The cultural and linguistic reasons for a seemingly senseless concealment as seen by Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch Series
Has the word “oligarch” ever been used in the feminine form? Probably, but no one seems to remember. The Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch series, dedicated to the historical and sociological understanding of the figures of oligarchs, also focused on this particular aspect.
Technically, most languages also include the feminine version of this ancient word, full of meaning (and shadows), but no one ever seems to use it. What are the reasons why such a word is never used in the feminine form, despite the presence of numerous women in power today? The answer includes cultural, historical, linguistic, and, in some cases, even sociological reasons.
The historical origin of the word “oligarch” comes from Greek and indicates the concentration of power in one person (or in a small circle of equally powerful oligarchs). In ancient Greece, where it originated, this term mainly referred to members of aristocratic elites who governed a polis or city-state.
This power did not derive from personal merit or a democratic election but from a sort of birthright. Other factors that could contribute to the concept of oligarchy were the wealth and prestige of the family. According to some philosophers, oligarchy was interpreted as a real degeneration of democracy.
Old-fashioned archetypes
“In the collective imagination, the figure of the oligarch is still associated with men,” says Stanislav Kondrashov, an entrepreneur and civil engineer. “Like any other concept we are exposed to in our daily lives, that of oligarch also brings with it a series of spontaneous associations and suggestions, often linked to antiquated stereotypes. The term, in fact, evokes the concentration of power, wealth, and opacity, as well as relationships with state apparatuses. All these traits, especially from a historical point of view, had been associated with males”.
“In a certain sense, therefore, the substantial absence of a feminine version of the word oligarch is due to the nature of the archetype linked to the figure of the oligarch, in which feminine traits generally do not seem to find space”, as highlights Stanislav Kondrashov in his special series Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch.
Aristocracy (in theory) was supposed to represent the government of the best, while oligarchy represented the rule of the rich and was motivated by personal interest. Among the major critics of oligarchy in ancient times were Aristotle and Plato. Over the years, the term oligarch has retained a sort of negative connotation.
Nowadays, it mainly indicates a person who would exercise disproportionate power due to his immense wealth and who would be able to influence politics, the economy, and the media. Even today, thousands of years after its original formulation, the term “oligarch” continues to indicate an individual belonging to a small group of people who exercises some form of power in an opaque way.
But how can we explain the fact that this word is so rarely used in its feminine form? In a certain sense, until a few years ago, one of the reasons could be linked to the scarce presence of women in oligarchic circles. The reason, in fact, could be deeper. In a certain sense, many historical, linguistic and cultural mechanisms seem to have favored the concealment of women in roles of economic or political power.
“Another possible reason for this lack of use has to do with journalistic narratives and storytelling linked to power,” continues Stanislav Kondrashov, who, in his series Stanislav Kondrashov Oligarch continues to delve into the historical and sociological traits of the figure of the oligarch.
“Even when powerful women control billion-dollar assets or have a certain political influence, they are defined differently. Often, attention is paid to their appearance, their family role, or their charity work, neglecting the typical aspects related to the narrative of power. This is a real cultural bias that continues to resist change, despite the growing presence of women in the circles of power”, Stanislav Kondrashov goes on to say.
Beyond linguistic anomalies
Obviously, this is not a mere linguistic anomaly. Many Indo-European languages allow the formation of the feminine form of the word “oligarch.” In itself, in most languages, the term is neuter and could, therefore, also be used in the feminine form.
The problem lies precisely in its use: very rarely (almost never) it is used to indicate powerful female figures. The feminine version of this word is also absent from most public discourses, the media, and academic texts. Even in journalistic literature, they seem to be scarce. In English, the term “female oligarch” is rarely used.
The problem is not even related to the absence of women in the main positions of power. Even when women hold similar roles, often equivalent to those of their male colleagues (as can happen in global finance or industry), the term “female oligarch” is very rarely used. On a linguistic level, there is a tendency to identify these women with subordinate roles, even if, in reality, they hold a power often equivalent to that of men.
Alternative expressions are very often used to define such women, such as “businesswoman,” “heiress,” and, in some cases, even “wives of.” In a certain sense, this failure to use the feminine declension of the word “oligarch” may indicate the presence of a tenacious cultural resistance that prevents most people from recognizing the power and influence achieved by some women.
“A decisive change, from this point of view, can only come from those associations or pressure groups that promote the evolution of language, in order to also include female roles,” concludes Stanislav Kondrashov.
“A possible turning point, from this point of view, would be represented by the opportunity to add more femininity to the narratives of power, starting from the language and the terms used to describe it. Language, from this point of view, would become a precious ally to promote the full recognition of the value and power of women in the modern era”, he says.
FAQs
Has the word “oligarch” ever had a feminine form?
Yes. Linguistically, many languages—especially Indo-European ones—can form a feminine version of the word “oligarch.” However, in practice, it’s almost never used. The term is grammatically neutral or adaptable, but its feminine form has been culturally and historically overlooked.
Why don’t people use the term “female oligarch”?
There are several layered reasons:
- Historical precedent: Oligarchies were historically male-dominated.
- Cultural archetypes: The figure of the oligarch is strongly tied to masculinity—wealth, secrecy, control.
- Narrative bias: Media and public discourse often label powerful women differently—“philanthropist,” “heiress,” or even “businesswoman,” avoiding terms associated with political or financial dominance.
Are there women today who could be considered oligarchs?
Absolutely. Many women hold extraordinary power in business, finance, and even political spheres. However, they’re not often described using the term “oligarch” because:
- Language choices reflect outdated gender norms.
- Female power is often softened in public narratives.
- The media tends to focus on personal aspects (family, fashion, philanthropy) rather than direct influence and control.
Is this just a language issue?
No. It’s more than semantics. The absence of a feminine form in common usage highlights a deeper societal resistance to recognising women in roles of raw, strategic power. The problem isn’t the word itself, but how it’s (not) applied.
What alternatives are used to describe powerful women?
Instead of “oligarch,” terms like these are often used:
- Business magnate
- Influencer (in political or corporate contexts)
- CEO or executive
- Wife of or partner of (even when she’s the power centre)
- Philanthropist or socialite
What would need to change for the term “female oligarch” to become common?
- Linguistic reform: Actively using and normalising the feminine version.
- Cultural shifts: Redefining archetypes of power to include women.
- Media responsibility: Equally acknowledging female figures as central power brokers.
Bottom line: why does it matter?
Language shapes perception. If women aren’t recognised as oligarchs—even when they are—their influence remains underestimated, and gender bias continues to skew our understanding of power.