Culture in A Netbag - The Manufacture of A Subdiscipline in Anthropology

Culture in a Netbag: The Manufacture of a Subdiscipline in Anthropology Author(s): Marilyn Strathern Source: Man, New Series, Vol.
16, No. 4 (Dec., 1981), pp. 665-688 Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801494 . Accessed: 15/04/2014 21:03
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
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.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Man.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.110.63.137 on Tue, 15 Apr 2014 21:03:24 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
IN A NETBAG: CULTURE THE MANUFACTURE SUBDISCIPLINE IN ANTHROPOLOGY*

MARILYN STRATHERN
OF A
University ofCambridge
A creative roleis suggested forMalinowski's'strawmen',and by analogyforthestrawmanof male bias which informs much feminist-inspired anthropology. However, theiruniversalising seductivenessis taken to task. The idea thatparticular symbolicrepresentations speak to a universal womanness' is examined critically in relationto two Melanesian societies. The of'manufacture' metaphor pointsto certain for therelationship implications between anthropology and itsobjectofstudy;italso underlines thesuggestion that notonlydoes womannessin these two societieshave different but thereis difference symboliccontent, also in the techniques of symbolconstruction.
The Trobriand Islands have been named 'one of the most sacred places in anthropology'(Weiner 1976: xv). That over the last ten years at least six anthropologists have spenttimethere attests to thedrawingpower of thatfirst fieldwork whichestablished Trobriand Man as a paradigm. Malinowskiwas the authorof thisentity in a double sense. It is largely through hiseyesstillthatwe know theseislands-Sahlins (I976: 76) reminds us how he privately recorded one Saturdayafternoon approachingthem by sea: 'I get ready; littlegray, pinkishhuts. Photos. Feelingsof ownership: It is I who will describeor create them' (Malinowski I967: I40). And fromhis understanding of Trobriand behaviourhe developedwhathas remained somewhere betweenan assumption and a hope in the mindsof manyfieldworkers since,that-however facileit sounds (cf. Young I979: I0)-out of particular cultures generalisations can be manufactured. It is customary forgiversofthisLecture to touchon that paradigm; I dwellon a feature generally consideredsomething of an embarrassment. My intention howeveris lessto assessMalinowskithanto assessourselves.Forall oursenseof what we experienceas going forward modernity may, in an epistemological sense,muchmoreresembleMalinowski'sboat bobbingbetweentheislands,a continuousdialecticaltacking'betweenstandpoints othershave held, leftand retaken again. Tapper has statedthat'In thelasttenor twelveyears,developnientsin [both Marxist anthropology and] women's studieshave influenced to re-examinethe basic premises of the discipline many anthropologists . . .marking theend of a certain anthropological complacency'(I980: 7).2 Yet in spiteofthesuggestion ofestablished left positions behind,some ofthecourses
* MalinowskiMemorialLectureforI980, givenat theLondon School ofEconomicson i i March. Man (N.S.) x6,665-88
666
MARILYN STRATHERN
interested in the study of women follow nowadays set by anthropologists of closelythose Malinowski.
Straw men his contemporaries irritated and has been a sourceof embarWhat apparently He rassment sinceis themanner in whichMalinowskicasthis generalisations. was fond of a device-Fortes calls it a compulsionwhich warped his work (1957: 157); Kupercharacterises it as 'outrageously irresponsible' (I973: 35) thus: bestdescribed
his theories and his ethnographic discoveries in theform of Malinowski'scompulsionto present was as tiresome to hislisteners as itis preposterous an assaulton theancien to thereaders of regime or notthebattles weremoreimagined writing his books . . . whether thanreal,hisethnographic AuntSallysand therustle ofstrawmen (Young I 979: 6). was vitiated by theparadeof grotesque
In Argonauts Economic Man; in Crime andcustom, theSavage appearsPrimitive view is that slavishto law, and so on.3The received we stomach thesestrawmen as thepriceforMalinowski'sgenius.They drovehim 'to wrap up some of his inlabouredparadoxesandprolixrepetition' ideasand observations mostoriginal was moreto thestrawman there (FortesI957: I57, myemphasis).Yet perhaps syndromethan the projectionsof an egoist. If we considerit seriouslyas a techniquewe mightlearn somethingabout the techniqueswhich, without we use ourselves.It is Malinowskiwe make intoa strawman ifwe thinking, simplyset him up as an example of assumptions belongingto an outgrown We shouldask whatinstrumental cultural background.4 purposewas servedby thosestrawmen. is prejudice: The first Strawmenare made oftwo ingredients. theyrepresent theyrepresent bias, fallacy,mistakenassumption.The second is uniformity: held opinion,thereceived idea. Not quitethesame,in stereotypes, universally In knockinghim over one knocks the strawman theseare bundledtogether. ofuniversal overnotjust bias butbias in theform generalisation. in cross-cultural Malinowskiwas little interested observedthat Itis frequently Even as other becameavailableNadel observed that comparison.5 ethnographies in comparativeterms.His generalizations 'He never thoughtstrictly jump straightfrom the Trobriandersto Humanity, as undoubtedlyhe saw the as a particularly instructive Trobrianders speciesofHumanity'(I957: I90). For view. The the device of the strawman obviatedany need fora comparative a bundleofgeneralisations aboutthecharacterisstrawmanis already universal, tics (in this case) of PrimitiveMan (cf. FirthI957: 2I7-I8). In substituting Trobriand Man for Straw Man, real for fake, the domain to which these to refer-universaltruths-can be takenforgranted.The procedureis first generalisaidentify bias, whichis bias in themindsofthosemakingtheoriginal tions. If everyonebelieves, in the words of Frazer(I922: X), thatPrimitive actuatedby no othermotivethanthatof filthy Economic Man 'is apparently on Spencerian along thelineof lucre,whichhe pursuesrelentlessly, principles, thentheone well established instance whichshowsthiscreation leastresistance', he is (Malinowski I922: 6o) does more up forthe 'fanciful, dummycreature'
MARILYN STRATHERN
667
than show one case where a generalisation failsto apply. It blows away the was built,and replacesit with a whole edificeupon which the generalisation fresh conceptualisation ofthegeneral nature oftheprimitive (MalinowskiI922: 96). If generalisations Bias is thusa powerful ingredient. can be shown to result is drawnaway from from thebiasesofpreviousthinkers, attention thematerial itself to theattitudes of thosepresenting it. Iffurther thosebiasescan be shown to be universally held then a comparableuniversalism attachesitselfto the substituting proposition.Some of theworkbeingdone todayundertherubric of 'women's studies' employs preciselythis technique. Indeed thereis an ofMalinowskito thediscipline he saw himself analogybetweentherelationship and theself-conscious efforts of women interested in thestudyof as founding is The conceptofre-thinking one's premisses women to redefine anthropology. But to be aware of thecreativity6 of thenew premissupon which exhilarating. of women is based, is also to acknowledgethe some of thenew anthropology of thosestrawmenofMalinowski. creativity to rediscover the factthatthe anthropologist in It has become fashionable will also present cultural values of his or presenting accountsof othercultures that her own. The contemporary projectis perceivedas an effort to eliminate is in fact a marker of bias. I say rediscover advisedly.Ifthestrawmansyndrome then the historyof our subjectin its various turnsand paradigmaticshifts, ofbias. Malinowski'sown conviction coursesis punctuated by thisformulation in was thatsomewherelurking-theirauthorsfrequently unnamedor ancient his time,butsinister nonetheless-was a massofassumptions and valueswhich could no longer be taken as the foundationfor generalisations about the as a science ofmankind. was tobe builtup inthefaceof condition Anthropology prejudice.In threespecific ways thenew anthropology of women retakes this as itsstrawmantheanthropologist methodological premiss, utilising suffering from male bias. First, forall theperceptiveness withwhichsufferers from thisbias areseento oftheir itis sometimes own culture, claimedthat thenew approach be products is exemptfromrelativism. Huizer and Mannheim(I979) devote a sectionto 'viricentrism' One contribution considersthe different (or 'androcentrism'). accounts of AustralianAboriginallife coming fromthe hands of men and women anthropologists.'It is evident that the androcentrism of the male scholars resultsin a perspectivewhich blinds them to the actualrealities of are able to bring'a double conaboriginallife'; and women anthropologists in holistic, sciousnessto their research whichresults accurate, andobjective studies' etal. I979: I27, I28, my emphasis).At one stroketheold is (Rohrlich-Leavitt dissolved as subjectto prejudice,and the new supplants it as explanationfor phenomenaexistingin the real world.7The purported independence of this is significant is reconstituted reality (cf.Stuchlik I976: 3-9). The objectofstudy bothas separate fromand onlyaccessibleto thenew approach.8 is theuniversalising The secondMalinowskiancharacteristic mode,one ofthe in factmake generalisations strawman's tricks.Few fieldworkers fromtheir studiesto thewhole of mankind. But ifin treating theworksofother particular as biased one can show that theyall share similarvalues, anthropologists
668
MARILYN STRATHERN
can certainly be made about the universeof anthropologists generalisations The new appraisalcastsout theold as a worldview-and manages themselves. conceivedview of thetotalworld. Hence to suggestthatin itsplace is a freshly the a significant universal, the claim may be made thatwe have been ignoring is thustransferred from thestanceof thenew category 'woman'. Universalism practitioners onto theirsubject of study. In spite of criticalevaluation (cf. Ardener I978), it is a I975a; Caplan and Bujra I978; StolerI977; Wallman groundssuch that are knowableon a priori social categorywhose dimensions ofa universal womankind. women exemplify attributes studiesofparticular ofthefirst. itself as a reversal manifests The third Malinowskiancharacteristic In That was the notion that social realityexists outside the investigator. anthropologicaldiscourse this can be renderednot just by a self-conscious to it (Asad proximity distancefromthe subjectof studybut a self-conscious is seen 'fromthepointofview' ofthosewho aresaidto constitute 1979). Reality
it.
inMilton there is a I979 andQuinnI977) that persistent premiss (documented
It has alwaysbeena paradoxin Malinowski'sworkthat he who saw so clearly in 'creating' (Leach oftheintelligent observer Trobriand culture thesignificance
of women is validatedby its the claim thatthe new anthropology prefigures on 'Viricenarticle thoughtful takingup women's pointsof view. Schrijvers's 'The sciences arestillpenetrated trism and anthropology' by valuesbased starts, of ethnog. . . There are exceptionsof course:a handful on male superiority is a starting point'(I979: 97). Yet there raphies withtheviews ofwomen as their he was a Trobriander-seeing Malinowskineverpretended crucialdifference. intoa general thingsfromtheTrobriandviewpointwould simplygive insight or theysharedwithlike conditionhe sharedwith them(common humanity) on the otherhand, suggest others(primitive culture).Some women writers, their insight. non-replicable gendergivesthema specific, etal. spell out what is meantby thedouble-consciousness Rorhlich-Leavitt research. women can bringto their
stress on alsohaveputsuch Malinowski I935: 317) should 1957: 134, andciting from position the Trobriand point ofview(I922: 25).9 Thissecond seeing things
the'anthropologist's of theAustralian categories' preIn themaleethnographies aborigines withwomenin a subordinate, as male-dominated, are represented the societies dominate; in However. . . Phyllis status. Kaberry (I939) andJaneGoodale(I971) succeed degraded ina society with those ofthe native . .. As women the'anthropologist's categories' combining ofsubordinated havethe that members andGoodale that isalsosexist, sensitivity Kaberry special whocontrol same time as those atthe if aretosurvive, them, develop to[wards] groups must, they oftheir a quality thesuperordinate oftheeveryday that aware oppression; reality they arefully lives the andworld andGoodale from actual lack.Thus,Kaberry ethnographies develop groups the'anthropologist's as wellas from viewofthe categories' (I979: I 19). study, people they
fromtheviewpointof thefemale people studiedis thusideologiSeeingthings in her ofthefemale withthecultural anthropologist perceptions callycontinuous own society,and it is thisprivileged positionwhichallows value-commitment to inform'objectivity'(Omvedt I979: 375). Milton (I979: 47) points to the 'overwhelmingfemale bias' lying behind such judgements. Taking up a malebiasin ourunderstanding ofsociety, much woman's pointofview replaces
MARILYN STRATHERN
669
as Malinowski put forwardthe Trobriand view as replacinguninformed Man. But if Malinowskialso saw himself westernbias about Primitive as the author ofthisview, some women'swritings cultured givetheimpression that in theircase the continuities betweenauthorand subjectof studyare 'naturally' grounded.
Subcultures andsubdisciplines There is of course no single 'anthropologyof women' in the sense of an agreed-upon body ofknowledgeor analytical approaches (see GlennonI979 on in general).I use the phraseto denotewhat has become a typesof feminism studies of women, that we take widely accepted basis for anthropological in social life. Quinn, reviewingthe current seriouslywomen's participation crescendoof books and articles on women, notes 'the mushrooming number of claimsto bias in theethnographic literature . . . attributed to thecombined of male-oriented and theirmale informants' distortions ethnographers (I977: I 83 overviewsof a body ofliterature in suchterms are givenin Rogers defined to studywomen from thewoman's pointof view women are thebestqualified comprisesa kind of mentalethnicity (Shapiro I979: 269; Wallman I978: 37). in therelationship Milton (I979) has pointedto problems betweenthegender of theanthropologist and thegender ofhisor herideas. Ultimately itis thegender of theideas whichis at theheartof bias-for women's experience of western et al. 1979: 128) can give them not double'patriarchy'(Rorhlich-Leavitt consciousness but male blinkers. Thus some femaleanthropologists are said to exhibitmale bias. Nevertheless, thereis a generalbeliefthatit is easier for women than for men to approach women's studieswith objectivity. These three suitable propositions- 'women' area category forstudy;women anthropologistsobviatecustomary male bias in a self-conscious focuson women, and women anthropologists are likelyto have a sensitive intothecondition insight of women elsewhere-are tantamount to themanufacture ofa subdiscipline. When 'women anthropologists focuson women's activities' (Leacock I979: I 35) a divisionis made bothin theobjectofstudy and in thediscipline forming itself to carry out sucha study.Takin,g up a female perspective is simultaneously woman's pointofview within anthropology forms an orientation as discrete as a subdiscipline. The endeavourmay be towardsa completereorientation of the whole discipline-and societies should'be seenas creations ofmenandwomen' explicitdialogue with a male point of view which necessarily recreates the conditions fordiscourse at a superordinate level.Methodologically theresult is a 'subdiscipline' [my term],10 although to its practitioners it may also be a metonym foran entire reinvented anthropology. I have deliberately used the imageryof material culturein referring to the manufacture ofthissubdiscipline. Thereis a necessary parallelbetweenconceptualisation ofwhatis 'out there'forstudyand perceptions ofour craft. It is after
1978;
such Tiffany 1978; Shapiro with anapproach, 1979). Along that thetenet
toperceive a domain akin toa subculture (cf.Shapiro I979:
297),
andtoseethat a
(Schrijvers I979: I IO, original emphasis). Yetdiscussion frequently proceeds in
670
MARILYN STRATHERN
as a culture subjectto itsown logic. A retreat styles ofknowledgeanthropology uneasewithan overallgloss;notonlydoes something to a subculture represents in dominatedor obscuredin the past seem real, we are able to divide further I havelabelledtheanthropology In thesubdiscipline of terms offresh categories. women, theprocessis givena double edge. Womenas thesubjectforstudyare notmerely ordinary 'scientific' discourse butin a symbolic represented through in thegenderof equationwhichringsmuchmoreofthescienceoftheconcrete, themselves. anthropologists are thus takenas a coherent Women's activities for an point of departure of 'humankind'(Reiter1975: I6; Slocum I975: 50). Such anaunderstanding revealedin thecourseof studyplay a role in relation to the lyticalsubcultures emergent subdiscipline verysimilarto thatplayed by 'culture'in relationto as such." To see things 'fromthepointof view of' x marksoff 'anthropology' as possessing oftheir own. Hence claimsto 'see' are thenew practitioners insight in the observer. most strongly put on the groundsof some qualityinherent stressed Malinowskirepeatedly (Kuper I973: 40) thattheconnexionsbetween elucidation different dependedfortheir upon the aspectsof Trobriandculture in himself.Where identification is made on the special skill of the scientist quasi-ethnic groundsof common gender,thehomologyis setup: thewoman :: women in the cultureunder anthropologist:restof her culture/discipline IfforMalinowskiTrobriand ofthatculture. Man was a paradigm for study:rest 12 'Perhapsthrough with. Primitive Man, he was also in a senseto be identified and foreign to us, we shallhave realising humannaturein a shapeverydistant shed some lighton our own' (I922: 25). In the writings of a woman anthroand value object is to understand pologist to whom I now turnthe ultimate in factin Ardener's 'universalwomanness' (Weiner I976: 236), 'femineity' I havesuggested ofbias,appearat moments in that strawmen,thosecreatures when a self-conscious to make a subdiscithe subject'sdevelopment attempt by theview thatpastworkpurporting plinestandforthewhole is accompanied has in factreflected theanthropologist's to be about 'othercultures' own. The ofcultural bias forthenew view itself are logicalconsequencesofthisdiscovery in theexperience ofthenew orderofreality blockedoff (subculture) necessarily and energising therebydiscovered. In this, straw men have a significant to promotea misplaced It is theirfurther universalism thatis function. tendency a good thing.Two aspectsof thestrawman of male bias shouldat not entirely is thatthemotivation The first to see in previousworkssets leastbe scrutinised. which vitiatetheirfindings of values or assumptions can, when used insensiforcomparative analysis.The second lies in the tively,parade as a substitute further claim sometimesmade that the way in which other culturesvalue in womannessthando our own to whatis essential women speaksmore truly Particular culturalformulations. studies can thus yield universalsabout the of womankindas such. condition
(I975b: 46) sense.
off from other ingthem (Wagner I975; I978a; Asad I979), andin separating
bothin representing other peoplesas possessall we who manufacture cultures,
MARILYN STRATHERN
67I
skirts andnetbags Woman, Trobriand of old ethnography froma female One of the most compellingreappraisals Annette Weiner wentto itself. out in theTrobriands has been carried viewpoint full on her first to studystylesof wood carving; thesesacredislandsintending day she became involved in an elaborateceremonystagedby women which changed the whole course of her study. She looked in vain in Malinowski's the women's wealth she had seen disconcerning accounts for information of day I knew thatwomen were engagedin something played. 'From thatfirst had escapedMalinowski'sobservations' (1976: 8). thatapparently importance to thearea of women's exchanges.These gave was thusdiverted Her attention act: societies intotheway menin Western herinsights
throughobjects incapableof regeneration Does [Western]men's clutchingafterimmortality oflife? In thedrive merely serveto devaluehumanbeingsand women's rolein theperpetuation fromwomen and separatethemselves fortheonly kindof power theycan get, men effectively womanness to a myththatdeniesthefundamental preventing power ofwomen, contribute thereby frombecoming publiclyvalued as being equal to or superiorto the power of men. Only by context withina sociocultural womanness thatmyth,by placingthevalueofuniversal unmasking of to theperpetuation will theimportance itsown right, attached within as powerful recognized (I976: 236, myemphasis). humanlifehave a chanceto be restored
place upon women's controlover human From thevalue which Trobrianders of this 'universalwomanness'. Weinerderivesher formulation reproduction andtechnologically the removedfrom islanders, geographically 'The Trobriand ofthehistory ofhumansocieties, mainstream thevalueofwomanness recognize of life' (I976: and by extensionthe value of humanbeingsand thecontinuity Woman a our notionsof Humanity;and in Trobriand 236). Here are recharted model forWomankind. is any such universal indeedthere essencein The pointto pursueis whether womanness(cf. Ardener1978: 34-5; Winslow I980). From Weiner'saccount, are 'children see in women a symbolof social continuity: Trobriandislanders own dala[matrilineal kingroup]andbytheir created and nurtured father by their dala through and his dala', yet'only women recapitulate time' (I976: I30, I23, original emphasis).13 What is importantto them about women is not-as of Western Weiner'sown castigation societytellsus-valued in thesame way everywhere.Yet it is to mistake symbol for index to imagine that what make out of women identifies something essential about womanTrobrianders kind. how it is thatcultures constitute themselves. We merely learn,surely, to speak for Trobriandwomen lies partlyin the selfWeiner's authority this acknowledgementthat 'unlike the earlier Trobriand ethnographers, is a woman' (1976: ii). Her accountspecifically opposes other ethnographer approaches that follow a male-dominatedpath. Here are elementsof the subdisciplineI have been discussing. The notion that perspectivescan be in is validated changedand thatanalysisdoes nothave to be boundby prejudice thesupposition that thenew perspective to reality; bearsa closercorrespondence if it describessomethingreal, it must be real itself.There is also the simulbut differently based validationthatlocates the abilityto taneouslypresented 'see in a special qualitypossessed by the beholder:readinessto take women
672
MARILYN STRATHERN
inthestatement concretised that theauthor is ofthesame seriously is powerfully sex. as analytical In discarding the chauvinistic past Weineractuallyreproduces of his radicalview of primitive man. Of techniqueMalinowski's presentation playsinherdefinition ofTrobriand particular interest is thepartwhich'culture' Woman. The new approachis seen as corresponding to a view Trobrianders ifnotmadeverbally havealready themselves explicit. In theprocess, objectified, I myselfbecome one of Weiner's straw men, among those castigatedfor a maleview ofthesociety studied (Hagen intheHighlandsofPapua propagating male trap' of not takingwomen's New Guinea). I fall into the 'traditional was ofthecrucial rolewhich exchanges seriously (I 976: I 3). Her own discovery playin thedefinition ofdala Trobriandwomen's bananaleafbundlesand skirts accordedto women through theseitems.Hagen identity, and theprominence in thehandsofmen;butshe suggests thatI have ceremonial exchangeis largely of thenetbagsthatwomen give to one overlookedthesignificance completely in turning on variousoccasions.Thereis someinterest, therefore, to the another topic of women's exchangesin the Highlands. I do not propose to compare but to introduceanotherHighlands Hagen directlywith the Trobriands"4 in terms of descent ideologyand divisionoflabour. The society,Wiru,similar questions about the constructionof comparison raises some interesting 'womanness' (cf. Bujra I978: I9) It also seemed that theremightbe some in notmerely rustling but,notpossibleforMalinowski's methodological profit strawmen,speakingformyself of anthropological BuiltintoMalinowski'stheory scienceis thebeliefthatit in thecreative its material base. Given his belief role of theanthropolthrough themechanism through ogist('we reactand respondto thebehaviourofothers the questionarises'of what it meansto identify a of our own introspection'), fact'(I960: 7I). This meaningis to be soughtin thegeneraltheory of cultural and concrete to material phenomena yieldsa needs. At thesame time,attention of material culture or standardised key to thenatureof institutions. Any trait way of behaviourcan be placed withinorganisedsystemsof human activity is manifested in things or actswhichlead the (I960: I60). In other words,culture behindthem.It isa matter of to seektheorganisation perceptive anthropologist is notnecessarily becausetheir immediately apparent. perception, significance about her womanhood, Weinercontinues:'A critical Afterher statement is thatI took seemingly and my male predecessors betweenmyself difference as any kindof male wealth' bundlesof banana leaves as seriously insignificant key. In theTrobriands,she (I976: ii). Women's wealthbecomes the cultural represent intangible argues, wealth objects manipulated by women tangibly culturally womanly qualities.'The 'power' of women is thusan 'objectified', linkedto universal features of thehuman and women. It is a power, moreover, as having'effectively our Western tradition deniedboth condition;she regards thebiologicaland cultural powersofwomen' (I976: 23 5). Her stepstowardsthis and alienationof conclusion include a discussion of the depersonalisation 'things' and people in the West. It is not just thatTrobriandobjects carry
founded be pragmatically must (I960:
ioIiI).
Culture, too,is to be identified
constituted fact (cf.I976:
227;
also I978:
I77),
andis recognised alikebymen
MARILYN STRATHERN
673
failto 'carry different values,butthatWestern otbjects singularly anysubjective and perpetuation' referent to human life in termsof continuity (I976: 235). ofwomanlyvalues,andwiththevalue Thereis no vehiclefortherepresentation of women in decline goes a declinein the value placed on lifeitself.By the meanthecapacity 'cultural powers' of women she musttherefore ofwomen to say thingsabout theiressentialselves throughcertainmaterialsymbols. In deniesthevalue ofwomen, she also positsthat thatour own culture suggesting which some cultures is a universal attestand others at issue quality properly and bananaleafbundles,then,become theclue to a whole setof Those skirts values bound up withwomanness.Weinerarguesnot only thatto understand must be paid to women's Trobriandnotionsabout women special attention is theculturally wealth,but thatwhatwomen exchangeeverywhere objectified key to theirpower. Introducing subject matterthroughsome item whose is thenrevealedis a commonliterary is a difference significance ploy. Yet there of thewhole analysis, a betweenusingsuch an itemto standfortheorientation all been alreadyworkedout, and arguing forwhat has after kindof metaphor The first of thatthe substanceof such clues is of intrinsic importance. chapter inbetween Women betweentheway (M. Strathern I972: I3) endswitha contrast burdened their foreheads Hagen women arenormally by thenetbags slungfrom whilea man's head is in whichtheycarry gardenproduceand youngchildren, This stylistic tactic leadsintoa description left free fordecoration. ofhow a bride Here I appendthe brings netbagsto distribute among thegroom'swomenfolk. fateful remark,'Women's thingsare divided among women; men are not in thenetbags'(1972: I5). This is theobservation interested particularly Weiner takesup. Those netbagscouldhavebeenthecrucial clueto women'spower. We betweenHagen and theTrobriands are thusdeflected away froma comparison I tookHagen men'slackofinterest as myown approachto that to thesuggestion in whichwomen act out devaluedthosecontexts thenetbags,and accordingly central to thesociocosmicdimension their ofMelpa 'powerwhichis structurally [Hagen] realities' (WeinerI976: I4). theworldofgoods is culture; We haveknownfora long timethat yetitwould in one context thatobjectsmeaningful will have identical be unwise to predict meanings in another-even when the objects are so generallydefinedas withunspecified manifestations of 'women s wealth' and are to be correlated 'women's power'. Weinerbypassesthe question,imputinga male bias into accounts which have not dwelt on such items. By introducinga double male bias on theone handand universal universalism-a prevalent womanness ifwe looked perceptively that on theother-she is able to implya third: enough we would findeternalfemalevalues, women's concernwith life,death and regeneration (I976: 236), made concretein resourceswhich women control (I976: 228-9). 'This discussion',she adds, 'is not merely polemicto bolsterthe feminist theethnographic fact that thenatural pointofview; itcomesfrom value in a variety ofwomen is made culturally ofprimary socialand symbolic explicit contexts'(I976: I7). The bananaleafskirts whichTrobriand women give away at mortuary ceremoniessymbolisethe power of being female,while the leaf 'As bundlesare rewoven into bundles are a symbol of milk and nurturance.
ignore.
674
MARILYN STRATHERN
women s wealthfurther comprisea 'cosmic statement of regeneration of pure dalasubstance'(I976: I 20). In Hagen, netbags certainly stand for womanness;it is what womanness
and nurture' ness": sexuality, reproduction, (I976:
skirts, theskirt itself can be analyzedas an embodiment of all thatis "womanII9).
These itemsof
withsexuality, associations women s netbagscarry reproduction and nurture, the further questionremainsas to the overall relationship of theseto Hagen social representations.
we shouldask (cf.ForgeI966: stands forthat
28;
Godelier 1976). Forwhile
Women's partinexchange: Hagenand Wiru Hagen netbagshave some value as objectsof exchangeamong women. They a bridegivespresents ofthemtohernew can be used as compensation payments; and when shehas a babythesewomenin turn affines; maygiveherold netbags so thatherown do not getsoiled. Netbagsdo not,however,have thestatusof wealth objects comparable to the valuables which are the focus of public exchange.Women manufacture onlyenoughfortheir personaluse. They are a as much therestricted source of pride;but as symbolstheyrepresent lives of and gardeningas they do women's roles in women spent in child-bearing The womannessthey one setofkinto another. valuablesfrom embody carrying and social regenesis:these themesare with clan continuity is not conflated set of symbolicmechanisms(A. Strathern handled througha quite different no moreseriously than pointofview,Hagen womentakethem 1979). Fromthis women produce Hagen men do. Netbags remainreceptacles-bothforthings 15 Women certainly in some of have an interest and forporkand shellvaluables. of Hagen the wealth items men exchange. Indeed a proper consideration women's roles in exchange would take us away from objects over which control to domainsof maleactivity. women have primary theirsubdivisionsare the social unitsin whose and Exogamous patriclans the contextis a funeral, are generally name Hagen prestations made, whether as or ceremonial cult performance exchange (moka) such. At public moka theirachievement in amassingthepigs or the male donors celebrate displays, to the ceremonial laid out for all to see. Entrance shellsor nowadays money and danceas a group.If groundis staged,so theycome in as a body ofclansmen timeto time.A short itis livepigsbeinggivenaway, women tendto themfrom line of donor's wives may also dance. There will be many ties of marriage betweenclanson thedonorand on therecipient side, and each wealthitemnot to thecorporate destined fora onlycontributes displaybutwill be individually are likely to be connected particularexchange partner.Exchange partners a woman and thusto be affines or matrileterally kin. Speeches, related through of the giftforlocal political made always by men, dwell on the implications of the transrelations(A. Strathern 1975). The words pointto the creativity inthespeechesarethose Not mentioned actionsininfluencing groupalignment. and kinshipwhich also bind together numerousties of personal friendship sides. These ties, which depend upon individualson the donor and recipient
MARILYN STRATHERN
675
arein thissensetakenforgranted from one clanintoanother, women marrying (A. Strathern 1978: 87-8). bothfundamental and marginal. Women are 'in between'themale partners, in production-gardening, For all theirculturally acknowledgedimportance pig-raising-only a handful will have danced. For all theimportance givento the factthatclans who regularly make mokaare those with multipleties of intermarriage between them, these ties are not themselves the rubriciinder which giftsare given at clan level. For all thatwomen are involvedin men's and mayfeelpossessiveovertheitemstransacted, menaretheformal exchanges And forall thecarethatHagen women bestowupon the donorsand recipients. and maintenance ofthepig herd,no morethanother moka valuablescan feeding 'women's wealth'.16 pigs be considered as 'women's wealth' theyare not Now if pigs are not countedspecifically be men s wealth' either. Shell valuables on the other hand may certainly is notthesameproductive regarded as 'men's wealth';there intothese,and input standforpuretransaction shelltransactions itselfFor itis above to some extent all theactivity whichis sexed. Thereis no simpleprogression from the'genider' of the object to that of the activity-as in the Trobriandswhere womlen as primarily wealthobjectsthemselves female.In Hagen it manipulate regarded is theactsof 'production'and 'transaction' thatare givengender,such thatthe production ofwealthin theformofpigs is seenas dependent upon women and and displaytheprerogative itspublicmanipulation ofmen.This is significant to of this kind. It also any estimationof what value is at stake in transactions indicatesthe absurdity of looking forwomen transacting with netbags.The thatpass betweenwomen carry thesame meaning little gifts as similar gifts that who aremen.Hagen womendo notpublicly transact with pass betweenfriends netbags,becauseHagen women do notpublicly transact. kill pigs rather thanhand themover The Wiruin the Southern Highlands"7 alive. Ribcages,porklegs,alongwithshells, arethemainobjectsinvolvediln the periodicpig kills'.These are stagedby villages,non-exogamouscongeriesof smallindependent In connected to dispersed agnatic lineagesseverally phratries. Hagen it is the donors who are most elaboratelydecorated;here it is the who enter as a body and standin a row as individual recipients, donorsfrom the hostvillagethrowdown legs of pork at their feet.In additionthevillageplaza will be dotted about with separategatherings; donors call out to personal acrossthesite-to receivethisribcageor partners-some seatednearby, others thatshell.At no pointaretheselatter gifts amassed;at no pointformal speeches one can countthevaluablesbeinggivenaWay,as made. During a Hagen moka one can countthelineofdonorsdancing to shoulder; shoulder a Wirupig during killitis impossibleto keeptrack ofthesimultaneous and clamoroustransactions thatcrossone another (cf.LeRoy I979). Wiru recipients may arriveat a pig kill in a block; subsequenttransactions fragment theminto theparticular maternal and affinal kin of thedonors.Men are theprominent butit is women who give themtheir transactors, definitioti. Valuables may be givento women, withthestylised crythatmarksthemas a Thus a woman sometimes 'forthechildren'. receives a shellto pass on payment to herbrother, or a ribcagein return destined forherhusbandshe mayhand to
676
MARILYN STRATHERN
him herself.And the rubric under which these giftsare given expressly bya woman. aremediated thefact that tiesbetweenmalepartners acknowledges centred on the on variouslife-payments will be instalments Many of the gifts factthatit is women who give birth.Maternalkin receiveshellsforthe 'skin' sister'schild,and as thechildgrowsup he or she takeson these (body) of their paymentsto the maternalrelatives.Thus a man can be makinggiftsto his or brothers forthe brothers forhis own skin,and to hiswife'sparents mother's develop into exchangesas the shellsare skin of his offspring. Skin payments part, but the rationale with ribcages. Men play the prominent reciprocated in the fact of substance implied a of bonds of remains conceptualisation which is being motherhood.Wiru quite clearlyplace a value on femaleness in these transactions. Moreover,as actorsWiruwomen life-long ceremonialised them. of a partin promoting have something by towardsherself a flowofpayments It is possiblefora woman to stimulate enteringinto exchanges with younger male relatives.She will give them for withshellvaluablesor money,as a skinpayment they reciprocate vegetables; passesthewealthon to her The woman sometimes themselves or their children. kinand thus'pays forherself'.Whena man givesto his wife's own matrilateral A grandmother can receive together. kinhe may give to herfather and mother pride,keep forherdaughter's children. Some women,withapparent payments valuablesgainedin thisway in their personalpossession;theyin any case may evenwhenthevaluablesgo to as 'recipients' ofskinpayments themselves regard men. inreturn husband'sbrothers, Wiruwomen mayalso initiate foodgifts to their forwhich theyreceivesmall wealthitems.Hagen women would neverinsert in thisway. But thenit would be mistakento themselvesbetween brothers a moreculturally valued thisinvolvement ofWiruwomen as reflecting interpret Indeed, the very metaphorof being 'in between' is role of intermediary. What,then,is thevalue ofwomannessin Wiru? inappropriate. value put on womannessis notnecessarily An initial pointmustbe clarified: to be equated with value put on women. Althoughwe 'see' Wiru women to them,this certain exchanges,and othersbeing givenin reference initiating paid high regardby does not mean thatas personswomen are axiomatically Wiru men and women. We cannot read offfrom theirsubstantial part in forall women. Indeedto some extent or respect a notionofprestige transactions whichvaluestheir actualWiruwomen arerendered helplessby theverysystem womanness. Skin paymentsare obligatoryin thatpaymentmust always be of such who therecipients in thatitis notpredictable made, yetnon-obligatory wealth will be. One may choose to make skin paymentsto classificatory kin thanto morecloselyrelated maternal relatives livingin one's villagerather is that woman's motherhood every away. Itdoes notfollow,then, livingfurther are seen to be verylittle in the same way. Moreover thepayments celebrated Itis worthexpanding ofthewoman herself. upon thecircumstances contingent thispoint. Wiru bridewealthis relativelysmall, the expectationsof the bride's kin focusing on the possibilityof later payments'for the children'. Whereas in future carriesan interest bridewealth solicitedby Hagen affines exchange
MARILYN STRATHERN
677
is a merging so thatfroma man's pointofview there transactions, ofindividual alliance with group relationsand women become intermediaries between lack thispoliticaldimension.It is oflittle affinally linkedclans,Wirumarriages into which village a woman marries; significance indeed,of littlesignificance which man she marries.Futurepaymentswill restnot only on the kind of themen will build but also on thewoman's capacity to exchangepartnerships fromthisphysiological have children.Ideally,wealthwill flowautomatically do not dependupon a marriage A husband fact.Thus skinpayments enduring. to makethemto hiswife'speople evenifhiswifeleavesor dies,as his continues children will continuein turn.At thesame timetheydo not have to go to the kin of the child:in the case of remarriage immediatematernal payments may mother or to theman's secondwife. insteadbe made to thekinofa child'sfoster 'other' to whom the child must be related: ratherthese There is no definite about the child's skinthatany matrilaterally claspaymentsmake statements are categorically 'thosewho sified'other'will symbolically satisfy. Recipients a variedsetofrelatives. mothered you', butsociologically comprise Divorce is dramatically high. It is less thebreakup of a unionwhichworries thanthepossibility of a woman havingno husband and brothers Wirufathers children. One might have thought thattremendous forfuture emphasiswould but thisis not apparently thecase. Whatseems be placed upon femalefertility, crucial is that a woman should be attachedto some man willing to make fathers do notcountenance their forherchildren; payments daughters returning home, and put great pressureon them to marryor remarry.For all that itsown difficulties. womannessis valuedin Wiru,beinga woman brings More so than in Hagen wives are beaten up, and suicide or the threatof it is commonplaceamong girls.And forall thatpigs pass in their name, consumptionpatterns aresuchthat receive-relativeto whatHagen women they actually consume-less porkto eat.
Womanness intechnical contrasts manufactured: style in Hagen and Wiruwomen's rolesin exchange;womanThere are differences nessin thesetwo societies is also constructed alongrather different lines.Neither associatedwith womannessnor thetechnical the attributes processesof symbolisationarethesame. I takemycue from an essayby Schwimmer (I974) inwhich,during thecourse ofanalysing theway in whichOrokaiva use coconut,arecaand taro,he refers to metaphoric and metonymic These concepts arenow rather gifts. worn,butitis in thespirit of mypresentation notto be afraid ofold fashioned deviceson those groundsalone. The contrast arisesin Schwimmer'sdiscussionof a mythin which a man and a woman exchange various items. The objects of social exchangeare male and femalesexuality, and theobjectsof mediationcoconut and areca. At one pointtheintention is to establish symbiosis, and herethegift and the recipient are identified. Thus the femalegives coconut to the male, because coconutis male and appropriate forhim. In thisexchangecoconutis fortheman-and an interdependence metaphor is established betweenthesexes
678
MARILYN
STRATHERN
in so far fora gift is himself. as theone dependson theother that Atanother point manand woman transact witheachother in thestory as separate entities. Where the partners in a social exchangeare of different each uses his or her natures, objectof mediation as gift to theother.The femalewhose nature distinctive is is coconut,whichhe givesto thefemale. arecagivesarecato themale;hisnature areconducted betweenpartners is established Here relations whose constitution priorto the giftand is not changedby it. Each metonymically gives a partof a distinct In themetaphoric himself or herself, butretains identity. gift arecaand in themetonymic betweenthepartners; coconutsetup an interdependence gift theirdiscretenaturesare stressed.These proceduresare found side by side withinthe one Orokaiva myth.I liftthemout of contextand suggestthatin constructing womanness in relationto mannessWiru employ the logic of metaphor,Hageners the logic of metonymy.In other words, there is a in theverymanner in which fundamental contrast betweenthesetwo cultures out ofgender. symbolsare generated is relevant. The sociologyof thetwo situations Hagen clansmen combineto makejoint prestations to otherclansundervariouspoliticalrubrics. Marriages of politicalamity,and women are the 'roads' for men's follow the patterns to andfrom their own kin.Emotionally as they committed transactions, maybe controlover thefinaldisposalof to thesuccessof an exchange,theyhave little valuables and no part in speech making. Unlike Hagen men, women have divided loyaltiesand cannot expresspoliticalcommitment. Like Trobriand who are a sourceof exogenousnurture, men, rather, Hagen women represent outside origins.Thus womannessis definedas 'in between'. As a figurative 18 maleness for itself construction, standing (cf.WagnerI 977; I 978b), symbolises values associatedwith collectiveaction. In same-sexcontexts,malenessthus the common aims of prestige,and so on. In same-sex refersto solidarity, femalecontexts, however,muchlessis builton whatwomen havein common, and 'being sisters'by contrast with 'being brothers' is of weak illocutionary force.Whatwomen do have in commonis their in-between-ness. This characwith men. Values teristic,however, always puts them into a relationship associatedwithwomannessthustendto be brought intorelationship withthose associatedwithmaleness;in a cross-sex context Hagen genderconstructs point to difference. Women are differentiated fromone another to by thehusbandand brothers whom theyhave first fromhis clan loyalty,as muchas a man is differentiated brothersthroughhis personal affinal-maternal network. With a cross-sex in a discriminates. That is, ideasaboutthesexesareconstructed referent, gender relational(conventional)mode, such that the subject of the symbol is the difference between them. Wheneverstatements are made which call upon in a cross-sex thesymbolic is to pointto oppositionor intention gender context, antithesis. Thus constituted, a contrast betweenmale and femalemay stand,in the eyes of Hagen men and women alike, forcontrasts betweenprestige and betweengroup and individualorientation, and so on. As actors, rubbishness, women can replacemenon certain occasions,and mencan behavelikewomen. But when male and female valuesareat issue,thelogic ofthesymbolallows no substitution.
MARILYN STRATHERN
679
Each sex contriThis structure of difference is also thatof complementarity. Sexualityitself may thusbe used as a butesits own attribute to an enterprise. based co-operation.Neithermale symbolof mutuallyorientedbut distinctly to the othersex, but each nor femaleloses any part of his or her identity is givenand a gender-specific sexualidentity contributes portion.Physiological mediate relations between men (sets of absolute;and Hagen women socially When males exchangethings clansmen)whose natureis alreadyconstituted. ofthegift is metonymic. Womengivewomen's things withfemales, thenature on the partof women assist and men give men's things.Productiveactivities as men throughthesetransactions augmentthe basis for men's transactions, forthemetonymic establishes gift no production. The spheresremaindistinct, exchanges identity betweenthepartners, onlyequivalence.Thus in male-female as and donorand recipient aresustained neither sex loses itsgenderto theother, entities. innately differentiated I suggested that in Hagen pig exchanges it is the activity(transaction, production)and not the objects (pigs) which are, as it were, sexed. Shells, as belongingespecially to men,and netbagsto women. however,are regarded in shelltransactions withothermales,in the Men give away partsofthemselves same way as women give away netbags to persons like themselves,other but are not women. Such exchanges can indicate same-sex identification, in cross-sexcontexts.Unlike Trobriandskirts, shellsand netbagsdo creative cross-sex for identity. Netbags arereceptacles not have thepower to constitute menas things and not constitutive ofmalewealth;shellsaredifferentiated from usedin mediations butareinvariably between 'on their men,andnotalso skin',19 in transactions betweenmen and women. It is pigs whichfigure betweenthe sexes, and these are neutral,unsexed mediators.Pigs are neither'male' nor itis forthatcomplementarity ofpurposeand 'female';iftheystandforanything whichis one basisupon whichthesexesinfluence each other. joint production in their in general, husband'saffairs and AlthoughHagen wives areinterested in particular, in pig transactions muchmoreaboutwhatmen theydo notbother ofbags. In cross-sex do withshellsthanmenbotherabouttheir gifts exchanges forms. Either thus take one of two women contribute women's things gifts and men men's thingsto each other'sendeavours;or else men and women are mediated by a giftsuch as pig not itselfgiven gender. However they are in othercontexts, turn structured symbolsthatbringthesexesintoconjunction and employthelogic of metonymy: betweendifferences on relations each sex in a priormanner withpartofitself, witha nature constructed transacts and not in thetransaction itself to be reconstructed Wiruis verydifferent. do not followrelations of political Marriagepatterns of women as a symbol alliance,and it is not possibleto visualisethemovement ofinter-village ties. Individualrelations betweenaffines remain disconlargely fortheskinpayments nectedfrompolitics:thereis no grouprationale thatare thefocusof Wiruexchanges. These skin paymentsare made explicitly to the one who 'bore the child'. and thefactthatthemother Emphasisedhereis women's role in givingbirth, in themaking makeschild'sbody ('skin'). It was notedthatwomen participate of these payments.At pig kills a woman may hold the shells and give the
680
MARILYN STRATHERN
appropriatecries of presentation when handingover the item to a father or skin. Or she may visitthevillageof hernatalkin to brother forher children's obtainribcagesdue to herhusband.Thereis an equationbetweenthewoman as mother and thebody of thechildwhichtheseexchanges celebrate. It is striking thatwhile a man will continueto pay forhis own skin throughout his life,a woman generallyceases at the point at which she becomes a mother.Her interest becomes much more on seeing thather husbandmakes properpaymentsfortheir offspring. Payments forown skinandpayments forherchildren itis thewoman or herhusbandwho thusmerge-it maybe ambiguouswhether a woman talksaboutherself donatesshellsto herkin. Sometimes as beingat the centre of an elaboratenetworkof exchanges:yetultimately at thecentre is her bodilysubstance. In this sense Wiru women defineand constitute an aspect of 'the person', and carriers. whereHagen women areproducers Maternal inHagen is substance to maternal kin made at birth exogenous (of extra-clan origin)and small gifts 'in between',Wiruwomen areonly recognise this.But ifHagen womenremain themselves (logically,theycannotbe objectsof mediation becausethere are no entitiesbetweenwhom theymightpass). Ties tracedthrough differentiated Wiruwomen arecreated notalliance, byan actofparenthood, whichmeansthat is as it were alreadyherown child.This is truewhether themother thechildis maleor female.Males forever thefemale acknowledge element in their makeup; areforever absorbedin their own progeny. females Giventhat other figures may as recipients forthe genetrix of thesepayments, be substituted the notion of is generalised. itself progeny as a metaphor is self-signifying Womannessin Wiruis thusself-signifying, (Wagner I978b: 76; pers. comm.). Womanness is valued as reproduction, manifested in its own products.Aspectsof parenthood are certainly differentimethisdifference is annihilated, a transformtiatedby gender;yet through ationnot conceivablein Hagen. in theformof shellsrender to themother's kinwhatis Wiruskinpayments of the childis not offset theirs.The affiliation by thesegifts-groups do not definethemselvesthroughexchange,as Wagner (I967) suggestsforDaribi. Maternalkin are not layingclaims which have to be 'opposed' (A. Strathern from his maternal I97I). Indeed, far from the person being differentiated withthem:these areconstantly reaffirmed. he or sheis identified origins, origins In one sense thegifts whatis alreadycreated.Yet in another recreate sensethe in thewoman. This is a culture thewoman is also morethan childwhichreplaces whichlineagetiesare composed through males,so thatthewoman's substance When the child gives back shells to its is reconstituted throughpaternity. in an altered individuated its mother's kin,it gives back itself manner, through the creativity of the father paternalconnexions. Shells in thissense represent also. In thecourseof Wirubridewealth transactions there is an important pointat herto take for whichshellvaluablesareloaded intothegirl'snetbag byherfather to fillhis daughter's to thegroom's kin. A man of statusis concerned netbags of payingforhis well. The groom has alreadygivenhimpigs undertherubric bride'sskin(A. Strathern ig80a: 62). Now up to thispointthewoman's father
MARILYN STRATHERN
68i
has been chiefly responsiblefor makingskin paymentson her behalfto her now on will assumethisrole. He will sendgifts maternal kin;herhusbandfrom kin; in additionhe will give to herown father, to thewoman's same maternal of thegirl'seventualstatusas a mother.These exchanges partly in anticipation in socialrelations. marka significant transformation This truismtakes on meaningif we considerexactlywhich relationsare only sometimeschangesvillage of residence.No changed. The bride herself and notuntilshe is put on herpassage fromone lineageto another, greatstress will she be an explicitvehiclefortheflowof wealthbetween has had children shehas always Even heremotherhood something affines. simply acknowledges thepigs paid by thegroom as containedwithinher-indeed one can interpret the factthatin a sense the woman is alreadywith child (her own signifying whichis changed thanthoseof .2OItis lesswomen's status bymarriage substance) the men around her. Wiru marriageforeshadows parenthood.The groom's whichwill replacenothisown substance but a paternity is prefigured, paternity It is femaleswho are bodily replaced,and in the aspectsof his individuality. processmenare feminised. In ordinary skinpayments shellsgo This is whathappensto thebride'sfather. of pork followand ribcages(pig). These gifts to thematernal kin,who return may be seen as part of the originaldevolutionof substance.At bridewealth, live pigs are givenforthebride'sskin,and the along withseveraltypesof gift, last so carefully makesis ofshell.This I interpret as thefather's return thefather towardshis daughter. Thereafter he will ceasegiving shells act of individuation in respectof her and insteadbecome the recipient of them. He will in turn the verypigs thatwill provideribcages,symbolsof the daughter's slaughter menfigure as therecipients of to sendback to herhusband.Although substance, as female.Women skin payments,the parenthoodat issue is conceptualised mothers and mothers' and mayexplicitly say mothers, speak of givingto their of their mother.In bridewealth thatwhen theygive to their theythink parents, is to be paternity transactions we are 'seeing' themomentat whichthefather's swallowed up in a more generalisedand feminisedparenthood. Once his daughterhas borne children,he and his wifejointly receive paymentsas kin' to thechild.In so faras he acceptswealthforthe 'maternal undifferentiated of (female)substance, he becomes identified withthedaughter's transmission Certainly obliterate his paternity. mother and thushis own wife.Her children the momentseems to be of some psychological forboth father and difficulty in their 21 Fathers efforts to getdaughters to leave daughter. maybecome violent home, while the daughter'scustomaryreluctancemay be in response to a setofmessagesfrom a father at thesame timereluctant to lethergo. conflicting Gender symbols are in Hagen used in a cross-sexcontextto talk about in Wiruthere is a sensein whichone sex candefine for)the (substitute difference; constructs thesexes in terms of dialectic other.Hagen symbolisation and conWiru employ a selftrast,resolved throughoppositionor complementarity; mode in whichtheone can collapseor mergeintothe signifying, metaphorical in Schwimmer's other.The metaphoric an identification usage establishes gift and a dependencyon the source of thatgift.In between giftand recipient, skinpayments forhis daughter's receivestwo children, a Wirufather receiving
682
MARILYN
STRATHERN
In so faras theshellsrepresent things. individuated paternity, itis another man's immediatepaternity thathas replacedhis own; in so faras theyrepresent the in whose name theyaregiven,itis a remoter, substance feminised parenthood, in theformof theribcageshe must to be converted back into more substance return.Wherethe giftis maternal substanceitself, and where womannessis thenthereis a sense in which theWiruwoman is a conflated with maternity, forthisaspectoftheperson. metaphor
as woman No such thing We can take an itemof material culture such as a netbagand see in it cultural meaning.We can even agree thatin both Hagen and Wiru thenetbagtellsus about womanness.But we are not dealingwithrefractions of some something attributes some cultures universal Womannesswhose essential value and others bothin thequalities to womanhoodand do not. Therearedifferences attributed in whichsymbolsaregenerated out ofa male-female in themanner dichotomy. On thesegroundsTrobriandWoman cannotbe a paradigmforWoman. As value-for example,that soon as theconceptis givencultural essential womanness is concernedwith social regenesis-the proper focus for comparative becomesnotwomen butthevaluesso assigned.Thatin theTrobriands analysis overthegenesisofhumanlifeshouldnotbe confused women have control with our own biologism (women are nearerto nature;cf. MacCormack and M. intothetrapofimagining norshouldwe fall that from sucha set Strathern I980), of images we learn in the end more about women than we do about the Trobriands. ofwomannessarecomparable In some respects Wiruformulations to thoseof to the subthe Trobriands.Motherhoodis highlyvalued; women contribute is perpetually in life-long celebrated stanceof persons,and thatcontribution Yet thereis a crucial contrast.If I understand the Trobriand transactions. what Trobriand situationaright,thereis a remarkable symbolicconsistency: theeventsofchildbirth, thedailyroutine of carealso women do as individuals, as reproduction andnurture ofand forthe becomewritlargeon thesocialscreen to kin group. Trobrianderschoose to see in women's partialcontribution a total phenomenonwhich embracesthe regenesisof human reproduction Trobriandwomen reproduce society. clanship.Wiruwomannessis a substance in the make-upof men as well as women, yetin the end which shows itself but themselves. Wirulineagesare not matrilineally women reproduce nothing conceived. It is not in terms of group membershipthat women transmit cannotbecome a metaphor forgroup contisubstance,and thistransmission to an aspectof theWirupersonwhichfora woman is nuity.Womannessrefers of her offspring, and fora man with thatof his submergedwith theidentity A male-female can in certain contrast be used contexts mother/wife/daughter. butthechief ofwomannessturn withdifferentiating celebrations noton effect; status. thisbuton itsconstitutive, metaphoric Hageners, however,use male and femaleas perpetualsymbolsof contrast witheach other.Furthermore, when theyare broughtinto conjunction since
MARILYN STRATHERN
683
group continuity is conspicuously associatedwith same-sexrelationships beas such is also individuating. tween males, femaleness Women's part in reproductionis acknowledged:but what does thisreproduction itselfsignify? On theone handHagen ideas aboutsexuality stress thecombining ofessentially on the otherhand motherhoodis a distinctmale and femalecontributions; narrowly based symbolofdomesticity andnurture, bothcomplementary to and in oppositionto malegroupinterests. In this latter sense,feminine reproduction thehouseholdproduction that transactions butis symbolises underpins political not to be mergedwiththem.The dualismof male and female in is constructed such a way thattheone nevercollapsesintotheother.Sexuality, reproduction and nurture may be bound up withthevalue of Hagen women, but as purely female elements arenota cultural keyto Hagen sociallife. and bundles,then,we cannotseek any Unlike Trobriandbanana leafskirts of meaningin the objects Highlandsmen and women immediatecontinuity manipulate. Those itemsofwomen's wealthwhichWeiner describes arearticles their femine andfertility, manufacwomen wear,reflecting Trobriand sexuality In turedand exchangedin publicby them,symbolsof clanshipand matriliny. thiscontinuum of meaning,fromthepersonalto thecosmic,each transformationis informed by thekeynotionof womanness.In Hagen we are facedwith Womannessis thefoundation notofsociety and cosmictimebut discontinuity. of particularexchange partnerships, indiexogenous connections,fertility viduallymanifested, productionat the householdlevel. When thisdomain is with politicallychargedalliances,internal broughtinto antithesis solidarity, clanperpetuity and grouptransactions, valuesthusassociated withmalesareset is no sensein which againstfemaleones. Given thesesymbolicconstructs there female couldhavemeaning in Hagen; and no publicly yetexclusively exchanges senseinwhichwomen'spartin reproduction couldstandforsocialreproduction in general. So it is not enoughto 'see' Hagen women carrying articles fromone man to anotherin theirladen netbagsor walk into a Wiruvillageand hear a woman recountthe exchangesbehindthe shell she is wearing.What it means to be a mustrestto some extent woman in thisor thatsituation on thecultural logic by which gender is constructed.Analysis of women's participation in events shouldbe informed oftheperson,individuality, by concepts willand so forth to thedataand notintothem.This shouldequallybe true be readfrom forconcepts ofwomannessas such. In challenging Malinowskinevertheless prejudice putin theplace ofhisstraw man another ratherungainly creature,Trobriand Man. Those who with see male bias as shadowingthe assumptions comparableinspiration of much runtheriskofa similar sometimes pastanthropology in Malinowskiancreation their aboutwomannness.In thesameway as Malinowski'sdefinition postulates ofculture was a metaphor forthediscipline ofanthropology, so thoseconcerned withrevolutionising thesubjectin termsof studiesfocusedupon women may make out of women's activities ofa subculture something and out of their own endeavourssomethingakin to the subdiscipline.Thus thereis the idea that women's social interests have to be shown in activities whichinvolvewomen alone, and thatsymbolsof womannessare to be foundin whatwomen do and
684
MARILYN STRATHERN
whatthey construct themselves andforthemselves. This maybe anilluminating strategy for understanding rhetorical references to values in particular social IndeedI haveused theterm contexts. 'creativity' inacknowledging thepowerof thesamestrategy forourselves-notions suchas malebiasor thewoman's point ofview can be tremendously productive, and certainly altertheway we 'see', as fortheTrobriands.Yet thesounds of our own Weinerhas done so effectively industry shouldnot deafenus to thepointof forgetting thatothers are creative too. cannotreallyparadeas an innocent Anthropology childof culture.It is true thatthereseems no way to controlthe factthatat one pointwe are satisfied of one order,and at another tackback to a promontory that withexplanations in so faras anthropology is a craft, view. Nevertheless in will yielda different are aware of their theothersense of theword, and in so faras anthropologists choicesdo present In lookingat objects manufacturing role,certain themselves. women have at theirdisposal, various courses are open. We may see the ofHighlandswomen as (metonymic) predicament extensions ofour own, their netbagsself-evident symbolsof a continuous femininity; or rather we may see in an analogousmanner, andpresent that thenetbags as (metaphorpredicament ically)standing foran aspectoftheir position comparable to ourown; or we may frameoff the experiencesof Highlands women and insteadjuxtapose their and ours. There is no way to obviatebias (cf. Slocum I975: 37). But artefacts well equipped to perceiveat leastsome of our surelywe should be reasonably own symbolic strategies. By the same token,whateversymbolicstatusthe of othershave in our accounts,we also know that, experiences and constructs liveswithoutour creative intervenmercifully, theywill live out mostof their tion.
NOTES
I am grateful to Andrew This is the textof the lectureas delivered,with some modifications. and Edwin Ardener, Jonathan reading,and to Shirley Strathern and GillianGillisonforan earlier comments. Benthall,Paula Brown and Rena Ledermanforsubsequent ' The phraseis Geertz's (I976: 235), thoughhe was speakingof a rather different movement, 'Dialectic'hererefers between'themostlocal oflocal detailand themostglobalofglobalstructure'. in factinform and receivetheir definition opposingviewpoints to the manner in whichapparently fromone another(cf. Wagner I977). Such oppositionsare of coursea sourceof greatenergyand production(Ortner I974: 67): perhapsthe sensationis not unlikethe vertigoproducedby ritual outsidetheactors(Gell I980). Tiffany (I978: 47) swingingin Muria-inducing a sense of reality refers to one setof them;Wallman(I978: 2I) to another. 2 Though one might ask if that complacencyitself is not of a rathermythicalnature-old (A. Strathern positionsareonlyworthleavingbehindiftheyare seenas entrenched ig80b). 3 However,thestraw manis notalwaysan unnamed andabstract In Crime andcustom entity. (I 926) authors,and in The sexuallifeof Malinowski makes explicitreference to the works of particular to the differing formulations of Trobriandand European cultures. Malinowsavages(I929) refers in itsown time.In his famousPreface Frazer(1922) ski's originalstrawman, of course,was fiction tellsus thatthePrimitive Economic Man againstwhom Malinowskirailedwas a kindof bogey,a in callinghimto his horrible This raisesthequestionofwhyhe persisted phantom,a dismalfiction. aid. 4 I am not suggesting bias, thatwe erectstrawmeneverytimewe become consciousof cultural is a tendency to do so ifwe takea scholaronly for whathe or shetellsus abouthisorher butthatthere as a matter of prejudice. whichis alreadydetermined cultural background
MARILYN STRATHERN
I
6
685
terms thecomparative methodin theoretical In spiteofhis acknowledging (I960: i8). thatfeminist-inspired approaches contribution There is no doubt about the verysubstantial who have written about women have made to anthropology.Not all women anthropologists specified here;myintention is to pointto would, however,identify withsome of theassumptions sayingthatI simultaneously based premisses. It goes without certain concomitants ofideologically hold thatideologiesareinescapable. I Cf. Schrijvers are approachmostwritings ofthecurrent male-centered (1979: 104): 'As a result ofreality' (myemphasis). biasedor distorted renderings 8 The proposition a like a male orlike a femalerecreates mustact either thatthe anthropologist in a subjectmatter that canno longerbe described except whichis mirrored male-female dichotomy froma male or femalepointofview. 9 An aspect of this Sahlins takes up in his critique,in referring to the contradiction between value. to utilitarian Malinowski'sdesiresto see fromthenativepointof view and to reducethings with an independentand 'Rather than submit himselfto the comprehensionof a structure ofitspurpose-and so he understands thatstructure autonomousexistence, by his comprehension makesitsexistence dependon him' (I976: 75). 10The fact assumea 'crossdisciplinary' character does not as suchfrequently that women's studies theanalytical aredefined to othersetsofvalues, contradict by valuesin response point.Subcultures and/or by discrete social interestssimilarlycontained, even though those interestsmay be as 'autonomous' (cf.Ardener1975a). conceptualised 11Malinowski comparedtheluckyethnologist withthe [armchair] anthropolog[fieldworker] as his and thus'had to function material istof his day who had to relyon historical simultaneously was in themore and as themanipulator ofhisself-produced sources';theethnologist own chronicler fortunate positionof being 'able to envisageculturesas a whole and to observe themintegrally culturewas the basis for an throughpersonal contact' (I960: 12). The notion of an integrated ofanthropology (I960: 4). groundofall branches integrated discipline-the meeting 12 In hergeneral offeminism differently based'idealtypes'.In Glennon(1979) pointstofour study withbeing'male' or 'female';at thesametime an identification three ofthembeing'human'replaces devicethenotionthatall women aresisters; thefact ofbeing theseapproaches'use as an organizing femalecarrieswith it a common bond thatis not available to males, at least not untilthe social advocatecome intobeing' (1979: I75). changesthesefeminists 13 Elsewhere (1978: i83) Weiner writesthatit is properto view 'both [Trobriand]men and . . . The cyclical forces ofdalamustbe nurtured withexternal women as reproductive regeneration women'. Weinerdoes not intendto eclipse [male] forcesas much as it mustbe conceivedthrough is to be understood as men's reproductivecapacities (cf. 1979: 330) but their contribution different fromthatof women-'male provisioning' as opposed to 'femaleessence' qualitatively
14 Weinermakessome attempt at comparing theTrobrianders' and divisionof labour matriliny based on male yam productionwith the Hageners' clan connexionsreckonedthroughmen and in thehandsofwomen,butdoes notpursuethesedifferences. laboursignificantly Some productive are developedin M. Strathern in press. comparisons own distinctive meansof carrying poles. goods, slungfrom 15 Men have their 16 In some contextswomen are likened intended to bringto mindcertain to pigs, an association with malenessand men's likenessto birds; thisis by contrast qualities aligned with femaleness fromthesignificance ofpigs as wealthobjects. separate 17 This accountoftheWiruis taken largely from theworkofAndrewStrathern (I968; I97I; I978; 18 The formulation which follows owes much to the work of Roy Wagner. I must make it the two cultures as different in respectof absolutelyclear,however,thatI am not characterising in general, norevenin respect ofsymbols forgifts. Hagen andWirualikeemploy symbolformation bothwhatWagnercallsconventional on theone hand,and on modesofsymbolisation [metonymic] its theotherfigurative or metaphoric assimilates modes. (The former thelatter imposesboundaries; is to pointto a contrast in emphasis in themanner context to itself.) in whichmaleness My intention and femaleness are conceivedin relation to each other.In Hagen 'male' and 'female'are constantly intoexplicit as innately discrete social categories. (Thatin their relationship, comparedand brought behaviourpeople to some extent 'achieve'a placement oftheir sexualidentity in terms ofprestigious
(1976: 130).
1980a).
686
MARILYN STRATHERN
as theircreating or rubbishactions(M. Strathern 'a universeof innate 1978) is to be understood convention byconstantly to change,readjust, trying andimpinge uponit:. . . an effort to. . . make and uniquein relation themselves powerful to it' (WagnerI975: 87-8)) In Wiru,on theotherhand, there is a sensein which'male' and 'female'constantly substitute foreachother, suchthat at anyone betweenmalenessor femaleness is takennotas innatebutas constructed. pointthedistinction '9 In thissense shellsare both to be identified withmen as indicative of men's supremerole in ceremonial fromthemas itemstheypossess and transact exchange,and to be separated with. To thesameobjectis botha metaphor pushtheterminology, (fortheactor)and a metonym (forwealth and power). 20 Compare the Gimi of the EasternHighlands(Gillison I980: I 56): Gimi fathers put bamboo tubesintothedaughter's netbagat marriage-equated by menwiththeflutes thatsymbolise both idiomsto theextent penisand child.Wirudo not,however,use genital thatGimi do. 21 This statement is not as extravagant as one mightsuppose in the lightof evidence about father-daughter incestand homicidalaggression(and see A. Strathern ig80a, 63n). Ambiguities also arisein thebrother-sister relationship, butI do notdiscussthesehere.
REFERENCES
In Perceiving S. I975a. Introduction. Women Ardener, (ed.) S. Ardener. London: Dent. I975b. [I973] Sexual insultand femalemilitancy. In Perceiving Women (ed.) S. Ardener. London: Dent. The natureof women in society.In Definingfemales I978. Introduction: (ed.) S. Ardener. London: Croom Helm. Asad, T. I979. Anthropology and theanalysis ofideology.Man (N.S.) I4, 607-27. andthesexualdivision women divided Bujra,J.M. I978. Femalesolidarity oflabour.In Women united, (eds) P. Caplan &J. M. Bujra. London: TavistockPublications. women divided. London:TavistockPublications. Caplan, P. &J. M. Bujra (eds) I978. Women united, ofeconomicanthropology. In Man andculture R. I957. The placeofMalinowskiin thehistory Firth, London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. (ed.) R. Firth. in theSepik. Proc.R. anthrop. Forge,A. I966. Artand environment Inst.1965, 23-3 I. Fortes,M. I957. Malinowskiand thestudyof kinship.In Man andculture (ed.) R. Firth.London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. western Frazer, J. G. I922. Preface.In Argonauts ofthe Pacific by B. Malinowski.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. inanthropology Geertz,C. I976. Fromthenative'spointofview. In Meaning (eds) K. H. Basso & H. A. Selby. New Mexico: Univ. Press. and possessionin Muria religion. Man (N. S.) 15, 2I9-48. Gell, A. I980. The gods at play:vertigo andgender (eds) C. P. Gillison, G. I980. Images of naturein Gimi thought.In Nature,culture MacCormack & M. Strathern. Cambridge:Univ. Press. anddualism: a sociology New York: Longman. Glennon,L. M. I979. Women ofknowledge analysis. le probleme des formes etdes fondements de la Godelier,M. I976. Les Baruyade Nouvelle-Guinee: domination masculine,Cah. Cent.Etud.Rech.Marx. I28, I-44. Press. Goodale, J. C. I97I. Tiwi wives.Seattle:Univ. ofWashington The Hague: Mouton. Huizer G. -& B. Mannheim(eds) I979. Thepolitics ofanthropology. P. M. I939. Aboriginal sacred andprofane. London: Routledge& Sons. Kaberry, woman, andanthropology. London: AllenLane. Kuper,A. I973. Anthropologists In Thepolitics and anthropological factsand fictions. of Leacock, E. I979. Women, development, anthropology (eds) G. Huizer& B. Mannheim.The Hague: Mouton. In Man andculture to Malinowski'sempiricism. Leach,E. R. I957. The epistemological background London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. (ed.) R. Firth. LeRoy,J. D. I 979. The ceremonial pig killof theSouthKewa, Oceania,49, I 79-209. culture MacCormack, C. P. & M. Strathern (eds) I980. Nature, andgender. Cambridge:Univ. Press. of theWestern Pacific.London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Malinowski,B. I 922. Argonauts andcustom insavage 1926. Crime society. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. 1929. Thesexuallife ofsavages. London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. andtheir 193 5. Coral gardens magic (2 vols.) London: Geo. Allen& Unwin.
MARILYN STRATHERN
687
(ed.) R. Firth.London: Nadel, S. F. 1957. Malinowskion magic and religion.In Man andculture Routledge& Kegan Paul. definitional, methodological, studyofwomen's movements: Omvedt, G. 1979. On theparticipant In Thepolitics (eds). G. Huizer& B. Mannheim.The ofanthropology and actionconsiderations. Hague: Mouton. is to culture? In Woman, andsociety (eds) M. Z. to maleas nature culture, Ortner,S. B. 1974. Is female Univ. Press. Rosaldo & L. Lamphere.Stanford: studieson women's status.In AnnualReviewofAnthropology, Quinn, N. 1977. Anthropological 1977.Palo Alto: AnnualReviewsInc. an anthropology New York: MonthlyReview Press. ofwomen. R. R. (ed.) 1975. Toward Reiter, reviewof anthropological theory.Comp.Stud.Soc. Rogers, S. C. 1978. Woman's place: a critical Hist.20, I23-62. R., B. Sykes & E. Weatherford. 1979. Aboriginalwomen: male and female Rohrlich-Leavitt, In Thepolitics (eds). G. Huizer & B. Mannheim. ofanthropology perspectives. anthropological The Hague: Mouton. reason. Chicago: Univ. Press. andpractical Sahlins,M. I976. Culture in culture E. 1974. Objects of mediation:mythand praxis.In The unconscious (ed.) I. Schwimmer, Rossi. New York: Dutton. In Thepolitics ofanthropology (eds) G. and anthropology. Schrijvers, J. I979 [I975]. Viricentrism Huizer & B. Mannheim.The Hague: Mouton. In Human sexuality:a Shapiro, J. 1979. Cross-culturalperspectiveson sexual differentiation California: anddevelopmental Univ. Press. (ed.) H. Katchadourian. perspective comparative male bias in anthropology. In Towardan anthropology of Slocum, S. 1975. Woman the gatherer: women (ed.) R. Reiter.New York: The MonthlyReview Press. and female automony in ruralJava. In Women and national Stoler, A. 1977. Class structure (ed. WellesleyEditorialCommittee). Chicago: Univ. thecomplexities ofchange development: Press. A. I968. Sicknessand frustration: variations in two New Guinea Highlandssocieties. Strathern, Mankind 6, 545-55I. andDaribi matrilateral payments, J.P. S. 80, 449-62. 1971. Wiru andoratory intraditional society (ed.) language 1975. Veiled speechin Mount Hagen. In Political M. Bloch. London: AcademicPress. in pursuit ineconomic revisited: of a comparison.In Research 1978. 'Financeand production' Conn.: JAIPress. (ed.) G. Dalton. Greenwich, anthropology and pairingin the of oppositionreversal, 1979. Men's house, women's house: theefficacy J. P. S., 88, 37-51. Melpa AmbKorcult, and thecontingent: bridewealth among theMelpa and theWiru.In The ig80a. The central London: AcademicPress. payments (ed.)J. L. Comaroff. meaning ofmarriage in the searchforlegitimacy: becomes mythagain. history ig80b. Reversalsof perspective Camb.Anthrop. 5, 47-53. M. I972. Women inbetween. London: Seminar(Academic)Press. Strathern, ofsex: paradoxesin Hagen gender Theyearbook of symbolic thinking. I 978. The achievement London: Hurst. (ed.) E. Schwimmer. anthropology in press.Domesticity and thedenigration ofwomen. In The valueofthe devalued: perspectives the California: Univ. Press. onwomenfrom Pacific (eds). D. O'Brien & S. Tiffany. andbehaviour M. I976. Whose knowledge?In Knowledge (ed.) L. Holy. Belfast:Queen's Stuchlik, Papersin Social Anthropology. University association? RAIN, 36, 6. Tapper, N. I980. ASA: a professional ofwomen:a preliminary assessment, Man Tiffany, S. W. I978. Models and thesocial anthropology (N. S.) 13, 34-5 I . andalliance. Chicago: Univ. ofDaribiclandefinition ofSouw: principles Wagner,R. I967. The curse Press.
Man(N.S.) 14, Milton, K. 1979. Malebiasinanthropology?
Kegan Paul.
ofculture. New York: OxfordUniv. Press. theory I960 [1944]. A scientific (trans.)by N. Guterman.London: Routledge& in thestrict senseoftheterm I967. A diary
40-54.
688
MARILYN STRATHERN N. J.: Prentice 1975. The invention ofculture. Englewood Cliffs, Hall.
and indigenous of theinnate:a semioticcritique I977. Scientific Papuan conceptualizations and survival of the ecological perspective.In Subsistence (eds) T. P. Bayliss-Smith & R. G. Feachem.London: AcademicPress. in anthropology. theproblemof reification In Theyearbook of I978a. Ideology and theory: London: Hurst. symbolic anthropology (ed.) E. Schwimmer. I978b. Lethalspeech. Cornell:Univ. Press. Wallman,S. I978. Epistemologiesof sex. In Femalehierarchies (eds). L. Tiger & Fowler. Chicago: BBS. Weiner,A. B. I976. Women ofvalue,men ofrenown. Austin,Texas: Univ. Press. model in Trobriand society. Mankind,spec. issue, Trade and I978. The reproductive inOceaniaandAustralia. Exchange (eds). J. Specht& P. White. fromanother view: thereproductive I979. Trobriandkinship power of women and men. Man (N.S.), 14, 328-48. in SriLanka,Man (N.S.) I5, 603-25. menstruation Winslow,D. I980. Ritualsof first London: Routledge& Kegan Paul. Young, M. W. (ed.) I979. Theethnography ofMalinowski.

Culture in A Netbag - The Manufacture of A Subdiscipline in Anthropology

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Culture in A Netbag - The Manufacture of A Subdiscipline in Anthropology

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Culture in a Netbag: The Manufacture of a Subdiscipline in Anthropology Author(s): Marilyn Strathern Source: Man, New Series, Vol.

IN A NETBAG: CULTURE THE MANUFACTURE SUBDISCIPLINE IN ANTHROPOLOGY*

inMilton there is a I979 andQuinnI977) that persistent premiss (documented

toperceive a domain akin toa subculture (cf.Shapiro I979:

(Schrijvers I979: I IO, original emphasis). Yetdiscussion frequently proceeds in

bothin representing other peoplesas possessall we who manufacture cultures,

founded be pragmatically must (I960:

Culture, too,is to be identified

constituted fact (cf.I976:

andis recognised alikebymen

and nurture' ness": sexuality, reproduction, (I976:

skirts, theskirt itself can be analyzedas an embodiment of all thatis "womanII9).

we shouldask (cf.ForgeI966: stands forthat

Godelier 1976). Forwhile

Man(N.S.) 14, Milton, K. 1979. Malebiasinanthropology?

También podría gustarte