23 Feminism in Anthropology I

Naila Ansari

Table of Content

Introduction

1. Emergence of Feminism Anthropology

2.Definition of Feminism

3. Anthropology of Gender and Beyond

4.Feminist Theory

• Feminism
• Feminist
• Cultural Feminism
• Ecofeminism
• Individualist or Libertarian Feminism
• Material Feminism
• National Organization for Women
• Radical Feminism
• Amazon Feminism
• Separatists

5.    Types of Feminist Theory

• Gender Differences
• Gender Identity
• Gender Role
• Gender Expression

6.  Types of Oppression

• Individual
• Institutional
• Societal/Cultural

7.  Feminist Approaches Summary

Learning Objectives

• To able to define the concept and characteristics Feminism anthropology
• To probes into the Emergence of Feminist Anthropology
• To determine the identity of impact of feminist theory on mainstream disciplinary development of Anthropology.
• To able to define the major contemporary anthropological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society

Introduction

In the past several years, feminist anthropologists, sociologists, and social historians have produced a literature on women’s. The literature on women – both feminist and anti-feminist – is a long rumination on the question of the nature and genesis of women’s oppression and social subordination. The question is not a trivial one, since the answers given it determine our visions of the future, and our evaluation of whether or not it is realistic to hope for a sexually egalitarian society. Women are the backbone of a wide range of social activities, including rural and urban settled women population for improved living conditions, student movements, feminist activity, and movements for human rights, land reclamations, relatives of the disappeared, labour unions, abortion and reproductive rights, democratization of political systems, and more. Women were not recognized as individuals or autonomous beings. Women had to face many obstacles in the academic circuit, which symbolizes the effects of an educational culture that radically restricts the scope of women’s intellectual exposure.

The task of representing the field of feminist anthropology has been enormously challenging. Not only is the field growing before one’s eyes a truly moving target but it has broadened over the years in ways that make a succinct statement of its contributions all but impossible.

1.    Emergence of Feminism Anthropology

Feminist anthropology first burst onto the scene only about 30 years ago, in the early to mid-1970s. Along with similar efforts taking hold throughout the academy in this period, it was inspired and shaped by the women’s liberation movement of the late 1960s and early 1970s; with scholar-activists asking questions that they thought might help them to formulate strategies for addressing persistent social injustices. Departing from anthropological conventions of the time, their concern was not only focused on the parts of the world traditionally studied by anthropologists – small scale, exotic, technologically primitive cultures, or populations defined as ‘‘others’’ close at hand – but with relating the insights yielded in cross-cultural study to the societies in which they lived. Curiosity about ‘‘the other’’ was filtered through a sense that the problems facing women in societies were urgent and that the more banal versions of cultural relativism could no longer be used to disguise their significance. Feminist anthropology may be said to have its roots in the work of a number of earlier scholars, including many who would have been surprised to know that their writings had inspired this particular disciplinary turn. Who may be counted as ancestors varies, of course, but I would argue that they should include both stylistic and intellectual predecessors, as well as individuals whose professional contributions stood as beacons to women anthropologists who followed after them. There were actually many women active in US anthropology as early as the late nineteenth century, some of them self-taught, but their accomplishments have tended to fade with time, partly because, in some cases they produced few publications, but also because their heritage was erased by the professionalization of the discipline at the turn of the twentieth century.

Feminist anthropology is a four-field approach to anthropology (archaeological, biological, cultural, and linguistic) that seeks to reduce male bias in research findings, anthropological hiring practices, and the scholarly production of knowledge. The subfield of Feminist Anthropology emerged as a reaction to a perceived andocentric bias within the discipline. Two related points should be made concerning this reaction.

• First of all, some of the prominent figures in early American anthropology (e.g. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict) were women, and
• Discipline has traditionally been more egalitarian, in terms of gender, than other social sciences.

However, is the fact that the discipline has been subject to prevailing modes of thought through time and has certainly exhibited the kind of andocentric thinking that early feminist anthropologists accused it; Furthermore, in insisting on what was then a very unpopular interrogation of taken-for-granted assumptions about women and men, many of these early feminist anthropologists felt themselves to be outsiders in their own cultures. At the same time, however, in line with a strong belief in the common humanness of all the peoples anthropologists studied and the existence of fundamental commonalities between women across cultural boundaries, the originators of feminist anthropology were convinced that lessons relevant to their own concerns could be drawn from the study of women in other cultures. The notion that there were cultural regularities awaiting discovery was implicit in this venture, as was an as yet unexamined reliance on sexual categories as real and cross-culturally valid. In moving toward originating a new field, these scholars were moved, as well, by the desire to do justice to women in various cultures, a group they saw as having been ethnographically disenfranchised.

2.    Definition of Feminism

What is feminism? Who is a feminist? How do we understand feminism across national boundaries? Across cultures? Across centuries? These questions and their corollaries are raised every day, both here and abroad, by activists in the contemporary women’s movement, by scholars, in the press, and in informal conversation. Everyone seems to have different answers, and every answer is infused with a political and emotional charge.

• The terms “feminism” or “feminist” first appeared in France and The Netherlands in 1872, Great Britain in the 1890s, and the United States in 1910.
• The Oxford English Dictionary lists 1894 for the first appearance of “feminist” and 1895 for “feminism”.
• “Woman’s Rights” was probably the term used most commonly, hence Queen Victoria’s description of this “mad, wicked folly of ‘Woman’s Rights'”.

Defining feminism can be challenging, but a broad understanding of it includes the acting, speaking, writing, and advocating on behalf of women’s issues and rights and identifying injustice to females in the social status quo. The word ‘Feminism’ seems to refer to an intense awareness of identity as a woman and interest in feminine problems. The subjugation of woman is a central fact of history and it is the main cause of all psychological disorders in society.

According to Janet Richards, “The essence of Feminism has a strong fundamental case intended to mean only that there are excellent reasons for thinking that woman suffer from systematic social injustice because of their sex, the proposition is to be regarded as constituting feminism.”

• Feminism is a complex notion that has vast differences in meaning and connotation for people spanning generations, ethnic identities, sexual orientations, social classes, nationality, and myriad identities.
• Feminism is not a static notion; rather it evolves with us throughout our lives and is shaped by the various lenses we use to view the world at large and, most importantly, ourselves.

3.    Anthropology of Gender and Beyond

Central to this approach was recognition that ‘‘women’’ could not be classified categorically as constituents of a population whose membership was simply self evident, an insight that was also beginning to have an impact in women’s studies more generally and in feminist activism. By the late 1980s and early 1990s anthropologists of gender broadened their concerns from women’s experiences per se to the ways in which gender and other analytical categories meet and complicate one another under varying material and cultural conditions. Much of the impetus for this realignment came from the parallel emergence of women’s studies during the same years that feminist anthropology was developing. Women’s studies began with many of the same assumptions that early anthropologists of gender held: that the definition of ‘‘woman’’ was stable and knowable, ultimately connected (somehow) to interpretations or actualizations of biological sex; but by the mid-1980s scholars had begun rigorously to examine such notions and to imagine the proper subject matter of the field much more broadly Thus the field moved from being concerned with documenting the experience of particular populations– namely women – to interpreting the place of gender in broader patterns of meaning, interaction, and power, not only among those people who are the objects of investigation, but among anthropologists themselves. Like other fields in social and cultural anthropology, the study of gender has been influenced by the many intellectual movements that have shaped the larger discipline during the three decades of its existence, particularly the move from structural/ functionalist approaches, from studying cultures strictly as bounded entities that were inherently stable and marked by structural harmony, and the growing discomfort of some anthropologists with positivistic narratives more generally. Considering these shifts and taking the political origins of the field into account, the designation that has most aptly described this body of work is now feminist anthropology.

4.    Feminist Theory

As feminist anthropology becomes firmly anchored in the twenty-first-century development of the field, it is important to note some further directions that have come to characterize its intellectual stance, and particularly some of the newer areas of inquiry that owe their existence to feminist anthropology. Feminist theory is one of the major contemporary anthropological theories, which analyzes the status of women and men in society with the purpose of using that knowledge to better women’s lives. Feminist theorists also question the differences between women, including how race, class, ethnicity, sexuality, nationality, and age intersect with gender.

Feminism: Feminism is theory that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially. This is the core of all feminism theories. Sometimes this definition is also referred to as “core feminism” or “core feminist theory.”

Feminist: One who believes in that men and women should be equal politically, economically and socially as defined above.

Cultural Feminism: The theory that there are fundamental personalities differences between men and women, and those women’s differences are special and should be celebrated. This theory of feminism supports the notion that there are biological differences between men and women.

Ecofeminism: Ecofeminism is a theory that rests on the basic principal that patriarchal philosophies are harmful to women, children, and other living things. Parallels are drawn between society’s treatment of the environment, animals, or resources and its treatment of women. In resisting patriarchal culture, eco-feminists believe they are also resisting plundering and destroying of the Earth.

Individualist or Libertarian Feminism: Individualist feminism is based upon individualism or libertarian (minimum government or anarchic capitalist) philosophies. The primary focus is individual autonomy, rights, liberty, independence and diversity. Individualist Feminism tends to widely encompass men and focuses on barriers that both men and women face due to their gender.

Material Feminism: A movement that began in the late 19th century focused on liberating by improving their material condition. This movement revolved around taking the “burden” off women in regards to housework, cooking, and other traditional female domestic jobs. Moderate Feminism This branch of feminism tends to be populated mostly by younger women or women who perceive that they have not directly experienced discrimination. They often believe that the ideals of the feminist movement are no longer viable, and therefore question the need for further efforts. They often view feminism as overbearing and too overt. Often this group espouses feminists ideas while not accepting or wanting the label of ‘feminist’.

National Organization for Women: This theory is based on the notion that in order for men and women to be equal (as the core of ‘feminism’ states), women must be granted some special privileges, and men should not be the central issue or ‘barrier’ in feminism. N.O.W. feminism encompasses only women and fights to offer special privileges to women with the intent of making women equal to men.

Radical Feminism: Radical feminism is the breeding ground for many of the ideas arising from feminism. Radical feminism was the cutting edge of feminist theory from approximately 1967-1975. It is no longer as universally accepted as it was then, and no longer serves to solely define the term, “feminism.” This group views the oppression of women as the most fundamental form of oppression, one that cuts across boundaries of race, culture, and economic class. This is a movement intent on social change, change of rather revolutionary proportions. Radical feminism questions why women must adopt certain roles based on their biology, just as it questions why men adopt certain other roles based on gender. Radical feminism attempts to draw lines between biologically-determined behaviour and culturally-determined behaviour in order to free both men and women as much as possible from their previous narrow gender roles.

Amazon Feminism: Amazon feminism focuses on physical equality and is opposed to gender role stereotypes and discrimination against women based on assumptions that women are supposed to be, look, or behave as if they are passive, weak and physically helpless. Amazon feminism rejects the idea that certain characteristics or interests are inherently masculine (or feminine), and upholds and explores a vision of heroic womanhood. Amazon feminists tend to view that all women are as physically capable as all men.

Separatists: Separatists are often wrongly depicted as lesbians. These are the feminists who advocate separation from men; sometimes total, sometimes partial. The core idea is that “separating” (by various means) from men enables women to see themselves in a different context. Many feminists, whether or not separatist, think this is a necessary “first step,” for personal growth. However, they do not necessarily endorse permanent separation.

Feminist theory is founded on three main principles:

• Women have something valuable to contribute to every aspect of the world.
• As an oppressed group, women have been unable to achieve their potential, receive rewards, or gain full participation in society.
• Feminist research should do more than critique, but should work toward social transformation.

5.    Types of Feminist Theory

Feminist theory is most concerned with giving a voice to women and highlighting the various ways women have contributed to society. There are four main types of feminist theory that attempt to explain the societal differences between men and women:

• Gender Differences: The gender difference perspective examines how women’s location in, and experience of, social situations differ from men’s. For example, cultural feminists look to the different values associated with womanhood and femininity as a reason why men and women experience the social world differently. Other feminist theorists believe that the different roles assigned to women and men within institutions better explain gender difference, including the sexual division of labour in the household. Existential and phenomenological feminists focus on how women have been marginalized and defined as the “other” in patriarchal societies. Women are thus seen as objects and are denied the opportunity for self-realization. In short, feminist anthropology has become respectable and no longer connotes radical opposition to the powers that be. It is difficult to offer an account of the period when feminist anthropology was born without reflecting on some of the personal dynamics that drove its emergence.
• Gender Identity refers to one’s psychological sense of oneself as a male, female, gender transgressive, etc.
• Gender Role refers to the socially constructed and culturally specific behaviour and expectations for women (i.e. femininity) or men (i.e. masculinity) and are based on heteronormativity.
• Gender Expression refers to the behaviour and/or physical appearance that a person utilizes in order to express their gender. This may or may not be consistent with socially constructed gender roles.

6.  Types of Oppression

• Individual: Attitudes and actions that reflect prejudice against a social group.
• Institutional: Policies, laws, rules, norms, and customs enacted by organizations and social institutions that disadvantage some social groups and advantage other social groups. These institutions include types of Oppression religion, government, education, law, the media, and health care system.
• Societal/Cultural: Social norms, roles, rituals, language, music, and art that reflect and reinforce the belief that one social group is superior to another.

7.  Feminist Approaches 

• Women have played an important role in the history of anthropology. Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Mary Douglas are just a few of the women who have made lasting contributions to the discipline. Yet the study of women and women’s roles in other cultures was relatively rare, and, by the 1960s, women anthropologists began asking why women were not a more important focus of research. It was not accidental that this movement coincided with the “women’s movement” in the United States. One group of scholars argued that women were in subservient positions in all cultures, and hence were largely “invisible” to anthropologists studying those cultures. Another group argued that, although women historically held positions of power and authority in many cultures, the impact of colonization and capitalism had moved them into subservient positions. In either case, it became clear to these scholars that a focused effort on studying the roles of women was necessary, and feminist anthropology was born.
• Feminist anthropology is a highly diverse area of research. Feminist anthropologists share an interest in the role of women in culture, but vary widely in how they approach this common interest. Some feminist anthropologists take an overtly political stance, seeing their task as identifying ways in which women are exploited and working to overcome them. Others simply try to understand women’s lives and how they differ from those of men. Despite the diversity, feminist anthropology shares a critical assessment of traditional scholarship and understanding the importance of power. In these ways, feminist anthropology shares a good deal with the political economy perspective as well as postmodernism, which we discuss shortly. In some cases, entirely new understandings of other cultures have come from feminist scholarship. For example, Annette Weiner studied the same culture that Malinowski had, in the Trobriand Islands, and found that Malinowski had overlooked an entire women-run economic system.
• One of the most important effects feminist research has had on anthropology is the recognition that perceptions of other cultures are shaped by the observer’s culture and how the observer behaves in the field. Male researchers may not be able to ask about or observe some women’s roles, just as women may not be able to ask about or observe some men’s roles. More broadly, feminist scholarship suggested that the scientific approach was only one way of studying other cultures, and that different ways of studying other cultures might lead to different understandings. From this insight grew two powerful theoretical agendas that continue to affect anthropology today.
• One agenda stemming from feminist scholarship is that science is inherently male in its orientation and that its impact on the world has been to further the subjugation of women. But female scientists would strongly disagree: Science is neither male nor female. A second agenda, less radical than the first, is to experiment with alternative ways of studying and describing other cultures, ways that give more voice to the people being studied and that allow for the feelings, opinions, and insights of the observer to be openly expressed in anthropological writing. Many of these feminist anthropologists have used personal narratives, storytelling, and even poetry as ways to express their understanding of the cultures they have studied.

Summary

Feminist anthropology has made its mark in a number of domains, but its impact on the discipline has been perhaps nowhere as distinctive as in the emphasis it has placed on reflexivity. In conclusion, the study shows feminism is a struggle for equality of women, an effort to make women become like men. The agonistic definition of feminism sees it as the struggle against all forms of patriarchal and sexiest aggression. Its reveals the growth of Indian Feminism and its development; Indian women writers have placed the problems of Indian women in general and they have proved their place in the international literature. Feminist approaches were born from the realization that the study of women and women’s roles in other cultures was relatively rare. Some feminist anthropologists take an overtly political stance, seeing their task as identifying ways in which women are exploited and working to overcome them. Others simply try to understand women’s lives and how they differ from those of men.

References

• Alcoff,  Linda  (1998)  Cultural  Feminism  versus  PostStructuralism:  the  Identity  Crisis  in Feminist Theory. Signs, 13: 405436.
• Anthropology, Vol. 2. New York: Henry Holt and Co, pp. 488493.
• AnthropologyCritical Reviews for Research and Teaching, Sandra Morgen, ed., pp. 120. Washington D.C.:American Anthropological Association.
• Barry, Peter (2002) Lesbian/gay criticism. In Beginning Theory: an introduction to literary and cultural theory, Peter Barry, ed. Manchester: Manchester University Press, pp. 139155.
• Collier, Jane F and Yanagisako, Sylvia (1989) Theory in Anthropology Since Feminist Practice. Critique of Anthropology, 9: 2737.
• Conkey, Margaret and Janet Spector (1984) Archaeology and the Study of Gender. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, 7: 138.
• Conkey, Margaret W and Sarah H Williams (1991) Original Narratives: The political economy of gender in archaeology. In Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, Micaela di Leonardo, ed. Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp 102139.
• Di Leonardo, Micaeila (1991) Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era (Introduction). Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp 148
• Engels, Frederick. (1972) The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, Eleanor Leacock, ed. New York: International Publishers.
• Gacs, Ute, Aisha Khan, Jerrie McIntyre, and Ruth Weinberg (1989) Women Anthropologists: Select Biographies. Westport: Greenwood Press.
• Gellner, Pamela and Miranda Stockett (2006) Feminist Anthropology: Past Present and Future. University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Lamphere, L (1996) Gender. In Levinson, D. and M. Ember, eds.Encyclopedia of Cultural
• Leibowitz L (1975) Perspectives on the Evolution of Sex Differences. In Toward an Anthropology of Women, Rayna R. Reiter, ed., pp. 2135. New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Lewin, Ellen, ed. (2006) Feminist Anthropology: A Reader. John Wiley and Sons.
• McClaurin, Irma, ed. (2001) Black Feminist Anthropology. Rutgers University Press.
• McGee, RJ and RL Warms (1996) Anthropological Theory: An Introductory History. London: Mayfield Publishing Company.
• Mead, M. (1949) Male and Female: A Study of the Sexes in a Changing World. New York:
• Minhha, Trinh T. (1989) Woman, Native, Other. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
• Morgen, Sandra (1989) Gender and Anthropology: Introductory Essay. In Gender and Morrow Quill Paperbacks.
• Ortner, Sherry (1974) If Female to Male as Nature is to Culture? In Anthropological Theory, John McGee and Richard Worms, eds. California: Mayfield Publishing Press. Pp. 402413.
• Pine, F (1996) Gender. In Barnard, A and J Spencer, eds. Encyclopedia of Social and Cultural Anthropology. New York: Routledge, 253262.
• Reiter, Rayna R. (1975) Toward an Anthropology of Women (Introduction). New York: Monthly Review Press.
• Rubin, Gail (1975) The Traffic in Women: Notes on the “Political Economy” of Sex. In Toward an Anthropology of Women. Rayna R. Reiter, ed. New York. Monthly Review Press, pp 157210.
• Warner, Michael, ed. (1993) Fear of a Queer Planet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.