ANRV388-AN38-05 ARI 14 August 2009 18:14 Identity and Difference: Complicating Gender in Archaeology Pamela L. Geller Department of Anthropology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida 33124; email: [email protected] Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009. 38:65–81 Key Words First published online as a Review in Advance on feminism, bioarchaeology, race, sexuality, postmodernism June 17, 2009 The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract anthro.annualreviews.org From its inception, the archaeology of gender was entwined with femi- This article’s doi: nism. Engagement has engendered reconstructions of complex, diverse 10.1146/annurev-anthro-091908-164414 peoples and practices that are more equitable, relevant, and sound. Yet, Copyright c 2009 by Annual Reviews. for many archaeologists, the connection with feminist perspectives has All rights reserved frayed in recent years. Their studies of gender articulate dated ideas 0084-6570/09/1021-0065$20.00 about women and epistemological frames that highlight duality and Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009.38:65-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org universality. Examinations of labor divisions typify shortcomings. To advance gender’s study and archaeology, practitioners need to consider Access provided by University of Florida - Smathers Library on 10/26/15. For personal use only. several concerns about identity and difference emerging from third- wave feminism. Gender is envisioned as intersection. Bioarchaeology, especially, will benefit from feminist approaches that reflect critically and regard gender in nonnormative and multiscalar terms. Tothis end, resistance to feminism must fade. Opposition stems from its imagined relationship with postmodernism, but conflation misconstrues femi- nism’s sociopolitical commitment to emancipatory change. For their part, archaeologists can utilize feminist perspectives to diversify the field, explore difference, and tackle archaeological issues with sociopo- litical resonance. 65 ANRV388-AN38-05 ARI 14 August 2009 18:14 BEGINNINGS meetings in turn generated edited volumes (e.g., Claassen 1992, Gero & Conkey 1991) that Her reputation of reading a great deal hung have bloomed into a sizeable corpus. Yet, when about her like the cloudy envelope of a god- Conkey & Gero reviewed this literature in dess in an epic; it was supposed to engender 1997, they discovered that many archaeolo- difficult questions... gists disregarded feminist perspectives, making –Henry James, The Portrait of a Lady for woefully undertheorized and oversimplified To conceive this review, I first revisited a studies of gender. So, what do archaeologists’ scholarly touchstone: Conkey & Spector’s study of gender and their grasp of feminism look “Archaeology and the Study of Gender” (1984). like in the twenty-first century? Unsurprisingly, I found its key points still co- Assessment of work conducted from 2000 gent after 25 years. To expose presentism, an- to the present reveals that archaeologists’ study drocentrism, and ethnocentrism, Conkey & of gender has innovated and transformed the Spector advocated for critical theory build- discipline. At best, this review is representative ing. The authors endeavored to detect material because it cannot be comprehensive. At worst, traces of gender roles and relations, identities I generalize to underscore conceptual trends. and ideology. They did not suggest that in- Other reviews—Meskell (2002) on social iden- quiry be limited to women. Rather, the past that tity, Joyce (2005) on the body, Voss (2008b) on Conkey & Spector envisioned was diversely sexuality—also demonstrate how feminist ap- peopled, dynamic, and complex. Such efforts, proaches to gender’s archaeological study have they concluded, would ultimately transform branched skyward. These authors do not see archaeology’s practice and scholarship. But, a gender as the central root but as intertwined study of gender could not be extricated from with age, sexuality, ethnicity, class, etc. As such, feminist perspectives. Thus, this catalytic piece we might unearth identity and lived experi- represents fruition of its authors’ deep-rooted ence within shifting social and spatial settings. personal and professional engagements with Bifurcation demonstrates the productivity of feminism (Wylie 2002, p. 189). applying feminist theory to diverse concerns. Tracking her intellectual history, Conkey Yet, many archaeologists who undertake (2007b) identifies formative familial inspira- gender work reflect cursorily on feminists’ con- tions, undergraduate activism, and professional tributions, if they do so at all. By investigating actualization as playing important parts in the gender independent of feminism, these practi- publication’s conception. Spector shared sim- tioners have not truly addressed early calls or ilar experiences (2007). In fact, the feminist later assessments (Hays-Gilpin 2000, Nelson movement, which battles against institutional- 2006, Wylie & Conkey 2007). Assorted aca- ized sexism on professional and personal fronts, demic feminists have long theorized about gen- Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009.38:65-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org resonated globally for many early archaeol- der, and archaeologists’ neglect of this corpus ogists of gender. One European happening is puzzling. Such a lacuna is akin to examining Access provided by University of Florida - Smathers Library on 10/26/15. For personal use only. was the Norwegian Archaeological Associa- class relations with nary a reference to Marx tion’s 1979 workshop, “Were They All Men?” or evolution with minimal mention of Darwin. Publication of proceedings followed in time Perhaps, Simone de Beauvoir does not come as (Bertelsen et al. 1987), and the event triggered trippingly from the lips. Inattention to feminist subsequent conferences, conscious raising, and scholarship that has ebbed and flowed over sev- collaborations (Engelstad 2007). eral waves—an imperfect metaphor but useful In North America, archaeologists heeded heuristic device—makes for a deficient study of Conkey & Spector’s call for critical eval- the lives of past peoples, as well as an archaeo- uation and expansion of research interests. logical practice that increasingly has less rele- Conferences and sessions at professional vance in our modern world. 66 Geller ANRV388-AN38-05 ARI 14 August 2009 18:14 SINS OF OUR MOTHERS Given its title, “Que(e)rying Archaeology,” Shortcomings with second-wave feminism are the 2004 conference promised to expand be- numerous, though two are especially glaring. yond gynocentric matters and dichotomous Gynocentric foci and questions are as reductive frames. Following from 15 years of intellectual and imbalanced as androcentric ones (Harding and sociopolitical growth, archaeologists’ en- 1987), and evaluation of binary oppositions be- gagement with third-wave feminism and queer fore application avoids projection of a “Western scholarship seemed a foregone conclusion. But, folk model” onto cultures distanced from our if review of the program is any indication own in space and/or time (Collier & Yanagisako (proceedings have yet to be published), many 1987). Indeed, Ortner’s(1974) influential query, archaeologists’ studies of gender demonstrate “Is female to male as nature is to culture?” stymied conceptual development and minimal which posited universal, structuralist dualities, critical assessment. “Gender,” as Conkey in- was later critiqued by feminist anthropologists tuited, “is still often just another variable that (Moore 1988) and revised by Ortner (1996) has been added to an unreflexive, positivist ap- herself. Sins of early second-wave feminist proach” (2003, p. 876). And, like the 1989 con- foremothers, however, are realized today when ference, “feminist” or “feminism” appears in archaeologists study gender as Woman, a only 4% of contributors’ abstracts (6 of 141 to- monolithic and essentialized category, and tal abstracts). Dated feminist ideas—reductive fail to interrogate reliance on dichotomy as duality, conflation of gender and sex, stereotyp- a universal epistemological frame. Persistent ical representations—were especially at issue in disinclination to address difference in the past considerations of labor organization. Twenty- illustrates how archaeologists may revel in two presentations (15.6% of all presentations) dirt but loath mess. Comparison of the 1989 indicated that the timeworn topic remains focal and 2004 Chacmool Conferences presents an in the archaeology of gender. Predominantly, intriguing case. participants explored ancient “sexual” divisions An early endeavor, the 1989 Chacmool Con- of labor, which led to reconstructions of normal ference “The Archaeology of Gender,” is sig- social roles and relations (i.e., gender). nificant for its tackling of androcentrism. Pub- Certainly, not all participants committed lished proceedings assembled writings about such transgressions (or, more appropri- gender bias in scientific endeavors, topics long ately, failed to transgress). One presentation misrepresented or neglected, and equity issues published elsewhere was Cobb’s (2005) (Walde & Willows 1991). In hindsight, par- thought-provoking que(e)rying of hunting- ticipants’ “discovery” of women qualifies their gatherer studies. She demonstrates how subtle contributions as gynocentric and dualistic. But, heteronormativity has informed researchers’ engendering archaeologists’ study of gender mainstream investigations of Mesolithic Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2009.38:65-81. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org was a conference