Gender and Sexuality: Rosaldos and Ortners Theories - Essay Example

Make a critical analysis of Rosaldo’s and Ortner’s theories and explain their importance for the understanding of gender in Anthropology. Feminism has been one of the essential theories in the understanding of gender in relation to sexuality and a profound understanding of feminism and feminist ideas will lead one to find the relation that exists between anthropology and feminism. The latter has been influential on the former and it is the result of the second wave feminism of the 1970s. It is relatable that there has been a progress in the thinking of feminism within anthropology, i.e. a transformation from the feminist anthropology to the anthropology of women. Among the various pertinent concerns of the feminists of the period included the investigation into the true meaning, roots etc of female subordination with an intention to knock over the established concepts. Ion this attempt of the feminists, anthropology seemed to provide the most effective tool as it could tell about the status of women in various societies as well as about why women are subordinated to men in several societies. Anthropology was approached as to attain central materials for awareness about the dynamics of the relation between men and women. On the other hand, there was an attempt by anthropology in finding pertinent understanding about female subordination in feminism and the feminist anthropologists started reassessing anthropology on the basis of feminism. Female subordination has been the major concern for both the feminists in general and the feminist anthropologists in particular. The arguments of the feminist anthropologists on female subordination differed greatly in the mid 1970s. There were feminist anthropologists who felt that in spite of the existence of some democratic societies, all the societies gave prominence to men’s power. While a group of feminist anthropologists regarded that female subordination was not common, a strong argument was in support of the view that female subordination was universal and every society is male dominated. Michello Rosaldo and Sherry Ortner, two important feminist anthropologists of structuralist-anthropologist school, regarded female subordination as universal and the endeavoured to explicate the sources of this female subordination. “But they were very eager to make it clear that, to them; universal did not mean ‘unavoidable’ ‘compulsory’ ‘unchangeable’ or ‘natural’. In particular, they wanted to separate the concept of universality from the concept of ‘biology’. As feminists, they were eager to find ways to overturn female subordination.” (Anthropology of Gender, 2006, P.12). In this paper a critical analysis of Rosaldo’s and Ortner’s theories is undertaken and the importance of these feminist anthropologists in the understanding of gender in Anthropology is investigated. The feminist anthropologists have been significant in demonstrating importance of the analytical concept of gender. The term gender was often used in the writings of social and cultural anthropologists, though it came into popular use only in the early 1980’s and it indicated both the male and the female, the cultural construction of these categories, and the relationship between them. As the definition of gender varies tremendously in various cultures, the feminist anthropologists stayed away from broad generalizations. The focus of the feminist anthropologists is no longer on the issue of gender unevenness alone but they explore the importance of female activities and investigate the reasons of female subordination. It is relatable that feminist anthropology, initially, focused on the examination and expansion of theory to explain the subordination of women, which seemed to be universal and cross-cultural. Thus, Marxist theory attracted the feminist anthropologists of the 1970s and the Marxist model maintains that the subordination of women in capitalist societies, both in terms of their reproductive role as well as their value as unpaid or underpaid labour, results from historical trends predating capitalism itself. “Accepting the idea that women were universally subordinated to men in some manner, anthropologists in the feminist subfield developed different models to explain this situation. Anthropologists such as Rosaldo, Edholm, and Ortner used dichotomies such as public/domestic, production/reproduction, and nature/culture (respectively) to explain universal female subordination. Ortners use of the dichotomy to explain the universal subordination of women is built upon Levi-Strausss conclusion that there is a universal binary opposition between nature and culture. He also argued that cross-culturally women were represented as closer to nature because of their role in reproduction.” (Boschma III & Franks). In an analysis of the theories of Rosaldo and Ortner, it needs to be realized that they were the earliest proponents of feminist anthropology and their views had particular value in the growth of the theories of feminist anthropology. The theories of Margaret Mead influenced their theories and Mead’s work was influential on Rosaldo in her attempts to construct an exact structure for the budding discipline of feminist anthropology. The works of Sherry Ortner, one of the early proponents of feminist anthropology, had significant role in the development of theories relating to feminist anthropology. They constructed an illustrative model for gender irregularity based on the principle that the female subordination has been a universal phenomenon, which means that it takes place in every cross-cultural situation. Her articles ‘Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?’ which was published in 1974 is of great value in formulating the theories of feminist anthropology. In the article Ortner takes a structuralist approach to the question of gender inequality and suggests that a womans role as child bearer makes them natural creators, while men are cultural creators. Together with Ortner, Michelle Rosaldo “offered an integrated set of explanations, each at a different level, for the universal subordination of women. These were in terms of social structure, culture, and socialization. She argued that in every society women bear and raise children and women’s socially and culturally defined role as mother provided the basis for subordination. Early feminist anthropologists such as Rosaldo did not question the concept of the universal subordination of women and used dichotomies to explain it.” (Boschma III & Franks). In a profound analysis of the theories of Michello Rosaldo and Sherry Ortner, it becomes evident that they attempt to understand the issue of female subordination and to find out solution to overcome it. Significantly, they check the root of female subordination in various societies. To both Rosaldo and Ortner, Anthropology is a source of information for the formation of their theories. In other words, anthropology provides a comparative material for the theories of Rosaldo and Ortner. Their theories analyse the relation between men and women and the evolution of gender discrimination. Interestingly, female and feminist Anthropologists were concerned with the issue of female subordination, and the question asked at the time of the formation of these theories was whether the issue is universal or not. Both the theories state that, the issue of female subordination is universal and they further goes on to check its acceptance in varied cultures. They further goes on to explain the sources of universality of female subordination and gender discrimination, they wanted to separate the concept ‘universality’ from the concept of ‘biology’, and felt eager to find out ways to overturn female subordination. Their aim was to reject the idea that female subordination is unchangeable and unavoidable and to redefine sexual inequality as a social fact. The gender theory deals with the issue: Inequality and Status: Domestic/Public. This theory is concerned with the radical transformation of Feminism from within Anthropology. Then again, Feminist Anthropology is altered to the Anthropology of Women. So as to understand the reason of female subordination and to overturn it, feminist Anthropologists turned to Anthropology and it could provide the comparative material, and can clarify the issues related to Female Subordination. Moreover, it can answer to the questions that are related to the issue of Female Subordination. When Feminist Anthropologists turned to Anthropology, Anthropologists turned to Feminism to develop political agendas and began to form their ideas from a Feminist stand point. Both of these ideologies were concerned with the issue that of Female Subordination is universal and not. The feminists were enthusiastic to comprehend the roots of female subordination which was prevailed in western and other societies. These theories are based upon the strong foundation of Anthropology and are related to the issues of female subordination and gender inequality. Gender and sexuality is closely related to Anthropology and is analysed under the historical perspective. Radical transformation of feminism after 1970 and its growth and development as a theory is vested on Anthropology. They try to rewrite the misbelief that gender inequality is based on certain biological factors and because of their biological role; women are restricted from their social and cultural roles. Varied tasks and responsibilities associated to men and women made the difference in their social roles. The chain of assumptions that are originated in western ideas about biology and its role in shaping culture are against Feminist Anthropologists. These assumptions state that “what is universal-must be natural-biological-unaviodable-necessary.” These set of assumptions are questioned by Feminist Anthropologists, but they felt difficult to let go of them. From the cultural point of view, the rating scale of development is vested upon how the women are treated. The history of human race unveils the truth that we cannot trace any evidence of gender equality and the women were subordinated and marginalised from the mainstream of culture and society. Earlier, there was a clear cut division between the roles of male and female and because of the rigidity of this division, women never tried to cross this barrier. Recent developments in the domain of feminism analyses the influence of feminist theories on Anthropological literature. Michello Rosaldo and Sherry Ortner, who wrote two influential essays in 1974, belong to the structuralist school of Feminism. The introductory part of Rosaldo’s lecture critically discusses the issue of female subordination, and also gender inequality. Here, Rosaldo examine the various stages of the female subordination in various societies. So as to overturn female subordination, feminists wanted to understand the term: feminism and they turned to anthropology as a source of information. The arguments lose their focus and are diverted into three different compartments of long lasting arguments. These theories form an significant role in the field of feminist criticism, especially of female subordination. Analysing the topics, a critic can trace out that Rosaldo and Ortner considered female subordination to be universal. They were of the view that female subordination is not compulsory and are changeable and artificial. Both of them were against the view that female subordination is biological and also wanted to redefine sexual inequality as a social fact. Both these critics were influenced by the work of Levi-Strauss and by structuralism and their ideas derive from extremely similar theoretical standpoints. But on the theme of female subordination, Anthropology states that it is natural and normal. Brevirty for Undertaking and the search for the real problem make their attempt different from other feminist critics. Criticism is based on the taboos that are exerted upon women by the male dominant society. With the ‘culturally legitimated authority’, male exert social, economical and cultural force upon the female and this force plays role of the line of control. Rosaldo not only asks questions related to gender discrimination, but also tries to find out solution to these socially relevant questions. The domestic sphere of activity restricts women from the male dominated public sphere and they are forced to be in their house. During the Victorian Age, the writers were forced to write about morality and it also enforced the role of women as subordinates. On some aspects, communism is far away from gender discrimination than other theories. The main problem related to gender inequality is, the women still aren’t getting equal opportunities in the fields of education, employment and other aspects of life. Critics like Silvia Yaganisako on Rosaldo’s Lectures states that gender discrimination is not universal and to prove this they cite history of Japanese Americans. The first generation of Japanese Americans were self employed and after the Second World War, there occurred the division of labour where the women were not allowed to enter the public domain and marriage was the only human co-ordination of two domains. In many countries women have more opportunities for education and they enjoy their life more happily than ever before. But rest of the world is not safe and there feminists and others work hard to fight against discrimination, violence, and inequality. Anthropologists suggest that the domination of male over female is due to their masculine behaviour of roaming, keeping away from the home for a long span of time and belligerent habit. These habits led them to form strong gangs because they have to fight with others to protect their limited resources. The History of gender inequality can be traced from those nomadic Tribes and division between men who are free for their public domain; and women who are confined to their domestic domain. Feminist theories by Michello Rosaldo and Sherry Ortner are not against the male as a whole but it is against the domination and gender discrimination. These theories trace the evolution of the History of feminism, gender discrimination and its relation to Anthropology. More studies based on these theories will certainly encourage female, feminist Anthropologists worldwide. So as to understand of gender in Anthropology, these theories are helpful and urge feminists, feminist Anthropologists to reassure their discipline from a feminist stand point. Moreover, they argue that, the universality of gender discrimination does not lessen its importance as a social problem and the theories are helpful to understand the importance of gender in Anthropology. The main contribution of Rosaldo and Ortner is that, they attempted to formulate certain theories to evaluate further understanding of gender in Anthropology. The contribution of Rosaldo and Ortner towards the growth of feminist anthropology is unquestionable. It is normally considered that Sherry Ortner’s article “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” is one of the best known anthropological endeavours, which explicates the universality of female subordination. It is mainly achieved by conceptualizing female to male relations in terms of the nature/culture dichotomy in the Levi-Straussian structuralism. The article which was published in Woman, Culture, and Society became a keystone of feminist anthropology. “Ortner (1974) developed criteria to define female subordination in her multicultural analysis. She defined female subordination as being evident when the cultural ideology or the informants (a) explicitly devalued women and their roles and products, (b) used symbolic devices such as the defilement of the female body or (c) employed socio-structural arrangements that excluded women from participation in or contact with the realm in which the highest authority or authorities reside.” Ortner’s conclusions on the basis of these criteria are as follows. “The search for a genuinely egalitarian, let alone matriarchical culture has proved fruitless.” (p. 70) “The secondary status of women is one of the true universals; a pancultural fact.” (Ortner, 1974, 67). Woman, Culture, and Society also includes among others two more determining articles, one by Michelle Rosaldo and the other by Nancy Chodorow. Both of these feminist anthropologists also attempted to theorise the secondary status of women in society as a universal, pan-cultural fact. In her essay, ‘Woman, Culture and Society: A Theoretical Overview,’ Michelle Rosaldo explicated on the universal dichotomy between the identification of women with domestic life and of men with public life. She maintained that this dichotomy has been the underlying structural framework which supported women’s subordinate position in society in terms of power and authority. “Although Rosaldo discarded Engels’s dictum that women’s subordination occurred only with the institution of private property in favour of a theory of universal female subordination, she nevertheless took a materialist approach. Rosaldo studied social and cultural organization as a function of the sexual division of labour and reasoned that women’s reproductive function and responsibility led to a ‘differentiation of domestic and public spheres of activity.’ Women’s oppression and agency depended, in Rosaldo’s analysis, on the degree of ‘sexual asymmetry.’” (Women’s Studies). ‘Family Structure and Feminine Personality’ by Nancy Chodorow article is another significant work dealing with the same issue. “These two articles together with Ortners received a lot of attention and generated heated discussions. Some found their analyses persuasive while others were critical of their Universalist assumptions and dichotomous approaches to women’s roles, statuses, and personality characteristics.” (Sarah Soh, 1999). Thus, the theories of Rosaldo and Ortner are held primary in the Feminist Anthropology in dealing with the issues of feminist subordination. Reference Anthropology of Gender, (2006). UWL. Customer. P.12. Boschma III, James H., & Franks, Marsha. Feminist Anthropology, Department of Anthropology: College of Arts and Science: The University of Alabama. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.as.ua.edu/ant/Faculty/murphy/feminism.htm Ortner, S.B., Rosaldo, In M. Z., & Lamphere, L (Eds). (1974). Is female to male as nature is to culture?, Woman, Culture and Society. P.67. Stanford, California: Stanford University Press. Wo: Women’s Studies, Encyclopedia of Marxism. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/o.htm Sarah Soh, Chunghee. (1999). ‘Husband Is to Wife as Heaven Is to Earth’: Nature and Culture in Sex/Gender Relations in Korean Society, Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~soh/AES99%20Husband%20Is%20to%20Wife%20as%20Heaven%20Is%20to%20Earth%20(final).doc Read More