Growing up, I
was obsessed with “oldies” music. I knew every song on the tapes and CDs my dad
kept in his car and absolutely adored singing along (perhaps off pitch…). One of
the songs that would occasionally come on was James Brown’s “It’s a Man’s Man’s
Man’s World.” The song essentially tells listeners that everything that has
ever been created has been done so by a man (i.e. cars,
train, electric light, boats, children’s toys), but that having a woman or a
girl made it all worthwhile and that men would be lost without women.
You can listen to the song here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwuO2dfqrF4 .
Even as a child, this song didn’t sit well with me (I suppose I have been a feminist since before I knew what it meant). On my way home from ballet one day, “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World” came on the radio. I remember asking my dad why it was a man’s world and he attempted to explain to me that women were not allowed to do all of the things he mentions in his song back then. As a five year old, I was flabbergasted. I remember busting into a mini uproar about how it wasn’t fair. I probably used “Annie Get Your Gun” as my evidence of why James Brown was wrong (as musicals were my other favorite genre of music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0)).
As I sat down to read “Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology” by Sally Slocum, my revulsion for “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World” suddenly resurfaced due to the fact that Slocum was finally making an eloquent and scholarly argument to combat the idea that men are responsible for all things important and good in the world.
In this article, Slocum attacks the “Man the Hunter” thesis of Sherwood Washburn and C. Lancaster and replaces it (or adds to it) with “Woman the Gatherer.” Written in 1968, “Man the Hunter” was a popular theory that proposed that the entire human species inherited behaviors from the tendency of early hominid males to cooperate in hunting and killing animals. However, “Man the Gatherer” provides Slocum with the opportunity to generally critique male bias and how it has and continues to limit the knowledge anthropologists learn because it has and continues to limit the questions asked. She explains that “Man the Hunter” offers her an incredible opportunity for critique because it is an argument that is speculatively made on inferences from a relatively small amount of data, allowing her to show the degree to which male bias impacts perception.
Slocum begins the article by examining the anthropological knowledge itself and breaks it down into three elegant parts: the study of the nature of the human species, what we accept as proof, reality, and the grounds for rationality, and the close examination of the questions asked in anthropology. In this article, Slocum discusses the questions asked in anthropology because she points the inherent flaw in anthropology – “We are human beings studying human beings,” therefore skewing the results based on our own past experiences and culture and causing us to ask certain questions while leaving out others.
Slocum finds this especially troubling because she points out that white Western males are largely responsible for conducting anthropological research in the past, bringing with them their unconscious cultural assumptions and male bias. She then outlines some of the ways in which the field of anthropology is changing, allowing her to present her belief in male bias as an acknowledgement of one of the field’s flaws.
As she begins to counter “Man the Hunter,” she addresses the ambiguous use of gender language and the domination of the importance of the male “hunter” image within the creation of society. Slocum points out that females are entirely left out of Washburn and Lancaster’s theory, pointing out that “A theory who leaves out half of the human species is unbalanced.” In addition, she also attacks the use of the survival of “men hunting,” even though it is no longer necessary, as evidence to demonstrate human evolution.
Slocum continues to analyze the data presented in “Man the Hunter” by presenting counterarguments that interpret the data differently. She criticizes the idea that women stayed home, raising children, while men worked together and hunted, building the community. She criticizes the idea that family, incest prohibitions, and marriage grew out of the need to eliminate competition between males for females. She criticizes the idea that human social and emotional bonds can be traced to the hunter bringing back the food to share. Overall, she criticizes that women were left out of “Man the Hunter,” arguing that the skills described by Washburn and Lancaster are not necessarily genetic, and therefore not definitive or likely.
Slocum then outlines her idea of “Woman the Gatherer.” She argues that the the gathering, carrying, and food sharing of females with their young was the basis for food sharing, tool use and innovation, and the evolution of human cognitive capacities. She argues that baskets and slings for carrying infants and gathered food were the first tools, not materials for hunting. She saw the most important relationship as being between the mother and child, thus framing the roles and functions of culture and social organization and implicating that hunters would have brought food home to their mothers and siblings, not to their mates (i.e. those who shared the strongest bond).
By providing this alternative interpretation based off of the same pool of evidence, Slocum challenged the male bias she perceived and reiterated the importance of the questions that anthropologists are asking. She also explains that, because anthropology is such a male dominated field, it makes sense for women to follow into their male bias and explains gender bias is as real and as important as other types of biases (i.e. race biases). However, she calls anthropologists to change their ways, acknowledge their biases, and work to use it as an advantage.
When this article was written in 1975, feminist anthropology was just beginning to gain popularity. Feminist anthropologists worked to identify and make amends for the perceived male bias they believed to be running rampant throughout anthropology, as evidenced by Slocum’s article.
The reasons Slocum offers to discredit “Man the Hunter” exemplify many of the arguments being made by her feminist anthropologist contemporaries. The exclusion of females from “Man the Hunter” invalidates it in her eyes because it neglects the influence of women on both culture and society. This was a common theme because many anthropologists prior to Slocum did not examine questions relating to femininity, child rearing, domestic life, and other women-dominated social and cultural spheres. Women were being encouraged to investigate these topics and began asking new questions. For this reason, Slocum’s questioning of questions is also an important and relevant topic for her, her fellow feminist anthropologists, and all anthropologists in general.
In addition to the increase in the number of women participating in the field, those in minorities were being encouraged to participate. Slocum uses this article as a way to reemphasize how the female perspective was lacking in the field, especially in the work of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. She also reminds readers that bias is everywhere – not just in those who are part of new minorities participating in anthropology. She highlights that bias exists in previous anthropological assumptions and research and that this must be acknowledged.
Slocum seems to be influenced by her feminist contemporaries and the general anthropological theory of the day (structuralism, cultural ecology and materialism, symbolic and interpretive anthropology, and postmodernism). However, she takes these theories and applies a feminist angle, allowing her to critique previous work and derive new theory to be used for future generations. The importance Slocum places on acknowledging and addressing bias is prominent in postmodernism, showing that post modernism is also affecting feminist anthropology. Postmodernists believe that there is no unbiased knowledge, which Slocum readily points out throughout this work. In addition, Slocum appears to have been influenced by Marx. By examining female labor and deriving its inherent value in the evolution of humankind, she looks at the value of the work that women were contributing domestically. She saw this work as allowing for men’s more public behavior to take place. Looking at the “hidden costs” of the work the women did when scavenging and taking care of the household allowed for Slocum to present a new perspective of human evolution.
Slocum criticizes Washburn and Lancaster for using “survivals” as evidence for their theory, allowing her to discredit a significant part of their argument. Survivals were made popular by Edward Burnett Tylor, who used these current artifacts or practices as present vestiges of, and clues to, past cultural practices. Many anthropologists heavily criticized this theory, including Slocum, showing the decreased influence of Tylor on anthropology in the late twentieth century.
Although she was not necessarily a deconstructionist or post-structuralist, Slocum uses this article to deconstruct the ideas of Man the Hunter and to analyze the structural forces that allowed this argument to become the most prevalent and accepted. This article shows a general trend developing in which preconceived ideas are being taken apart (i.e.men are responsible for cultural evolution), structuralism is being questioned, and power structures are increasingly analyzed and seen as important to the shaping of knowledge, culture, and cultural practices.
Slocum presents a strong case for why “Man the Hunter” is incorrect. Her questioning of biases and counter-arguments cast significant doubt on “Man the Hunter,” and seem to discredit it completely. Overall, Slocum does a fantastic job of showing male bias and emphasizing the importance of recognizing the questions asked and the questions left unasked.
However, in discrediting “Man the Hunter,” Slocum makes the same mistakes. “Woman the Gatherer” seems just as outlandish as “Man the Hunter.” Neither argument possesses the upper hand because neither argument can have authoritative fact (at least based off of the evidence presented in the article). Slocum criticizes Washburn and Lancaster for not acknowledging their biases and for not reiterating that “Man the Hunter” is simply a theory and not authoritative truth. However, she seems to make the same mistakes. Although she never directly states her argument is the correct one, it is implied. She acknowledges her own bias, but uses it to make a counter-argument and not to clarify the ways in which her bias affects her interpretation. In her own article, Slocum does not fully follow through with correcting the criticisms she made about “Man the Hunter.”
Although the work has its flaws, Slocum effectively and eloquently provides a counter-argument to a theory that was widely accepted without really being questioned. It highlights the importance of acknowledging bias and what questions are asked vs. unasked. Both of these issues continue to be important in anthropology today and are as equally applicable now as they were when she wrote "Woman the Gatherer."
Reading “Woman the Gatherer” was empowering because it called out males for assuming they are responsible for everything important in the world and for evolution as a whole. I realize that credit is due to the men who invented cars, train, electric light, and boats, but just because men created these inventions doesn’t mean that women are not capable producers and creators of culture and the world in which we live. Slocum's work is inspirational for both women and those in minorities who are constantly told that others are responsible or more capable of effecting real change, thus making those without power afraid to take risks, change norms, and apply their own perspectives. Slocum suggests that perspective is important. Just because something is less tangible doesn't mean that it cannot influence society and culture to the same, if not greater, capacity.
It seems evident that Slocum would not think we live in a man’s world, but in the same shared world where bias abounds and everyone is capable of being an important contributor and catalyst for cultural change.
You can listen to the song here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwuO2dfqrF4 .
Even as a child, this song didn’t sit well with me (I suppose I have been a feminist since before I knew what it meant). On my way home from ballet one day, “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World” came on the radio. I remember asking my dad why it was a man’s world and he attempted to explain to me that women were not allowed to do all of the things he mentions in his song back then. As a five year old, I was flabbergasted. I remember busting into a mini uproar about how it wasn’t fair. I probably used “Annie Get Your Gun” as my evidence of why James Brown was wrong (as musicals were my other favorite genre of music (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WO23WBji_Z0)).
As I sat down to read “Woman the Gatherer: Male Bias in Anthropology” by Sally Slocum, my revulsion for “It’s a Man’s Man’s Man’s World” suddenly resurfaced due to the fact that Slocum was finally making an eloquent and scholarly argument to combat the idea that men are responsible for all things important and good in the world.
In this article, Slocum attacks the “Man the Hunter” thesis of Sherwood Washburn and C. Lancaster and replaces it (or adds to it) with “Woman the Gatherer.” Written in 1968, “Man the Hunter” was a popular theory that proposed that the entire human species inherited behaviors from the tendency of early hominid males to cooperate in hunting and killing animals. However, “Man the Gatherer” provides Slocum with the opportunity to generally critique male bias and how it has and continues to limit the knowledge anthropologists learn because it has and continues to limit the questions asked. She explains that “Man the Hunter” offers her an incredible opportunity for critique because it is an argument that is speculatively made on inferences from a relatively small amount of data, allowing her to show the degree to which male bias impacts perception.
Slocum begins the article by examining the anthropological knowledge itself and breaks it down into three elegant parts: the study of the nature of the human species, what we accept as proof, reality, and the grounds for rationality, and the close examination of the questions asked in anthropology. In this article, Slocum discusses the questions asked in anthropology because she points the inherent flaw in anthropology – “We are human beings studying human beings,” therefore skewing the results based on our own past experiences and culture and causing us to ask certain questions while leaving out others.
Slocum finds this especially troubling because she points out that white Western males are largely responsible for conducting anthropological research in the past, bringing with them their unconscious cultural assumptions and male bias. She then outlines some of the ways in which the field of anthropology is changing, allowing her to present her belief in male bias as an acknowledgement of one of the field’s flaws.
As she begins to counter “Man the Hunter,” she addresses the ambiguous use of gender language and the domination of the importance of the male “hunter” image within the creation of society. Slocum points out that females are entirely left out of Washburn and Lancaster’s theory, pointing out that “A theory who leaves out half of the human species is unbalanced.” In addition, she also attacks the use of the survival of “men hunting,” even though it is no longer necessary, as evidence to demonstrate human evolution.
Slocum continues to analyze the data presented in “Man the Hunter” by presenting counterarguments that interpret the data differently. She criticizes the idea that women stayed home, raising children, while men worked together and hunted, building the community. She criticizes the idea that family, incest prohibitions, and marriage grew out of the need to eliminate competition between males for females. She criticizes the idea that human social and emotional bonds can be traced to the hunter bringing back the food to share. Overall, she criticizes that women were left out of “Man the Hunter,” arguing that the skills described by Washburn and Lancaster are not necessarily genetic, and therefore not definitive or likely.
Slocum then outlines her idea of “Woman the Gatherer.” She argues that the the gathering, carrying, and food sharing of females with their young was the basis for food sharing, tool use and innovation, and the evolution of human cognitive capacities. She argues that baskets and slings for carrying infants and gathered food were the first tools, not materials for hunting. She saw the most important relationship as being between the mother and child, thus framing the roles and functions of culture and social organization and implicating that hunters would have brought food home to their mothers and siblings, not to their mates (i.e. those who shared the strongest bond).
By providing this alternative interpretation based off of the same pool of evidence, Slocum challenged the male bias she perceived and reiterated the importance of the questions that anthropologists are asking. She also explains that, because anthropology is such a male dominated field, it makes sense for women to follow into their male bias and explains gender bias is as real and as important as other types of biases (i.e. race biases). However, she calls anthropologists to change their ways, acknowledge their biases, and work to use it as an advantage.
When this article was written in 1975, feminist anthropology was just beginning to gain popularity. Feminist anthropologists worked to identify and make amends for the perceived male bias they believed to be running rampant throughout anthropology, as evidenced by Slocum’s article.
The reasons Slocum offers to discredit “Man the Hunter” exemplify many of the arguments being made by her feminist anthropologist contemporaries. The exclusion of females from “Man the Hunter” invalidates it in her eyes because it neglects the influence of women on both culture and society. This was a common theme because many anthropologists prior to Slocum did not examine questions relating to femininity, child rearing, domestic life, and other women-dominated social and cultural spheres. Women were being encouraged to investigate these topics and began asking new questions. For this reason, Slocum’s questioning of questions is also an important and relevant topic for her, her fellow feminist anthropologists, and all anthropologists in general.
In addition to the increase in the number of women participating in the field, those in minorities were being encouraged to participate. Slocum uses this article as a way to reemphasize how the female perspective was lacking in the field, especially in the work of the twentieth and early twenty-first centuries. She also reminds readers that bias is everywhere – not just in those who are part of new minorities participating in anthropology. She highlights that bias exists in previous anthropological assumptions and research and that this must be acknowledged.
Slocum seems to be influenced by her feminist contemporaries and the general anthropological theory of the day (structuralism, cultural ecology and materialism, symbolic and interpretive anthropology, and postmodernism). However, she takes these theories and applies a feminist angle, allowing her to critique previous work and derive new theory to be used for future generations. The importance Slocum places on acknowledging and addressing bias is prominent in postmodernism, showing that post modernism is also affecting feminist anthropology. Postmodernists believe that there is no unbiased knowledge, which Slocum readily points out throughout this work. In addition, Slocum appears to have been influenced by Marx. By examining female labor and deriving its inherent value in the evolution of humankind, she looks at the value of the work that women were contributing domestically. She saw this work as allowing for men’s more public behavior to take place. Looking at the “hidden costs” of the work the women did when scavenging and taking care of the household allowed for Slocum to present a new perspective of human evolution.
Slocum criticizes Washburn and Lancaster for using “survivals” as evidence for their theory, allowing her to discredit a significant part of their argument. Survivals were made popular by Edward Burnett Tylor, who used these current artifacts or practices as present vestiges of, and clues to, past cultural practices. Many anthropologists heavily criticized this theory, including Slocum, showing the decreased influence of Tylor on anthropology in the late twentieth century.
Although she was not necessarily a deconstructionist or post-structuralist, Slocum uses this article to deconstruct the ideas of Man the Hunter and to analyze the structural forces that allowed this argument to become the most prevalent and accepted. This article shows a general trend developing in which preconceived ideas are being taken apart (i.e.men are responsible for cultural evolution), structuralism is being questioned, and power structures are increasingly analyzed and seen as important to the shaping of knowledge, culture, and cultural practices.
Slocum presents a strong case for why “Man the Hunter” is incorrect. Her questioning of biases and counter-arguments cast significant doubt on “Man the Hunter,” and seem to discredit it completely. Overall, Slocum does a fantastic job of showing male bias and emphasizing the importance of recognizing the questions asked and the questions left unasked.
However, in discrediting “Man the Hunter,” Slocum makes the same mistakes. “Woman the Gatherer” seems just as outlandish as “Man the Hunter.” Neither argument possesses the upper hand because neither argument can have authoritative fact (at least based off of the evidence presented in the article). Slocum criticizes Washburn and Lancaster for not acknowledging their biases and for not reiterating that “Man the Hunter” is simply a theory and not authoritative truth. However, she seems to make the same mistakes. Although she never directly states her argument is the correct one, it is implied. She acknowledges her own bias, but uses it to make a counter-argument and not to clarify the ways in which her bias affects her interpretation. In her own article, Slocum does not fully follow through with correcting the criticisms she made about “Man the Hunter.”
Although the work has its flaws, Slocum effectively and eloquently provides a counter-argument to a theory that was widely accepted without really being questioned. It highlights the importance of acknowledging bias and what questions are asked vs. unasked. Both of these issues continue to be important in anthropology today and are as equally applicable now as they were when she wrote "Woman the Gatherer."
Reading “Woman the Gatherer” was empowering because it called out males for assuming they are responsible for everything important in the world and for evolution as a whole. I realize that credit is due to the men who invented cars, train, electric light, and boats, but just because men created these inventions doesn’t mean that women are not capable producers and creators of culture and the world in which we live. Slocum's work is inspirational for both women and those in minorities who are constantly told that others are responsible or more capable of effecting real change, thus making those without power afraid to take risks, change norms, and apply their own perspectives. Slocum suggests that perspective is important. Just because something is less tangible doesn't mean that it cannot influence society and culture to the same, if not greater, capacity.
It seems evident that Slocum would not think we live in a man’s world, but in the same shared world where bias abounds and everyone is capable of being an important contributor and catalyst for cultural change.
Also being raised to appreciate “the oldies but the goodies” I also see the point that Lydia raises. When reading the songs being listed, I could not help but think back to the one song that also invoked odd feelings as a child. That song would be the ever so popular “When a Man Loves a Woman” by Percy Sledge which debuted in 1966. The reason I felt so odd about this song was because I was about seven or eight when I first heard this song. Being the curious child that I was (and arguably still am) I always question this song. It always talked about the man doing things to keep the thing most precious to him: “his woman”. I always questioned as a child, what does a woman do when she loves a man? Listening to the song when I was older, I saw the conservative ideas present in Slocum’s argument. Here the man is seen as provider, comforter, and the bond that keeps the relationship strong. However, this leaves not much room to give the woman any important task in the action that is loving another person. Thus devaluing the woman into as being unimportant in this sense. I can understand Slocum’s point of the inequality in the study of cultures being that I’ve also have had similar thought like her. Why didn’t past ethnographers write about the female perspective on cultures? Why weren’t many songs made about how women love men much like in the same manner as Percy Sledge’s song? This song helps prove Slocum’s “Man as Hunter” in a sense, just going further and showing a dominant position men have held in other areas.
ReplyDeleteHere’s the song with lyrics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8raabzZNqw
Nice comments, Lydia and Ricardo!
ReplyDeletegrgbfdnfd
ReplyDelete