( i) CONTENTS Page EDITORIAL NOTE .•• III •••••••• III •••••• III III •• III • III ••••• _ III III ...... III ..... III • ii THE SEXUAL BOUNDARY - PURITY: HETEROSEXUALITY AND VIRGINITY •..• III • III ••• III •••••••• III ••• III III •• III •••• III III •• III III III III ••• III III III III • III .137 Kirsten Hastrup, Institute of Social Anthropology, Oxford. THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF CONSCIOUSNESS •••••••••••••••••••••••••148 Mike Taylor, Institute of Social Anthropology, Oxford. THE METAPHOR~1ETONYM DISTINCTION: A CO~~NT ON CAMPBELL •••••••••••• III III • III ••••••••••• III III III III III ••••• III III • 6 •• III ••••••• 151 Jan Oveson, Institute of Social Anthropology, O~ford. "THE MIND-FORG'D MANACLES" :CASTANEDA IN THE ltJORLD OF DON JUAN III •••••••• III •••••••••••• III •• III •••••• III •• • ,0 ••• •• 155 Martin Cantor, Instit~te of Social Anthropology, Oxford. CHILDREN IN THE PLAYGROUND •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••173 Charlotte Hardman, School of Oriental and African Studies. REVIEW ARTICLE: RACE •••••••••• III ••••••• III ••••••••••• III •• " ••• III .189 M.G. WhiS"SO'ii, University of Cape Town. BOOK REVIEWS: Maclean: Magical Medicine: A Nigerian Case- Study - by Helen Callaway••.•••••••••••••••••••••••195 Glucksmann: Structuralist Analysis in Contemporary Social T~ought: A Comparison of the theories-2! Claude Levi-Strauss and Louis Althusser - by Paul Dresch. III •••• III •••••• Ill, •••• " " • III ••••••••• Ill •••• 0 • •• 198 . Roper: The Women of Nar -by Juliet Blair••••••• ~ •• 199 Chaudhuri: Scholar Extraordinary: The Life of Professor The Rt. Hon. Friedrich Max MUller, P.C. - by Malcolm Crick....•........ Ill ••••••••••• o •• III " ••• 200 SfIOR'I'ER NOTICES ••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••• III •••••• " ••••••• 201 INDEX - VOL. V. 0 • " ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• 0 ••••••••• 201 @ Journal (ii) EDITORIAL NOTE The idea for this Journal has come from the graduate students at the 1nGtitute of Social Anthropology in Oxford. Papers given at graduate seminars and idessarising from work for diplomas and higher degrees very often merit wider circulation and discussion without necessarily being ready for formal publication in professional journals. There obviously exists a need in social anthropology for serious critical and theoretical discussion; JASO sees this as its main purpose. The editors would like to express their thanks to Julia Unwin, John Niespolo, and all others who have helped with the production of this issue. FORMAT The journal is pUblished three times per year. Articles are welcome from students of anthropology and from peo~le in other dis­ ciplines. It is preferred that the main emphasis should be on analytical discussion rather than on plain description. Papers should be as short as is necessary to get the point over. As a general rule they should not exceed 5,000 words. They should follow the conventions for citations, notes and references used in the A.S.A. monographs. Comnlents will also be welcome. Communications should be addressed to the Journal Editors, Institute of Social Anthropology, 51 Banbury Road, Oxford. BACK ISSUES We have a.stock of back issues. Single issues are available at 35p in the U.K. and %1 (45p) abroad. Complete volumes (1(1970), II (1971),111(1972), IV(1973) and V(1974)) are each available at the following rates: U.K. - £1.00 to individuals, £1.50 to institutions; abroad ~ %3.00 (£1.25p) to individuals, %5 (£2.00) to institutions. The subscription for Vol.VI (1975) is the same. All prices cover postage. Cheques should be made out to J.A.S.O., and sent to the Journal Editors at 51 Banbury Road, Oxford. We regret that we have had to increase some of our rates. This is due to increased production costs, primarily the price of paper. 137. The Sexual Boundary - Puritr: Heterosexuality and Virginity. The 'pr~sentpaper is part of a larger essay concerrted With the position of women in social anthropology. In this essay I 'investigate sexual categories in terms' of relationship, boundary and content rather" than groups 'or individuals, since this gives us more freedom to make generalizations, and my aim is a very general one indeed. Inaed rtot, I think, give this paper any further introduction, sirtceboth the aim and the scope will be apparent from the following pages; Since Douglas (1966) wrote on purity and danger it has become clear that boundaries are very important to order, and indeed all-important to the conception of social and cultural categories, ·of which·the male/female ones constitute one antithetical set. Douglas herself investigates the implications of her theory in relation to the sexual distinction (1966, especially chapter 9), and although I would have liked to cite many of her arguments at length, I shall abstain from this and turn to a more general use of "boundarism" as such. Although the actual border-line between the sex-categories is somewhere explicit, spatially orlinguI"S'tically,it may also be covert within other relationships, or it may even seem to be non-existent as a line at all on the level of empirical reality.. 'l'his is just a preliminary warning that the boundary of this chapter denotes boundarismin general.. The purity and danger of the sex-categories thereby become relative not only to the ethnographic context but also to the theoretical level of discussion. This will become clearer in the course of analysis. The notions of purity and danger are from the outset loaded with implications for both eidos and'ethos (cf. Bateson, 1936) since they not only are used metaphorically for structure and anti-structure, but almost by definition simul~aneously designate an antithetical set of emotions also. This should be kept in mind at places, where it is not possible to disentangle conceptual from em.:Jtion~l. disorder, even not intellectually by the analyst,and of c6uree B~pa.thetically impossible \:) the natives of our examples, who are sometimes ourselves. Let us first 'consider the "normal" order of things, concerning sex-categories. On the level of behaviour, the notion of heterosexuality expresses what to most people and in most situations is considered appropriate sexual behaviour. In this sense, heterosexuality is pure,. it is not loaded with emotional ambivalence; it is orderly and proper in any sense of these words. But what is then het€lIlOSexuality?' As said, on the level of behaviour there is no ambiguity, since it designates the normal sexual union of a man and a woman. It is a natural relation, when men's and women's reproductive differentiation is considered. On a higher level: namely the CUltural, as opposed to the natural of this context, heteros~xuality denotes a potential unity through the duality of the conceptual categories of male and female. These categories are everywhere as distinct as are the reproductive functions, although in different ways, and for different reasons the conceptual complementarity of the two categories (yin and y~ng) leads us with reasonable certainty to presume that there is no conceptual ambigUity on the, level of the cognitive structure, as there was no emotional ambivalence towar~s this kind of sexual relation on the level of behaviour, not as part of the CUlturally standardized pattern, anyway. We shall now take one further step and p~o~eed to an investigation of the conceptual definition of the meanirg of the sex-categories, that is not only theirbound;tng from each other, but also their different contents, sinc~this can be done very lucidly in terms of boundarism. Till now, we have taken :aunive:rsal unambiguity and distinctive?es.s of ,the two sex-categories for granted, and this holds good at a certain level of conceptual:oppositions.formalJ,.y as well as functionally, But in 'terms of PUI'~ty and,dange~ ,this ,can no longer remain unchallenged in relation to me!:).ning •. Our entry into this subject will be through a rather elaborate empirical example of ,rare consistency and beauty, and whose potential for wide generalizations maybe even greater. Among the Tewa indians described by Ortiz (1969), the standard phrase of encouragement to a man, who is about to undertake a dangerous or demanding task, is: "be a woman, be a man", while the corresponding remark to a woman s:Lmply is: "bea'woman". This interesting point has got parallels in Qther spheres of the socio-culturalreality, most important in connection with the moiety system. The Tewa moieties, are not exogamous units, they are just ritual divisions of the society,reflecting a fundamental dual principle of classification. This of course is not unique to the Tewa, nor is it unique that the moieties are associated with the sex-categories, but it is almost unique that these· . sex~categories should be so defined as they are among the Tewa. Before discussing this noteworthy sexualplassification, I shallgi\re a brief outline of some relevant facts about the Tewa. As a starting point one may look at the child's gradual growth into a full member of the society, which among other things implies three rites of passage, all of them ~ost appropriately characterized as rites of incorporation. Without a detailed elaboration of the rites 'and symbols, we note that the child on the fourth day after birth goes through the first of these rites: the naming ritual. .. This is borne out by the "umbilical cord-cutting mother" and her assistant, who acted as midwives four days earlier. By this rite, throughout which the dualistic theme is repeated, the,ohild is not only ,bestowed with a name, but is thereby also incorporated into the society at large. During the first year of life, the child has to go through a second rite of incorporation: the water-giving rite. This time the child is incorporated into a specific moiety. The moieties are named the winter­ and the Svmmer~oiety,respectively,and it is the Winter-chief who precedes the riteforthe Winter··'C:hildren, during the half..;year period in which he holds the reG}Jonsibil:L't;.y for the whole Village.