Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Woman, Culture And: Moral Social Studies Vol. I, No.2: Summer, 1986
Woman, Culture And: Moral Social Studies Vol. I, No.2: Summer, 1986
Just over a decade Cigo,in 1974, the collection of essays, Woman, Culture and
__
.l!E~~~)!..,.
edited b~R~sald9)and Lamphere, was published~ The contributors to
this volume criticized anthropology as a discipline for its male bias in
ethnographic descriptions and theory constructions. They noted that because of
this bias the voice of women, who universally get the short end of the stick when it
comes to power relations and who therefore are associated with the devalued,
was left out of descriptions. To quote Rosaldo and Lamphere (1974: 9):
Because men everywhere tend to have more prestige than women, and because men
are usually associated with social roles of dominance and authority, most previous
descriptions of SOCIal processes have treated women as being theoretically
uninteresting. Women who exercise power are seen as deviants, manipulators, or, at
best. exceptions.
Summer, 1986
Social Studies
~~--..-~------------ .. --------------~
and ma.~
in anthropological
thinking. The question that led to debate, and
still is subject to it, centres on the universality of such a bias. Is male bias
universal, or is it a more restricted 'problem' created by our own Western
prejudices? Quite correctly, some authors stressed the methodological pitfalls of
any formulation where the project was to discover the universal 'essence' 5?X ~.~.!~.
domination abstracted from history and cultural co....
nte~t. Such abstractions are
but grist for the socio-biologist's
mill, and thus. work, against the feminist's
intentions (see Lowe 1983, Smith 1983: 123). -----_._-,-_.,--_.-._._
It could be seen
to
be natural~ for
..
_--~_._
men to be dominant.
Women could be viewed as naturally, and not just
culturally, subordinate.
.
A second observation was that the problem itself, when phrased so as to relate
male domination
and female subordination
to the devaluation of women as 'of
--------------nature', 'ignorant',
'uncontrolled',
and 'of the domestic domain', placed it
decidedly within the idcology of the We~ten:l..p.~~~_<;U~~rpower relati<?.!!.~:As
such, it becomes but one with the powerful myth about gender relations
associated with the rise of science. Jordanova has elegantly argued (1980) that in
the West this image of the female is a construction of Enlightenment writers,
who. forming a small and powerful male elite, imposed their values in the name of
social, scientific. and mcdical progress (1980: 61, 64). Nature, which was to be
dominated, understood. manipulated, was frequently designated by these writers
as a woman to be unveiled, uncl<;>thed, and penetrated by masculine science
(Jordanova
1980: 45) I. Jordanova
further observes that an ideology which
equated women with subordinate status and animalistic nature (and with the
hated Church) was pan of a scheme for domination and exploitation aimed at
very specific ends. It dId not in fact reflect the rather chaotic material conditions
of the time. but rather was a programme of reforms to create a certain kind of
universe where nature. a category including other peoples and societies. was to be
a realIT' (JrJ~Vl ""hlch European man acted and which he controlled. ~
T~.~ 'pr'"'blem' of gender. then. when placed within comparative framework,
becomes in large part one of not taking the rhetoric and claims of Western science
at face value. In the meantlme. we have learned in the process of our mistake a
good dcal about \\reSlern Imagcs and cvaluations of gender. its moral judgements
ahout it. The)' are hased on a hierarchy of values in Western folk usage arising in
part from a popularllatlon
of.:Q~sc~
views on mind and body and
Enlightenment rhetoric In general (see Parkin' 1985: 135-7; Overing 1985: 7,9.21).
Western academic notions of order and rationality favour the play of dominance
and subordination.
In so doing they assume the (universal) authority of the logic
of such hierarchical oppositions as reason over emotions, mind over the body,
the universal over the particular, culture over nature, man over nature, man over
woman - and of special importance to anthropological analysis, the political over
)' the domestic and the public over the private. The ethnographic evidence supports
the view that this particular package of values is not a universal.
The contributors
to the volume Nature, Culture and Gehder , edited by
--,. __ ..
..
.. _._-_.""'-._.-
,M~Mnd~
and published in 1980, explore specifically and
tlui>ugli rich ethnographic detail the difficulties of applying the analogy of
women: nature :: men: culture cross-culturally. As SJrathern observ~s (1980:
219), we must always be wary of translating other people's dichotomies into
schemes of our own. And as MacCormack concludes (1980: 17):
The statement that women are doomed by their biology to be natural, not cultural,
is of course a mythic statement...
'i.
By listening only to our own 'discourse on the natural', by imposing our own
ptCuUar obsessions upon others, we can see these others only as a (poor)
reflection of ourselves (also see Overing 1985a: 20, 1985b: 173-174).
It is dear that in the West our understanding of gender is tied to notions not
just about the relations between the sexes, but to more ~ner~lideas about how
"f~!~tf_!~~_djJTerentfrom (ind superior to -Q~turc;/Atthe core of this paradigm of
thg felation of culture to nature is also a theory about powet '!!!fL!!lep_oJ~tical,
whil;h includes' very specific notions about relations of domination and
sub(:)rdination, exploitation, coercion, control, and, of course, inequali-ty. A
point that is not without relevance to a discussion on the perils of ethnocentrism
is that ift the West these relationship~~_r~_~nv!saged on one powerful level, at
I~at, as having amoral content: _humankind's relat!_~r:t_!~._the
<:E_~!~_~_~~~!'!t
is
0/)
r,
r-~'-.., ~--~-----------
instead through psychol()~ical Dleans (Ortner and Whitehead 1981b: 16)8. The
Marxian argument of(MelllassQll}~is that the formation of the sexual division of
labQ.Yr,itself, entailed the'soCio=political subjugation of women, and th~s mad;
'the woman (or slave) a servant of men' (Meillassoux (1975) 1981: 21). Kinship
institutions, such as m?rriage, conjugality and p~temal filiation, were imposed
upon women by men to be the m~ns "thr,2u~i~_~e~
constr!lined women to
gain control over both the means o(~eprod:':lc~iO~_~!!~
la~o~~ (Meillassoux (1975)
1981: xii-xiii, 20). In societies where hunting - and therefore war - is valued,
Meillassoux continues 1975) 1981: 28=29), women are correspondingly
devalued and made inferior because of their social vulnerability, and thus 'put to
work under male protection and given the least rewarding, the most tedious and
above all. the least gratifying ta~!-~_
such as agriculture and cooking' (Meillassoux
(1975) 1981: 19, my italics)9.
Whether women or men are writing, th~.~~~_~em'!!Ele bias lurking within such
generalizations is e~.treme, as too are the meth04Qiogicai Qroblems in supporting
them. The rhetoric through which both descriptions and conclusions are
presented makes assessment difficult. I shall mention just a few of the problems,
those with which I shall be concerned in the remainder of the paper.
It is often the case in the literalU.r~,that discussions on male 'dominance'
f.conflate critical analytical levels. ~rdan~yiinoted (1980: 65) that the evaluative
(the value of good/bad or superior/in'ferrorS is merged with and given as support
fot judgements about co.ntrol (sub/superordinate status). Frequently, too, tpL~hs
and the n:t'!!Q9~" of gender are conflC;tteg"Withideology, and all three with
~.lUh>n' (also see Strathern 1984: 159). Violence or aggression becomes a freelfoating card to support any of the above - which has a good deal to say about our
own concept of political power. When the evaluative is presented, especially in
( comparative or general schemes such as those just cited by Meillassoux, Ortner
\ "and Whitehead, and Collier and Rosaldo, it is impossible to know from whence
the evaluation comes: from men? from women? or from the author(s)? When
S~t;b ~..~~ ..~~~it1~igc=no~p:H)iaU"~ement~ ~~~...theorie~ o~~rsonhood,a~~~.Q,~
presented. and they rarely are as such. all evaluations have about them a
considerable lack of clarity. These factors combine to make many discussions of
gender puzzling to read.
Despite the warnings that concluded the nature/culture debate, the main
problem continues to be the obvious one, that of Western bias. Many. and I
hasten to add not alL arguments on female subordinatio-;;-;re"'predicated on at
least some of the following assuml2tions:
Q) 0E~!E;L!;~,}!.,'!~!':!!:-~,'!.Y}'~!!!!~!!l!l!.C!!!1!!!2E!1~r~e,
o[ ~,~ma!!fl!l::Uy. The
assumption is also that if in all societies men occupy the main positions of
leadership then male do_minance is universal (also see San day 1981: 113). One
~ questionable equation is that of public l~der.ship and dominance. The important
distinction here may be between dominance defined as ~on,
certainly a
Western notion, and dominance defined as control over 'the most valued'lO.
"I,
'Political' systems may be about both, either, or conceivably neither. The term
'control' would be a bothersome one for many societies. The main point is that
the conception ofpoliti~Q,ower as a coersive_~?_~ceis n~~J!.~i'yersal. If this is the
case for many societies, then the leap from 'the polliical' to 'domination'
(as
coercion), and from thert to 'domination of women', should be in large part a
shaky one. We should also remember, as Strather~ (1981: 167-168) has
remarked, that the notions of 'the political' and. 'politjcal personhood'
are
cultur!!l
o\)sessionsQf ours, a bias -re-fiected in anthropological
constructs. We
,--,~-".",,- ......
should be wary about projecting our own value of 'the political' upon others.
@ t'?t!{f.1I!-llQ/j!i~a'.!.d~ol~Jf~~
';lre,~a!!'?~,!se~.
This is ~ost likely a corollary ~f.the
assumptIOn that the-poTltlCal IS about male dommance. Therefore pohtlcal
ideology is assumed to be about male dominance and the control of women, e.g.,
of their labour, the products of their labour, and their reproductive capacities.
Women must, then, be presented in ideology and rhetori~as unequel to the men.
However, as Pocock has pointed out (1986: 8), decision and judgement making in
X pre-literate societies often entails a m~ral complexity that members of modern
State societies, through the process of compartmentalization,
avoid. Strathern
(1981) has demonstrated
through the case of the Hagen of New Guin~t
a
pre-literate political system predicated upon the values of personal autonomy
and equality may as well have its inegalitarian and competitive aspectS (or male
bias). Judgements consequently reflect this ambiguity, and vary accordingly.
Hagen political ideology cannot. therefore, be accurately characterized as one
predicated on male bias, or as not being so based.
i-
_._.".
___
Q)
~",
ha T
__
",~,
.. _'-'-"--"'-'''''''-'''''''''."'''"_''
..
.,\",,''''''~U''''_''~'
t~~ .:E!i..v~b
.
'~.
,..
'-"'..,...."
.,_ ...,...
i~.: n~!.
he~.:1!!!!l:s!i c!J!I!!!!J.ql.:.,tjL~:t!,~~mi!L'!L~.,,'1rlj
~:~~'9J
,l1
contrasTS and hold the sar:1('\11Iue.asin. The.~:es[. The assumption is that women
;;~-tf~toihed~m-;i'~'"oT~the"'p'rT~:atean'd"th~'d'omes
tic. and that thi s d'oma in is
devalued vis-a-vis the malc puhllc and political domain. I think that if the
ethnographies of many SOClctieswere examined closely. the dichotomy would not
~me. r..ge a..5 a.clear one for.. tl..1.c
..m I..
~._.c_..~._..~j~
__
~_.~._.t
L()11Jl.~_p~.~ial
or physicalconnotation
rto th~_(:hstinc.tlon>which.Qoc;~ ~.<:!_!.al~:,'.lY,~_h()ld.
Among the Piaroa. Amerindians
'orihe Venezuelan rain forest ahout whom Iwill speak below. the family 'owned'
hearths within the large communal house are not designated as solely 'domestic'
space. Le;Jders conduct <.IttheIr he;Jrth husiness with foreign leaders: the nightly
ritual of a WIzard leader I~conducted at his hearth. Similarly, the large communal
space in the centre of the house and the plaza outside it are used as areas for both
food preparation and polItical and ritual activities. Yet the distinction of public
and private is one that carries with it the notion that women are excluded from the
~ic...lVJJi~.h.QfL~_I}..~,~.D.2.~lb~.~~~~:
At the worsCTi1'soCietles where women are not
excluded, as through institutions of men's houses, much male political (and
ritual) activity is perforll1.ed f?r t~e .\Vomen as audience, and the performance
would have fio poifitwithouitheprese;c~~["th~-~-omei1l1.
Female performance,
as listeners or as provocative commentators,
is as public as that of the men.
@) thaI eu/tuff! and social rules constrain women, but not men. This is a hidden
~""'l"'l'~ilt'''''1l.~ll\,I;<''Y~~~;'~~':I:''';<:'1i.I'M.I~,~~j'"'~,~-*,',~
,"""'--,'
-:"~",,,,
...
_,~'j1U\,":~~~
clause in many of the arguments that stress the political control of women by men
and the manipulation of women through institutions of kinship and marriage.
I
This assuinptioncan be more generally stated to read: male obligations give the
'J man status, while female obligation's constrain the woman. Such an assumption
is especially confusing when simultaneously there is the argument that women
----are devalued because of their 'spontaneity', their relative autonomy, and their
lack of involvement in the establishment of 'important' relationships outside the
'domestic' group, which on the contrary does involve the son-in-law through his
obligations to his father-in-law (see, for example, Collier and Rosaldo 1981: 197,
295)12.
as a corollary of the above, ~~i!:t.wo"!!!.~'Lr:!~!.~mel!.n~~,
a'!d cfJ.ntroJ.!Etthro!f:K.b
taboos
and ideas
pollution,
while
nJ.e'1.,~[f!J1Q.e3. This assumption will be
~,-~."~--~."
.... ..... ahout
..."._."".,,~.~
..~
.. ....
""'~"'""'.' ..." "" .. ,
examined further in the next section where I shall discuss Piaroa ideas on
pollution.
~ ..
<
'_,
...
..
',
"
,,'
,._ .. e"--,,,
'c,,,
'_
-,-"_.L'..,...,","_.~'"_,
_.~""
__
~".............
.. " .-----"
.. ,._., __
. _
that
,."'''
".~,,
the.l!r:.!!!!Pl~,.8L.~!ff.~!}!!!~'3!!~
..
e!.i!.!!!!!!J~!!!L"'.!!.!!!!f,.!!JJ!LbJ![,.g[b
y;
>( that women's activities are universally judged as inferior to those of men; that
gender symbolism is universally about male superiority. It is assumed that with the
division of labour women's work is by definition judged to be inferior to that of
men's. Ethnographic evidence would have to support this evaluation. My own
data on the Piaroa do not (see below). Too often comparative analysis on this
topic is based upon warri<.?!L~':lnti~~~~.!~tiesand not upon the less dramatic
peaceful societies where it may well be the case that no more 'value' is placed
upon male hunting activities than upon female agricultural labour. Nor is meat
necessanly valued more than agricultural products as food 14. What is never
~:;:.;;-~
recognized is that a principle of 'difference' can be just as much a mechanism for'
-"
il/ 1/ creating equality and complementarity as for creating hierarchy. Classiflc~li,oJls
are value-free in and of themselves: their meaning is arbitrary. a lesson
anthropologists should have learned well from their semiological and
structuralist past.
The symbolism
of gender is often associated with highly complex the~es of
au
energy in the universe, and therefore to reduce the meaning of such idea systems
'IT;the political om~'''-ofmale dominance over women would be absurd. -~.~.b
symbolism is about many things. and, especially in tropical South American
societies. may provide a root paradigm of forces operating in the universe
responsible for order, th~' eter~al. the ephemeral, fo~ creation, periodicity. and
destruction (see Hugh-Jones 1969, Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971, Crocker 1985). The
ordering of relations hetween the sexes may well be a tangential concern in such
schemes. The potion of sexuality, itself.~
..sf;!lL~~.~'p'owerf!!!.wa~."".2fenvi..~(igil1g
primary forces in the l(nTv~rse,and one that is J!Ot necess.ari!YJ.~!}.k~2-t~,,~~d:.!:.,
but in the human world to personhQ.od (both men and. women are fertile)l 5.
The point is that the symbolism of gender or sexuality may be situatea~ithin a
complicated network of meanings having to do with the material universe, forces
beneath and above the earth, thus worlds beyond society, as well as with
""F
_w;;:;:
t.h
:ua"
1111~~
..'"
.. ~
1111.,. ..-
relationships between humans - with kin and affines, men and women. Such
symbolism rna/, well also be about relationships among humans, animals, and
plants, ana between all of these with forces and beings of other worlds (see
Overing Kaplan 1982, Overing 1985b). The philosophical notion of what it is to
be similar and different, a notion whose basic meaning may well not be that or
~gender, is a primary obsession for lowland South American Indian societies
(Overing Kaplan 198n~Sucli'philosophical
notions are, often associated with
elaborate political ideologies tied firmly to an overridins principle of reciprocity,
reciprocity being understood as a relationship both of eql/aifty a""iai"ojdljJerence
(also see Clastres 1977)16.
As the arguments in much of the discussion of gender in anthropology
illustrate, Western analysts of society can deal much better with 'structures of
~ inequality' than with 'structures of equality', and with the 'rhetoric of inequality'
than with the 'rhetoric of equality'.
In the following section, where I examincrl5ilfO) ideas about gender relations,
their pollution ideas and proscril?~io~s, and their understanding of person.h.Q9ji,I
shall argue that the 'situation of women' is analytically one of 'Catch 22'17 when
Western paradigms of power and gender relations are not shed. In the final
section my point will be that iE~~~1~11~,~!I"~,~a,,I,!~~,ti~n,e~.~~~~a~i:~!~!!!~._!J~~
relationship between the sexes can also be relatively egalitarian. The egalitarian
political philosophy-ca~-havestrong-beanngon'The
re"liiTonship between the
sexes, for within it is expressed an ideology and associated morality that affirms in
general the value of egalitarian relations among people who live together. The
stress ifi anthropology has probably been too much on difference, while not
~ sufficient attention has been paid to ho.~ cO,~_~':p-~~!-.~ly_~~~,~.~~~_~~~!:?~,~~.~~~
sharing a common humanity.
.._-
..J
_~~,Ie
''--
~t'itt(."IliC~IUi'i'_
,~_
It is dangerous to as;n~~.~~f.!"~m.J!l>:~h
al~~.n~.!.E.~r!i~l~~,~~~~~lo~!~_ClJ~E~P~~!i_Y.~;
for as Leach (1954) demonstrated so persuasively with the Kachin a given set of
myt,~,! can be used as charter to support conflicting ideological claims. But
'oecause South American Indian myths 'about male domination' have been used
so extensively in the literature on gender (see for example Bamberger 1974,
Nadelson 1981), I shall begin this section with a Piaroa myth on 'the oriSiIl-<2f.
..
~ens!rualiR!l':, the only Piaroa myth that can easily be seen as 'sexist', to explore
various possible interpretations of it both out of the context of fuller data and
within it. This discussion is a continuation of my argument that any piece of
)<1 information can be interpretated as 'sexist', demeaning of females. Thus, females
are placed universally in an analytic 'Catch 22' position: if women do it, it is a
reflection of their subordinate place in society; if it is about women, then the
message is that women are being debased. Of course, 'it may well be that it is .
correct to interpret a specific message or action as such, but often the matter is
The wives ofWahari, the creator god of the Piaro3:,playe,don a swing in the jungle every
day after working in their gardens. They swung over a ravine between two hills, each
taking their turn.
Buok'a, Wahari's older brother, who had no wife but was very successful with women.
found Wahari's wives at the ravine and played with them. One after the other, the women
took turns on the swing, sitting on it, bottoms bare, inviting Buok'a to make love with
them. Each time a woman swung across the ravine, Buok'a, from the far bank, made love
with her. He had a very long penis which he normally ~ore wrapped about his shoulders,
and he could therefore make love from a great distance and very often. The wives adored
him.
Wahari, finally irritated by his brother's success, transformed himself as a beautiful
woman and joined his playing wives at the ravine, where he took his turn on the swing. He
swung across, legs spread wide apart. Buok'a sent his penis out to Wahari and tried to
penetrate him but he found no opening. 'The penis hit Wahari on the belly button,
looking for an opening, on the thigh, searching. When it hit Wahari's thigh, he rapidly cut
Buok'a's penis into five parts with a knife until it was shaped down to normal size.
From the end of Buok'a's shortened penis blood flowed, and he became sad. Thus, he
isolated himself in a small hut set apart from his regular house. He lay in his hammock
,,/'thete with his menstruation, and brooded just as a woman does with her first menses
C>when she has to stay in such a small hut for a week. (The Piaroa with whom I lived did not
have this tradition, but they said that some Piaroa far in the interior do have it.)
The Wives of Wahari, in the meantime, mourned for their lover. They went to their
iWing, but found no lover with a long penis. They then moped and refused to work. They
stayed in their hammocks and wept. Wahari was cross with them for their bad temper and
the knOWledgethat they adored his brother.
. One day, when Wahari was hunting in the mountains he decided to visit his brother,
Buok'a. He did not know that his brother was menstruating. He saw the small hut and
smoke coming from it, so he opened the palm door to peer inside. Wahari asked, 'Who's
there?' and Buok'a answered, 'I am menstruating!' Wabari retorted, 'What is going to
happen to us? It is not right that men menstruate. Women in this world menstruate, not
men. Because you have a period, you should belong to the family of the sun; for among
i them men menstruate' (this is a reference to North West Amazon societies, whose
symbolism is interpreted by the Piaroa this way).
Wahari arrived back home with all of his hunt. He had all types: toucan, peccary,
pheasant, lapa. But his wives were still sad, and they refused to take the hunt and prepare
it. He asked what was the matter, but they would not answer. Irritated with them, he
commented that he was the one who should be sad, not they - 'I encountered my brother
today, and he was menstruating! Men should not menstruate!' The women leapt to their
rt and asked in chorus, 'Where is he? from where is he menstruating? from the head? the
ears? tbe mouth? from the point of his fingers? from the knees? the feet? the anus? the
penis?' They did not yet know about menstruation.
The women dressed up for their lover. They put on leg bands, necklaces, and they
. I p~int~ themsel.ves.Then they ~ent to Buok'a.'s house w~ere he quickly made love with
't. e!ach- and that IS how they received menstruation. Wahan announced 'Now women will
have menstruation.'
The women returned to Wahan's house. The first woman who entered said, 'I am
menstruating', and she went to her hammock. The second wife, in the middle of removing
the feathers from a bird from Wahari's hunt, announced, 'I am menstruating', and she
went to her hammock. The third woman, cleaning a bird, did the same', As the fourth was
cooking, her period came, and she dropped her work to go to her hammock. As the fifth
was taking food out of the pot, she had to go to her hammock. And the same happened to
the sixth when she was offered a portion of curare-killed meat QYher husband. (Women
cannot eat, without ritual chanting by the wizard, meat killed with curare.) Wahari was
left with all the work to do, and he announced, 'Men should not menstruate, women
should.' Therefore, all women menstruate,
'?r..!?.~..
..
'_~""."'~"_~'_~_.
__
JiU'Io,
__
""._",_~-"
llllii'ol>_
."'
"__
~~-"",
Wahari does not get off too well in the story, either. He is cuckolded, his
brother shames him, and his wives refuse, then cannot do, their share of the work.
His predicament when left with all the work is given a~position of high drama in
the telling of the story: it is the telleris reaction to Wahari's cutting short the fun.
As for the wives, they lost a lover, and regained him only to receive
menstruation. It is not clear whether they mind receiving menstruation, nor
whether Wahari considers their receiving it a revenge for their lusty adultery, a
possible interpretation of events. They are given freedom from work each month
- but as law, ialddo;~'"bythe'~;Ie)
creator god, Wapari. It is also 'law' that they,
and not men, menstruate, as he pronounces at the end of the myth. They also
received menstruation from a man who, if a Freudian interpretation is allowed,
causes the metonymical castration of women. Finally, women when
menstruating are forbidden curare killed meat, unless ritual has purified it for
them. This is clearly a constraint on them.
As far as gender evaluation goes, and the 'plight of the sexes', the events of the
myth can be interpreted two ways: 1) a positive transformation for women meant
a negative one for men: as women received their fertility (menstruation), men lost
their virility and the constant labour of women, or 2) more negativei for women,
a castrated man castrates women, their castration being the 'curse' of
menstruation. It would be my own judgement that the myth, other than as a
straightforward story of revenge and as one detailing the 'proper' order of things,
could not be interpreted further without more data from myth and, more
importantly, on Piaroa ideas about menstruation, which are associated with a
more general theory of ph~~ls!l~U'..which relates' to bodily functions and
excretions, to ~lOi~ns of gower, danger and pol~tion, and in the end to cultural
capability.
PiatQa women do not enjoy their monthly menses, and a woman will.
sometimes refer to ~
as 'her
guilt' (ka'kwakomena). which can also be
----::...J
translated as 'her responsibility', 'her will', and as such 'her thoughts'. She is
expressing guilt over the danger that her blood has for maleKlnsmen. Indirect
~ontact with it makes men ill, while its direct contictor sight causes them to
weaken so that they waste away and die. To protect her kinsmen. she must not
during her menstruation touch their food. prepare it or cook it; though as her
husband becomes older, he may acquire sufficient strength as a wizard for his
wife to cook for him. The proscription for women is especially important for the
protection of the more vulnerable young males in her house. As a 'Catch 22',
V wome!!..~!:U~!!t~"~~"L!.~"~}Lf~E!!~i!~.,Q~~!1!ns
~~~.mto a set of Qr~scriQtions
/!\ which are but ,telling of their pollution for others.
However, men mu~t_-!)so obel .E!~criE!~ns, including the one on
menstruating women. A young man knows full well the penalty for giving in to
his desires and touching a woman with her menses. It is not only women who
have prohibitions placed upon them and restrictions on their behaviour. If girls
do not appreciate the restrictions on them during their menses and especially
,_
rt
.u
during the first two they experience (Overing and Kaplan, in press), boys express
great fear of the E!i!L~pd, ~he Pt~~.~!~_!!!~1!!~tH.I!.<!g'&Q.9.!!rtpg
!,~~rJ.ID.Y!tiQ!l
into hunting and fishing. They remember afterwards the hal1~~~~?gensthey had
" to take and, with terror, their stinging an't and bee ordeals (Overing"Xaplan 1975,l
Overing and Kaplan, in press) which give them the power for the hunt. Also. the
taboos on food are more stringent than those a girl must follow during her first
~ menses. The 'Catch 22' to such differential emphasis.being"placed upon male and
female initiation is that, although women have few imposed ordeals during their
initiation and men do, men have more cultural attention paid to them. Thus, the
status of manhood can be interpreted as being more highly valued than is the
status of womanhood.
After initiation, the ritual restrictions on male be:1aviour are far from ended.
and after . the pregnancy
of the
woman
whose pre~~!!y._!_!Jla!!J~~
(" During
__
.,_.''_._.
.,_"._..
.
_~.~"".,"
.__in
,._,,_~._.,_,"w'''''
... ".' ", , '
y played a role, he must follow the same taboos on food as does the woman, and he
,r
must.,e involved in even mo~e ritual than she is. Both the taboos and the ritual
are to protect the woman and the child, and their lives are dependent upon his ...
attention to detail, some of the reasons for which I shall more fully explain below.
""'E~1ii<riirini
the pregnancy, the father must be present in the chorus for the
all-night chanting of the wizard, who includes in his chants the protection for
pregnant women. If the father were not present, the mother would die in
childbirth, a catastrophe for which the man if he is the cause pays heavily to the
father of the woman 19. Both parents are equally vulnerable to the odours, urine,
and excrement of other people; while mother, father and child are equally
susceptible to the dangers of jaguar odour.
The re:'
or the taboos on the fooTof a man with a pregnant and lactating
spouse art interesting in the context of a discussion on the equality and the
inequality of gender relations. The man's bodily p~ity
to the wife, and
during gestation through her to the child con.!.-aminatesboth mother and baby. In
___ the Piaroa theory of physicality, men, ar~"J!:l_~J~.2~~x:1..!~~om~!h,,!.s
vice
versa. Both man and woman, and especially powerful wizards, are dangerous to
~ung
and the vulnerable. The semen of men is as dangerous t9..~omen as
'! menstrual blood is for men. and ritual must protect women from it. Both give an
equal number of dangerous (named) diseases. Semen within a mother is
especially dangerous to her unborn child, and through it the man can further
contaminate the child with any strong food he eats, as too can the mother
through her milk. In short. for the Piaroa all bodily excretions - sperm, m~nstrual
blood, urit,'lez.~,~eat,E"!"s,vomit, eXE!e~ent -..~re.P2Jb.R!?tent and dangerous, and
people b~}~~~~..!.~~?_t:ltami!1.~.!.c:..2.n~!~<Uherbecause of them through mere
proximity. Each person is responsible for preventing, as much as is possible,
his/her danger to others. How general such beliefs are to other societies is difficult
to know, since investigator bias directs attention to the polluting effects of
menstrual blood (see ~r')
1985, for instance)20. .
Nor, in Piaroa symb"olism, can one find reason to say that there is
j
,,=>
differential disgust over the bodily functions of one gender over and above the
other. Rather, the force of one piece of evidence from such a point of view is
)ldeflated by the next. Wahari, it is said, made braJns for people ftQmJh~l>oils of
!!is own venereal disease: these boils are given the same name as the paint marks
that tell of a woman's kno~.ledse o(~~I.l!}s!!~I'P,~ti~!1-iwiz mizruwa (see below).
On the other hand, the box of origin for the boils of venereal disease is labelled
unizsayu, or 'a lusty old man'. Miscarriage is given the same word as ejaculation
"'7-(puikwa). And the triad of vomit, semen and excrement carry the same label-
edeku.
7'
of women with their biological processes (on the side of demeaned 'nature'),
while men are placed on the side of 'culture' in terms of capabilities both to act
within this work! and others.
There is a catch here, though not of the '22' nature. For the Piaroa all cultural
)4 cal?ability is wizardry, including menstruation, which is considered along with
hunting, fishing and sorcery as transcendent knowledg~ acquired through maripa
feau, or 'lessons in wizardry' (Overing in press a). Menstru~tion, and the fertility
with which it is associated, formsa woman's 'thoughts' (ta'kwaru), as similarly
hunting and fishing capabilities are the 'thougiiiMta'kwaru)
ofa man (Overing
1985 c). These capabilities are given to individuals during their t!ii.!i~tl9n, when
the leader wizard flies to celestial space to take from the crystal boxes of the
celestial goddess dangerous and poisonous cultural capability and brings it back
safely bound in beads for the individual's use and incorporation within his/her
body. Notice that it is from a goddess that culture comes. Today she owns
\"" cultural capabilities - in contrast to the 'male domination' myths from some
I societies of the South American jungle where 'culture', on~ owned by women,
I..[ ~._~~.>.J~.!1.,1!:!E~~
by ~~ Pi~.?a myth tells of cul!}!~~..~~in~ taken fr~m~_~
~, b~~. w0JT.l.~n:_
the creation and then misuse by male gods of dangerous and
poisonous cultural capability during mythic time drove them to madness; males
thieved culture from one another, and peace was therefore impossible; thus, at
the end of mythic time, the female goddess took
all culture from them into the
"
safety of crystal boxes in celestial space.
Once th~~~,~9~or.~!:1~~~_~!:.~L~,~.9~ 0!1~'s.Q29Y,the individual is thereafter
responsible for their safety. In ~hefirst lessons in wizardry, when children are 6 or
7 years of age, the boys and girls are taught~t<2_geth9by the wizard the capability
of mastering the 'life of the senses', one's emotIons and desires. Through these
lessons, one is able later to protect the powerful capabilities taken within one.
When a girl receives her 'beads of menstruation', she then has the pm~'er to
rJ.- ,S0nt!'?(!t'
CJJE!1!J.,{{t.tr.Such a notion would be unthinkable in a society where a
woman's fertility is considered to be under the control of the (male) political
group. The idea that the woman has control over her own fertility is probably one
of the strongest indicators that a society is not very concerned about male
dominance and female subordination. It is understood, in Piaroa thought, that
women
have control
over their. own ,,.., biological
processes
and ~ust take
-. -. .' -. ". b'
.
_."-., .._._ "_ " .,, ... ,.,..' ......'" -,."..,,---,.-,.,
.. --."',-'
. - ..".-- ..--.----~~,_.'"
resEo_~L..i!.~!.L.f~","J_~
..~~,: they therefore have control in large part over the
biological reproduction of the society. In brief, the Piaroa place on the same level
both thcpmeans of, teproducingl,ocial life ~the
means for reproduction of
h!!!JllIDs:both are wizardry,and mastered by individuals.
In Piaroa classification all creation for which an individual is responsible is
said to be that person's a 'kwa, or 'thoughts'. Thus, the products of one's labour, a
pcrsotfs child, and a sorcery transformation, such as the wizard's transformation
ifitd jaguar or anaconda, are all said to be that person's 'thoughts'. A woman's
garden produce is her a 'kwQ, as too is the blowgun made by a man his a 'kwa, and
1IiliIC
'
__
,.,
II.
w.
__ 4I!ltIi,~ot:\
--.
-..:z::::_
...
'''II.'IIJ'''~
eo
kIi!w1rilli
1111
:>(
'JQ
!./
I '"
)J~~~~~~\~~~t~e;~~:~i;;~~~~l~~-f~l&io
lJuok'a. a man. The principle at work here is one without a valuation of
ifi"fetiority and superiority, but rather one of difference and equality.24 The
Piaro. are 'playing' with the notion of transference o~ energi~!, and not with a
principle of gender inequality. It is a sign o~uality
that energies can be
=-'-:.
./
t"
/'
---------
t!~;~.;P~~~~~(ihe
..------.---
result of lransfonnal~o:al-
...
of
(' ,,[!
',''1/
!
:
t'~
.'.
produce. Thus, they are not obliged to give the products of the garden to anyone
outside their immediate family. Women do, however, also participate in wider
networks of distribution. On a daily basis they distribute throughout the
communal house the products of their gam-ering, and on ceremonial o~sions
the women serve t~e beer they make to all guests. Meat, on the other hand, is
distributed equally in the house by the wizard, and not by the hunter. It is the
\y'izard who has ultimate right to products of the hun~ as the one who is
responsible for transforming humans to edible (animal) form.
In conclusion to this section on the Piaroa understanding of male and female
creative possibilities, it can be said that 'the ~_,!!!u!:~E~!l.q,.:!h~~rc:.E!.~g_~c~h'_~~~_~~
I!QL~~~J~~t!r2!..!h,0\!8.!t!. For the Piaroa, the interrelationship of male
and female powers, while necessary for survival, is also dangerous, and it is
through this unqerstanding that we can begin to understand their symbolism of
sexuality and fertility, their proscriptions on behaviour, an~ the relationship
between the sexes - and between all beings c<?~~!~~~~I~~!,
and danger2~~,
2
for one another. 5 The idiom ordering these relationships is not one of the 'battle
between the sexes', nor does it entail a rhetoric of male domination.
In recent years a good deal of attention has been focused on the inegalitarian
aspects.. of r~l.atiQ!!.~~between
males and females in relatively egalitarian
c-political structures (see, for-'ciam'j)fe, A. Strathern, ed., 1982, Meillasoux 1981
(1975), Ortner & Whitehead, eds., 1981, Bamberger 1974, Turner 1979, Riviere
1985, Gregor 1985). It is true that for some of the societies, upon which the
theories of gender inequality have been developedand based, siich as for many of
N~inea
and for so~~ouJhAmerica,
antagonism between the sexes and
the emphasis upon male warfare, hunting and political dominance are culturally
elaborated. There exist. however, many 'egalitarian' political structures where
~elaboration
is not the norm. In these societies there is a more direct
')'"",I relationship between theIr political philosophies of equality and personal
j autonomy and the relations between the sexes. The focus of rhetoric of equality is
often upon the relationship between persons, and notjust upon the relationship
between men.
.
~~.---_ ..".~
.~,,_..
~_--,
arrogance, cruelty and vanity are vie~ed as social deficiencies. The hand~<?me~~t
unm:~l&~ ..h,l!!!.!,~r.
i~>!.~
~~S~,"!?f_~~hhogd,~l!L!~,.b<:._~?.P!~~""!'},_I~':!!!&
~~1'l'
The individual, both male and female, is responsible for mastering emotions and
cultural capability, and thereby fOfachieving tranquillity in social relationships.
!d Custom and 'law' reside quite literally within the person. 26
.
The Piaroa, as is generally the case with Amerindians of the South American
rain forest and particularly of the Guianas (see Clastres 1977, Overing 1985c,
Henley 1982, Thomas 1982, Riviere 1985),place a s...
tron&'y_~eedom
..9f the person, have an aversion to political tyranny, and demonstrate concern
over the ambiguous relation between personal freedom and both socio-political
right and constraint. At the same time, the Piaroa view their shaman/wizards as
~~Q~~~xtraor~ina:!,
power. The wizard leader is a 'warriof'aiifnst
forces
and beings who dwell in worlds beyond society, and his power is the knowledge
he acquires from these worlds to which he flies and his detailed knowledge of
them. In his role as both political and religious leader he uses as weapon this
knowledge to deal with these other worlds and to handle relationships between
them and the world of social reality. He has, however, very little power of
'i coercion over social matters in human society. Indeed, it is the wizard leader who
teaches formally against it and who is the knowledgeable teacher of the ethical
values of autonomy, equality, and tranquillity. In the Piaroa view, tJ!.~yh!!ye
J eradicated c?erc.!~!'a~.~.~~!!....l,2.,.~~."
~eJLt>E~~i,!g
//J the possib~lity of t~E~.~t:l!!!.~_of
D!ateti!! reso':!.~~s. Humans have
equal usufruct rights over the forest and the rivers: they cannot own either.27
So~nty
is in the hands of the gods who ~lso own all material resources and
the capabilities to use them thougn they themselves cannot do so. I would argue
that despite the remarkable powers of the wizard, the Piaroa rhetoric o~ality
and personal autonomy, and the metaphysical system ofwhichitisaPart, are"not
~'tilyst1fymg~
hiding 'real' coercion and control (of, for instance, men over
women), but state the social case as it pretty much is. No one can order another
person to do work - male, female or child - nor can anyone appropriate the
products of the labour of others for their own benefit nor create 'scarcity' of
material wealth.28
The Piaroa theory of power cannot be understood outside the context of their
ontology of a multiple-world universe and their theories of p~ysicality,
intelligence, and E~rson~
Such theories which, not surprisingly, are radically
different from Western ones, are not epiphenomenal to the Piaroa everyday
experience of their bchavioural environment but rather affect practice, are a part
of it, and are., therefore, critical to our understanding of it. The relationship
between the sexes in Piaroa society is hig~tarian
by anyone's"'Standa'rds,
'anttanemphasis7 for instance, on 'hidden' or 'mythic' control mechanisms that
might allow for male dominance can too easily lead one to miss the more socially
prevalent institut!Q.Q~1.hAL~~~!~.~quality.However, most of our analytical
discourse works against the obvious when it comes to struc:!~r~~,2[~q,!~I~ty,and
in uae masks them and serves them up as 'in fact' being about inequality. And
~>
concept of
-
2. Also see Harris (1980), Strathern (1980) and Gillison (1980): all make the similar point that
Jordonava does.
3, In anthropology, we recogni7:c the great divide between those political systems based upon 'the
morality of kinship' and those that are not, e.g., the State.
4. See the volume Reason and Morality (Overing,ed., 1985), where I in my introduction (1985a) and
most
the contributors to the volume are concerned with this issue.
5. A notable exception is the work MM. Strathern (1980,1981, 1984) on the Hagen of New Guinea.
or
while these other beings have lost either their 'life of thoughts' or their 'life of the senses' (this latter
does not include fertility, which belongs to the 'life of thoughts').
26. This can give a feeling of 'fluidity' to the social organization of the area. See Riviere (1985) on the
Guianas.
27. A cleared garden for the time it is being tended isequaUy the property of both the husband who
cleared it and the wife who plants and cares for it .
.,~. The Piaroa are noticeably allergic to any notion of 'order-giving' or 'rule', and individual
de":lsion making reflects this bias when the decision is not one of life
death.
29. It cannot be said for the Piaroa, even on politico-religious grounds that the men are 'a class'
superior to women. For instance, many older women are considered more knowledgeable about
chant language and esoterica than many men, young and old.
or
'- ALBERT, B. (1985) Temps du Sang. Temps de Cendres. Thesis for Docteur de l'Universite de Paris X.
~BAMBERGER,
J. (1974) 'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society' in Eds. M.
Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (1974).
'_ BLOCH, M. and BLOCH, J. (1980) 'Women and the Dialectics of Nature in Eighteenth-century
J. French Thought' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M.Strathem (1980).
~CLASTF.l:2S,
P. (1977) The Society against the State: the Leader as Servant and the Humane Uses of
Power an ng the Indians of the Americas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
'" COLLl~
. J; and ROSALDO, M. (1981) 'Politics and Gender in Simple Societies' in Eds. S. Ortner
.J. and H. \J~iitehead (1981).
~ CRC>CKaR, J. (1985) Vital Souls: Bororo Cosmology. Natural Symbolism, and Shamanism. Tucson,
Arizotia 'Tbe University of Arizona Press.
"GILLISON,
G. (1980) 'Imases of Nature in Oimi Thought' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M.
Strath.i:h (1980).
" GREGOR, T. (1985) Anxious Pleasures: The Sexual Lives of an Amazonian People. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press.
'\,. HARR.IS, O. (1980) 'The Power of Signs: Gender, Culture and the Wild in the Bolivian Andes' in
Eds. C. MacCormack and M. Strathem (1980).
HELLER, J. (1961) Catch-22. Jonathon Cape Ltd.
HENLEY. P. (1982) The Panare New Haven. London: Yale University Press.
HINCKS, J. (1986) '''Muted'' or Ignored?: Women and the Category Subordination ... Tutonal
Essay, Department of Social Anthropology. London School of Economics .
HUGHJONES.
S. (1979) The Palm and the Pleiatks' Inillalion and Cosmoiogy '" Norlh ....
('st
Ama:Oflilt. Cambridge: Cambndge Universlt) Press.
'- JORDANOVA. LJ. (l980)'Natural
Facts: a Historical Perspective on Science and Sexuality' 10 Eds.
C. MacCormack and M.Strathern (1980).
LEACOCK,
E. (1983) 'Ideologies of Male Dominance as Divide and Rule PolitiCS: an
Anthropologist's
View' in M12.~~_.~.!29...R. l!.!!.t>..!?~ar~UEds.)
Woman's Nature: Rationahzations of
lmquality. New York, Oxford Pergamon Press.
LOWE. M. (1983) 'The Dialectic of Biology and Culture' in Eds. M. Lowe and R. Hubbard.
Woman's Nature: Ratio;'ahzalion of Inequality.
._--~
..~"~,""
.
.MACCORMACK.
M. 8ftllthem
(1980)
and
'" MACCORMACK,
C. and STRATHERN,
M. (Eds.) (1980) Nature.
Ollflbridse, New York: Cambridge University Press.
~ (1980) 'Preface' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M. Strathem (1980).
MACIN1YRE, A. (1972) 'Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?' in Eds. P. Laslett, W.O.
Runciman and Q. Skinner Philosophy, Politics and Society, Fourth Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
MEDICINE, B. (1983) 'Indian Women: Tribal Identity as Status Quo' in Eds. M. LQ~eJll1~.R.
Hub.!>..Yd Woman's Nature: Rationalization of Inequality.
- MEILLASSOUX,
C. 1975) 1981) Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the Domestic
Economy. (First published in French as Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux by Librairie Fran~ois
Maspero, Paris 1975). Cambridge: Cambridge University PreSs.
NADELSON, L. (1981) 'Pigs, Women, and the Men's House. in Amazonia: an Analysis of Six
/'
Mundurucu Myths' in Eds. S. Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981).
~ORTNER,
S. (1974) 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?' in Eds. M. Rosaldo and L.
"
Lamphere (1974).
".. ORTNER. S. and WHITEHEAD.
H. (Eds.) (1981) Sexual MeQ1t;ngs. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
- (198Ia) 'Preface' in Eds. S. Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981)
- (198Ib) 'Introduction: Accounting for Sexual Meanings' in Eds. S. Ortner and H.Whitehead
(1981).
OVERING KAPLAN. J. (1975) The Piaroa, a People of the Orinoco Basin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
OVERING KAPLAN. J. (1981) 'Review article: "Amazonian anthropology . Journal of Latin
American Studies, 13. Part I.
~
OVERING, J. (1982) 'The Paths of Sacred Words: Shamanism and the Domestication of the Asocial
in Piaroa Society'. Presented at the Symposium on 'Shamanism in Lowland South America', 44th
International Congress of Americanists. Manchester.
- (Ed.) (1985). Reason and Morality. ASA Monograph 24. London, New York: Tavistock
Publications.
='- (1985a) 'Introduction'
in Ed. J. Overing (1985).
- (l98Sb) 'Today I shall call him "Mummy": Multiple Worlds and Classificatory Confusion' Ed. J.
Overing (1985).
.
- (1985e) 'There is no End of Evil: the Guilty Innocents and their Fallible God' Ed. D. Parkin The
Antliiopology of Evil. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.
-- (iti press a) 'Letsons in Wizardry: Personal Autonomy and the Domestication of the Self in Piaroa
So<:iet)" Eds. G. Johoda and I.M. Lewis Ethnographic Perspectives on Cognitive Development.
- (in pre~s b) 'Images of Cannibalism, Death, and Domination in a "Non-violent" Society' Ed. D.
RJcMs the Anthropology of Violence. Oxford. New York: Basil Blackwell.
OVERING. J. and KAPLAN, M.R. (in press) 'Los Wotuha' Los Aborigenes de Venezuela, Vol.IlI.
Caracas: Fundacion La Salle de Sciences Naturales.
PARKIN. D. (1985) 'Reason, Emotion, and the Embodiment of Power' in Ed. J. Overing (1985).
POCOCK, D.F. (1986) 'TIle Ethnography of Morals' in International Journal of Moral and Social
Studies, Vol. 1. No. I , pp 3-20.
~REJCHElDOLMATOFF,
G. (1971) Amazonian Cosmos Th~ Sexual and R~ligiou.s Symbolism of
llu Tukano Indians. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
RJ".RE, P. (1985) The Individual and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
~R.OSAlDO,
M. and LAMPHERE, L. (Eds.) (1974) Women. Culture. and Societ)'. Stanford
University of California Press.
- (1974) 'Introduction' in Eds. M. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (1974).
SACKS. K. (1976) 'State Bias and Women's Status'. Ameri~!!.'!,.~!!!.~~9J!.g!!,gj!L7!:~.~~?,~~?,:,
SANDAY, P.R. '(1981) Female Power and Male Dominance: on the Origins of Sexuallnequalit)'.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SMITH. J. (1983) 'Feminist Analysis of Gender: a Critique' in Eds. M. Lowe and R. Hubbard
Womahis NatUte: Rationalization of Inequality.
-----...,---StMtHERN;
A (Ed.) (1982) Inequality in New Guinea Highlands Societies. Cambridge:
dambrldgt! University Press.
STRA THERN, M. (1980) 'No Nature, no Culture: the Hagen Case' in Eds. C.MacCormack and M.
(1980).
- (1981) 'Self-interest and the Social Good: some Implications of Hagen Gender Imagery' in Eds. S.
Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981).
- (1984) 'Subject or Object? Women and the Circulation of Valuables in Highlands New Guinea' in
Ed. R. HirschoD Women and Property, Women as Property. London: Croom Helm.
THOMAS, D. (1982) Order without Government: The Society of the Pemon Indians of Venezuela.
Illinois Studies in Anthropology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. .
TURNER, T. (1979) 'Kinship, Household, and Community Structu{e'in Ed. D. Maybury-L~~
Dialectical Societies: The Ge and Bororo of Central Brazil. Cambridge, Mass.: Ha;;"ard University
Press.
" Strathem
"
of Anthropology,
Street,