DOCSLIB.ORG

Feminist Anthropology Anew: Motherhood and HIV/AIDS As Sites of Action

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Feminist Anthropology Anew: Motherhood and HIV/AIDS As Sites of Action Feminist Anthropology Anew: Motherhood and HIV/AIDS as Sites of Action Pamela J. Downe ABSTRACT: Ongoing discussions about feminist anthropology as an active and relevant sub-discipline largely rely on historical comparisons that pit the political fervour of the past against what is deemed to be the less defi ned and increasingly disengaged feminist anthropology of today. In this paper, I argue that the prevailing tone of pessi- mism surrounding feminist anthropology should be met with a critical response that: (1) situates the current characterization of the sub-discipline within broader debates between second- and third-wave feminism; and (2) considers the ways in which the supposed incongruity between theories of deconstruction and political engagement undermines the sub-discipline’s strengths. Throughout this discussion, I consider what an ethnographic study of motherhood in the context of HIV/AIDS can off er as we take stock of feminist anthropology’s current potential and future possibility. KEYWORDS: engagement, feminist anthropology, HIV/AIDS, motherhood Introduction: A Time to Take Stock ternal health and motherhood in the context of HIV/AIDS. In the introduction to their recent volume on I am commi ed to feminist anthropology feminist anthropology, Miranda Stocke and in large part because, as a graduate student Pamela Geller (2006) persuasively argue that in the late 1980s and early 1990s, I benefi ted it is time to take stock of the sub-discipline’s from the swelling waves of this vibrant sub- past in order to plan for its future. Stocktaking discipline and my scholarship was sharpened can be a tremendously fruitful exercise be- by the debates that shaped the gendered cat- cause it o en sets the tone for future work by egories of reproduction, status, confl ict and characterizing the problems and prospects of care, among others. The usefulness of feminist the fi eld in the past as well as today. My intent anthropological texts has not been lost; in fact, here is to contribute to this stocktaking task in a globalized world of unprecedented con- by outlining how we might read and respond fl icts, connections, trade and travel, the ana- to the arguments that gender-based action lytical categories of gendered experience are research in anthropology has been abandoned drawn on more frequently than in feminism’s in favour of theoretical approaches that ren- supposed ‘heyday’ thirty years ago. Sarah der sub-disciplinary coherence untenable and Hautzinger’s (2007) fascinating ethnography advocacy impossible. As I consider feminist of all-female police units designed to respond anthropology’s future as a site for engagement to domestic violence in Salvador da Bahia, and activism, I draw on a community-based Brazil, is but one of the many recent works study with women who are negotiating ma- that serves as an example of how principles of Anthropology in Action, 18, 1 (2011): 5–15 © Berghahn Books and the Association for Anthropology in Action doi:10.3167/aia.2011.180103 AiA | Pamela J. Downe feminism and categories of feminist anthropo- the demise of feminist anthropology, and this logical analysis are relevant to the mitigation is truly unfortunate because – as I will discuss of power inequities. Yet, despite such innova- – the research participants’ engagement with tive work, a decidedly pessimistic tone has feminism holds great potential for feminist seeped into the characterization of today’s fem- anthropology. inist anthropology, at least as it is being docu- mented and discussed by leading American and British scholars. Feminist Anthropology? ‘No, But …’ Certainly, pessimism based in feminism’s ‘fail ure’ to address HIV/AIDS in the early years Recently, former Ethnos editor Don Kulick of the North American epidemic plagues ef- published the transcript of a roundtable-type forts to engage with the topic today. In 2008, I conversation with foundational scholars of began a study of HIV/AIDS and motherhood, feminist anthropology: Rayna Rapp, Louise exploring what it means to be a mother in the Lamphere and Gayle Rubin (Kulick 2007). context of the epidemic and partnering with The conversation was held to mark the thirty- an HIV/AIDS organization that off ers services year publication anniversary of two landmark to central and northern Saskatchewan, a Cana- texts, Woman, Culture and Society (Rosaldo and dian prairie province of a million people with Lamphere 1974) and Toward an Anthropology a recent and alarming increase in HIV. The of Women (Rapp [Reiter] 1975). The record of study is ethnographic, involving open-ended this conversation is an interesting one – part narrative interviews with twenty-four women nostalgia, part institutional critique, part dis- (as of January 2010), participant observation in ciplinary refl ection and part prolegomenon the organization’s drop-in centre, and a map - for the future of feminist anthropology. What ping of the institutional landscape (from social emerges clearly, particularly on this last point, services to primary care clinics) that the par- is the simple fact that in order to imagine what ticipants negotiate. Although there is increas- kind of future feminist anthropology might ing a ention to the very important topic of have, we must address how the fi eld is cur- mother-to-child HIV transmission in Canada rently characterized in substance and tone. and elsewhere (particularly sub-Saharan Af- We can begin by considering Don Kulick’s rica), there has been virtually no a ention to two questions that in many ways framed the how being a mother aff ects health-related be- roundtable discussion – ‘What about the fi eld haviours in the context of HIV. This project today? Is there a fi eld that we can call feminist a empts to redress this signifi cant gap by anthropology?’ – and Rayna Rapp’s response: working with a community-based agency in a ‘I would say “No”, or “Yes, but” or “No, but”’ participatory way to engage the women who (Kulick 2007: 423). The qualifying ‘but’ here in- struggle to nurture and raise their children cludes testimony to the successes of feminism, amidst the epidemic. It became clear early in acknowledgment of the move to a more inter- the study that a central focus of the research sectional analysis of gendered experience and must include the maternal activism in which recognition of the need for a nuanced consid- the women engage. As they respond to child eration of diversity (a need that, despite later apprehension, ongoing surveillance by social claims to the contrary, was identifi ed in the services, public stigma and the daily chal- foundational feminist texts being discussed). lenges of child care, the women participating But, still, despite this qualifi ed testament to the in the study adopt an activist and feminist fi eld’s success and relevance, Rapp equivocates stance. Yet, this type of grassroots feminism on whether a distinguishable fi eld of feminist draws li le a ention from those who decry anthropology currently exists when, in her 6 | Feminist Anthropology Anew: Motherhood and HIV/AIDS as Sites of Action | AiA view, categories of identity are deconstructed concern is with the ‘disavowal of social cat- and rendered ambiguous rather than embraced egories’ (2006: 42) and a preference instead for for political engagement. This equivocation is approaches favouring individualization that, illustrative of a presiding tone of pessimism Moore believes, undermine political activism and it warrants further a ention. and collective advocacy. Importantly, like Rapp Mary Weismantel (2002: 37) echoes Rapp’s and Weismantel, Moore tempers her concerns sentiments when she draws a contrast between for the current and future state of feminist the excitement of feminist archaeology, with its anthropology with an acknowledgment that methodologically innovative a ention to the ‘feminist, black, and gay scholarship are based material record of gender inequity, and cul- on [understandings] of agency [that are] linked tural anthropology’s supposedly waning en- to emancipatory politics, the desire to be free of thusiasm and tepid response to a post-Judith larger, determining structures, discourses, and Butler feminism. Acknowledging that most eth- ideologies’ (2006: 41). The quest for individual nographies address specifi c forms of inequality freedom is, a er all, central to the cultural pro- – racism, poverty or hetero-normativity – cesses and anthropological studies that Moore Weismantel still argues that the dynamics of otherwise fi nds problematic for their individu- inequality are not explored as fully as they ation. Again, though, despite this tempering, could or should be. Researchers, she believes, Moore – like Rapp, Weismantel, and others – shy away even from the word ‘inequality’ it- posits that the engaged projects of feminist an- self, ‘fi nding it, like patriarchy or misogyny, a thropology have been all but abandoned. bit too crude in its politics’. The far-reaching Taken together, then, these foundational and unifying theory required to explain and feminist anthropologists project an undeniably to challenge dynamics of inequality is the kind pessimistic view of a once vibrant fi eld. They that Weismantel believes has been ousted by collectively argue that there is now a disen- the supposedly ‘trendy’ theoretical engage- gagement from those exciting days of yester- ments with ambiguity, fl uidity and diversity. year when, as Gayle Rubin nostalgically puts For emphasis, Weismantel draws a historical it, ‘Feminism was in the air’ (Kulick 2007: 414). contrast as well, se ing the o -cited lassitude According to Paula Treichler and Catherine of feminist anthropology today against the Warren (1998), feminism was most certainly fervour of the fi eld thirty years ago: not in the air – or anywhere else, it seems – dur- ing the early years of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. It was diff erent in the heady days of the 1970s, Just as feminist anthropologists contend with when fi ercely radical scholars embraced a spe- cifi c goal: not only to study inequality but to disciplinary chronicles of abandonment, femi- eradicate it.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Dziebel Commentproof
    UCLA Kinship Title COMMENT ON GERMAN DZIEBEL: CROW-OMAHA AND THE FUTURE OF KIN TERM RESEARCH Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/55g8x9t7 Journal Kinship, 1(2) Author Ensor, Bradley E Publication Date 2021 DOI 10.5070/K71253723 License https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ 4.0 Peer reviewed eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California COMMENT ON GERMAN DZIEBEL: CROW-OMAHA AND THE FUTURE OF KIN TERM RESEARCH Bradley E. Ensor SAC Department Eastern Michigan University Ypsilanti, MI 48197 USA Email: [email protected] Abstract: Kin terminology research—as reflected in Crow-Omaha and Dziebel (2021)—has long been interested in “deep time” evolution. In this commentary, I point out serious issues in neoev- olutionist models and phylogenetic models assumed in Crow-Omaha and Dziebel’s arguments. I summarize the widely-shared objections (in case Kin term scholars have not previously paid atten- tion) and how those apply to Kin terminology. Trautmann (2012:48) expresses a hope that Kinship analysis will Join with archaeology (and primatology). Dziebel misinterprets archaeology as lin- guistics and population genetics. Although neither Crow-Omaha nor Dziebel (2021) make use of archaeology, biological anthropology, or paleogenetics, I include a brief overview of recent ap- proaches to prehistoric Kinship in those fields—some of which consider Crow-Omaha—to point out how these fields’ interpretations are independent of ethnological evolutionary models, how their data should not be used, and what those areas do need from experts on kinship. Introduction I was delighted by the invitation to contribute to the debate initiated by Dziebel (2021) on Crow- Omaha: New Light on a Classic Problem of Kinship Analysis (Trautmann and Whiteley 2012a).
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Anthropology • Emerged in 1970S in Response to “Androcentric” Biases of Anthropology and Other Sciences
    12/3/2013 Feminist Anthropology • Emerged in 1970s in response to “androcentric” biases of anthropology and other sciences. • Stanley Barrett* lists some prominent assumptions or Feminist anthropology characteristics of feminist anthropology: 1. All social relations are gendered . 2. Distinctive epistemology that rejects separation ANTH 348/Ideas of Culture between subject & object, researcher & researched. Favors collaborative, dialogical research. 3. Distinctive ethics – primary purpose of research to empower women, eliminate oppression. Anthropology: A Student’s Guide to Theory and Method . University of Toronto Press. Feminist Anthropology Feminist Anthropology 4. Anti-positivism – language of science is language 7. A female essence . of oppression. Image of orderly universe is replaced by incomplete, fragmentary ethnographies to more accurately reflect peoples' lives. 8. Universal sexual asymmetry . 5. Preference for qualitative methods – mainstream, quantitative methods are read as male methods. Genuine female methods bring researcher/subject 9. Anthropology of women vs. feminist together as equals. anthropology. 6. The life history – means to give voice to people, capture the institutional & historical forces as they impinge upon individuals. Feminist Anthropology Feminist Anthropology: Sherry Ortner • Sally Slocum, Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in • Ph.D. University of Chicago. • Professor of Anthropology at Anthropology (1975) UCLA. • Eleanor Leacock, Interpreting the Origins of Gender • Fieldwork in Nepal with Inequality: Conceptual and Historical Problems Sherpas. • Structuralist approach to (1983) question of gender equality. • Sherry Ortner. Is Female to Male as Nature is to • Gender relations are patterned by fact that, as Culture? (1974) childbearers, women are natural creators while men, because they are unable to bear children, are cultural creators. 1 12/3/2013 Feminist Anthropology: Feminist Anthropology: Sally Slocum Eleanor Leacock (1922-1987) • Influenced by Marxist materialism.
    [Show full text]
  • World Archaeology, Vol
    Feminisms, Queer Theories, and the Archaeological Study of Past Sexualities Author(s): Barbara L. Voss Source: World Archaeology, Vol. 32, No. 2, Queer Archaeologies (Oct., 2000), pp. 180-192 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/827864 Accessed: 23-08-2015 06:25 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 [email protected]. Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to World Archaeology. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 159.178.22.27 on Sun, 23 Aug 2015 06:25:36 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Feminisms,queer theories,and the archaeologicalstudy of past sexualities Barbara L. Voss Abstract Archaeologyfaces the unique challenge of stretchingsocial theories of sexuality in newchrono- logicaland methodological directions. This essay uses an analysisof citational practices to consider how feministand queertheories articulate with archaeological investigations of sexuality.Both queertheories and feminist archaeological practices are shown to be powerfultools that can be used to expandarchaeological interpretations ofgender and sexuality. Keywords Sexuality;gender; queer theory; feminism; history of archaeology. There is another social functionof gender to be considered and that is the social markingof sexuallyappropriate partners...
    [Show full text]
  • What a Difference Political Economy Makes: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era
    What a Difference Political Economy Makes: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era Micaela Di Leonardo Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 66, No. 2, Constructing Meaningful Dialogue on Difference: Feminism and Postmodernism in Anthropology and the Academy. Part 1. (Apr., 1993), pp. 76-80. Stable URL: http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-5491%28199304%2966%3A2%3C76%3AWADPEM%3E2.0.CO%3B2-W Anthropological Quarterly is currently published by The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Research. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/journals/ifer.html. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology.
    [Show full text]
  • 'Anthropologists Are Talking' About Feminist Anthropology
    ‘Anthropologists Are Talking’ About Feminist Anthropology he series ‘Anthropologists Are Talking’ is a roundtable feature in which anthropologists talk candidly and spontaneously about issues Tof relevance to the discipline. The aim of the series is to reflect the kinds of conversations we all have (or wish we had) with colleagues — the fun and engaging ones in which we recount, joke, agree, dispute and formulate part of a broader vision of what anthropology is or could be. This conversation was held to mark the fact that the two landmark books in feminist anthropology, Woman, Culture and Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, and Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter (later Rapp) had celebrated their 30 year anniversaries in 2004 and 2005, respectively. Former Ethnos editor Don Kulick asked two of the books’ editors and the author of one of the most celebrated articles to appear in one of them to talk about the history of the volumes, about what happened next, and about their sense of feminist anthropology today. The participants are: louise lamphere Distinguished Professor of Anthropology at the Uni- versity of New Mexico and past President of the American Anthropological Association. Louise has studied issues of women and work for 20 years, beginning with her book on women workers in Rhode Island industry, From Working Daughters to Working Mothers (1987). Among her other books are Sunbelt Working Mothers: Reconciling Family and Factory (1993, coauthored with Patricia Zavella, Felipe Gonzales and Peter Evans), and Situated Lives: Gender and Culture in Everyday Life (1997, co-edited with Helena Ragoné and Patricia Zavella).
    [Show full text]
  • Thomas Erben Gallery Ecofeminism(S)
    Thomas Erben Gallery ecofeminism(s) curated by Monika Fabijanska June 19 - July 24, 2020 Press Day: Thursday, June 18, 2020, 12-6pm Reopens: September 8-26, 2020 526 West 26th Street, Suite 412-413 New York, NY 10001 Gallery Hours: Tue - Sat, 10-6pm Summer Hours: Mon – Fri , 11-6pm (June 29-July 24) NEW INFORMATION (updated August 28, 2020) ecofemisnism(s) online: PRESS RELEASE PRESS KIT: WORK DESCRIPTIONS & IMAGES LIST OF ARTISTS LIST OF ARTWORKS IMAGES ESSAY EXHIBITION PRESS UPCOMING PROGRAMS: Thursday, September 10, 6:30 PM EST Christies’s webinar: Spotlight on ecofeminism(s) REGISTER This complimentary webinar explores the critically acclaimed group exhibition ecofeminism(s) at Thomas Erben Gallery. Exhibition curator Monika Fabijanska and gallerist Thomas Erben will join Christie’s Education’s Julie Reiss for a discussion about the show’s timeliness and the increasing centrality in the art world of art grounded in ecological and other human rights concerns. Wednesday, September 16, 6:30 PM EST Zoom conversation with Raquel Cecilia Mendieta, niece and goddaughter of Ana Mendieta and Mira Friedlaender, daughter of Bilge Friedlaender, moderated by Monika Fabijanska. LINK TO ZOOM Meeting ID: 969 1319 1806 Password: 411157 RECORDED PROGRAMS GALLERY WALKTHROUGH WITH THE CURATOR ZOOM CONVERSATIONS moderated by curator Monika Fabijanska: Wednesday, July 8, 6:30 PM EST Lynn Hershman Leeson Mary Mattingly Hanae Utamura Julie Reiss, Ph.D., Christie’s Education CLICK TO WATCH THE RECORDING Wednesday, July 15, 6:30 PM EST Aviva Rahmani Sonya Kelliher-Combs
    [Show full text]
  • Feminist Anthropology and Copyright: Gauging the Application and Limitations of Oppositions Models1
    EeIght Feminist Anthropology and Copyright: Gauging the Application and Limitations of Oppositions Models1 B CourtNEy dOaGOO AbstrAct (en): The purpose of this brief chapter is to explore the applica- tion of interdisciplinarity to intellectual property law, specifically copyright law, through the lens of feminist critiques. The paper attempts to demon- strate how the application and limitation of the two oppositions models offered by feminist anthropology intersect with copyright law. Specifically, drawing on examples from what is considered to be traditionally feminine areas of creativity, the paper broadly examines the values we associate with women, what they create, and how it is perceived and valued before the law. résumé (Fr): Le but de ce court chapitre est d’explorer l’application de l’in- terdisciplinarité au droit de la propriété intellectuelle, plus particulièrement au droit d’auteur, d’un angle critique féministe. Cet article essaie de dé- montrer comment les applications et les limites de deux modèles opposés offerts par l’anthropologie féministe s’entrecroisent avec le droit d’auteur. Plus spécialement, en se basant sur des exemples de ce que l’on considère comme des domaines traditionnels de créativité féminine, cet article exa- 1 I would like to express my sincere gratitude to the Intellectual Property Workshop Com- mittee (Professor Mistrale Goudreau, Professor Teresa Scassa, and Executive Director of the Centre for Law, Technology and Society, Madelaine Saginur) for encouraging me to participate in this tremendous project, and also for all of their help, patience, and guid- ance. I would also like to thank the participants at the conference for their feedback, the two peer reviewers, the student editors, and committee editor for all of their hard work, dedication, and assistance.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender and Sexuality
    PERSPECTIVES: AN OPEN INTRODUCTION TO CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGY SECOND EDITION Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González 2020 American Anthropological Association 2300 Clarendon Blvd, Suite 1301 Arlington, VA 22201 ISBN Print: 978-1-931303-67-5 ISBN Digital: 978-1-931303-66-8 http://perspectives.americananthro.org/ This book is a project of the Society for Anthropology in Community Colleges (SACC) http://sacc.americananthro.org/ and our parent organization, the American Anthropological Association (AAA). Please refer to the website for a complete table of contents and more information about the book. Perspectives: An Open Introduction to Cultural Anthropology, 2nd Edition by Nina Brown, Thomas McIlwraith, Laura Tubelle de González is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. Under this CC BY-NC 4.0 copyright license you are free to: Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material Under the following terms: Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use. NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes. 1010 GENDER AND SEXUALITY Carol C. Mukhopadhyay, San Jose State University [email protected] http://www.sjsu.edu/people/carol.mukhopadhyay Tami Blumenfield, Yunnan University [email protected] with Susan Harper, Texas Woman’s University, [email protected], and Abby Gondek, [email protected] Learning Objectives • Identify ways in which culture shapes sex/gender and sexuality.
    [Show full text]
  • The Ecofeminism of Ivone Gebara
    The Ecofeminism of Ivone Gebara Elaine Nogueira-Godsey Town Cape of Supervisor: David Chidester Co-Supervisor: Sa’diyya Shaikh Thesis Presented for the Degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Universityin the Department of Religious Studies Faculty of Humanities UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN November 2013 The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgementTown of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Cape Published by the University ofof Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University Para os meus filhos Natália e Lucas Que são minha inacabável fonte de alegria e inspiração! To Nina Hoel, a rare human being, who I have the luck to call friend and To Trad Nogueira-Godsey who has been married to a PhD thesis for the last fifteen months. ii “Prefiro ser essa metamorfose ambulante Do que ter aquela velha opinião formada sobre tudo” (Raul Seixas, 1945-1989) iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Acknowledgements vi Abstract ix Preface xi Chapter 1: Introduction: Contextualizing the Theology of Ivone Gebara 1 1.1 Research Context 6 1.2 Conceptual Frameworks 18 1.3 Gebara’s Life Trajectory 23 1.4 Chapter Outline 38 Chapter 2: The Contours of Global Ecofeminism 41 2.1 Ecofeminist Development 43 2.2 Women, Ecology and Development 51 2.3 The Academic Intersection 56 2.4 Ecofeminist Basic Tenets 59 2.5 The Intersection of Ecofeminism 70 and Christian Feminist Theologies 2.6 Ecofeminist
    [Show full text]
  • Feminism and the Anthropology of 'Development'
    Feminism and the Anthropology of ‘Development’: Dilemmas in Rural Mexico Julia E. Murphy ABSTRACT: Feminist promotion of gender equity in development began in the 1970s, challenging development policy and practice and producing a rich body of debate and scholarship. Feminist anthropologists, through scholarship and activism, made impor- tant contributions to the project of reforming development. A recent anthropological critique of development, however, referred to as the anthropology of ‘development’, has raised important questions about anthropology’s relationship to development, presenting new challenges to feminist anthropologists who would engage with de- velopment. This new approach, despite its a ention to power, has not had questions about gender at its centre. Drawing on fi eldwork in southeastern Campeche, Mexico, this paper explores challenges of a feminist anthropology of ‘development’, includ- ing pressures for engagement and disengagement, and the apparent contradiction between refl exive critiques of, and feminist engagements with, development. KEYWORDS: anthropology of ‘development’, Calakmul, engaged anthropology, feminist anthropology, gender and development, Mexico Anthropology, Feminism, of development theory and challenged de- and Development velopment practice. Feminist anthropologists working on development have thus bridged Introduction the fi elds of feminism, development and The engagement of feminists in the promo- anthropology. tion of gender equity in development policy A recent anthropological critique of de-
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Human Rights in Africa: Beyond the Debate Over the Universality Or Relativity of Human Rights
    African Studies Quarterly | Volume 2, Issue 3 | 1998 Women's Human Rights in Africa: Beyond the Debate over the Universality or Relativity of Human Rights DIANA J. FOX INTRODUCTION In the fifty years following the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in 1948, anthropology as a discipline has embraced a predominantly ethical relativist stance toward the idea of human rights as a legitimate universal concern for all cultures. In the past decade, however, the rising prominence of women's rights as human rights has challenged this point of view. Within the context of the global women's human rights movement, feminist anthropologists are in the forefront of this challenge, striving to uphold anthropology's important focus on cultural context, while at the same time exhibiting a deep concern for practices which harm women, including female genital mutilation and satie, both of which may be argued to be morally objectionable outside of any given culture. Feminist anthropological theory and feminist legal scholarship have questioned the desirability of objective ethnographic reporting of such practices, claiming that to remain aloof from statements of value implies complicity through silence1. Objective reporting, it is argued, denies the existence of the researcher as a "positioned subject" with a point of view, such that the absence of a point of view in reality is a point of view that is not articulated. The effort to articulate a feminist anthropological position on human rights not only undermines the validity of ethical relativism, but also emphatically argues that the western liberal tradition, which informs the bulk of the contemporary human rights movement, represents a fragmentary discourse on human rights, and so cannot currently make claims for universality.
    [Show full text]
  • Locating Black Women in a Transfeminist Anthropology of Religion
    Feminist Anthropology 2020 DOI: 10.1002/fea2.12033 “You Were Gonna Leave Them Out?”: Locating Black Women in a Transfeminist Anthropology of Religion Elizabeth Pérez1 1 University of California, Santa Barbara, HSSB 3051, Santa Barbara, CA 93106 Corresponding author: Elizabeth Pérez; e-mail: [email protected] This article summons a transfeminist anthropology of religion and asserts that such an orientation (with a subfield to match) would be impossible to conceptualize without the scholarship of Black women—feminist, Womanist, and otherwise critically situated. Through the ethnographic analysis of interviews, documentary footage, newspaper reportage, social media, and videos, the article pays tribute to the late Reverend BobbieJean Baker (1964-2014). The article argues that Black transgender Christian women’s religious subjectivity encompasses the innovative inhabitation of Black ecclesiastical linguistic codes and gestural idioms; the elaboration of transfeminist biblical hermeneutics and discursive mechanisms of legitimation; and the simultaneous performance of culinary and relational virtuosity. The article further contends that Baker’s account of her subjectivity cannot be understood without the insights of Christina Sharpe, Hortense J. Spillers, Monica A. Coleman, Yvette A. Flunder, Savannah Shange, Geneva Smitherman, Psyche A. Williams- Forson, and Karen Baker-Fletcher. Together, they assist in revealing that Baker’s efforts to increase the livability of trans women’s worlds were inseparable from her religious convictions, as communicated through (and constituted by) the discourses of the Black church. Equally so, her ministerial vocation and vision of beloved community proceeded from her experience as a seasoned— and expertly seasoning—southern-born-and-raised Black trans woman. Keywords Transfeminism, Blackness, Anthropology of Religion, Gender/Sexuality In October 2010, I met Reverend BobbieJean Baker at San Francisco’s St.
    [Show full text]