On the Ojibwa Woman

Author(s): Ruth Landes

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 20, No. 1 (Mar., 1979), pp. 184-185
Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2741892
Accessed: 18-12-2015 17:13 UTC

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.

University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:13:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
coveringlaws rich enough to develop substantivetheoryas
inadequate consideration,in a deductivesense, of the con-
sequences of such potentialcoveringlaws. For example,the
implicationsofa lawlikestatementsuchas "All humandecisions
are rational" are vast. Most ad hoc argumentsin cultural
ecology("culturesas adaptive systems")are both dependent
upon,and derivablefrom,sucha lawlikestatement.Developing
adequateexplanatory theoryis notso mucha problemoffinding
(or inventing,if one prefers)the "right"coveringlaws as one
of determiningthe logical consequencesof extant,potential
coveringlaws given a particularset of boundaryconditions.
In turn,thatrequiresexplicitdefinition of conceptsand terms,
withprecisestatementmade ofrelationships amongstconcepts
and termsas appropriate.Thus we needto be examiningthesta-
bilityofequilibrium pointsin systemsdefinedby an explicitset
of differentialequationsthat accountforthe dynamicproper-
tiesofa particularsystem(cf.May 1973),as opposedto making
vague referenceto homeostatictendenciesof societiesviewed
as systems.We need to show explicitlythe consequencesof
resourceutilizationwithrespectto both populationdynamics
and intergroupcompetition(cf. Smith 1975, Zubrow 1975),
as opposed to vague generalizations such the "law of cultural
dominance." We need to defineformallyour fundamental
concepts,such as artifactand artifacttype,so as to permit
theirincorporationinto an archaeologicallybased theoryof
classification(cf. Read n.d.), as opposed to relyingon ad hoc
groupingtechniquesbased on archaeologically dubiouscriteria.
We need to definemore clearly the relationshipbetween
artifactualremainsas foundby thearchaeologistand behavior
(cf. Schiffer1976), as opposed to just assertingthat such a
relationshipexists.
In short,we need to becomewhat we claim to be-practi-
tionersofa scientific discipline.The "new archaeologists"have
begun to do just that,as recentarticles,researchpapers,and
books amply demonstrate.What we need today is not a re-
examinationof whetherthe philosophyof science can or
cannotshedlighton theprocessofsubstantivetheoryconstruc-
tion, but a critical evaluation of the adequacy of' current
attemptsto develop theory,focusingon substantivecontent
and internalconsistencyas a deductivesystem.In this, the
On the OjibwaWoman
byRUTH LANDES
Departmentof Anthropology, McMaster University,1280
Main St. West,Hamilton,Ont.,Canada L8S 4L9. 31 vii 78
I am struck,in Leacock's (CA 19:251-52) discussionof my
Ojibwa Woman(1938), that she takes data out of my contexts
to contradict,for the most part, what I reporthaving seen,
heard, and understoodover 40 years ago. She paraphrases
improperlyat times,as in "Women have visions that bring
themsupernatural powersmoreeasilythando men."She attrib-
utes to my account numerous"unacknowledgedcontradic-
tions"and nowhererelatesthesesupposedcontradictions to the
principal themesI advance in this book and in my other
Ojibwa writings:the extremeindividualismfosteredby the
Ojibwa and manifestedby outstandingand eccentric(a term
used in the book) persons;the social atomismI firstpresented
in an earlierwork; the distinctsex spheresof activityand
recognition,whichthelanguagereflects, includingan unofficial
worldofwomen'sworknevertouchedby men.In otherwords,
she ignores the special value systemI describe,in which
individualisticdeparturesare made possibleby societalatom-
ism. She may disagreewithmyevidence,but she oughtnot to
ignoreit.
184
This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:13:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
major thrustof our article,Binfordis in agreement,as thisis
the very approach and concernhe has independentlyadvo-
cated and discussed(Binford1977).
References
Cited
BINFOR, L. R. 1977. "General introduction,"in For theory
building
in archiaeology.Edited by L. R. Binford,pp. 1-10. New York:
Academic Press.
BRAITHWAITE, R. B. 1968. Scientficexplanation.Cambridge: Cam-
bridgeUniversityPress.
CHRISTENSON, A. n.d. A theoryof subsistencechange applied to the
prehistoricMidwest. Unpublished M.A. thesis, University of
California,Los Angeles,Calif.
COFFA. J. A. 1977. Probabilities:Reasonable or true? Philosophyof
Science44:186-98.
CUPPLES,B. 1977. Three typesof explanation.PhilosophyofScience
44:387-408.
HEMPEL,C. G. 1962. "Deductive-nomologicalvs. statisticalexplana-
tion," in Minnesota studies in the philosophyof science,vol. 3.
Edited by H. Feigl and G. Maxwell, pp. 98-169. Minneapolis:
Universityof Minnesota Press.
. 1966. Philosophy of natural science. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice-Hall.
HEMPEL, C. G., and P. OPPENHEIM. 1948. Studies in the logic of
explanation.PhilosophyofScience 15:135-75.
LEVIN, M. E. 1973.On explanationin archaeology:A rebuttalto Fritz
and Plog. AmericanAntiquity38:387-95.
MAXWELL, N. 1974a. The rationalityof scientificdiscovery. Part 1.
The traditionalrationalityproblem.PhilosophyofScience41:123-
53.
-. 1974b. The rationalityof scientificdiscovery.Part 2. An
aim-orientedtheoryof scientificdiscovery.Philosophyof Science
41: 247-95.
MAY,R. 1973.Stabilityand complexity in modelecosystems.
Princeton:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
NAGEL, E. 1961. The structureof science. New York: Harcourt,
Brace and World.
READ, D. n.d. Towards a formaltheoryof classification.MS.
SALMON, W. 1971. Statistical explanationand statisticalrelevance.
Pittsburgh:Universityof PittsburghPress.
SCHIFFER, M. 1976. Behavioral archeology.New York: Academic
Press.
SMITH, V. L. 1975. The primitivehunterculture,Pleistoceneextinc-
tion and the rise of agriculture.Journal of Political Economy
83:727-55.
SUPPES, P. 1957. Introduction
to logic.Princeton:Van Nostrand.
ZUBROW, E. 1975. Prehistoriccarryingcapacity: A model. Menlo
Park: Cummings.
Leacock criticizesmy "downgradingof women's status
amongthe Ojibwa." What I remember is that theenthusiastic
receptiongiven the account by my Columbia teachers(Boas
and Benedict) was not shared outside, for the subject of
women'sculturalvitalitywas generallyuntouchedexcept by
some women anthropologists. Women were betterseen than
heard,as in Pericles'sopinion,and hereI was showingthatsome
Ojibwa women could be exceptional,on occasion if iiot all
theirlives.
Obviouslya briefcommentcannot cover the subject from
my standpoint.Still, I object to the appearance of special
pleadingin Leacock's presentationof my ancientstory.
Reply
byELEANOR LEACOCK
Department of Anthropology,CityCollege,City University of
New York,New York,N.Y. 10031,U.S.A. 17 x 78
I am gratefulfor the chance that Landes's commentshave
given me to repeat my regretat using such an important
pioneeringstudyas hersto illustratetheoreticaland semantic
problemsin the presentationand interpretation of women's
activities.Some 40 years later, it is easy to be critical,es-
pecially in view of the stepped-upcollectionand reviewof
materialon women and the conceptualprobinginto the di-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 mensionsof their social roles that have been takingplace.
After all, it is difficultto transcendestablishedterminol-
ogies and still communicatewith colleagues,and, despiteits
weaknesses,a considerably moreadequate platformforanalyz-
ing relationsamong women,men, and society exists today
than did whenTheOjibwaWomenwas written.
In orderto demonstrate mygood faithin makingthispoint,
I wouldliketo tella storyon myself.Dating back 25 years,the
incidentillustratesmy failureat that time to state the full
implicationsof data I gatheredin the course of studying
territorialityand thefurtradeamongtheMontagnais-Naskapi,
since the findingscontradictedestablishedviews about the
greaterimportanceof men than of womenin the social orga-
nizationofhuntingbands.I wenttoLabradorassumingSteward
(1936) to be correctin his formulationthat huntingbands
werepatrilocalsincemenhuntedmoreeffectively in areas they
knewfromchildhood.In thecourseofcollectinggenealogieson
all band membersat Natashq'uan,on the northshore of the
St. Lawrence, however,I found to my surprisethat post-
maritalresidencehad been predominantly matrilocalpriorto
the recentlymarriedgeneration.This findingtallied with
references as thenormamongthe 17th-century
to matrilocality
Montagnaisand the early 18th-century Cree, as I laterwrote
(Leacock 1955). Yet in my summaryformulation of hunting
bands as flexiblestructureswithinwhichindividualsjuggled
various preferences with considerationsof group viabilityin
makingmoves,bothat theirownmarriageand at themarriage
of siblings,parents,or offspring,I contradictedmy own data
by writingthat the resultingbilocality"perhaps" includeda
"slight" emphasison matrilocality(1955:46). I should have
stated that the emphasiswas clear and important,a reformu-
lationI did notmakeuntilovera decadelater(1969). Although
naughtbut a phrase in an article,my misstatementremains
symptomatic to me of theproblems,largeand small,posed by
modes of discoursethat took forgranted,in the wordsof a
textwrittenabout that time,a "normalimportanceof men"
(Honigmann1959:302).
With regardto the specificpoints raised by Landes, the
statementabout women receivingvisions more easily than
menwas nota paraphrase,buta summaryofpassagesreporting
that girlsand womenare "susceptibleto spontaneousvisions"
and "are moreconspicuousforgettingvisionsin thisinformal
way than are boys and men" (pp. 6-7), that boys have to be
On Women'sStatusin YanoamaSocieties
byALCIDA R. RAMOS
EasterCroachyCottage,Aberarder, Scotland.2 VIII
Inverness,
78
Leacock's insightfularticle (CA 19:247-75) promptsme to
attempta clarification of the positionof womenin Yanoama
societies.'It has forsome time been my concernto establish
the fact that thislargegroupof societies(withat least 15,000
members)does not constitutea sociologicallyuniformblock
(Ramos and Albert 1977, Taylor and Ramos 1975; see also
Taylor 1976, 1977). Undeniably,thereare numerouscultural
similarities,and it is almost certainlythe case that all the
Yanoama subgroupsbelongto the same culturalmatrix.Un-
fortunately,some of the anthropologists who have worked
among specificsubgroupshave misrepresented realityby as-
1 I use the termYanoamato referto the languagefamilyas a
whole,includingYanomam6,Yanomam,Sanuma,Yanam, and
possiblyone otherlanguage(Migliazza1972).Unfortunately,con-
sensushas notbeenreachedas to a covertermthatmightresolve
the presentconfusionbetweenthe familyas a wholeand its con-
stituentlanguages.
Vol. 20 * No. 1 * March 1979
This content downloaded from 144.82.108.120 on Fri, 18 Dec 2015 17:13:58 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
persistentlyurged while "girls pick up power by the way,
adoptingsuggestionswhich fall about theirears, but which
theyare not pressedto adopt" (p. 10). I am aware that those
who definewomen's status as everywhereinferiorto men's
would be quick to argue that girls'visionsmust therefore be
less importantthanboys'. I wouldrebut,"To whom?"and the
matterwould be up fordebate. That visionscome moreeasily
to femalesthan to males seemsthe literalreadingof the text.
On contradictionsarising from latitude for individual
expression,ratherthan fromthe historicalsituationof the
Ojibwa when Landes studies them and fromthe established
assumptionsabout female-malerelationsgenerallyextant at
the time,I protestthat I did not focuson conflictsbetween
normativestatementsabout behavior and behavior itself.I
noteda fewof these,but mystresswas on contrastsin general-
izingstatementsmade about normsand values.
On the separationof women'sand men's worldsof work,
I know this to be true of most societies,includingour own.
One thrustof my articlewas that this separatenesshas dif-
ferentimplicationsin egalitariansocietiesfromthosein hier-
archicallyorderedones. Althoughthe Ojibwa had for many
yearspriorto Landes's studybeen variouslyinfluenced or con-
strained by the economic organizationand legal codes of
Canadian society,she documentedconsiderableautonomyand
cultural independenceamong them. ThereforeI would ask
about Ojibwa women'sworld of work in what sense it was
"nevertouchedby men,"sincetheyapparentlywereinterested
in it, observedit, talkedabout it, and used or benefitted
from
it. Was it,perhaps,that theyhad no controlover it? And in
whatcontextor in whosetermswas it "unofficial"?
ReferencesCited
HONIGMANN, JOHN. 1959. Worldofman.NewYork:HarperandRow.
LANDES, RUTH. 1938. The Ojibwa woman. New York: Columbia
UniversityPress.
LEACOCK,ELEANOR.1955. Matrilocalityin a simplehuntingeconomy
(Montagnais-Naskapi).Southwestern Journalof Anthropology 11:
31-47.
--. 1969. "The Naskapi band," in Contributions
to anthropology:
Band societies.Edited by David Damas. National Museums of
Canada Bulletin228.
STEWARD, JULIAN. 1936. "The economicand social basis of primitive
bands," in Essays in anthropologypresentedto AlfredL. Kroeber.
Berkeley:Universityof CaliforniaPress.
suming uniformityfor the Yanoama as a whole. Several
authors have used these primarysources in their writings,
acceptingthesegeneralizations. One exampleis Harris (1974)
who presentsan explanationof warfare,femaleinfanticide,
and thesubordination ofwomenas ifit applied (as it does not)
to all the Yanoama.2
The image that has been projectedabout Yanoama women
derivesmainlyfromChagnon(1977),whodescribesYanomam6
womenas subjugatedby theirmalekinsmenand husbands,suf-
feringill-treatmentwithoutrecourseto self-defence, and devel-
oping,as a consequence, "a ratherunpleasantdisposition"(p. 83).
Women'sinferiority is statedin passagessuchas thefollowing:
"It is not uncommonfora man to injurehis errantwifeseri-
ously; and some men have even killed wives. Women expect
thiskind of treatmentand many of themmeasuretheirhus-
band's concernin termsof the frequencyof minorbeatings
theysustain" (p. 83).
Lizot also speaksofmale dominationamongtheYanomam6,
but he remarksthat certainwomenare muchheeded by their
husbandsin politicalmatters.He also tells of one particular
2 Fora refutation
ofHarris'sargument theYanomam6,
concerning
see Lizot (1977).
185