Basic Premises:

The subfield of Feminist Anthropology emerged as a

reaction to a perceived androcentric bias within the
discipline (Lamphere 1996: 488). Two related points
should be made concerning this reaction. First of all,
some of the prominent figures in early American
anthropology (e.g. Margaret Mead and Ruth Benedict)
were women, and the discipline has traditionally been
more egalitarian, in terms of gender, than other social
sciences (di Leonardo 1991: 5-6). Underlying that
statement, however, is the fact that the discipline has
been subject to prevailing modes of thought through
time and has certainly exhibited the kind of
androcentric thinking that early feminist
anthropologists accused it of (Reiter 1975: 13-14).
There are three waves of feminist anthropology, just
as there are multiple waves of feminism in general.
However, these waves are not strictly chronological,
with one ending as the other began. In fact, theories
from second wave feminist anthropology are still
relevant today despite theories from third wave
anthropology. Yet it is useful to present the three
waves in terms of their foci (Gellner and Stockett,
2006). The first wave, from 1850 to 1920, sought
primarily to include women’s voices in ethnography.
What little ethnographic data concerning women that
existed was often, in reality, the reports of male
informants transmitted through male ethnographers
(Pine 1996: 253). The second wave, from 1920 to
1980, moved into academic spheres and separated
the notion of sex from that of gender, both of which
previously had been used interchangeably. Gender
was used to refer to both the male and the female,
the cultural construction of these categories, and the
relationship between them (Pine 1996:253). The
definition of gender may vary from culture to culture,
and this realization has led feminist anthropologists
away from broad generalizations (Lamphere
1996:488). In addition, second wave feminist
anthropologists rejected the idea of inherent
dichotomies such as male/female and work/home.
Trends in research of this wave developed along a
materialistic perspective. Marxist theories about social
relations made research about women, reproduction,
and production popular. Several of the scholars who
follow this perspective focus on gender as it relates to
class, the social relations of power, and changes in
modes of production.
Contemporary feminist anthropologists constitute the
theory’s third wave, which began in the 1980s.
Feminist anthropologists no longer focus solely on the
issue of gender asymmetry, as this leads to neglect in
fields of anthropology such as archaeology and
physical anthropology (Geller and Stockett, 2006).
Instead, feminist anthropologists now acknowledge
differences through categories such as class, race,
ethnicity, and so forth. Archaeology lags behind
cultural anthropology, however, since the differences
between sex and gender were not considered until the
late 1980s and early 1990s (Conkey and Specter,
1984). The focus of contemporary scholars in third
wave feminist anthropology is the differences existing
among women rather than between males and
females (McGee, Warms 1996: 392). However, this
also encourages considerations of what categories
such as age, occupation, religion, status, and so on
mean and how they interact, moving away from the
issue of male and female. Power is a critical
component of feminist anthropology analysis, since it
constructs and is constructed by identity. Studies
include those that focus on production and work,
reproduction and sexuality, and gender and the state
(Lamphere 1997; Morgen 1989). This has resulted in
a highly fragmented theoretical approach, which is
necessary in its growth since it is based on a
fragmented subject (Geller and Stockett, 2006).

Points of Reaction:
Feminist anthropologists first reacted against the fact
that the discussion of women in the anthropological
literature had been restricted to the areas of
marriage, kinship, and family. Feminist
anthropologists believe that the failure of past
researchers to treat the issues of women and gender
as significant has led to a deficient understanding of
the human experience (McGee and Warms 1996:391,
from Morgen 1989:1). One criticism made by feminist
anthropologists is directed towards the language
being used within the discipline. The use of the word
"man" is ambiguous, sometimes referring to Homo
sapiens as a whole, sometimes in reference to males
only, and sometimes in reference to both
simultaneously. Those making this criticism cited the
Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which stated that language
shapes worldview.
Second wave feminist anthropologists were reacting
against Durkheim’s notion of a static system that can
always too easily be broken down into inherent
dichotomies. Instead, feminist anthropologists seek to
show that the social system is dynamic. They base
this dynamic theory on Marx’s idea that social
relations come down to praxis, or practice (Collier and
Yanagisako 1989). Post-structuralist feminist
anthropologists also criticized the theory of cultural
feminism, opposed by women such as Mary Daly and
Adrienne Rich. This was an essentialist view
suggesting that there is a male and female essence
that validates traditional roles of males and females:
"the cultural feminist reappraisal construes woman's
passivity as her peacefulness, her sentimentality as
her proclivity to nurture, her subjectiveness as her
advanced self-awareness” (Alcoff, 2006). Feminist
anthropologists argue that cultural feminism ignores
the oppressive powers under which traditional values
were created.
Focus on identity and difference has become the merging focus of feminist
anthropology. This means that there is a focus on social categories such as age,
occupation, religion, status, and so on. Power is an important component of analysis
since the construction and enactment of identity occurs through discourses and actions
that are structured by contexts of power (Gellner and Stockett, 2006). Queer theory is
the most recent post-structuralist reaction against the notion of “normalcy” and focuses
on gender and sexuality. Specifically, queer theory challenges heteronormativity, or the
assumption that heterosexuality and the resulting social institutions are the normative
sociosexual structures in all societies (Gellner and Stockett, 2006). Queer theory
challenges the idea that gender is part of the essential self and that it is instead based
upon the socially constructed nature of sexual acts and identities, which consist of
many varied components (Warner, 1993; Barry, 2002).

Leading Figures:

Ruth Benedict (1887-1948): Benedict, a student of

Franz Boas, was an early and influential female
anthropologist, earning her doctorate from Columbia
University in 1923 (Buckner 1997: 34) ?. Her
fieldwork with Native Americans and other groups led
her to develop the "configurational approach" to
culture, seeing cultural systems as working to favor
certain personality types among different societies
(Buckner 1997: 34). Along with Margaret Mead she is
one of the most prominent female anthropologists of
the first half of this century.

Margaret Mead (1901-1978):She was a key figure in the second wave anthropology,
for her work distinguished between sex and gender. Her theories were influenced by
ideas borrowed from Gestalt psychology, that subfield of psychology which analyzed
personality as an interrelated psychological pattern rather than a collection of separate
elements (McGee, Warms 1996:202) Her work separated the biological factors from the
cultural factors that control human behavior and personality development. Her work
influenced Rosaldo's and Lamphere's attempts to build a framework for the emerging
discipline. Mead's work contained an analysis of pervasive sexual asymmetry that fit
with their reading of the ethnographic literature (Levinson, Ember 1996:488).

(Sherry Ortner (1941- ): She isone of the early proponents of feminist anthropology,
constructing an explanatory model for gender asymmetry based on the premise that
the subordination of women is a universal, that is, cross-cultural phenomenon. In an
article published in 1974, “Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?,” she takes a
structuralist approach to the question of gender inequality. She argued that women
have always been symbolically associated with nature. Since nature is subordinate to
men, women are subordinate to men. She suggests that women’s role as childbearer
makes them natural creators, while men are cultural creators (Ortner 1974: 77-78)).
Ortner points out that men without high rank are excluded from things in the same way
women are excluded from them.)

Principal Concepts:
Subordination of women: Initially, feminist
anthropology focused on analysis and development of
theory to explain the subordination of women, which
seemed to be universal and cross-cultural. Several
theories were developed to understand this idea,
including Marxism and binary oppositions.
Marxism: Marxist theory appealed to feminist
anthropologists in the 1970s because "there is no
theory which accounts for the oppression of women in
its endless variety and monotonous similarity, cross-
culturally and throughout history with anything like
the explanatory power of the Marxist theory of class
oppression" (Rubin 1975: 160). The Marxist model
explains that the subordination of women in capitalist
societies, both in terms of their reproductive role, "the
reproduction of labor," as well as their value as
unpaid or underpaid labor, arises from historical
trends predating capitalism itself (Rubin 1975: 160-
164) Engels, in The Origin of the Family, Private
Property, and the State, attempted to explain the
origin of these historical trends (Rubin 1975: 164-5).
Like Marx, he attributed the oppression of women to
shifts in the modes of production at the time of the
Neolithic revolution (Rubin 1975: 169). According to
Engels, once men had property (land or herds), they
desired to transmit them to their offspring via
patrilineal inheritance. This was accomplished by the
overthrow of matrilineal inheritance and descent
systems, leading to the "world historical defeat of the
female sex" (Engels 1972: 120-121).
Universal binary opposition: Anthropologists such
as Rosaldo, Edholm, and Ortner used dichotomies
such as public/domestic, production/reproduction, and
nature/culture (respectively) to explain universal
female subordination. Ortner's use of the dichotomy
to explain the universal subordination of women is
built upon Levi-Strauss's 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 (Pine 1996:254).
In the late 1970's many feminist anthropologists were
beginning to question the concept of universal female
subordination and the usefulness of models based on
dichotomies. Some anthropologists argued that there
existed societies where males and females held roles
that were complementary but equal. The work done
by A. Schlegal and J. Briggs in foraging and tribal
societies is an example of this. K. Sacks used a
modes-of-production analysis to show that "hunter-
gatherers possessed a communal political economy in
which sisters, wives, brothers, and husbands all had
the same relation to productive means and
resources". Another criticism made against the use of
dichotomies was that these dichotomies were Western
categories. They, therefore, are not applicable to
cross-cultural studies and analyses (Lamphere
1996:489).
Domestic power of women: E. Friedl and L.
Lamphere believe that, although females are
subjected to universal subordination, they are not
without individual power. These two anthropologists
emphasize the domestic power of women. This power,
according to this theoretical framework, is
"manifested in individually negotiated relations based
in the domestic sphere but influencing and even
determining male activity in the public sphere" (Pine
1996:254).
Sex/Gender system: The use and development of
the concept “gender” has helped to further separate
feminist anthropology from the use of dichotomies
and the search for universals. Gender, as it came to
replace the term woman in the anthropological
discussions, helped to free the issue of inequality from
biological connotations. These new discussions of
gender brought with them more complex issues of
cross-cultural translation, universality, the
relationship between thought systems and individual
action, and between ideology and material conditions
(Pine 1996: 255). I. Illich defines sex as the "duality
that stretches toward the illusory goal of economic,
political, legal, or social equality between women and
men." He defines gender as the "eminently local and
time bound duality that sets off men and women
under circumstances and conditions that prevent
them from saying, doing, desiring, or perceiving 'the
same thing'" (Minh-ha 1989:105).
Identity: Focus on identity and difference has
become the merging focus of feminist anthropology.
This means that there is a focus on social categories
such as age, occupation, religion, status, and so on.
Power is an important component of analysis since
the construction and enactment of identity occurs
through discourses and actions that are structured by
contexts of power (Gellner and Stockett, 2006).
Queer Theory: Queer theory is the most recent post-
structuralist reaction against the notion of “normalcy”
and focuses on gender and sexuality. Specifically,
queer theory challenges heteronormativity, or the
assumption that heterosexuality and the resulting
social institutions are the normative sociosexual
structures in all societies (Gellner and Stockett,
2006). Queer theory challenges the idea
that gender is part of the essential self and that it is
instead based upon the socially constructed nature of
sexual acts and identities, which consist of many
varied components (Warner, 1993; Barry, 2002).
Methodologies:
The unifying aspect of feminist anthropology is that it
focuses on the role, status, and contributions of
women to their societies. Within this framework,
individual anthropologists explore a wide range of
interests and employ a wide range of theoretical
models to interpret data. It would, consequently, be
problematic to characterize any one approach or
model as predominant within the field at present.
That observation aside, however, one should note
that the field was more unified during its early
development in the 1970s, when the interest was on
developing models to explain the universal
subordination of women.

Criticisms:
Feminist anthropology has been criticized for a
number of issues since its emergence in the 1970s.
Gellner and Stockett (2006) assert that many
criticisms have been a vital part of feminist
anthropology, since it has a postmodernist basis of
questioning assumptions. Without critique, the biases
and assumptions that feminist anthropologists try to
reject cannot be changed.
One early criticism, noted above, was made by female
anthropologists belonging to ethnic minorities. Their
criticism was that white, middle class female
anthropologists were focusing too intensely on issues
of gender. Consequently, the subfield was ignoring
social inequalities arising from issues such as racism
and the unequal distribution of wealth. This criticism
has been redressed both by a heightened awareness
of such issues by the aforementioned white, middle
class feminist anthropologists, as well as the entry of
large numbers of minority anthropologists into the
field.
Additionally, feminist anthropology has been accused
of mirroring the situation they originally criticized. The
field began as a critique of the androcentric bias
deriving from men (male ethnographers) studying
men (male informants). However, it has often been
the case that feminist anthropology consists of
women studying women in the same arrangement.
The field has attempted to address this issue by
focusing more broadly on the issue of gender and
moving away from the "Anthropology of Women" (di
Leonardo 1991: 1).
Finally, the field has always been intimately
associated with the Feminist Movement and has often
been politicized. This practice is problematic on a
number of levels. For one, it alienates many from the
field by projecting an aura of radicalism. For another,
putting politics before attempts at impartial inquiry
tends to lead to research of questionable merit.