From: gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick)
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology
Subject: Women's Studies and Research "Focus"
Distribution: world
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 92 03:59:02 GMT
Organization: STAFF STRATEGIES - Anthropologists & Training Agents


In article <1992Oct8.221555.18643@midway.uchicago.edu> coonstot@midway.uchicago.edu writes:

 > >>What we mean by the term "anthropological" is material not published
 > >>within the discourse of Anthropology as a study of society & culture.
 > >
 > >If a lot of so-called 'Women's' Studies is exactly about studying
 > >and analysing society and culture as a whole  - and therefore it is 
 > >exactly anthropological -
 > >is the difference drawn because traditional anthropology either is
 > >directly sexist in its analysis or indirectly by its lack of
 > >critique? 

I do apologise that I missed this intermediate response. This site is
Beta testing a news reader and the "updated" EXPIRE.EXE utility which
came with it wiped out two entire news batches before I woke up to
what it was doing.

But yes, the problem has been lack of critique rather than deliberate
bias. The earlier generation to ours appeared quite shocked by the
idea that they had not been completely fair and impartial in their
published works. It was generally only the revelation of Malinowski's
private field diaries, for example, which raised eyebrows after his
death. But he like the others was a man of his own time and culture,
where we now live in a quite different world posterity will judge
quite differently.

Then as now, "differences" are drawn merely as threads of argument, as
they are here on the net, although I appear to have something further
to say about it below.

 > Here the demarcation would need to be drawn between old anthropology
 > and new anthropology.  The fact is that "old" anthropology was, 
 > in many instances, ethno-centric and sexist.  The "new" anthropology
 > is more concerned with this issue and works to prevent, as best
 > it can, issues of ethno-centricity.

I do not feel comfortable with these types of "new/old" distinctions;
the advice of Eleanor Leacock is appropriate in suggesting that most
of the early work done was simply of poor quality, implying that it is
incomplete rather than badly done. I have no problem with the discourse
of Anthropology and I take no particular issue with its founders. A
great deal of work we are doing today is to go over it again in the
light of new evidence and improved field techniques. That's all.

There is no conspiracy to "cover up" "old" anthropology, and there has
been no colonisation of the discipline by "new" anthropologists, such
that any "demarcation" between past and present "forms" can be discerned.
That some anthropologists are more "socially aware" while others are
more rigourous has always been the case, right from Marx's time and
before, such that some of these threads waxing and waning through the
history of the discipline can be traced quite a long way back.

 >                                     As a professor of mine, Wendy
 > Doniger O'Flaherty, put it: the new anthropology is "inter-subjective"
 > or "inter-objective."  

Here I do not wish to be seen to be taking issue with your professor
in her absence, and comment only on your choice of words. It is an
arrogance to impose your own idea of what "anthropology is" as an
absolute value. You might consider rather "anthropology may be viewed
as" within the context of the thesis you wish to present, and supported
by what evidence you have at your disposal.

 >    Women's Studies draws from anthroplogy for its evidence.  Its
 > main focus, however, is not "society and culture as a whole," but
 > rather "women in society and culture as a whole."  As such, 
 > anthropological women's studies would exist as a branch of
 > anthroplogy.  However, Women's Studies also works with literary analysis,
 > sociology, and psychology.

These types of distinction, again, carry their own problematics. I
have argued elsewhere that even something reified and anthropomorphosed
as an entity called "Anthropology" still does not have as its main
focus something else called "society and culture as a whole". The
first needs to be broken down to consider how anthropologists deal
with their material; the second can only be *effectively* addressed
in the sense of "which particular association of whom, nurtured by what
culture in what environment, where and when?".

 > Focci of fields(Abbreviated):
 >  
 >   Anthro - Human Being, Individual
 >   Socio  - Institution
 >   Psycho - Individual in a current context with the purpose of "optimum
 >   human functioning," or, for philosophic questions.
 >   Women  - Human Being, Woman, Individual +  Institutions of Women, etc.

Here again, the distinctions are artificial in the extreme and ought
to be challenged. What a priori distinctions one chooses to make can
only be validated a posteriori; ie, within the context of a thesis one
wishes to present and supported by its evidence. What thesis is being
presented here? What do you want us to understand about your view of
women, your insight on women's issues, to what purpose that you have
listed them here in this way?

In particular, what evidence is there to suggest that women, or that
Women's Studies in Anthropology, belong to their own sharply defined
category as described above? The characteristics of women can only be
understood with respect to the characteristics of men and children and
the elderly, even to piglets and gardens and whatever else humans
interact with, alter, and reflect upon, to their influence on the
role women play within particular social contexts, to their changing
nature through the life-cycle, and so on.

May I suggest further reading to you;

        Weiner A.B.  1976
        Women of Value, Men of Renown
        St Lucia: UQP

        Gale F. (ed)  1978
        Woman's Role in Aboriginal Society
        Canberra: AIAS

        Bell D.  1983
        Daughters of the Dreaming
        Melbourne: McPhee Gribble

        Gale F. (ed)  1983
        We Are Bosses Ourselves
        Canberra: AIAS

        Freeman D.  1983
        Margaret Mead and Samoa
        Cambridge MA: Harvard UP

Others might feel free to add to this list for their own regions.

 > The distinctions between these fields aren't so interesting.  The
 > real question is "What is a culture?"

"Culture" is precisely what the word implies. We do not take any old
word and apply it to any jolly idea we make up as we go along. What
"culture" is has long been understood. There is no question remaining
about it. The ongoing task is merely (???) to take each year's batch
of freshers through the basics . . .

Good luck in your further studies in Anthropology.

--
Gil Hardwick                                      gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au
Independent Consulting Ethnologist                            3:690/660.6
PERTH, Western Australia                                 (+61 9) 399 2401
   * * Sustainable Community Development & Environmental Education * *
Newsgroups: sci.anthropology