#p much just 02 as a Zora | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

anthropolos · 6 years

Text

Feminist Anthropology Guide

I created this syllabus for a class last year. It isn’t doing any good in my drive, so I figured if anyone is interested in learning feminist anthropology (and archaeology / bio ant) on their own - given that many departments do not teach it - this can serve as a valuable resource. Enjoy!

WEEK 1 – EARLY WOMEN IN ANTHROPOLOGY

This week is designed to introduce students to how women’s perspectives became a topic of inquiry in the 1970s and 1980s. Week one explicitly includes readings where key women in anthropology called out male bias in the discipline.

Lamphere, Louise. 2004. “Unofficial Histories: A Vision of Anthropology from the Margins.” American Anthropologist 106 (1): 126-39.

Spender, Dale. 1982. “Putting it in Perspective: Margaret Mead (1901-1978).” In Women of Ideas and what Men Have Done to Them: From Aphra Behn to Adrienne Rich, 716-9. New York: Routledge.

Walker, Alice. 1979. “Looking for Zora.” In I Love Myself When I am Laughing: A Zora Neale Hurston Reader, edited by Alice Walker, 297-312. New York: The Feminist Press.

Recommended for Professor: Read the introduction, "Zora Neale Hurston: A Woman Half in Shadow,” by Mary Helen Washington in the Zora Neale Hurston Reader, p. 1-19. This gives a comprehensive background of her life and work for lecture during week one.

Slocum, Sally. 1975. “Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology.” In Towards an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 36-50. New York: Monthly Review Press.

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:

Women were typically not included in ethnographic studies, with the idea being that men’s perspectives captured the whole truths of a culture.

Who we consider today to be accomplished women who helped shape the beginning of the discipline, such as Margaret Mead, Ruth Benedict, and Zora Neale Hurston, were women who were not given recognition while they were alive, and were denied elevated positions in universities and tenure.

There are more women in anthropology than just Mead, Benedict, and Hurston; anthropology is a field dominated by unrecognized, uncited, and disregarded women.

Men, who received much notoriety in anthropology, had very male-centric points of view on culture and the ‘natural’ subordination of women cross-culturally.

This week should show students how anthropology is still male-centric, and how it came to be that anthropologists study women. Students should also get an idea of the histories of important women figures in anthropology.

WEEK 2 – FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY

Week two introduces students to how feminist methodology was reconciled with traditional methods in anthropology and ethnography. Each reading for week two discusses the ways that anthropology and ethnography can recognize and incorporate feminist methodology.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 1990. “Can There be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women & Performance 5 (1): 7-27.

Stacey, Judith. 1988. “Can There be a Feminist Ethnography?” Women’s Studies International Forum 11 (1): 21-7.

Behar, Ruth. 1995. “Introduction.” In Women Writing Culture, edited by Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, 1-23. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Davis, Dána-Ain, and Christa Craven. 2016. “How Does One Do Feminist Ethnography?” In Feminist Ethnography: Thinking Through Methodologies, Challenges, and Possibilities, 75-98. New York: Rowman & Littlefield.

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:

Address the tension between feminism and its principles and anthropology’s main method of data collection: ethnography.

Overview how feminist anthropology went from incorporating women into studies to more serious feminist concerns of objectivity, self/Other imbalance, and abuse of power.

Students should get an idea of how feminist anthropology is an oxymoron from Abu-Lughod's (1990) and Stacey's (1988) readings. Students should read Behar's (1995) introduction because it outlines how feminist anthropology became what it is today. Finally, Davis and Craven's (2016) chapter gives an overview of how feminists approach ethnographic methods and theories. Their chapter also gives students examples from other famous feminist anthropologists as examples.

WEEK 3 – DOING FEMINIST ETHNOGRAPHY

Week three includes examples of works in anthropology and ethnography that utilize a feminist methodology. Each reading is representative of the way feminist principles and approaches have been used in the discipline.

Lewin, Ellen. 1995. “Writing Lesbian Ethnography.” In Women Writing Culture, edited by Ruth Behar and Deborah A. Gordon, 322-38. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Nader, Laura. 1972. “Up the Anthropologist – Perspectives Gained from Studying Up.” In Reinventing Anthropology, edited by Dell Hymes, 285-311. New York: Pantheon Books.

Kincaid, Jamaica. 1991. “On Seeing England for the First Time.” Transition 51: 32-40.

McClaurin, Irma. 2001. “Theorizing a Black Feminist Self in Anthropology: Toward an Autoethnographic Approach.” In Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics, edited by Irma McClaurin, 49-76. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:

There are many different ways that feminist anthropologists have tried to modify the ethnographic method to accommodate for feminist principles.

Students should be asked to think about whether Kincaid’s (1991) ethnographic vignette, Nader’s (1972) methods of studying up, Lewin’s (1995) lesbian ethnography, or McClaurin’s (2001) autoethnography could be considered feminist ethnography. Are they hitting at the core issues addressed by Stacey (1988) and Abu-Lughod (1990)?

Students should learn that there are other ways of doing ethnography than traditional, male-centric, objectifying methods typically taught in anthropology classrooms.

WEEK 4 –FEMINIST ANTHROPOLOGY OUTSIDE OF CULTURE

The readings for week four are meant to introduce students to the ways that feminist methodologies have been utilized across sub-disciplines. They are a reinforcement of what feminist principles/methodologies are, and how they can be adopted outside of social science research.

Kakaliouras, Ann. 2006. “Toward a (More) Feminist Pedagogy in Biological Anthropology: Ethnographic Reflections and Classroom Strategies.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 143-55. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Wekker, Gloria. 2006. “’What’s Identity Got to Do with It?’: Rethinking Identity in Light of the Mati Work in Suriname.” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Ellen Lewin, 435-48. Malden: Blackwell Publishing.

Wylie, Alison. 2007. “Doing Archaeology as a Feminist: Introduction.” Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 14: 209-16.

Dowson, Thomas. 2006. “Archaeologists, Feminists, and Queers: Sexual Politics in the Construction of the Past.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 89-102. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

This week’s learning objectives and outcomes:

Feminism is a theory, a lens, a way of seeing the world that is applicable to more than just cultural anthropology.

Each student in the class can leave the unit knowing how feminism has been used to address their field of study. Such as:

Biological or physical anthropology students should see the ways that constructions of gender, race, and sexuality impact our interpretation of human biology. They should also get an idea as to the ethical concerns with analyzing indigenous remains.

Archaeology students should foremost recognize that cultural theories surrounding issues of patriarchy and gender have ramifications in their work. Like biological and cultural anthropology students, archaeology students should question the ethics of their work with indigenous remains and artifacts.

Sociolinguistic anthropology students should get an idea as to how local concepts surrounding gender, race, and sexuality impact language.

Projects

Unit Project/Assignment Option #1:

Have students read the blog posts cited here:

Watt, Elizabeth. 2018. “Why #MeToo is Complicated for Female Anthropologists.” The Familiar Strange, March 1. Retrieved from https://thefamiliarstrange.com/2018/03/01/why-metoo-is-complicated/

Hernandez, Carla. 2018. “Queer in the Field.” Queer Archaeology, February 21. Retrieved from https://queerarchaeology.com/2018/02/21/queer-in-the-field/

The first post talks about the sexual harassment and abuse women anthropologists face when they do field work, and how this impacts their view of the contemporary #MeToo movement. The second post talks about being a queer woman archaeologist in the field and facing both sexism and heterosexism. Have students read these blog posts and either write a short response paper, work together in groups, or present their standpoints to the class. These options depend on how much class time can be given to student presentations.

Unit Project/Assignment Option #2:

Students should write a short response paper based on their subdiscipline. Cultural anthropology students can decide whether feminist ethnography is possible, while sociolinguistic, archaeology, and biological anthropology students reflect on whether their methods can be feminist. This can be required on the final day of the unit, after students have an opportunity to read week four’s readings on feminist approaches in other subdisciplines. This can also be an opportunity for students to begin working on their undergraduate theses and write about how their thesis can accommodate for feminist principles. This can be informal and short, or a part of their final project for the course.

If unit could be extended, or if professor is seeking other readings to swap out or to offer to students for optional reading, incorporate the following pieces:

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2000. “Locating Ethnography.” Ethnography 1 (2): 261-7.

Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2002. “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others.” American Anthropologist 104 (3): 783-90.

Conkey, Margaret, and Janet Spector. 1984. “Archaeology and the Study of Gender.” Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory 7: 1-38.

Jones, Stacey Holman, and Tony E. Adams. 2010. “Autoethnography is a Queer Method.” In Queer Methods and Methodologies: Intersecting Queer Theories and Social Science Research, edited by Catherine J. Nash and Kath Browne, 195-214. New York: Routledge.

Kus, Susan. 2006. “In the Midst of the Moving Waters: Material, Metaphor, and Feminist Archaeology.” In Feminist Anthropology: Past, Present, and Future, edited by Pamela L. Geller and Miranda K. Stockett, 105-14. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Lewin, Ellen. 2002. “Another Unhappy Marriage? Feminist Anthropology and Lesbian/Gay Studies.” In Out in Theory: The Emergence of Lesbian and Gay Anthropology, edited by Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap, 110-27. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Lewin, Ellen. 2006. “Introduction.” In Feminist Anthropology: A Reader, edited by Ellen Lewin, 1-38. Malden: Blackwell Publishing. Only pages 18-26.

Newton, Esther. 1996. “My Best Informant’s Dress: The Erotic Equation in Fieldwork.” In Out in the Field: Reflections of Lesbian and Gay Anthropologists, edited by Ellen Lewin and William L. Leap, 212-35. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Ortner, Sherry B. 1974. “Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?” In Woman, Culture, and Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere, 68-87. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rodriguez, Cheryl. 2001. “A Homegirl Goes Home: Black Feminism and the Lure of Native Anthropology.” In Black Feminist Anthropology: Theory, Politics, Praxis, and Poetics, edited by Irma McClaurin, 233-55.

Rosaldo, Michelle Zimbalist. 1974. “Woman, Culture, and Society: A Theoretical Overview.” In Woman, Culture and Society, edited by Michelle Zimbalist Rosaldo and Louise Lamphere 17-42. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Rubin, Gayle. 1975. “The Traffic of Women: Notes on the Political Economy of Sex.” In Toward an Anthropology of Women, edited by Rayna R. Reiter, 157-210. New York: Monthly Review Press.

Syllabi sources that served as inspiration for authors to include:

http://www.anthropology.ua.edu/cultures/cultures.php?culture=Feminist%20Anthropology

https://apps.carleton.edu/curricular/soan/assets/SA_226_W13_Feldman_Savelsberg_syllabus__3_.pdf

https://anthropology.washington.edu/courses/2015/autumn/anth/353/a

http://home.wlu.edu/~goluboffs/275_2009.html

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/files/mKWooKqSsg

http://anthro.rutgers.edu/downloads/undergraduate/236-378obrien2007/file

http://queeranthro.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SexGender.pdf

#feminist anthropology #anthropology #archaeology #biological anthropology #physical anthropology #cultural anthropology #culture #feminism #reading list #reading suggestions

477 notes · View notes