Professional Documents
Culture Documents
https://anthropology.ua.edu/theory/feminist-anthropology/
BASIC PREMISES
POINTS OF REACTION
Feminist anthropologists first reacted against the fact that the discussion of women in the
anthropological literature had been restricted to the areas of marriage, kinship, and
family. Feminist anthropologists believe that the failure of past researchers to treat the
issues of women and gender as significant has led to a deficient understanding of the
human experience (McGee andWarms 1996:391, from Morgen 1989:1). One criticism
made by feminist anthropologists is directed towards the language used within the
discipline. The use of the word “man” is ambiguous, sometimes referring to Homo
sapiens as a whole, sometimes in reference to males only, and sometimes in reference to
both simultaneously. Those making this criticism cited the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis,
which stated that language shapes worldview. In other words, androcentric terminology
influences thinking about gender.
A further point of reaction happened after the initial creation of the subfield. African-
American anthropologists and members of other ethnic minorities were quick to point out
deficiencies in the questions being asked by the early feminist anthropologists. One of
those to do so was Audrey Lorde, who in a letter to Mary Daly wrote: “I feel you do
celebrate differences between white women as a creative force towards change, rather
than a reason for misunderstanding and separation. But you fail to recognize that, as
women, those differences expose all women to various forms and degrees of patriarchal
oppression, some of which we share, some of which we do not….The oppression of
women knows no ethnic nor racial boundaries, true, but that does not mean it is identical
within those boundaries” (Minh-ha 1989:101). Even today, graduate and undergraduate
curricula still largely relies upon canonical works that are Eurocentric. For example,
Zora Neale Hurston trained under Franz Boas, although she is excluded from
anthropology because she never completed her PhD. The real reason for her exclusion
may actually be her race and gender, and black anthropologists continue to be ignored
and marginalized (McClaurin, 2001). In addition, early feminist anthropologists did
indeed imply, in their search for universal explanations for female subordination and
gender inequality, that all women suffer the same oppression simply because they
are women. The later work done in this subfield has addressed this criticism.
A focus on identity and difference has become the merging focus of feminist
anthropology. This means that there is a focus on social categories such as age,
occupation, religion, status, and so on. Power is an important component of analysis since
the construction and enactment of identity occurs through discourses and actions that are
structured by contexts of power (Gellner and Stockett, 2006) against the notion of
“normalcy” and focuses on gender and sexuality. Specifically, queer theory
challenges heteronormativity, or the assumption that heterosexuality and the resulting
social institutions are the normative sociosexual structures in all societies (Gellner and
Stockett, 2006). Queer theory challenges the idea that gender is part of the essential
self and that it is instead based upon the socially constructed nature of sexual acts and
identities, which consist of many varied components (Warner, 1993; Barry, 2002).
LEADING FIGURES
KEY WORKS
PRINCIPAL CONCEPTS
Identity: A focus on identity and difference has centered analysis on social categories
such as age, occupation, religion, status, and so on. Power is an important component of
analysis since the construction and enactment of identity occurs through discourses and
actions that are structured by contexts of power (Gellner and Stockett, 2006).
METHODOLOGIES
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
Feminist anthropology has been intimately tied to the study of gender and its construction
by various societies, an interest that examines both women and men (di Leonardo 1991:
1).
CRITICISMS
Feminist anthropology has been criticized for a number of issues since its emergence in
the 1970s. Gellner and Stockett (2006) assert that many criticisms have been a vital part
of feminist anthropology, since it has a postmodernist basis of questioning assumptions.
Without critique, the biases and assumptions that feminist anthropologists try to reject
cannot be changed.
Finally, the field has always been intimately associated with the Feminist Movement and
has often been politicized. This practice is problematic on a number of levels. First, it
alienates many from the field by projecting an aura of radicalism. Second, putting politics
before attempts at impartial inquiry leads some to question the merits of the research.