it still pales in comparison to the compensation of corporate CEOs. Do you know that today, many CEOs earn about 500 times what their average employees make? It’s no longer just 300 times—it’s 500.

Jacobsen: I think the general reaction to that tends to be, quote, “It’s obscene,” or something to that effect.

Eisler: Yeah, but the general reaction does not change the rules of the game. And simply protesting against something—without changing the system and implementing new policies—does not create lasting change. First, it has to begin with a shift in consciousness, a change in worldview. It means not accepting top-down, domination-based economics as inevitable.

Yes, the reaction—”this is obscene”—is valid. But without an alternative system, protest is insufficient. That is why I outline an alternative in my book The Real Wealth of Nations: Creating a Caring Economics. I do not claim to have all the answers, but I emphasize that economics is a human construct. We can redesign it. We can change what we reward and even impose disincentives—penalize, if you will—those who hoard or misuse wealth. Look at what’s happening with extravagant spending on events like some lavish weddings. Talk about obscene—yes, that’s a fitting word.

Jacobsen: What is an argument that this approach is not only beneficial for everyone, but also uniquely beneficial for different social classes in other ways?

Eisler: Absolutely. The current economic system is simply unsustainable. It is fundamentally built on the exploitation of both people and nature, rather than care for either. Anyone with even a basic sense of empathy who is not in complete denial can see that.

Unfortunately, domination systems are trauma factories—and therefore, denial factories. This begins in early childhood, often in families, and continues through socialization into rigid gender roles. Both women and men are forced to suppress vital parts of their humanity.

Meanwhile, the economic system continues to reward only exploitation and profit. Of course, we need markets—but let us be clear: we do not currently have a truly free one.

Jacobsen: Has there ever been a truly free market, as a side question?

Eisler: I believe freer markets have existed, and we can move toward more freedom in markets, but it requires regulation and meaningful enforcement of those regulations. This shift toward a caring economics of partnership is multifaceted.

It begins with a worldview that recognizes the economic value of what domination systems label “feminine”—namely, caring. Rigid gender stereotypes are not “just a women’s issue” as we are taught. How gender roles and relations are structured not only lies behind the subordination of women and girls, it lies behind the devaluation of anything labeled “feminine” in both the capitalist and socialist economics we inherited from more authoritarian and violent times.  Indeed,  how gender roles and relations are culturally constructed is actually a key principle in how families, economics, and society at large are structured. That is why the four cornerstones—childhood and family, gender, economics, and story and language—are all interconnected. They shape whether a system trends toward domination or partnership.

Jacobsen: Are there forms of human activity that are socially productive but not coded as either feminine or masculine? That is, activities that do not fall clearly into those categories but still contribute to economic or social life? I mean something that does not fall within the conventional categories. It is not viewed as masculine, nor is it associated with feminine, caring labour. It seems like a grey zone—an activity that is productive or useful but not gender-coded.

We know activities coded as masculine are typically considered economically productive, and those coded as feminine—like caregiving—are often unremunerated. But what about a third category that is neither “productive” in the conventional masculine sense nor “caring” in the feminine-coded sense?

Eisler: Can you give me an example of what you have in mind?

Jacobsen: I have no idea. I am asking the expert. That is why I am bringing it up—it just came to mind as a question.

Eisler: I am sure. Well, I mean, we have to look beyond the present, which is still shaped by domination-based definitions of what is “feminine” and “masculine.” In truth, caring is a human activity—it is not inherently feminine. In the future, we should not code it that way.

Just look at all the men today who care for children, for babies—activities like diapering, feeding, nurturing—tasks that were once seen as exclusively women’s work. In the past, a man doing those things would be told he was not a “real man.” And yet today, real men are doing exactly that.

Men are human beings. As we move toward more partnership-oriented societies, many definitions of gender, leadership, and value will evolve and, in fact, already have. For example, the idea of servant leadership is gender-neutral and includes care as a core element.

As a servant leader, your role is to empower others. And “empower” is another term aligned with the Partnership Model. In domination systems, power is about control—power over others. But in partnership systems, power is redefined as power to and power with, not power over. That shift is profound.

I think we have to keep reminding ourselves, as Einstein said—and I will quote him: “You cannot solve problems with the same consciousness that created them.”

To quote another icon, Gandhi said something equally profound.

Jacobsen: He was part of the inspiration for me to work on a horse farm and live among people the way he did. He was a sagacious person.

Eisler: He truly was—a sagacious person. And so was his wife, Kasturba, by the way. I am in a film about her. But we do not need to go into that now. You know how it is—women are often behind the “great man.” But in their case, they truly had a partnership. Gandhi said something I usually quote: “We make a mistake in confusing the habitual for the natural.”

Jacobsen: I like that.

Eisler: Yes. And that is what this work is ultimately about—not just revolution, but transformation. Although in times of regression, revolution may occur. Jacobsen: In times of crisis, is the Dominator Model more likely to assert itself in shaping a society’s vision for itself, or something else?

Eisler: I make a distinction between hierarchies of domination and hierarchies of actualization. There are parents, teachers, managers, and leaders in both partnership and domination oriented systems. The key question is: What kind of hierarchy is it, and how is power defined and exercised?

This entire conversation today is, in many ways, about that distinction—power over versus power with. But I also add a third concept: creative power.

It is essential to distinguish between creativity and innovation. Domination systems often contain innovation, yes, but much of it is destructive. For example, the use of ovens to kill people during the Holocaust was an innovation—but it was in the service of domination, of “power over,” of fear and death. That was a blade innovation.

Today, the regression toward domination is fueled by fear. People are persuaded to identify with those at the top. So when you see extravagant displays of wealth—like the Bezos wedding—it becomes a kind of vicarious thrill for many.

Jacobsen: Is it a bit like a royal wedding? Like the British royal weddings—Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, when they got married.

Eisler: Oh, yes, right. It’s like that. But for others, it feels wasteful, excessive, and obscene. And recognizing that takes a change in consciousness.

That’s the key: a change in mindset toward awareness and understanding. We need to spread the knowledge that for most of human history, societies were more partnership-oriented than domination-based.

Look at the Nordic nations. Look at the Mbuti in Central Africa. Look at the Mosuo in China. There are many examples of societies that historically operated more in partnership modes.

But often, when indigenous partnership oriented societies came into contact with domination systems, they were pressured or forced to shift toward domination.

And that’s the challenge. We are now at a critical juncture: climate change, pandemics, and nuclear weapons—all global threats. At the same time, we have worldwide transportation and communication technologies. We are globally interconnected.

This means we must move toward a partnership model—one that prioritizes care for people and nature.

We will get there because of the tremendous human instinct for survival. But on the road there, unfortunately, there will be regression—and there will be suffering.

Jacobsen: I interviewed with a British scholar named Alexander Douglas. He comes from a discipline called philosophy of economics, and he approaches it from a critical perspective.

He participated in a multi-part series with me about six or seven years ago. Another colleague of his, Dr. Christina Alice, offers a similar critique: that in standard economics, highly elaborate mathematical models are often created, but these are essentially fantasies.

They give the appearance of precision and complexity, creating the illusion of doing “real science.” But when you examine it more closely, it becomes clear that these models rely on mathematical formalism in a rigorously superficial way.

Eisler: Yes, that’s exactly right. And frankly, that’s what much of science has been about historically. For instance, until roughly 200 years ago, science believed that women had no meaningful role in genetic inheritance—that only men did.

That was considered scientific “truth.” Then we discovered it was entirely false.

Jacobsen: The good thing, though, is that when science is done well, it has a built-in corrective mechanism. It catalogues its errors and, over time, improves its understanding.

But let’s turn more specifically to economics. How do you see this evolving in the future? You mentioned climate change, bacteriological threats, and nuclear threats, especially climate change. The other two are more unpredictable since immediate human actions, like the detonation of a single bomb, drive them.

Climate change, by contrast, is a slow-moving catastrophe—but there’s a hard time limit. It’s like we’re all inside the oven.

Eisler: Exactly. And there is a time limit on all of it. Think about it: if religious fanatics—people who believe they’ll go to heaven and be attended by 12 virgins when they die—possess nuclear weapons, that is not a hypothetical danger. That is an immediate and very real threat.

Because they will use them, we should not fool ourselves into thinking these risks are distant or far-fetched.

What people also often fail to grasp is that fundamentalist religion—across traditions—is not just extreme religion; it is domination religion. What people often do not understand is that fundamentalist religion is basically  a dominator religion. And yet, at the core of many of our religious scriptures, you also find teachings that could be described as “feminine”—teachings about caring, caregiving, and nonviolence. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” But then, over time, those teachings are encroached upon and diluted by dominant ideologies.

You know—”spare the rod, spoil the child,” blaming Eve—blaming woman—for all of humanity’s ills. And that’s why the four cornerstones are so important. We have to examine the stories we are told as truth critically, and we can change them.

The transformation from partnership to domination throughout history happened primarily through force. But today, with the existence of nuclear and bacteriological weapons, force is obsolete—it is anti-evolutionary, at least for our species. Cockroaches will probably manage somehow.

Jacobsen: [Laughing] Mariana Trench bugs. To close on this thought, do you have any final reflections?

Eisler: Yes. My final thought is that we are approaching a point of no return. And the faster we can shift people’s worldviews—change their mindset—the greater the chance we have. There’s still hope, because there are many creative, promising movements taking place.

Look at the environmental movement, the women’s movement, the children’s rights movement, the racial justice movement, the peace movement, and the economic justice movement. They are all, at their core, challenging the same underlying structure: a tradition of domination.

If people can understand that and begin working through the four cornerstones, we can shift the foundation.

Because unless we address root causes—not just symptoms—the system will lead us to an evolutionary dead end. And that outcome is not necessary.

We can build a partnership-oriented future for ourselves, our children, and generations to come.

Jacobsen: Thank you very much for your time and your expertise. It’s always lovely to see you again. I will see you in the next session.

Eisler: Yes—and happy travels.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices. In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.