DOCSLIB.ORG

World Archaeology, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read 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.... If the reader accepts thissocial function of gender,then an archaeologyof genderis an archaeologyof sexuality. (Claassen 1992b) Gender is out - sex is in. (dig house graffiti,Catalhoytik, Turkey, 1998) It has been eightyears since Claassen observedthat sexuality is intrinsicallylinked to the archaeologicalstudy of genderin the past, but untilrecently only a few archaeologists have seriouslyconsidered how the archaeologicalrecord can be used to produce know- ledge about past sexualities.Fortunately, in the last threeyears this situation has signifi- cantlychanged. There is now emerginga significantcorpus of discourseabout sexuality and the archaeological record, a constellationof recent publicationsand theses that demonstratethat an ever-increasingrange of sexual topicscan be investigatedand inter- rogatedthrough archaeological research. A reviewof archaeologicalstudies of sexualityis in some wayspremature, for (despite an anonymousarchaeologist's glib assertionthat 'sex is in') the undertakingis stillcontro- versialand contested.Yet even at thisearly date itis clearthat archaeological investigations WorldArchaeology Vol. 32(2): 180-192 Queer Archaeologies ? 2000 Taylor& FrancisLtd ISSN 0043-8243print/1470-1375 online 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,past sexualities 181 of sexualityare being informedand influencedby severaldistinct - and at timescompet- ing- intellectualtraditions. In thisessay, I particularlyconsider how feministarchaeology and queer theoryarticulate with archaeological investigations of sexuality.To do so I step back in time,as archaeologistsare wont to do, and discussthe genesisof both feminist archaeologyand queer theoryin the 1980sand 1990s,examining their relationship to each otherthrough an analysisof citationalpractices in archaeology.This discussionnot only contributesto a reviewof archaeologicalresearch on sexualitybut also towardsdiscussions on the sociologyof knowledgein archaeology. Feministarchaeologies: gender, status, and the division of labour The emergenceof feministarchaeology is generallyattributed to the 1984 publication 'Archaeologyand the studyof gender' (Conkey and Spector 1984). By the late 1980s, symposia,workshops, and dedicatedconferences brought together researchers interested in integratingarchaeology, feminist theory, women's studies,and the interpretationof a genderedpast. A bloom of publicationsfollowed, including the edited volume Engen- deringArchaeology (Gero and Conkey 1991), fiveconference proceedings (Balme and Beck 1995; Claassen 1992a; du Cros and Smith1993; Miller 1988; Walde and Willows 1991), a special issue of HistoricalArchaeology (Seifert 1991), and severaltopical mono- graphs (e.g. Ehrenberg 1989; Gilchrist1994; Spector 1993; Wall 1994). Not all the researchersinvolved in these projectsnecessarily identified themselves or theirwork as 'feminist'(Wylie 1997b). Recent commentarieshave thusreferred to thisbody of litera- tureas 'womanist'or 'gender'archaeology (e.g., Joyceand Claassen 1997; Gilchrist1999; Nelson 1997; Wright2000). These commentatorsand othersare correctin emphasizing thatresearch on women or genderis not automatically'feminist'. Nonetheless, I believe that most of the works listed above can be accuratelydescribed as 'feminist-inspired', informedby popular,political, and/or academic feministthought. Additionally, feminist practicein archaeologycertainly has not been limitedto researchon women or gender (Conkey and Wylie 1999; Wyliein press). Because of this,for the purposesof thisessay I have chosen to referto thisbody of workas 'feministarchaeology'. The developmentof thisdiverse body of 'feminist'and 'feminist-inspired'archaeolo- gies occurredat a timewhen feministtheory and politicsin the United States and else- wherewere at a crossroads.In the late 1970s and early1980s, when Conkey and Spector were authoringtheir 1984 manifesto,North American feminist politics were focusedon whatthen appeared to be theuniversal oppression of womenby patriarchy. Although the exact nature and mechanismsof patriarchaloppression were debated, this focus was generally(but of course not completely)shared by Marxist,socialist, radical, liberal, and culturalfeminisms of thetime (Jagger 1983: 5-8). In boththe humanities and sciences,the omission of women's experiences and accomplishmentsin academic and popular discoursewas identifiedas one mechanismby whichpatriarchal ideology replicated itself by privilegingmale experience.Feminist scholars in anthropologyand otherdisciplines thusprioritized research that documented women's experiencescross-culturally, especi- allyregarding gender roles and theways that patriarchy acted on women'slives (Rosaldo and Lamphere 1974; Rubin 1975; Reiter 1975). 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 182 Barbara L. Voss Informedby this political and academic climate,Conkey and Spector's 1984 article presenteda substantialcritique of androcentrismin archaeology.They called for new approachesto archaeologicalinterpretation that would promotegender-inclusive models of thepast, question the universality of a rigidsexual divisionof labour,and challengethe waysthat men's purported activities are valued morethan those believed to be performed bywomen. In thisway feminist theory would be used in archaeologyto combatthe effects ofpresent-day sexism on archaeologicalinterpretations. Simultaneously, the critical study of gender in the past would provide new informationabout the long-termhistory of genderrelations. This core agenda was laterreiterated by Conkeyand Gero in their1991 edited volume EngenderingArchaeology with the added aim of problematizing'under- lyingassumptions about genderand difference'(Conkey and Gero 1991: 5). Throughout the late 1980s and early1990s, these goals were largelyadopted by mostresearchers who identifiedtheir research as feministarchaeology, gender archaeology, or the archaeology of women.It is perhapsworth noting that these generalaims of feministarchaeology are broadlycongruent with feminist interventions into the social sciencesin general(Harding 1986, 1987; Wylie1992, 1997a). Because Conkeyand Spector's1984 articlewas widelyadopted as a centralagenda for feministarchaeological studies for the decade to come, the political and intellectual climate withinwhich they wrote significantlyaffected the way that sexualityhas been addressedwithin archaeological interpretations. Most of the earlystudies in archaeology that consciouslyadopted a feministapproach emphasized the sexual (or gendered) divisionof labour and indices of gender status,an emphasistypified by Spector's task differentiationframework (Conkey and Spector1984; Spector 1991). There was a particu- lar emphasison 'finding'women in the archaeologicalrecord by debunkinganrdocentric methodsand interpretations,and on highlightingthe contributionsof womento the past (e.g. Brumfiel1991; Gero 1991; Wright1991). At the same time many studiesused a materialistapproach that viewed women as a gender class, tryingto understandhow archaeologicallyidentified conditions such as environmentalchange, state formation, or the introductionof agricultureintensified or changedwomen's status (e.g. Claassen 1991; Hastorf1991; Watsonand Kennedy1991). The prominenceof materialistand empiricist research in North American feministarchaeology has been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Gilchrist1999: ch. 3; Nelson 1997:ch. 5; Wylie1996: 320-5) and is attributableto boththe then-dominant'New Archaeology'paradigm and also the emphasison socialistpolitical theoryin NorthAmerican feminism in the 1970s and early1980s. These shared
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]
  • Introducción De La Identidad De Género a Través De La Literatura En Educación Primaria
    TRABAJO DE FIN DE GRADO EN MAESTRO EN EDUCACIÓN PRIMARIA PORTADA FACULTAD DE EDUCACIÓN INTRODUCCIÓN DE LA IDENTIDAD DE GÉNERO A TRAVÉS DE LA LITERATURA EN EDUCACIÓN PRIMARIA INTRODUCTION OF GENDER IDENTITY THROUGH LITERATURE IN PRIMARY EDUCATION Salamanca, 10, Junio, 2021 RESUMEN La identidad de género, como concepto, es relativamente nueva. Esto se debe a la creencia social que une los términos género y sexo bajo una misma definición, creando un sistema dual que distingue a la mujer del hombre usando únicamente parámetros fisiológicos. Esta noción, aunque compartida por muchos, es errónea. Por este motivo, el presente Trabajo de Fin de Grado pretende diseñar una unidad didáctica cuyo objetivo principal será la introducción de la identidad de género y sus realidades menos normativas en la Educación Primaria. Para llevarlo a cabo, se ha optado en primer lugar por la realización de una revisión bibliográfica que reúne conceptos, legislación y la importancia de los modelos representativos. Asimismo, se han recopilado tres cuentos infantiles que presentan estas realidades a través de sus protagonistas. Este material será el eje central de las diversas actividades que forman la propuesta didáctica planteada en este trabajo. Las conclusiones obtenidas señalan la relevancia de presentar, en edades tempranas, realidades poco comunes como es la transexualidad. Palabras clave: Identidad de género, material literario, transexualidad. ABSTRACT Gender identity, as a concept, is barely new. This is due to the common belief that the terms gender and sex have the same definition, creating a dual system where woman and man are distinguished based on physiological parameters. This notion, which shared by a majority, is incorrect.
    [Show full text]
  • Examining Precontact Inuit Gender Complexity and Its
    EXAMINING PRECONTACT INUIT GENDER COMPLEXITY AND ITS DISCURSIVE POTENTIAL FOR LGBTQ2S+ AND DECOLONIZATION MOVEMENTS by Meghan Walley B.A. McGill University, 2014 A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Archaeology Memorial University of Newfoundland May 2018 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrador 0 ABSTRACT Anthropological literature and oral testimony assert that Inuit gender did not traditionally fit within a binary framework. Men’s and women’s social roles were not wholly determined by their bodies, there were mediatory roles between masculine and feminine identities, and role-swapping was—and continues to be—widespread. However, archaeologists have largely neglected Inuit gender diversity as an area of research. This thesis has two primary objectives: 1) to explore the potential impacts of presenting queer narratives of the Inuit past through a series of interviews that were conducted with Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer/Questioning and Two-Spirit (LGBTQ2S+) Inuit and 2) to consider ways in which archaeological materials articulate with and convey a multiplicity of gender expressions specific to pre-contact Inuit identity. This work encourages archaeologists to look beyond categories that have been constructed and naturalized within white settler spheres, and to replace them with ontologically appropriate histories that incorporate a range of Inuit voices. I ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First and foremost, qujannamiik/nakummek to all of the Inuit who participated in interviews, spoke to me about my work, and provided me with vital feedback. My research would be nothing without your input. I also wish to thank Safe Alliance for helping me identify interview participants, particularly Denise Cole, one of its founding members, who has provided me with invaluable insights, and who does remarkable work that will continue to motivate and inform my own.
    [Show full text]
  • 9564.Ch01.Pdf
    one · Gender and the Problem of Prehistory IMAGINING PREHISTORY To examine the contested issue of gender in ancient Near Eastern prehistory, I be- gin with a definition of the period. Prehistory is the time before the invention of writing (which took place around 3500 bce in the ancient Near East). This period is divided into several major eras of human development in eastern Europe and the ancient Near East: late Paleolithic (c. 30,000–9000 bce), proto-Neolithic and Neo- lithic (c. 9000–5600 bce), and Calcolithic (5600–3500 bce). In the European late Paleolithic, we begin to have some evidence of human creative consciousness in the form of cave paintings, figurines, and tools decorated with designs or with figures of animals or humans. The Neolithic is divided from the Paleolithic by the move- ment from food gathering (hunting and collecting fruits, nuts, and plants) to food growing and domestication of animals. The Calcolithic describes a time of more developed agriculture (including the use of the plow and irrigation) as well as trade and early urbanization. The Neolithic revolution took place gradually in the ancient Near East between 9000 and 7000 bce. At first, herds of wild animals or areas of wild grains were cor- doned oª and controlled by more settled human groups; later, with full domestica- tion, animals were bred for food, milk, or skins, and seeds were conserved for plant- ing grains. These innovations developed along parallel lines in several places in the ancient Near East and spread to other nearby areas. There was not a uniform, straightforward pattern of development.
    [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]
  • A Critical Analysis of Gender in the Archaeology of Neolithic China Shu Xin Chen Mcgill University, [email protected]
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Scholarship@Western Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology Volume 22 | Issue 1 Article 4 2014 The rC eation of Female Origin Myth: A Critical Analysis of Gender in the Archaeology of Neolithic China Shu Xin Chen McGill University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem Part of the Archaeological Anthropology Commons, East Asian Languages and Societies Commons, and the Women's Studies Commons Recommended Citation Chen, Shu Xin (2014) "The rC eation of Female Origin Myth: A Critical Analysis of Gender in the Archaeology of Neolithic China," Totem: The University of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology: Vol. 22: Iss. 1, Article 4. Available at: http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/totem/vol22/iss1/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Western. It has been accepted for inclusion in Totem: The nivU ersity of Western Ontario Journal of Anthropology by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Western. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The rC eation of Female Origin Myth: A Critical Analysis of Gender in the Archaeology of Neolithic China Abstract This essay explores and critiques the creation of female origin myths in the archaeology of Neolithic China. The first example is the debate surrounding the gender relations in the Yangshao culture. The es cond half of the paper focuses on whether or not the possible goddess worship in the Hongshan culture can shed light on the understanding of women.
    [Show full text]
  • Gender and Kinship
    Introduction to Archaeology: Notes 14 Gender and kinship Copyright Bruce Owen 2009 − Major shift of gears here − from methods and materials to be analyzed − to questions about the past we want to answer − Gender roles − to understand a society, past or present, one of the basic issues is the relations between men and women − determines a lot about family structure − how people spend their time − how economy is organized, etc. − Sex and gender − sex : biological male, female, or occasionally intersex (one or two in 1000) − gender, gender role : the social categories constructed to accommodate variations in sex and associated behaviors − in some societies, gender closely parallels sex − with alternatives being suppressed or not considered to be distinctly different − other societies have "third" genders , which may be heterosexual, homosexual, asexual, or have other sexual aspects − in some cases, “genders” are not even tied to sexual activity at all − gender roles have many components that are not biologically connected to sex − expected forms of dress − expected ways of speaking − expected jobs or tasks − roles such as being shamans, handling the dead, or other socially-charged tasks are sometimes restricted to certain genders, sometimes "third" genders − degrees and arenas of power and respect, etc. − gender ideology : beliefs about nature of gender, relationships, power, etc. associated with gender − Gender in archaeology − we should not assume that gender roles in the past are the same as we know them now, in our own culture − instead,
    [Show full text]
  • INTERVIEW an Interview with Professor Ruth Whitehouse
    INTERVIEW21 An Interview with Professor Ruth Whitehouse, Institute of Archaeology, UCL Interview prepared by Fiona Handley, Steve Townend, Julie Eklund and Cornelia Kleinitz Ruth Whitehouse was recently made the first female professor at the Institute of Archae- ology, UCL. She was awarded her PhD from the University of Cambridge in 1968 and has had ongoing research interests in the prehistory of Italy, with particular foci on religion and ritual, and gender. She was a founder member of the Accordia Research Institute in 1988, which promotes Italian archaeology in the UK. She was the co-director of the survey and excavation of the Iron Age site of Gravina in Puglia in southern Italy, and of the Alto-Medio Polesine-Basso Veronese Project on the Po plain. Prof. Whitehouse has recently begun two new projects in Italy: ‘The Tavoliere/Gargano Prehistory Project’ and ‘Developmental Literacy and the Establishment of Regional and State Identity in Early Italy: Research Be- yond Etruria, Greece and Rome’. Could you give us an account of your career to date? How did you be- come interested in archaeology? I was interested in archaeology as a child; from about the age of 12 I can remember knowing that that’s what I wanted to do. I grew up in a middle class family that went to museums and things like that, and I had a great uncle of German-Jewish ori- gin who was a history professor and living in America at the time that I knew him. He always encouraged me; I remember him giving me as a birthday present at an early age, Wessex from the Air, which is a book of aerial photographs of Wessex.
    [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]
  • Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen
    Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen: Theory and Practice, Aesthetics and Politics, 1963-1983 Nicolas Helm-Grovas Royal Holloway, University of London PhD, Media Arts 1 Declaration of Authorship I, Nicolas Helm-Grovas, hereby declare that this thesis and the work presented in it is entirely my own. Where I have consulted the work of others, this is always clearly stated. 15 January, 2018 2 Abstract This PhD is a genealogy and critical examination of the writings and films of Laura Mulvey and Peter Wollen, spanning the period from the early 1960s to 1980s. Despite the prominence of their texts, there has not been a book-length study of either body of writing, nor an overview of their overlap and mutual influence, in what was their most productive period. Nor has there been an extended account of the important connection between their theory and their practice as filmmakers. My thesis undertakes these tasks. I interpret and challenge existing scholarship, while simultaneously examining in detail for the first time lesser-known works, drawing on archives and interviews. Through close readings I elucidate Mulvey’s interrogation of the patriarchal fantasies structuring cinematic and artistic forms and her feminist appropriation of classical Hollywood melodrama; I map the related issues Wollen’s texts activate, of cinematic signification and materialism, the buried potentialities of the historical avant-gardes, and their connection to the avant-garde film contemporaneous with his writings. Their moving image works, I demonstrate through detailed analyses, bring these ideas into dialogue and work them through in a more open, exploratory vein. I trace key notions like ‘counter cinema’ across films and writings by both authors.
    [Show full text]