Toward a Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship Sylvia Junko Yanagisako and Jane Fishburne Collier “Ts essay attempts to dive logetherandadvance the theoreti ‘ontibuton thal feminist rethinkingel genderhas made our Un derstanding both gender and Knap Our answer othe que. thonot what feminist perspective ha fer the study of onder fe Kinship ts that, above lean generate new puzzles and, {rey make posable new answers. SXproductve it stp nethnkng any subject isto make what conec seme apparent ry ou for expansion. Anthropologists n= Spredby the women’s movement in thelate 9stook such step ‘Shen they questoned whether male dominance was 8 cross Eur uel an i, why Rou and amp 76 iter 975 Foe 97) By aking what explained sexual ine fy ey jected it an unchangeatle natural fac and edie it as a social fact." A second step entailed questioning the homo- geneity ofthe eaiegones mal” and fea themseves and i tstigning th diverse sel meanings among diferent aces {onside and Aikinson 1975) Orne and Whitehead 181; Stath- in tte) One we recoyalced tha these catego ae defined {faifere ways inspec cet, weno longer tok tem 1 prion, unveil categories opon which pardcular rations of a ace ee ce es Sek Sy eae Dale ip Anse rt SHELIA homer i, cE en aang op AE aa one ano grin hwy och ae eke ep et Smeg eae tne Tea Unified Analysis of Gender ant Kinship 15 sender irr ae constructed. stad, he sel and it Frosmuesbywhchinwcopnoaeconsntedcametseseey ‘nan thu aioe Seng ea esreeot and Tihs say we pes thatthe nest puzle we mus generate and henson the fj betcen and weer kt than tng or nt a aan eal” oe ee mt ‘stegoesthusun ings wins atone sven se ted by tere east sna tec tach sect we aa, hat peel an ar Feces ate me and women to afar diferent es ot {her Although weds not deny tba terrcceaste teen mena omen usta the osama ang ‘omen our ajay osusion ie ese ee nec the unearth Clete ese “female Inter mond we arpecop nent at ee atu varstons gener eta anaes ey Shere caboratons anetonson fe some nar Teteginourey ithaca ee oa nmbertatayt suctas hat ate ued mcret he tnt on gone Snthropoogy and ea dpe rth pt decade. go ne ‘one any sue tater eve rede Sine ieee Our pt tat ding oy these oto intr ranted hat hy shouldnt cod cent ‘Neca we dlamacononaecbetnen hess, desing ese iceman the sump at Reve so natediltpstidninsnveplogy ne herbage he nine eat We aut Seder a ip heb Aino line ty eure coeepon ene cane we ‘ume the Bop acs soa epduction, Consent ‘athe ben cep no dhe elses cay Sites singed thao sucteded inet onset tral dees btenpeope ne Salen eft ay prone sled egy er tossing theanalcaegoesanddchotomisthateve donate pet ‘ie hinhpand gener erase anlyea eee Sopgetequses say cunt conse ec ees sc begin wth cue fae conepoteatanan sey he thenatgges an anal poja at en eatin ee rmceitua ytes of eanngtagh hichaider nde16 Sutin nko Yanagi an Jane Fishburne Collier of historically specific ystems of inequality are realized and trans foxes Questioning Analytical Dichotomies inthe Study of Gender In questioning analytical dichotomies, we fst examin thos of snatreclture (orines 1974, "domes public (Roald 579), at reprodctionpeoducton (ee Haris and Young 981). Ech These has been Said to structre relations between men and Sfomen in ll socetes andy therefore, to eer a universal expla Sion ef sowol inequality. Whereas he dichotomies of domestic publ nd naturectare ae more nln with totais per fetes the dtncion between reproduction and production Mesemerged oma funcional Mars perspective. Sccond we ean mpicitichotonies between womensand ment consioueneses, scholars (or example, RohlehLeavt ‘pies, and Weatherford pps Wene 97) seeking to correc the ehtrccenrc bas in ethnogzapiic accounts by advocating atten Tonto womens pinto ew have posted adstinion tween then’ and womer’s perspectives of sal relationships. Arguing that mnt anthropolopeat monographs reflected mets views of tow thei aystem worked, they suggested we correct this is by Iruding womerts accounts Of soc and clare! nsttons Shrethnogeaphice In cotrast, Sherry Orner and Hart White fend (98 have nore recent proposed a focuson mae prestige Yn, not as away ofcomecting mae Bas, bukas away of w- Feeimiing the ealtural constuction of gender These later a. thom, however, share wih te former the notion tht men ad stomen as unary endopposedetegores—havediferent views how ele mutual syste ork. Demet Publican NaturelCultare COxtner and Whitehead propose thatthe nature/cltue and do enilpublicoppositions alongwith the dstnction between set Interest and the sock) good identied by Marilyn Strather {Ghg8tb), derive fom the same sociological insight: “thatthe sphere Gfrocal activity predominantyassocated with males encompos- fs the sphere predominantly associated with females and is, for {hat easun,cllually accorded higher value” (981:7-8). The em ‘huss placed on any one ofthese spec contrasts, they suggest, ‘Towra a Unified Analysisof Gender and Kinship 37 depends upon the theoretical interests of the analyst and the ex pirlaly observed “idiom” ofa particular culture, however, “all ‘ould be present without inconsistency alae ina sense transfor ‘ationsaf ane another” (13818), Since these dichotomies were first presented a litle over ten ‘yeas ago as explanations of universal sexual asymmetry, both the ‘omestieipublie dichotomy proposed by Michelle Rosado (1974) and the naturelculture opposition proposed by Sherry Oriner (ag74) have come under considerable citicism. Oriner’s hypothe sisthatthe symbolic association ofalesser valued “nature” with males and ofa more highly valved, transcendent “culture” with alesis the bass forthe universal devaluation of females hasbeen most persuasively and thoroughly criticized in Carol MacCormack and Mariya Stathers wohume Neture, Culture, and Gener (980) In their introduction to this collection a essays, MacCormack and Strather pose the cracl question, When can we usefully trans- latea symbole opposition found n nother culture intocone found ‘nour? Together the case studiesin theirvohume argue tha our na- ture‘culture opposition does not do justice to the range of symbolic configuration of gender meanings found in other societies. Strathezn (18) forone, buds convincing cse thatthe Hagen ‘opposition between "mbo” and “wom is not homologous tothe nature/clture opposition in ovr culture, but has both diferent symbol meaningand socal consequences, Thestrength of Strath- ens argument rests as mach on her explication of our conception ofthe natureculture dichotomy as on Hagen conceptions. This kind of effort has been to often slighted in discussions about the universality of cultural features —wehether the disputed Features are symbolic oppositions or social institutions such as “marrage” for incest" In ether words, in many instances our erroneous =~ sumptions about the concepts of other people are coupled with erroneous assumptions about the simplicity or homogeneity of ‘our own cultural concep. As Maurice and Jean Bloch point out, ‘we cannot assume thatthe terms we use i our oven cltaral ie Course provide a staightforward, smambiguous analytical foes Ca ich and Bloch’s historical analysis of the changing usage of ature” asa category for challenging te prevaling cultural order Ineighteenth-entury France (198) revealsa particulary crucald- smension that s missed bythe caim fora universal aure/caltre | | | i j i | |18 Syliajnko Yana an jee Fishburne Cale cppostion—a synehronic dimension tat permits change. Like all Rivera sacral oppostons this one necessary dates d- tumcanafomationgoineaingsintosaisracuralsamenes. ConsequentyHtende fo mpede he eludatin ofthe istorcal frases nag which sytme of mening change “Tis absence Of 2 hstorcl dynamic closely ed Yo another problem inherent inthe cam or universal symbalc oppeton This the prbten of concepts smb sysers sf they xt apart from soll acon. Only i construed symbolic 5) {Ems os having structure independent of socal acon could ‘itm tata bole opposition of gender categories universal ssihout ding tht 2 oystm of gender relations univers Sicha view steel of to Gchtomtsed a vison odes and ton, Thus, the susie ot whether the Hagen concept of "bo™ ‘ands in elation othe Hagen concept otra ss ou concept of “Ete sanainelation tour concept fcr eather cchether mato constitutes the same system of scl rations in agen sosety as naturelle does ous. Put anaes Way thequeston we should aks, What do these oppositions dforso- thal elatons and, conversely ow do people encounter these oP- positions inthe practice of soc tons? Wheres the fature clare opposition draws ona és straussan symbulictrctuait perspective, the domestic public ppostion i more inne wih a seus fanctonait perspec: {he ot the sort tat has preva inthe Held of Kinship ste. ice Koso istconstand he domestic oppenianas the basis ofa stuctrl ramework neces to expan the or {ralidentncaon of women wit domenc fe snd shen with pub- fclteand the consequent universal cross-cultural aynnety in the evaluation ofthe sexes. At the cove ofthis entiation of ‘wornen wih domertc He lay terol ao mothers: "Women be- ‘Dire dbserbed primarily indomesticactives because te role ‘Smothers: Tha cenomicand pol aces are constaed iy the sponsible of hea andthe foes of tr emaions tha atenton i pttansi and deed toward len ad the home" (Rosala 1742) “ltnough she di not lly daw ain betwen he domestic! public opposion andthe distinction between the domestic do- an athe politico ja Soman, whic had long ben em Ployed In Kins (res 4938 196), Rosa ater (1980) “Too Unified Analysis of Gender and Kinship 19 acknowledged that link and its problematic theoretical implca- tions (anagisako 1979). She came to share Rayna Reiter's (1975) view af the domestic public opposition asan ideological prodit of ‘ur society and a legacy of our Victorian heritage that "cast the ‘Sexes in dichotomous and contrastive terms” (Rossldo 1980: 404), ‘AsJohn Comaroff notes inthis volume, such dichotomous vision lof society i logically entailed ina "universal asymmetsy” thesis that relies upon an orthodox image ofthe form and content of the theo domains. Conversely, arguments against the universality of sexual asymmetry and inequality have necessarily engaged in 3 “citi reexamination ofthis image. As Rapp (1979) and Comarolt {this volume) point out, however, dese latter efots have encom passed a range of feminist theoretic] perspectives "Attempts to salvage the domesticpublic oppesition—which continueto acept the two categories asa valid description ofa une ‘versal reality even though varying widely in their specific content and interpenetation-cannot escape the self-defeating crculansy inverent nits inital formulation (Comarof this volume). As Yan agisako points out in thiscallctan, the claim that women become absorbed in domestic activites because oftheir role ae mothers is tautologcal given the definition of "domestic" as "those minimal Institutions and modes of activity that are organized immedi- ately around one of more mothers and thir eldren” (Rosaldo 197432). ‘Thea pros! definition ofthe domestic domain by the mother- child elation is inewteeaby linked withthe troubling analytical problems arising, from is aim for universality. These are shared by the natureiclture oppesition. As Karen Sacks (2376, 1979), Eleanor Leacock (1978), and Alice Schlegel (977) have argued com vincingly those writers who assert the universality of sexta ash metry encourage the search for biological causes, even though such ‘writers explicitly emphasize socal processes. In theircontibations to Wma, Caltire, and Sovey, Rosaldo and Ortner both proposed ‘social cases for universal sexual asymmetey, as dit Nancy Cho- ddorow in her contbution to the 1974 book, but each author fo- ‘sed on the social construction ofa vological "acts women's ct pacity to bear and nurse infants. The obvious conclusion is that biological motherhood “explains” the universal devaluation of women. As Rosaldo herself later noted, a focus on tniversals makes us “victims of conceptual traition that discovers essence?20 Syn unto Yonagisako and ane Fishburne Coler inthe natural characters” that citings sess, “and hen elare that womens poset derives om wal, in essence psa suggest that Orne an Whitehead dai hat the damesticpablic snd naturelle oppositions are Wars tine of eah ther is all 8-7-9, although not Base theseoppestinssummaizeexcing way more stited othe he ‘Set terest os partic analy othe cura dom a9 purcular sos a universal stated genderreltions. Rather [mess publican etre clr kee reproction pred tnlstncton we deus below se varstions fanaa hotomy tnt kes for ranted what we hikshould be explained Reprauction/ Production Tithelast decade, several writers (fr example Elsenstein 197 Benera and Sen Harris and Young 1981), atlempting to de Yelopa Marxist theory of gender while atthe same time bringing a Feminist perspective to Marist theory, have argued fr the need to dlevelop a theory of tlations of reproduction. Olivia Haris and Kate Young (981: 120) note that the proliferation of studies in “Marxist iteratute centered on the concep of reprection reflects rot only feminist concern withthe status of women But, among bther things, the concern of some Mansst to “break conclusively with economistc versions of « Marxism whic places too great an temphasis onthe forces of production” (ee for example, Hindness fd Hirst 1975; Priedman 1976). Women have been cast as the ‘means of reproduction” in several Marys discussions ofthe com trol labor ands reproduction both capitalist and precpitlist societies. “Claude Meillassoun’s (1981) evolutionary theory ofthe domestic community is perhaps the most arabitious ofthese works nits at- tempt to build an aalsis of the family into a Marxist analysis of| {imperialism For Meilassoux, contol over the labor of individual hhuman beings is mone important than contol over the means of production n defining the relations of production in agricultral Societies where productive forcesarenothghly developed. There production of the domestic community ofthese societiesiscontn- {Bent upon the reproduction of human beings and, consequently, ton contol over women wshom Meslssoux views as the means ‘ofthat reproduction, Incaptalst societies, on the other hand, cap ‘Tewari Analysis of Gener and Kinship 22 Alisa tet eproduce the bor power necessary or socal reprducton Therefore itt ely on bth presapiaist odes ei prodaction, wich a exist in Thi Word enti an om the famy—inpericala women's workin‘ nindustal soc -as themes ofrepeton a ake power Femiitshave rongly cine wo inextricably inkedaspects of Nelasou theory Ns analy! tentnento omen ae is tion on systemic models of sonal inequality, are always evaluative, AS such, they encode particular distributions of prestige, power, and privilege. However, because they are realized through socal practice, they are not static. As willbecome apparent when we dis- ‘uss the importance of historical analysis, we do not assume eu- tural systems of meaning to be timeless, sel: perpetuating stuc- tures of “tration” Yet, even when the mesnings of core symbols are changing, we can tease apart their diferent meanings in par ticular contexts and, thereby, better understand the symbolic pro- cesses involvedin soil change (Yanagisako 1985; Yanagisako this volume) ‘Once we have investigated the various way'sin which difference is conceptualized in other societies including whether ad how ‘sexand reproduction play into the construction of differences that ‘make diference—we can retum to wxamine the biological model that defines gender in our own society. In ther words, just a5 OMT42 Sulina Ynagiako and Jane Fishburne Coler “questioning ofthe domestic/pble dichotomy asthe structural ba Jiferrelatons between men and women nother societies has en ‘Suraged us to question ie analytical usefulness for Our own 50> ‘ity Clanagisako tis volume, s0 we can askwhataconception of {erelerasroted in olopieal ference does andl does not explain pout relations between men and women in our society. Having ‘rcogebze our model of biological diference asa particular cu {ural mode of thinking about lations Between people, we should De able to question the "biological facts” of sexthemacves, We pect iat our questioning ofthe presumably biological core of ge svi eventually lead to the rejection af any dichotomy between Sevand gender asbilogial ndcultural facts and willopen up the ‘Shay for an analysis of the symbolic and social processes by which Doth are canstracted in relation to each other. "Th culturl analysis of meaning, however, cannot be isolated frm the analysis of paterns of action. We do nt view systems of ncaning e ideationa determinants of social organization or a8 0 Totton fo universal problems of meaning and order. Rather, we onceptualize the interrelated, but pot netessrly consistent, ‘SReangs of social events and relationships as both shaping, and Deing shaped by practice. Our efusal to dichotomize material re Intosshipe and meanings orto grant one or the other anaytic prrity derives rom our conceptualization of practice and ideas as spect of single process ‘Systemic Mal of Inoquaity, Ieas and actions are aspets of a single dialectical process, and we understand this process by £0 Sngon how inaqoltysorganized. Because we assume thatcul furl conceptions ave voiced im contexts in which, among. other things, people make clams, provide explanations, try to infuence IUpge Easeclebrate the qualities they use when ceatingeation- Shupm, we understand cultural conceptions By focusing on what SIEks may be made, what things explained, what actions inla- ‘Gaced, and what relationships forged. Inorderto understand what ope takabout, we mst ankoehat people may wantor fear. And ee must understand ow inequalty is organized in any partic- tla soci “The second fce four analytical strategy thus requires the con struction of systemic models of inequality. These models are of ‘inicular type Foloeng Bourdieu 197), we analy social sys ‘ar Unf Anatysis of Gener and Kinship 43 temnoty postngansnacen, nls sirctre bt rather ask ‘igh odnay people pursuing ter own sujetve eno re Alte the structures of nual that costa hes posses This is why the st acet of ur statgy requires aaa he commonsense meatingsavalableto poop for nontringandin- terpreing thelr own another’ actions ut thisanalyisl ment Ingenist be followed by an analyse ofthe structures that people relize tough thet actions. Beesse sve understand th cm Inonsense meanings avalabe to people not posltngan unseen, {imeless culture but ater by explonghow peoples understand Ings ofthe world are shaped by thei sructira experiences, we sino ck a een yeh acre ‘shape people's experience and an analysis of how people, throug their actions, realize structures. ce ee “tha sree egy ay eco any soci developing typology of made asin the analy eres nthe end ase dae then en, {ich society must be analyzed In sown, Nsoily specie terms, bulaetoflealtypie mane helprustosee connections we ‘night otherwise mis. All attempts to understand ether cares try trate comparative simple ea pa {ula unique way fe without xp orp comparing ‘ttoanaher-uoully the analysts own soceyorthe sot othe language the analysts using, Since comparcon i inevisle, i certs more productive have ase of models avallabe fo ink ingabout snares and conrassthan to have but ourselves as ‘Seino spit sandal cnparson suggesting that weneed o develop caver! ial tyle model, swe ech tote finite who stanly adveatedevebping a [logy of societies to aid inthe anal of patel aces ese ene and Leacock 1980) We may define socal ystems tems of nequaly but ike femints ho pont the existence of egaltaian societies" we recognize that our ality toundersand sta lations nother soit ls hindered by our tendency fo Sttibuteto thes] the relations of power and property chaser istic of our own” (Leacock 978249, even as our hrc ‘ion of abor makes fc for us to imagine that een and ‘women whe do diferent things might nevertheless be “separate Dat equal” Sacks 1975), We ths agtee with feminist whe post44 Sula Jno Ynagiako and Jane Fisiburne Colier theesistence of “egalitarian sates” that we need modelscpsble ofsingushing among ualatively diferent forms social hier sre Tn seeking to develop such models, however, we 40 not view either technology or secily organized acess productive re- Sources as dlersniog tits (we Cole and Rosaldo 1981 518 Cte ts volume; Colber Given ourassumptin that nob ‘Shoga or mater “act” has soda consequences in and of se tre cnt bei by assuming the determining character of ether the forces or elatoneof production. We teretore donot cassfy Series scoring to tchnolopes—such as foraging, hora ture, apreultue, pastoral, and industry (or eample Marin nd Vorbis 19h according soc elton governing a tess to teourccs—such as egaitaan, ranked, and strated {Gticrne an sncock 960) communal, corporate kin, and dass {Sacks 197) “An curmpie of the kind of model of inequsty Weare proposing is Jane Colfer and Michele Rosa's del type model of "bade Service socies (961). The dasication scheme employed in {hisessay and others (Collier 96 Cllr ths volume Collier.) tics matage tansction tema brideserce, equal o standard Etdewealthy sed neqeal or variable bigeealth—as labels for Syotemic models testing mariage tansaetions not as determi ‘ants of scl organization o eas but rather ss momens when procice and meaning are negotiated together. Marrage nego Tins are moments of systemic eproducton” sce Comarf this ‘olum in those societies nec hiship” appears fo organize proplsrighsand obligations lative oothers Societies with di ect bases of orpsnization vil have diferent moments of "y= Tuts we donot posit determining teas, s the kind of under starting we sen linear Rater the ype of model we pro ose tnces complex eationships between aspects whal—using Eenventionsl analytical atgores—owe mightell gender kinship cone, poland lon. The pencpal virtue of sch models iS that dey prove inigheint the caltural meanings and social onsequencesol actions evens, andpeoples abuts tracing the processsby which thee elements are realized. Such serie tnodcls paviege no domain over others. Unlike Oriner and ‘Witeherd rho advocate focus on "male prestigerieted ac Toward Unified Analysis of Gonderand Kinship 45, tin” as the hey to understanding gender relations in any sok {isn} we sagen that “presi ystems” aso need ep ton. When men, for eampl, alk sit male prestige generated through acts that do not involve rations wih worsen, such Funding and warfare, we sk why en make sch atements aha what sacl processes maketh appear easonabe Aide Service” model suggest hata east ih sce foragers ond ‘hunter horuluratsts—peoplecelrate “Man the Hur” nat eeuse male prestige atl based on hunting Boas es cause hunting sa Principal om in which mena abou ther iis ees hon day esis em ey ne am of never having to ask anyone for anything (Colle Rosado 81) eae Tecausesysiemicmeodels spec the contents which people ticulte perticular concen, such models can hep founder Stand the apparently nconsatet mennigs we cocne hgh Culurlanalfss nther analysis bideevice sects fore Smple, Colle and Rossldo (98) suggest why male velenc ‘eared even asitiscelbate, why women contbutas uch emerethansmento he dit donotemphasize ther exonomccone Sriton bat athe tesa thee sey why tars ee ey hunters when sexs portaedas the hte foward and why oe tions faite xchange marrage cost wih the bl that en eam thet wives ough ets prowess Systemic model bya. ining us to understand sch spare inonteces peeidc the analytic ols necessary for overcoming our own call bias lve Ones wnt nth and elerated for example then we are no lngertemped to ‘or one aspect hoone whichoneis mre ena al, © ‘Although mals prvi concept tos fo analy ing stk and clara systems, they, ke tecture anaes of meaning. sre baton fae for sty ou im oo understand eal ope, model Dung cam never be an end infil. Bete Irodes are necenary sata tothe ego tat we sured Fuilinga systemic mol, we cese to lina he parca stay en sr ay i a ha hen ae ied, that sjtemic model othe sor we sc proposing ate in here state, Beaune these del est on te asmmptom that social structures are razed an cultural conceptions raed by rope pursuing ther own subjective ends sod! worlds of46 Sx unto Yonagisako and Jane Fishburne Coler quality competition, and conf, the potest or change in sent incnerp acon Sjtenicmesdesappenrtatic however Be ‘entinevey action 5 ee Chie ihy ae dng oars he stated gus eh Soccer appro ange a tea iy do gen he ost ecily change Model thus fend fo reveal how thase oer us the poerto presen he pontons of pig tral Anas. Te hd as fr analyte strategy i matntadbycubeli tat hangs psnbleln asc stems ‘anes ft pre congaron fog. es anette tocar te eps oh ca ‘prolucninousetemic adele soatwecan seo So ‘SElSaechange and at thesame tine beter understand the pro esatnbithom onan eats bev. A sca naj tha interpre cent ese and practes within thecal hefner oct an mig et Tel to them poids thistle, Sch analy bodens Sich ong four ana ol whey aking howe ‘hecoecon pie pstconsriaand shapes the dyn Sin epeacn her ht comeion ont itv con iu or ead junction, nother meds heres itr Seay fetal importance or undentnding socetes and Smmlcs hat are undergeng drama transermatins (Or ‘Slenpl shun it napeako ios Caller) sano ks impunane or understanding soe character by teming SF eta contin Rowld s) a,given a ‘Sangeet ins con he pedo tea eguies no less epson han docs he tanstomation. IdhstorealSpresch we a poporing wench our cultural als of meaning by oadenig the geo smo ‘earn and practices ih we et concep ae and {Beene Our propor oink histor alas with symbol sarc on premise tht we cannot comprehend preset ‘tennant Slows and acon (uapake tg). Tne relevant cont of ultra clemente ssh martage” "ethene iment ed cue pri and mening Judes past practices and their symbolic meanings. For example, ‘Retmcang af equly” "uy and lve Inthe ono Iara Ray be shaped bythe an charcter f ong rel Tuan Unifod Analysis of Gender and Kinship 47 tionships. as wellas their presentones al by the way in which past tnd present are symbolically linked (Yanagisako this volume). Likewise, the meaning of “agnatie” es at any ane period may be shaped bythe uses to which such ies were previously pat (Come sf this volume). Allthese analyses argue that we mus know the Aialetica, historical processes through which practices and mea ings have unfolded if wearetounderstand how they operat inthe presen, ‘Similarly, grounding our analysis of socal wholes and fashion ing our systemic models of inequality within particular historical sequences will enable us to see hove the dynamics of past actions and ideas have created structures inthe present. Relationships suggested by our systemic models can be tested na dynamic care text and, if necessary, mediled gr refined. By taking such histor- ical perspective onthe constitution of socal wholes, weaves suming that present systemsof inequality ate the timeless prelucts ofidentcal pasts instead, swe question whether and how these sys. tems developed out of disimilr pasts (Lindenbaum this volume Simith this volume). Wecan se how aspect of ideas and practices, hich in our systemic models seem to reinforce and reproduce each other also undermine and destabilize eachother 4 historical perspective also highlights the ineraction of ideas and practices as dinlectical, ongoing procestesand soavoidsthe = leological bent of those models that seek a single determinant, ‘whether materia orideational, for social reproduction. A good eX. imple o how historical analysis can help us tanscend the dicho 'omization of ideas and practices can besten in the anthropologicl erature on the sexual division of labor. As Jane Guyer (aoa) notes, much ofthis literature has tended to emphasize ether the materi, technological determinants ofthe sexual division of labor arits cultural, deational determinants, Yt, she points out, "thea \ision of labor is, lke al Findamental institutions, mullaceted Within any patiula society, an integral part ofthe ideologies sytem, economic organization, daily family fe, and often the por litical structure as wel. In any one case ll hese eimensions ‘enforce each othe, so that the current structure seems both heat ‘ivoverdetermined and ultimately mysterious since tis dificult ‘sign weight to any one factor over another” (1980356). Gyer’s comparative analysis af historical developments in the sexual division of labor and organization of production in two At48 Sy Jeo Yanagi and ane Fsiburne Colter rican societies offers useful altemativetounicimensional ews the division of labor. She shows how the development af cocoa as ‘cash crop ino societies italy characterized by diferent sex- {al divisions of labor and organizations ef production brought shout diferent changes in these and other aspects of socal tanization Finally, toneturn tothe beginning ofthis ssa, historical analysis can helps o transcend the analytical dichotomies and domains thatwehaveargued have plagued yenderandkinshipstudies.His- torical studies (see Comarol, Lindenbaum, Maher, Rapp, Smith, tnd Yanagisako this volume) reveal how seemingly universal, timeless domains ofsocal stractureare created and wansformedin particule times and places. Conclusion tthe beaming ofthese sugested hat ominism’snet contrition othe study of gender ne nahi shouldbe ques fionthe ference between women armen Wed not doubt hat tnen a women ae diferent, jn snide, gene th difler aces fer and so oh Rates, we question whether the parttlr blogic! difernce in reproduce fencon that {Sursutredefnes thetic aiferene been aes ana tls, ano ents a the bs of ter lation une by “ter sos fo confete the cla steps of ale and ‘te Tost omit questions have led tothe opening up of nearest for inventgntion. even ae such investigations have rabed new protons snd. questns By doling the common sumption terandagear chatra toes fore iferetaaoaton of Sov ights and, feminist acholrspaed the wy forse tfihe seal processestht granted men prestige andouthonty over stomen and cen, Yet este tempo provide oc Tanatons fr perceived universal sex sayy seed the Epc corte of domesticpubbe an narcle hat thowbelvesbeeme problenat Doebts concerning the nai uty and cla srivrsity thee dicho ener, to ses othe soil on a Sel procesues by which the ago of ase an em tinigareconstiatedinpotcuarSesandpinces Yet are have “Tawar a Unified Analysis of Gonder an Kinship 49 suggested, some ofthese studies raised anew st of questions. At tempts to replace the inherently gendered dichotomies of domes ‘efpulic and natuelcltre with the distinction between repro ucton and. production, and the posing. of "male prestige Systems" have revealed our tendency to rediscover gendered de ‘hotomies. Silay aftemptsto argue hat men and oromen have noteverywere and atl imes been neal have given se tothe Concept of “egalitarian society” conctpt tha, if not compe: spented bya cultural analyst personhood, implis, by default a “natura” basis or sexual divisions of abo ‘Now, wesuggestourproblem continually rediscovering gen- dered categories canbe overcome by calling into question the ni ‘versal of oucultiral sumptions about the diferene between tales and females. Both gender and Kinship studies, we suggest have foundered on the unquestioned sssuanption that he Wolo {ally gvenliference in the roles en and women in sexual e- provkcton lisa the core ofthe cultural organization of gendes, ven ab constates the genelopcl gid st the cove of Kinship ‘tis, Only by caling th assumptoninto question can we begin toast how ohercultures might understand the diferencebetcen stomen and men, and simultaneously make possible stedes of thw ourownealturecomesto focus on cots and prturionas the ‘moments consitiing masculity and feniinity. Teisnot enough to question the university and analytic wiity cfourimplict assumptions aout sex diferences Rathes we need Specie sratgies to helps overcome our tendency fo reinvent {enderedl analytic dichotomies In ths cay, we hove ered for the need to analyz soil wholes and have proposed three faceted approach to this project: the expinion of cultural mean: ings, the constuction of models speciying te dct elation ship between practice and ess inthe constiton of socal ine {uaites, andthe historia analysis of continuities and changes. “Thecommitmenttoanayzing socal wholes is one we share with athe contort this volume, Not everyone might agree wit sur questioningofthe diferencebetween womenanimen, or with cur thre faceted approach to analyzing socal wholes, for we or ‘mulated both notions after the conference. Nevertheless, we Be lieve hat this volume provides a ood illstrstion of theinaights 0 be gained from a commitment to holistic aly nal wehavenoillsions th hestategy we propose will50 Syl fk Yagi and Jone Fishburne Colier solwallthe issues we have aised. Weknow that we oo, cannever be fre fom the folk modes of our own culture, and tht in ques tioning some folk concepts we privilege others. We expect thatthe studies we hopeto generate by questioning the diference between ‘women and men will in time, reveal hele own problematic a= Sumptions. These will generate new questions that wil in tur, tse rise to new strategies and new solutions.Ce Contre Jane Fishburne Caller John L-Comrot Shite Lindenboum ‘anes Maher Rayna Rape Ju Shap Raymond T Sth Manly Stathern Hane Whitehead Sy Jnko Yanagisako Gender and Kinship Jane Fishburne Collier and Sylvia Junko Yanagisako go StANFORD Univensiy PRESS 2087 Stanford CaninSeep be at Ral ek ds