Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Signs.
http://www.jstor.org
AN AWKWARD RELATIONSHIP:
THE CASE OF FEMINISM
AND ANTHROPOLOGY
MARILYN STRATHERN
276
Winter1987 / SIGNS
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
Practitioners
of both imaginetheymightbe overthrowing
existingparatodrawon its
digms,and one might,in turn,expect"radical"anthropology
feministcounterpart.This does not seem to have happened. Theirresistancetoone anotherwillthrowlighton thedifference
between"feminism"
as such.
and "anthropology"
Anthropology:Successfulor unsuccessful?
between feministand anthropological
The affinity
thoughtis centralin
revoluJudithStaceyand BarrieThorne'saccountofthemissingfeminist
tionin sociology.Anthropology,
theystate,joins historyand literatureas
the fieldsin whichthe mostimpressivefeministconceptualshiftshave
can be attributedto the
occurred.The impressivegainsofanthropology
femaleimprinton the anthropological
"significant
pavementsfromthe
ofkinshipand genderin tradidiscipline'searliestdays,"to thecentrality
tionalanthropological
analysis,and to a holisticperspectivethataccepts
genderas a pervasiveprincipleof social organization.2
In manyways ideas generatedby feministinquiryhave received a
socialanthropologists'
ofother
readyresponsein mainstream
descriptions
societies.No one anylongercan talkunselfconsciously
abouttheposition
of women. It is no longer possible to assume that women are to be
measuredby the statustheyhold relativeto anotheror relegatedto a
chapterdealingwithmarriageand the family.The studyof genderhas
become a fieldin its own right.Most majorareas of anthropology
were
rapidlycolonizedby suchideas duringtheenormousgrowthofinterestin
feminismin the 1970s, creatingthe subdisciplineof feministanthropology. The earlyquestions asked by feministanthropology-Whatis the
How do systemsofinequalplace ofideologyincollectiverepresentations?
ityarise?Areanalyticcategoriessuchas "domestic"and "political"useful?
and, How are conceptsofpersonhoodconstituted?-remainat the forefront
ofitsconcerns.Moreover,thedisciplineprovidesmaterialsforpartof
the feministenterprise,namely, the scrutinyof Western constructs.
Anthropologistshave investigatedWestern biological idioms; have
stressedthatwhathappensto womencannotbe comprehendedunlesswe
look at whathappensto men and women,and thatwhathappensin that
realm cannotbe comprehendedwithoutattentionto the overall social
system;and continueto provideglimpsesintootherworlds,intodifferent
2
StaceyandThorne,303. See alsoCarolMacCormack,"Anthropology-aDisciplinewith
a Legacy,"in Men's StudiesModified,ed. Dale Spender(New York:PergamonPress,1981),
in her castigationof the social
99-110. JudithShapiro, however,includes anthropology
and
sciences,which"have yetto come to termswithgenderas a socialfact"("Anthropology
the Study of Gender," in A FeministPerspectivein the Academy,ed. E. Langland and
W. Gove [Chicago: UniversityofChicago Press, 1983], 110-29, esp. 112).
278
Winter1987 / SIGNS
formsofoppressionand freedom.Anthropology
suppliesa rangeofcrossculturaldata that,to borrowa phrase,are good to thinkwith.
The disciplinethusappearstooffer
an unparalleledpositionfromwhich
to scrutinizeWesternassumptions,enlargingthe scope offeminist
enterprise by remindingus of the conditionsunder whichwomen live elsewhere.Yet,intheearly1970s,specificfeminist
interestenteredanthropologyin theformofstingingattackson thediscipline'smale bias. Thiswas a
clearsignalthatanthropologists
could notafford
to be complacent.Simply
havinghad a "place" somewhereforwomen in theiraccountswas not
enough;theycould well be replicatingmale evaluationsofwomenin the
societiestheystudied.Thisfeminist
critiqueofbias quicklyfounditsmark.
Afterall, feminists
were askingthekindsofquestionsaboutideologiesand
models that anthropologists
recognized.In short,they gave excellent
advice.3
anthropological
in anthropology
Staceyand Thorneperceivesuchinnovations
through
the formulaof paradigmshift.To them,feministgains in anthropology
have shiftedparadigmsin twosenses:existingconceptualframeworks
have
been challenged,and the transformation
has been accepted by othersin
thediscipline.Thus "ofall thedisciplines,feminist
has been
anthropology
the mostsuccessfulin bothof these dimensions."4
is similarly,thoughless optimistically,
Anthropology
singledout in
Elizabeth Langland and Walter Gove's collectionof essays on feminist
perspectivesin the academy.5By comparisonwiththe stateof affairsin
several disciplines,they conclude that anthropologists
have long been
sensitiveto differences
in male and femalebehavior,but theyleave it at
that. Whereas Stacey and Thorne see anthropology6
as accomplishinga
double paradigmshift,Langlandand Gove's morepessimisticreflections
see the major shiftstill to come. However, these authorsboth take a
transformation
offrameworks
as the criterionforsuccess.
and
Gove
of
Langland
speak theresistancedocumentedin theircollections:the scholarsagree thatwhile a "feminist
perspectivehas begun to
affectthe shape of what is known-and knowable-in theirrespective
3
See JaneMonnigAtkinson,
(ReviewEssay),"Signs:JournalofWomenin
"Anthropology
Cultureand Society8, no. 2 (Winter1982): 236-58, esp. 238. Ironically,Edwin Ardener's
paper on the problemofwomenwas writtento elucidatecertainfeaturesofmodelbuilding
and, in retrospect,has become a contribution
to feministliterature;see Edwin Ardener,
"Beliefand the ProblemofWomen,"in The Interpretation
ofRitual,ed. JeanLa Fontaine
(London: TavistockPublications,1972).
4
Staceyand Thorne,302.
5 Elizabeth Langland and Walter
Gove, A FeministPerspectivein the Academy:The
DifferenceIt Makes (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1983; firstpublishedby the
SocietyforValues in Higher Educationand VanderbiltUniversity,1981).
6 1 referto social/cultural
A moderatecase forphysicalanthropology
anthropology.
is put
by Helen Longinoand Ruth Doell, "Body, Bias, and Behavior:A ComparativeAnalysisof
ReasoninginTwo AreasofBiologicalScience,"Signs9, no. 2 (Winter1983):206-27,esp. 226.
279
Stathen
/ ANTHROPOLOGY
280
Winter1987 / SIGNS
as wellas itssubjectmatter.0Clearly
gory,to "women"as itspractitioners,
ofmanyfeminist
scholarstorestorewomentoview.Butit
itis theintention
thattheirconcernscan be concretizedin thisway. Where
is unfortunate
see themselvesas takingon the whole of the
feministanthropologists
discipline,theyare metwitha tendencyto sectionoffgenderanalysisor
women'sstudiesfromthe restofanthropology.
Perhaps,as Langlandand
anthroGove would argue,thisis a reactionto threat.Feminist-inspired
pologistsraisingquestionsaboutmale bias could be regardedas challenging the foundationofthe subject,withits theoreticalemphasison group
and on rulesand norms,and withits
on systemsofauthority,
structures,
assumptionsabout the descriptionof totalsystems.Ironically,however,
come under scrutiny-and
where these conceptshave mostpowerfully
"groups,""rules,"and "norms"have hardlysurvivedthe last decade-it
has been in responseto internalcriticismthathas had littleto do with
stillcontinuesto know
feministtheory.Meanwhile,social anthropology
itselfas the studyof social behavioror societyin termsof systemsand
Iftheseconstitute
a paradigm,thenitis largely
collectiverepresentations.
intact.
Is this in facta process of challenge and counter-challenge?
Does
feminist
theorypresenta profoundthreatto core paradigms?Andhas the
deflectedbytherestoftheanthropological
threatbeen ingeniously
population,assumingit is just "aboutwomen"?Both the idea ofchallengeand
otherface,itsopennessto feminist
and anthropology's
counter-challenge,
ideas, invite one to thinkin termsof paradigms.Indeed, Stacey and
Thornecharacterizethe fieldsin whichfeministthinkinghas had most
headwayas ones with"strongtraditionsof interpretive
understanding,"
" Here theconclusionwould
and self-critical.
thatis, ones thatare reflexive
seem to be thatthose disciplinesmostaware of the paradigmaticbases
upon which they proceed will be most open to paradigmshift.This
flaw.
argument,however,containsan interesting
The flawis made visibleby the invocationofThomasKuhn'sworkon
paradigmsin scientifictheory.Withoutsuch a reminderone mightget
ofparadigmsas "basic concepawaywitha commonsenseunderstanding
and orientingassumptionsofa bodyofknowledge."12Yet
tualframeworks
featureof the Kuhnianparadigmis thatthe scientistshe
one significant
studiedbecomeawareofparadigmshiftonlyafterthefact.The wholepoint
10See JudithShapiro,"Cross-cultural
in Human
Perspectiveson Sexual Differentiation,"
Sexuality:A Comparativeand DevelopmentalPerspective,ed. H. Katchadourian(Berkeley
and Los Angeles: UniversityofCaliforniaPress, 1979).
"l Staceyand Thorne(n. 1 above), 309.
12Ibid., 302; Thomas Kuhn, The Structureof
ScientificRevolutions,2d ed. (Chicago:
Universityof Chicago Press, 1970). Langland and Gove do not cite Kuhn, thoughtheir
terminology
stronglysuggeststhattheyare familiarwithhis work.
281
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
is thattheydo notaimtoshiftparadigms-theyaimtoaccountforthingsby
whattheyknow.The twinideas ofparadigmsand thepossibility
ofshifting
them remainpowerfulones. These ideas belong to the way innovative
scholarsrepresentthemselves.They are partofthe way theytalk about
what they do. The image of perspectivetransformation
belongs to the
rhetoricofradicalism-and requiresexplanationas partofthatrhetoric.13
282
Winter1987 / SIGNS
Beliefsabout female
anonymouspressureofascriptivesocial mythology.
sexualityalso act like Kuhnianparadigmsin theirresponseto anomalies.
Over time,anomaliesforceparadigmsintoa different
position;insteadof
beingtakenforgranted,
theybecomeidealspreachedabout.Indeed, she is
concernedto pressthepointthatforsome,male sexualstereotypesnever
fitted.Women could never share fullyin them, since they cannot fit
themselvesinto expectationsof male normalcy.Paradigmsin her view
establishthe rules of normalcy.
thatJaneway's
Yet, what do we do with the internalcontradictions
ofnormalcyalong
"paradigms"also seem to entail?The veryconstruction
exclusivemale lines,forinstance,invitesquestionsabouttheplace ofmen
ofwhatis normal.Janewaywrites,
and womenin relationto itsdefinition
"The shared beliefsand values expressedby our 'paradigms'of female
sexualityare not,in fact,sharedfullyby thewomenwho have had to take
themas models."'71 wouldsuggestthatthefacttheyare notsharedcomes
less froma failureof a paradigmto accommodaterealitythanfromthe
structureofan ideologywhich,in speakingto certainsocialinterests,also
propositions.It is
reproducesothersand thus promotescontradictory
important,then,to look at the mannerin whichso-calledparadigmsare
shared.
to "abandonthe
SandraCoyneradviseswomen'sstudiespractitioners
and stilloverwhelmingly
unsuccessful
effort
to transform
energy-draining
the establisheddisciplines.Instead theyshouldcontinuedevelopingthe
new communityof feministscholarswho will eventuallydiscovernew
stateparadigmsand founda new normativescience."18This interesting
ment breaks with the assumptionthat paradigmsare like some set of
culturalnorms;instead,it locatesparadigmsin relationto a community
of
The questionis whetherwe are stilldealingwithparadigms
practitioners.
or not.
in naturalsciencestemmed
Kuhnhimselfclaimsthathisinvestigations
fromrealizingthe extentto whichsocialscience,by contrast,was characterizedby overtdisagreement.He professesto be puzzled at thewayhis
Kuhn notes the
notionof paradigmhad been adopted in otherfields.19
in
natural
nature
the
science:
there
are
of
few
community
specific
relatively
that
revolutions
affect
universal
so
a
comschools,
competing
perceptions;
munity'smembersare theonlyjudge ofone another;and puzzle solvingis
an end in itself.Kuhnemphasizesthesharedmeaningsofparadigmswhich
both define a scientificcommunityand are definedby it. Of course,
communitiesexistat different
scientific
levels,buton thewholetherewill
Above all, thereis
be agreementabout the statusoftheirdisagreements.
17
Ibid., 575.
18 Cited by Boxer,260.
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
Competitive premises
Talkingabout paradigmsis not the same as usingthem. The metaphor
ofmassivefoundations
and theherculeantaskit
suggeststheimmovability
wouldbe to dislodgethem.Yet whenwe are dealingwithsocialscientists
overturntheirowntheoriesand construct
whoconstantly
explicithistories
of internalrevolution,I do not thinkthe key to resistanceis feminism's
let alone "paradigms."I wish to
challenge to intellectualframeworks,
intherelationship
betweenanthropology
accountfortheawkwardness
and
and thecontinuing
resistancethatfeminist
encounfeminism,
scholarship
terms.Talk about "paradigms"belongsto the conscious
ters,in different
effort
to establisha new subjectmatter.Whatcannotbe so self-consciously
shifted,I shall argue, is the natureofinvestigators'
relationshipto their
matter
that
create.
We mustlookto
subject
particularscholarlypractices
the social constitution
ofbothfeministand anthropological
practice.
Neitherfeministscholarshipnor social anthropology
is closed in the
itspractitioners
Kuhniansense. Thus thereis no one anthropology;
range
torelativists,
fromthoseinterestedinpowerrelationsto
fromdeterminists
thosewhogiveprimacytoculturalmodels,fromthepoliticaleconomiststo
the hermeneuticists.
Manyofthesepositionscorrespondto philosophical
in history
orliterary
criticism.
ones or have counterparts
Whenanthropologistscall themselvespoststructuralists,
theycannotescape contemporary
anymorethantheyevercouldclaima monopolyon the
literarytraditions
It shouldbe no surprise,then,thatsmallas it is,
conceptofstructuralism.
is based on divisions.Socialanthropologthefieldoffeminist
anthropology
divideintotwocampsoverwhetheror
ical studiesofwomenpersistently
is universal.One side argues thatWesternconnot sexual asymmetry
in unfamiliar
contextsand that
structsblindus fromseeingegalitarianism
we encounterhierarchicalrelationsonlyin thehistoricalcontextofprivatized ownership.The otherside argues thatwe should look forsexual
284
Winter1987 / SIGNS
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
Neighbors in tension
For the tensionbetween feministscholarshipand anthropology,
I have
used the term"awkward,"to suggesta doorstephesitationratherthan
barricades. Each in a sense mocks the other,because each so nearly
achieveswhatthe otheraims foras an ideal relationwiththe world.
There is, in anthropological
inquiry,a longtraditionofbreakingwith
286
Winter1987 / SIGNS
A recent
the past, so thattheoreticalgenerationstend to be short-lived.
in thepresare innovations
heirto thisconstantradicalization
interesting
of experience.
ent contextforthe weightplaced on the interpretation
Experience is also an explicittopicoffeministinquiry.The well-argued
in the sense thatits
radicalview is thatfeminist
theoryis "experiential,"23
firststep is consciousnessraising.In transmuted
form,a numberoffeminofexperience.RaynaRapp
istanthropologists
emphasizethe significance
the "searchforanalysisof
reportedin her 1979 reviewof anthropology
morefinelydelineatedfemaleexperience";she laternotesinterestin "the
as mediatedthroughperceptionsof
lived body"-women's self-concepts
theirbodies.24NancyScheper-Hughesaddressesa feminist
anthropology
situation:ethnograthatexplores"the natureofthe self"in the fieldwork
Yet the focuson similarissues in
phy as "intellectualautobiography."25
has proceededas a quiteindependentradical
writing
generalethnographic
contribution.
The anthropoldevelopment,withoutregardforthefeminist
ogist'saimis to grasp"livedexperience"throughperceptionsofthebody;26
of ritualexperience"is heraldedin a collectionof
"a new anthropology
Feministinterestin thesematterswouldnotbe
essayson initiationrites.27
challenging"paradigms"thatare notalreadyunderchallengefromwithin
I thinkthisis because "experience"is notthe common
the anthropology.
it
meetingground appearsto be, and myfocuson itwillbe a focuson the
and feministscholarshipas such. I
awkwardnessbetween anthropology
the
idea
of
the
contrast
way
experienceis used in nonanthropobriefly
and
in
discourse
nonfeminist
discourse.In
feminist
anthropological
logical
each case it is developed as a weapon againstorthodoxy.
Feministscholarshipsees itselfas challengingstereotypes
thatmisrepresentwomen'sexperiences.Women'sexperiencemaybe setagainstmale
ideology,includingacademictheorybuilding,whichappropriatesspeech
and imageintheinterestsofpatriarchy.
These aretheimagesofsexuality
of
whichJanewaytalked-women being made to feelin certainwaysabout
couldbe doneforthem.Closelytiedto
themselves,as thoughthatthinking
23 NannerlKeohane, MichelleRosaldo,and BarbaraGelpi, eds., "Foreword"to Feminist
Theory:A Critique of Ideology(n. 8 above), vii; also Cheri Register,"LiteraryCriticism
(ReviewEssay)," Signs6, no. 2 (Winter1980):268-82, esp. 269. Staceyand Thornenotethat
feminist
therelationship
theorists"are reconsidering
betweenknowerand knownto develop
a methodofinquirythatwillpreservethepresenceofthesubjectas an actorandexperiencer,"
and stresstheiraffinity
to otherswhocontributeto hermeneutic
and neo-Marxist
critiquesof
positivistsocial science (n. 1 above), 309.
24 Rayna Rapp, "Anthropology
(Review Essay)," Signs4, no. 3 (Spring1979): 497-513,
esp. 500 and 503.
25
Nancy Scheper-Hughes,"Introduction:The Problem of Bias in Androcentricand
FeministAnthropology,"
Women'sStudies 10 (1983): 115.
26
Michael Jackson,"Knowledgeof the Body," Man, n.s., 18 (1983): 327-45.
27 Gilbert
Herdt,"Preface"to RitualsofManhood:Male Initiationin Papua New Guinea
(Berkeleyand Los Angeles: UniversityofCaliforniaPress, 1982), esp. xix.
287
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
288
Winter1987 / SIGNS
289
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
290
Winter1987 / SIGNS
291
Strathern / ANTHROPOLOGY
292