week 1 wt - feminism Flashcards
(15 cards)
What is the historical context for the rise of feminist anthropology?
-> The 1960s and 1970s - intense period of sociopolitical change:
Revolutionary unrest, national liberation movements, a growing concern with inequality, anti-war protests -> influenced by Marxism and anti-colonial struggles.
-> Western feminists turned to anthropology to understand women’s situations globally
-> Feminist anthropologists began to critique the male bias in the discipline and to question the roots of female subordination
Example: The women’s liberation movement in the US and Europe led to a re-examination of social science disciplines.
For example, Michelle Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere’s edited volume ‘Women, Culture, and Society’ (1974) was a landmark, bringing together essays that challenged the invisibility of women in ethnographic accounts and called for a systematic study of women’s roles across cultures.
This period also saw the rise of Black and Indigenous feminist critiques, such as those by Zora Neale Hurston and later Lynn Bolles, who highlighted the intersection of race, gender, and colonialism in anthropological research.
What is the “triple male bias” in anthropology?
Anthropology historically suffered from:
(1) male dominance among scholars
(2) male-centered data collection (reliance on male informants)
(3) exclusion of women’s perspectives, leading to a distorted understanding of gender roles and women’s status.
Example of trying to remedy/prove the triple male bias in research:
Annette Weiner’s return to the Trobriand Islands in the 1970s.
Bronislaw Malinowski, the founding figure of participant observation, had focused almost exclusively on men’s activities and missed the central role of women in producing and controlling banana leaf bundles and skirts - key forms of wealth and status in Trobriand society.
Weiner’s ethnography (Women of Value, Men of Renown, 1976) revealed that women’s economic and ritual contributions were vital.
This fundamentally challenged Malinowski’s male-biased account and showed how the triple male bias can erase women’s power from the anthropological record.
Source: Henrietta Moore, 1988 - ‘Feminisim and Anthropology: The Story of a Relationship’
What are the main lines of inquiry in feminist anthropology?
Three main approaches:
(a) Universalist (seeking reasons for universal male domination, e.g., Ortner)
(b) Culturalist (emphasizing cultural variability in gender roles)
(c) Marxist/Black Feminist (highlighting intersectionality and the non-universality of female subordination).
Examples:
(a) Universalist: Ortner’s symbolic analysis of nature/culture.
(b) Culturalist: Margaret Mead’s ‘Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies’ (1935) showed that gender roles and temperaments varied widely among the Arapesh, Mundugumor, and Tchambuli of Papua New Guinea, challenging Western assumptions about gender.
(c) Marxist/Black Feminist: Eleanor Leacock’s work with the Montagnais-Naskapi (historical-economic factors shaping gender relations (introduction of capitalism via colonialism) -> also culturalist because she discussed that cultural systems = not static, they evolve in response ot time, and the main )
and Lynn Bolles’ studies of Black women in the Caribbean, which highlight how colonialism, race, and class shape gendered experiences.
What is Sherry Ortner’s main argument in “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?” (1972)?
Ortner argues that the universal devaluation of women is due to their symbolic association with “nature,” while men are associated with “culture.”
Culture is always valued above nature, so men are valued above women. This association is not biological but is constructed through cultural value systems.
EG: Ortner draws on cross-cultural examples, such as Hindu beliefs in India -> where women are seen as more closely tied to bodily processes (menstruation, childbirth) and thus to nature -> while men are associated with spiritual and intellectual pursuits (culture).
Also references the Dani of New Guinea, where men’s gardening and ritual activities are seen as transformative and thus “cultural,” while women’s roles are seen as reproductive and “natural.”
Many contradictions even w/in American culture, where the man is ‘wild’ and the woman is ‘domestic’ and must ‘tame’ him.
Source: Ortner, 1972
How does Ortner define evidence for universal female subordination?
She identifies three types:
(1) explicit cultural ideologies devaluing women (2) symbolic devices (e.g., pollution taboos)
(3) social rules excluding women from the highest powers or sacred realms
She claims that at least one of these is present in every society.
EG: In Hindu India, menstruating women are considered ‘polluting’ and are excluded from temples and religious rituals (symbolic device and social rule).
In many societies, women are explicitly described as less rational or capable than men (ideology), and are barred from political or religious leadership (social rule), as seen in the exclusion of women from the Catholic priesthood.
Source: Ortner, 1972
How does Ortner explain the persistence of female subordination?
She rejects biological determinism (the belief that all human behavior and traits are determined by genes and other biological factors) and instead argues that all cultures devalue “nature” and, by extension, women.
Women’s roles in reproduction, childrearing, and the domestic sphere are seen as closer to nature, while men’s activities are seen as transcending nature (culture).
EG: Ortner points to the way that in many societies, women’s work (childbirth, food preparation) is seen as ‘repetitive’ and thus tied to biological cycles, while men’s work (hunting, politics, ritual) is seen as creative and world-transforming.
For example, among the Dogon of Mali, women’s menstruation is seen as a natural process, while men’s ritual circumcision is seen as a cultural achievement.
Source: Ortner, 1972
What are the main critiques of Ortner’s position?
Critics (including Leacock) argue that:
(a) not all societies subordinate women (eg Olivia Harris - ‘The Power of Signs..’ 1980 - in the Andes, the primary social divisions among the Lima are not based on gender but on generational hierarchies)
(b) Ortner ignores societies where women have autonomy or power
(c) the nature/culture dichotomy is not universal (eg Marilyin Strathern research on the Hagen of Papua New Guinea 1980 - ‘wild vs. domestic’ is NOT equivalent to nature and culture - absurd extrapolation)
(d) cultural systems are dynamic, shaped by historical and economic changes (Lealock - capitalism + colonialism shaping gender roles in the Montagnais-Naskapi)
FURTHER EG:
Eleanor Leacock’s research among the Montagnais-Naskapi found that women had significant autonomy and control over resources before colonial contact, contradicting the idea of universal subordination.
Similarly, Peggy Sanday’s work among the Minangkabau of Indonesia documents a matrilineal society where women control land and lineage, and the nature/culture dichotomy is not a central organizing principle.
Source: Lealock, 1983
What is Eleanor Leacock’s main argument about gender inequality?
Leacock, drawing on Marxist and historical materialist theory, argues that women’s subordination is not universal or natural.
In many egalitarian societies, women had autonomy and decision-making power (eg, the Iroquois before being colonized).
Subordination arose historically with the development of private property, class stratification, and colonialism.
EG: Leacock’s study of the Montagnais-Naskapi (Innu) of Canada showed that before fur trade and colonialism, women had control over their labor and resources, and decision-making was shared.
The imposition of European economic systems and Christianity led to the erosion of women’s status and autonomy.
Source: Lealock 1978
How does Leacock use ethnographic and historical evidence to challenge universality?
She points to societies like the Iroquois, Inuit, and some Australian Aboriginal groups, where women had significant autonomy and authority.
She argues that colonialism, capitalism, and the imposition of Western norms eroded women’s status, and that many ethnographies are biased by male informants and Western assumptions.
She’s strongly against the ‘ethnographic present’ when studying gender relations as it ignores the importance and impact of colonialism (Lealock 1983).
EG: Among the Iroquois + Cherokee, women owned the fields, controlled the distribution of food, and had the power to nominate and depose chiefs.
This authority was undermined by colonial policies that imposed European patriarchal norms and property laws, reducing women’s power and status.
Source: Lealock 1978, 1983
What is the significance of the public/private (domestic/social) dichotomy in these debates?
Ortner sees women’s association with the domestic (nature) as the root of their subordination.
Leacock argues that this dichotomy is not present in all societies and that in egalitarian societies, there was no rigid separation—women’s work and authority were public and valued.
EG: In many foraging societies, such as the Kung San of southern Africa, women’s gathering provides the majority of the group’s food, and their work is highly valued and public.
There is no strict separation between domestic and public spheres, and women participate in decision-making and social life.
Source: Lealock 1978
How does Leacock explain the historical emergence of gender hierarchy?
She links it to the rise of commodity production, private property, and class society (black feminist/marxist approach).
As production shifted from use to exchange, women lost control over their labor and products, leading to their subordination within the household and society.
EG: In the transition from communal to private property in Europe, women’s traditional rights to land and resources were eroded.
For example, in England, the enclosure movement privatized common lands, excluding women from economic production and making them dependent on male wages and authority.
Lealock 1983
What is the feminist critique of “universal woman” and the importance of difference?
Feminist anthropology moved from “adding women” to anthropology to studying gender as a relational, historically specific process.
The category “woman” is not universal; gender, race, class, and colonialism intersect to shape women’s experiences differently across societies.
EG: Lynn Bolles and other Black feminist anthropologists have shown that the experiences of Afro-Caribbean women, who often head households and participate in wage labor, differ significantly from the experiences of white, middle-class women in the US.
This intersectional approach challenges the idea of a single, universal “woman’s experience.”
Source: Bolles 2013
How does the Ortner vs. Leacock debate illustrate broader tensions in feminist anthropology?
Ortner represents the search for universal explanations (symbolic, structural), while Leacock insists on historical specificity and material conditions.
The debate highlights the need to question assumptions about universality, to attend to history and power, and to recognize the diversity of women’s experiences.
EG: The debate is reflected in later feminist anthropology, such as the work of Henrietta Moore, who argues for the importance of difference and context, and the critiques by Black and Indigenous feminists who insist that gender cannot be separated from race, class, and colonial histories.
Source: Ortner 1972, Lealock 1978
What are the implications of these debates for contemporary anthropology?
They led to a focus on intersectionality, the critique of male and Western bias, and the recognition that gender must be analyzed in relation to class, race, colonialism, and historical change.
Feminist anthropology now studies how gender is constructed, maintained, and transformed in specific contexts.
EG: Contemporary studies, such as Aihwa Ong’s work on Malaysian factory women, show how global capitalism, local gender ideologies, and state policies intersect to shape women’s lives.
Ong documents how young women’s labor is both exploited and regulated by gendered expectations, illustrating the need for intersectional analysis.
Source: Bolles, 2013
How should we approach the question: “Are women born or made? Are women universally subordinated or not?”
Ortner would say women are “made” through cultural processes that associate them with nature and devalue them.
Leacock would argue that subordination is not universal, but historically produced, and that women’s roles and status are shaped by specific social, economic, and historical conditions.
EG: Among the Montagnais-Naskapi, women’s autonomy was eroded only after colonialism and the fur trade, showing that subordination is not a biological given but a result of historical processes.
In contrast, Ortner’s symbolic analysis would interpret the persistence of women’s association with nature as a cultural constant, but even she acknowledges that the forms and intensity of subordination vary.
Source: Ortner 1972, Lealock 1978
