Scribd Logo
Загрузить

Добро пожаловать в Scribd!

  • ORTNER - Is Female To Male

    Загружено:

    Emily Leah
    9 просмотров15 страниц
    Sherry Ortner

    Оригинальное название

    ORTNER_Is Female to Male

    Авторское право

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Доступные форматы

    PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd

    Этот документ был вам полезен?

    Это неприемлемый материал?

    Пожаловаться на этот документ
    Sherry Ortner

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    9 просмотров15 страниц

    ORTNER - Is Female To Male

    Загружено:

    Emily Leah
    Sherry Ortner

    Авторское право:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Скачайте в формате PDF или читайте онлайн в Scribd
    Отметить как неприемлемый контент
    из 15
    3 Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture? Sherry B. ‘Much of the creativity of anthropology derives from the tension between two sets of demands: that we explain human universals, and thae we explain cultural particulars. By ¢his canon, woman provides us with one of che more challenging problems to be dealt with. The secondaty status of woman in society is one of the eve universal, a pan-cultural fect. Yer within thar universal fact, the specific eulrral conceptions and symbolizations of woman are extcaordinarily diverse and even mutually contradictory. Further, che actual trearment of women and their relative power and cor- tribution vary enormously from culture 19 culture, and over different periods in the history of particular culrural traditions. Both of these points ~ the universal fact and the cultural variation ~ constitute problems to be explained. ‘My interest in the problem is of course more than academic: I wish to see genuine ehange come about, the emergence of a social and cultural order in whieh as mach of the range of human potential is open to women as is ‘open to men. The wniversalty of female sub- From Sherry B. Ortnes, “Is Female ro Male as Nat Louise Lamphere, Women, Culture, and Society. Ortner ‘ordination, the fact that it exists within every type of socal and economic arrangement and in societies of every degree of complexity, in- dicates to me that we are up against something very profound, very stubbora, something we ‘cannot rout out simply by rearranging 2 few ‘tasks and roles in the social system, or even by reordering the whole economic steuetute. In this paper I ty to expose the underlying logic ‘of cultural thinking that assumes the inferior ity of women; I try to show the highly persua- sive nature of the logic, for if it were not so persuasive, people would not keep subscribing to it, But T also try ro show the social and cultural sources of that logic, to indicate ‘herein lies the potential for change. It is important to sore out the levels of che problem. The confusion can be staggering. For example, depending on which aspect of Chi- nese culture we look at, we might extrapolate any of several entively different guesses con- cerning the status of women in China. In the ideology of Taoism, yin, the female principle, and yang, the male principle, ae given equal weight; “the opposition, alternation, and inter are Isto Culture?;" in Michelle Z. Rosaldo and Stanford, CA: Stanford Univesity Press, 1974 (© 1974 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jz Universry. Reprinted with permission ‘of the publisher and author IS FEMALE TO MALE AS NATURE Is TO CULTURE? B action ofthese two forces give rise to all phe ‘nomena in the universe” (Siu 1968: 2). Hence we might guess that maleness and femaleness are equally valued in the general ideology of Chinese ealture.' Looking at che social truc- ture, however, we see the strongly emphasized patrilineal descent principle, che importance of fone, and the absolute authority of the father in the family. Thus we might conclade chat China is the aicheeypal patriarchal sociery Next, looking at the actual roles played, ower and influence wielded, and material contributions made by women in Chinese 90 ciety ~ all of which ate, upon observation, ‘uite substantial - we would have to say chat women are allotted a great deal of (unspoken) status in the system. Or again, we might focus on the fact that a goddess, Kuan Yin, is the centeal (most worshiped, most depicted) deity in Chinese Buddhism, and we might be tempted to say, af many have ‘tied t0 sey about goddessvorshiping cultures in prehistoric and easly historical societies, that China is actually a sort of matriarchy In short, we must be absolutely clear about what we are trying 0 explain before explain- ing i ‘We may differentiate three levels of the problem: 1, The universal fact of culeucally axwibuted second-class status of woman in every sociey. ‘Two questions are important here, First, what cdo we mean by this; what is our evidence that thisis a universal fact? And second, how are we +o explain this fact, once having established it? 2. Specific ideologies, symbolizations, and socio-structural arrangements pertaining to women that vary widely from culture to cul- ture, The problem at this evel isto account for any particular cultueal complex in terms of factors specific to that group ~ the standard level of anchropological analysis 3. Observable on-the-ground details of ‘women’s activities, contributions, powers, in- uence, ete ofen at variance with cultural ideology (although always constrained within the assumption that women may never be of ficially preeminent in che tocal syste). This is the level of direct observation, often adopted snow by feminist-oriented anthropologists, This paper is primsrily concerned with the fist of these level, the problem of the univer sal devaluation of women. The analysis thus depends not upon specific cultural data but rather upon an analysis of “culture” raken gen: tically as a special sort of process in the World. A discussion of the second level, che problem of erose-cultural variation in concep: ‘hone and celative valuations of women, will entail 2 great deal of cross-cultural research ‘and must be postponed to another time. AS for the third level, i will be obvious from my approach that | would consider it a misguided endeavor to focus only upon women's actual though culturally unrecognized and unvalued powers in any given society, without first ‘understanding the overarching ideology and deeper assumptions ofthe culture that render such powers trivial, The Universality of Female Subordination ‘What do I mean when Isay that everywhere, in every known culture, women are considered in some degree inferior to men? First of all, [must ssress chat Iam talking about cultural eval ations; Lam saying that each culeare, in ite own ‘way and on its own tecms, makes this eval ation. But what would constitute evidence that 1 particular cueute considers women inferior? “Three types of data would suffice: (1) ler ents of cultural ideology and informants’ statements that explicitly devalue women, ‘according them, their roles, their tasks, thei products, and their social milieux less prestige than are accorded men and che male correlates, (2) symbolic devices, suchas the attribution of Gefilement, which may be interpreted as impl- citly making a statement of inferior valuation; and (3) social-steaccoral arrangements thet ex ‘clude women from participation in or contact ‘with some realm in which the bighese powers of the society are felt to reside.* These three types of data may all of course be interrelated in any particular system, though they need not necessarily be. Further, any one of them will usually be sufficient to make the point of fe- male inferiocty in a given culture. Certainly, female exclusion from the most sacred rite or 74 SHERRY 8. ORTNER the highest political council is sufficient evi dence. Certainly, explicit cultural ideology de- valuing women (and their tasks, roles, products, et.) is suicent evidence. Symbolic indicators such as dfilement are usually sufi cient, although in a few cases in which, say, ‘men and women are equally polluting to one another, further indicator i required ~andis, as far as my investigations have ascerained, always available. (On aay or all ofthese counts, then, I would fat assert that we find women subordinated to men in every known society. The search for a genuinely egalitarian, le alone matriarchal, culture has proved fruitless. An example from ‘one society that has traditionally been on the credit side of this ledger will sffice. Among, the matrilineal Crow, as Lowie (1956) points ‘ut, “Women... had highly honorific offices in the Sun Dance; they could become dizecrors of the Tobacco Ceremony and played, if any- thing, 2 more conspicuous part init than the ‘men they sometimes played the hostess in the Cooked Meat Festival they were not debarred from sweating or doctoring or from vecking a vision” (p. 61). Nonetheless, “Women [daring menstruation) formetly rode inferior horses and evidently this loomed as @ source of con- tamination, for they were not allowed to ap- proach either a wounded man or men starting fon a war party. A taboo still lingers against theie coming near sacred objects at these times” (p. 44). Farther just before enumerat- ing women’s rights of participation inthe vari ‘us rituals noted above, Lowie mentions one particular Sun Dance Dall bundle that was not suppored to he unwrapped by a woman (p. 60). Pursuing this teal we find: “According to all Lodge Geass informants and most others the doll owned by Wriakled-face took prece- dence not only of other dolls but of all other Grow medicines whatsoever. ...Thie particu: lar doll was not supposed to be handled by a woman” (p. 229)? In sum, the Ceow are probably 2 fairly 7p- ical case. Yes, women have cerain powers and rights, in this case some that place them in faicly igh positions. Yer ultimately the line is drawn: menstruation is a threat to warfare, fone of the most valued institutions of the ibe, one that i central co ther self-definition; and the most sacced object ofthe tibe is taboo to the direct sight and rouch of women. Similar examples could be multiplied ad inft- aitum, but [think the onus is no longer upon sas to demonstrate that female subordination is 2 cultural universal it is up #0 those who would argue against the point to bring forth ‘counterexamples I shal ake the universal see: ‘ondary status of women as a given, and pro- ceed from there. Nature and Culture* How are we to explain the universal devalu stion of women? We could of course rest the ‘ase on biological determinism. There is some- thing genetically inherent in the male of the species, so the biological determinists would argue, that makes them che naturlly dominant sem that “something” is lacking in females, and as a result women are not only naturally subordinate but in general quite satisfied with their position, since it affords them protection and the opportunity to maximize maternal pleasures, which to them are the most sais Ing experiences of life. Without going into a detailed refuration of this position, I think it fair ro say that it has failed to be established to the satisfaction of almost anyone in academic anthropology. This isto sy, not that biological facts are irelevant, or that men and women are not differen, but that theve facts and dit ferences only take on significance of superior! inferior within the framework of cultarally defined valve systems. If we are unwilling to rest the case on genetic determinism, it seems to me that we have only fone way to proceed. We mast attempt to inter pree female subordination in light of other uni- versal, factors buile into the structure of the ‘most geactalized situation in which all human beings, in whatever culture, find themselves. For example, every human being has a physical body and a sense of nonphysical mind, i part ‘of a society of other individuals and an inberi- tor of a cultural radition, and must engage in some relationship, however mediated, with “ature,” or the nonhuman realm, in order to survive, Every human being is born (to a smother) and ultimarely dies, all are assumed (5 Fact TO MALE AS NATURE'S TO CULTURE? 5 to have an interest in personal survival, and sociesy/euleare has its own interest in (or at Teast momentum toward) continuisy and sur vival, which transcends the lives and deaths of pacicular individuals. And so forth, Itis in the realm of such universals of the human condi tion that we must seek an explanation for the universal fact of female devaluation. translate the problem, in other words, into the following simple question. What could there be in the generalized structure and con- ditions of existence, common to every culture, that would lead every culture to place a lower value upon women? Specifically, my thesis is shat woman is being identified with ~ of, if you will, seems to be a symbol of ~ something that every culeure devalues, something that every caltute defines as being of a lower order of existence than itself. Now it seems that there is only one thing that would fi chat descrip- tion, and tha is “nature” in the most general- ied’ sense. Every culture, of generically, “eultuce,” is engaged in che process of generar ing and sustaining systems of mesningful forms (symbols, arifacts, etc) by means of vwihich humanity transcends the givens of nat tural existence, bends chem to its purposes, controls them in its interest, We may thus broadly equate culture with che notion of Jhuman consciousness, of with the products fof human consciousness i.e, systems of thought and technology), by means of which humanity attempts t© assert control over ‘Now the categories of “nature” and “cul- ture” are of course conceptual categories ~ fone cen find no boundary out in the actual world between the two states or realms of being. And there is no question that some cul- tures articulate 2 much stronget opposition between the two categories then others ~ it thas even been argued that primitive peoples (some or all) do not see or intoit any distine- ton berween che human cultural state and the state of ratuce at all. Yor would maineain that the universaligyof ritual betokens an assertion in all human culeuzes of the specifically human. ability to act upon and regulate, eather than passively move with and be moved by, the fivens of natural existence, In sisal, the pur- posive manipulation of given forms toward regulating and sustaining order, every culture asserts that proper celations between human existence and natural forces depend upon cul> tures employing its special powers to regulate the overall processes of the world and life ‘One sealm of cultural thought in which these points are often articulated is that of concepés of purity and pollution. Vireally every culture has some such belie, which sezm in large part (though act, of course, en tirely) to be concerned with the relationship between culture and nature (Gee Ortner 1973). A well-known aspect of pusitypolls- tion beliefs ceoss-eutarally is chat of the nat- ural “contagion” of pollution; left 0 its own devices, pollution (for these purposes grossly ‘equated withthe unregulated operation of nat ural enesgies) spreads and overpowers all that ie comes in contact with, Thus a puzule ~ if pollution is to strong, how can anything be urified? Why isthe purifying agent not itself polluted? The answer, in keeping with the pre sent line of argument, is that purification i effected ina ritual context; purification ritual, as 4 porposive activity that pits self-conscious (symbolic) action against nacural energies, is more powerful than those energies. Tn any case, my point is simply thar every culture implicitly recognizes and asserts a dis- tinction between the operation of nature and the operation of cultare (human consciousness and its products); and fucthe, that the distiner- ivenese of culture seats precisely on the fact thacit can under most circumstances transcend natural conditions and eum them to its pur poses. ‘Thus culture (.e., every culture) at some level of awareness asserts itself to be not only distinct from but superior to nature, and that sense of distinctiveness and superior- ity rests precisely on the ability to transform ~ to “socialize” and “cultualize”~ nature. Revurning now to the issue of wornen, their panrcultoral second-class status could be ‘accounted for, quite simply, by posvulating that women are being identified or symbolic ally associated with nature, as opposed to men, who are identified with culture, Since i is al ‘ways culture's project to subsume and tran- soend nature, if women were considered part ‘of nature, then culture would find i “natural” to subordinate, not co say oppress, shem. Yer %6 SHERRY 8. ORTHER although this argument can be shown to have considerable foree, it seems to avecsimplify the case. The formulation I would like to de- fend and elaborate on in the following section, then, is that women are seen “merely” as being, closer to nature than men. That i culture (scl equated relatively unambiguovsly with men} recognizes that women are active participants in its special processes, but at the same time sees them 25 being more rooted in, or having more direct affinity wich, ‘The revision may seer minor or even trivial, but I think ic is a more accurate rendering of cultural assumptions. Furthes, the argument casein these terms has several analytic advan: tages over the simpler formulation; I shall dis- cus these Late Ie might simpy be stressed heze that che revised argument would scill account forthe pan-cultural devaluation of women, for even if women are not equated with nature, they are nonetheless sten as representing a lower order of being, as being less transcen= densa of nature than men ace. The next task of the paper then, isto consider why they might be viewed in that way. Why is Woman Seen as Closer to Nature? It all begins of course with the body and the natural procreative functions specific t0 women alone. We can sort out for discussion three levels at which this absolute physi ological face has significance: (1) woman's ody and its functions, more involved more of the time with “species life,” seem to place her loses ro nature, in contrast co man's physi- ‘ology; which frees him more completely t0 take up the projects of cultures (2) woman's body and its functions place her in socal roles that in turn aze considered to be at a lower order of the cultural process chan man's; and {) woman's traditional socal roles, imposed because of her body and its functions, in tue sive her 2 different psychic structure, which, like her physiological nacore and her social roles, is seen as being closee to nature. I shall discuss cach of these points in turn, showing first how in each instance certain factors strongly tend to align woman with nature, then indicating other factors chat demonstrate her full alignment with culture, the combined factors thus placing her ina problematic inter- mediate position. I will become clear in the course of the discussion why men seem by contrast les intermediate, more purely "cul- rural” chan women. And I zeiterate chat [em dealing only atthe evel of cultural and human, universals. These arguments are intended £0 apply to generalized humanity; they grow ‘out of the human condition, ae humanity has experienced and confronted it up to the present day. 1 Woman's physiology seen as closer to nature, This part of my argument has been antci= pated, with subtlety, cogency, and a great deal cof hard daca, by de Beauvoir (1953). De Beau voir reviews the physiological structure, devel- ‘opment, and functions of the human female sand concludes that “the female, to a greater extent than the male, isthe prey ofthe species” (p60), She points out that many major areas and processes of the woman's body serve no apparent function for the health and stability ofthe individual on the contrary, as they per- form their spevfic organic functions, they are ‘often sources of discomfort, pain, and danger. ‘The breasts are irelevant fo personal heslths they may be excised at any time of a women's life. “Many of the ovarian seccetions function for the benefic of che egg, promoting its mat- ‘uration and adapting the uterus to its require _ments; in respect to the organism as a whole, they make for disequilibrium rather then for regulation —the woman is adapted tothe needs fof the egg rather than to her own require- ments” (p. 24). Menstruation is often uncom- fortable sometimes painful; ic frequently bas negative emotional correlates and in any case Involves bothersome casks of cleansing and waste disposal; and — a poine thar de Beauvoir does not mention ~ in many culeures it inter- rupts a woman's routine, parting her in a stig: matized state involving vatious eestricions on hheractvitics and social contacts. In pregnancy many of the woman's vitamin and mineral resources are channeled into nourishing the IS FEMALE TO MALE AS NATURE ISTO CULTURE? 7 fetus, depleting her own stength and energies. And finally, childbirth itself is painful and da igerous (pp. 24-7 passim). In sum, de Beauvoir Concludes thatthe female “is more enslaved ¢o the species chan che male, her animlity is more smanifes”(p. 239). ‘While de Beauvoir's book is ideological, her survey of woman's physiological situation seems fair and accurate. It is simply a fact that proportionately more of woman's body space, fora greater percentage of her lifetime, and at some ~ sometimes great ~ cost to her personal health, strength, and general stability, is taken up with the natural processes 5 rounding the reproduction ofthe species. De Beauvoic goes on to dizcuss the negative implications of woman's “enslavement t0 the species” in relation to the projects in which ‘humans engage, projects through which col- ture is generated and defined, She arives thus atthe crux of her argument (pp. 58-9}: Hire we have the key to the whole mystery (On the biological level a species is maintained only by creating itself anew; bur ths creation esults only in cepeating che same Life in more individuals. But man assuzes the repeition of Life while transending Life cough Exist: tence fie. goal-oriented, meaningful action by this transcendence he creates values that eprive pure repetition of all value, In the “animal he freedom and varey of male activ- ites are rain because ao project is involved xcept for hie services co the specie, what he does is immaterial. Whereas in serving the species, the haman male also remodels che face of the earth, be creates new instruments, hae jnvens, he shapes the future. In other words, woman's body seems to doom her to mere reproduction of life; the male, in contrast, lacking natucal creative fonctions, must (oc has the opportunity £0) assert his creativity externally, “artificially,” through the medium of technology and symbols, In 0 doing, he creates relatively last ing, erernal, wanscendent objecis, while the ‘woman creates only perishables ~ human beings. ‘This formulation opens up a number of im portant insights. It speaks, for example, ro the great purzle of why male activities involving the destruction of life (hunting and warfare) are often given mote prestige than the female's ability co give bicth to create life, Within de Beauvoir's framework, we realize it is noe the killing that is the relevant and valued aspect of hunting and warfare; rather, i is the teanscendental (social, cultural) nature of these activities, as opposed + the natural- ness of the process of birth: “For it is not in giving life bur in risking life that man is raised above the animal; that is why superior: ity hes been accorded in humanity not to the sex that brings forth but co hat which kals" (bid). ‘Thus if male i, a8 1 am suggesting, every- ‘where (unconsciously) associated with culture and female seems close to nature, the cation: ale for these associations is not very dificult ro ‘gasp, merely from considering. the implica- tions of the physiological contrast between male and female, At the tame time, however, woman cannot be consigned fully to the cat gory of nature, for itis perfectly obvious that she is a fallledged human being endowed ‘with human consciousness just as @ man is; she is half of the human race, without whose cooperation the whole enterprise would col: lapse. She may seem moze in the possession ‘of nature than man, but having consciousness, she thinks and speaks; she generates, commu nicates, and manipulates symbols, categories, tnd values. She perticipates in human dia logues not only with other women but also with men. AS Lév-Sirauss says, “Woman could never become just a sign and nothing mote, since even in 2 man's world she is still 2 person, and since insofar as she is defined as 4 siga she must [still be recognized as a gen- erator of signs” (1969a: 496) Indeed, the fact of woman's fall human con- sciousness, her full involvement in and com= mitment ¢o culture’ project of transcendence over nature, may ironically explain another of the great puzzles of “che woman problem" — woman's neaely universal unquestioning. ac- ceptance of her own devaluation. For it would seem that, 25 2 conscious human and member of culture, she has followed out the logic of culeur's arguments and has reached culture's conclusions along with che men. As de Reauvoie puts it (p. 59) 78. SHERRY 8, ORTHER For she, t00 ie an existent, she feels the urge to suupass, and her projects nos mere rept tion but transcendence towards a differnt fourure~ in er heat of hears she finds con- firmasion of the matuline pretesione. She joins the men in the festivals tha eelebrate the successes and vireries of the males. Her rnisfortune is to have been biologically des- ‘ined forthe repetition of Life, when even in her own view Life does not catty within ite fits reasons for being, reasons that are moce important than life itself. In other words, woman’s consciousness ~ her membership, as it were, in culture ~ is evidenced in part by the very fact that she accepts her own devaluation and takes cul tare’s point of view. Thave tried here to show one past of the logic ofthat view, the part thac grows directly from the physiological differences between men and women. Becaute of woman's greater bodily involvement withthe nacural functions surrounding reproduction, she is seen as more 4 part of nature than man is. Yer in part be ‘cause of her consciousness and participation in human social dialogue, she is recognized as @ pacticipant in culture. Thus she appears as something intermediate berveen culture and nature, lower on the scele of transcendence than man. 2 Woman's social role seen as closer to nature. ‘Woman's physiological functions, I have just sxgued, may tend in themselves to motivate! & view of woman as closer to nature, a view she herself, as an observer of herself and the world, would tend co agree with. Woman creates nat rally from within hee own being, whereas an is free to, or forced to, ereate atificially, that is through cultural means, and in such @ way 45 co sustain culture. In addition, T now ‘wish to show how woman's physiological functions have tended universally to limit her ‘social movement, and to confine ber univer- sally ro certain social contexts which in tun are seen as closer to nature. That is, not only her bodily processes but the socal situation in which her bodily processes locate her may ‘ary this significance. And insofar as she is permanently associated (inthe eyes of culture) ‘with these social milieu, they add weight (per- hhaps the decisive part of che burden) to the view of woman as closer to nature. 1 refer hereof course to woman's confinement to the domestic family context, a confinement motiv- ated, no doubs, by her lactation processes. ‘Woman's body like that of al female mam- mals, generates milk daring and after preg. nancy for the feeding of the newborn baby. ‘The baby cannot survive without breast mile cor come similar formula at this stage of life Since the mother’s body goes through its lata tion processes in direct relation toa pregnancy with a particular child, the relationship of pursing between mother and child is sen 45 1 natural bond, other feeding arrangements being seen in most cases as unnatural and makeshift. Mothers and. their childeen, according to cultural reasoning, belong to. gether, Further, children beyond infancy are ‘ot steong enovgh to engage in major work, yet are mobile and unruly and nor capable of understanding various dangers; they thus re= ‘quize supervision and constant care, Mother is the obvious person for this task as an exten sion of her nataral nussing bond with che chil- dren, or because she has a new infant and is already involved with child-osiented activities. Hee oven activities are chus cicumscribed by the imitations and low levels of her children’s stengths and skills she is confined to the domestic family groups “womaa’s place i in the hore.” ‘Woman's association with the domestic ct- cle would contribute to the view of het as closer to nature in several ways. In the frst place, the sheer fact of constant association ‘with ‘children plays a role in the iasae; one can easily see how infants and children might themelves be considered part of nature. In- fants ace barely human and urerly unsocial- ized; like animals they are unable to walk ‘upright, chey excrete without control, they do pot speak. Even slightly older children are clearly not ye fully under the eway of culture ‘They do nor yet understand social duties, re- sponsibilities, and morals, their vocabulary ‘and their range of learned skills are small. One finds implicit recognition of an associ ation between children and nature in many cultural practices, For example, most culrares IS FEMALE TO MALE AS NATURE 5 TO CULTURE? 78 have initiation rites for adolescents (primarily for boys; shal return to this point below, the point of which is to move the child ritually from a less than folly human state into foll participation is society and culture; many cul- tures do not hold funeral ste fr children who die at early ages, explicitly because they are not yet flly social Beings. Thus children aze likely to be categorized with nature, and woman's close association with childzea may compound her potential for being seen as closer to nature herself cis ironic that che cationale for boys? iniiation rites in many cultures is thatthe boys must be purged ofthe defilement accrued from being around mother and other women so much of the time, when in fact much of the ‘woman's defilement may derive from her being round children so much ofthe time. ‘The second major problematic implication ‘of women's close association with the domestic context derives from certain structural con- flies beeween the ferily and society at large in any social system. The implications of the “domesticipublc opposition” in elation to the position of women have been cogently devel- oped by Rosaldo (1974), and I simply wish to show its relevance to the present argument. ‘The notion that the domestic unit ~ the bio- Jogical family charged with reproducing and socializing new members of the society — is ‘opposed to the public entity ~ the superim- posed network of alliances and relationships that is the society ~ is also the basis of Lévi- Strauss argument in the Blomentary Struc tures of Kinship (1969). LeviSerauss argues not only that this opposition is presene in every social system, but further tha it has the sig- nificance ofthe opposition beeween natute and culeuce. The universal incest prohibition’ and its ally che rule of exogemy (masriage outside the group), ensure that “the risk of seeing 2 biological family become escablished as a

    Вам также может понравиться