|
Table of Contents
|
What is Gender Hierarchy?
Harris defines it as:
Etic behavioral and etic mental inequalities in sex-linked power relationships as evidenced by physical abuse (homicide, assault and battery, rape, etc.); differential access to food and sex; ability to give orders to individual adults and have them obeyed; access to political office; access to wealth; and relative degree of freedom of movement and association (no claustration, foot-binding, chaperonage, infibulation, etc.).1
Just as foraging societies throughout the world differ in social structure types: egalitarian or non-egalitarian, simple or complex, or somewhere in between; women's status within hunter-gatherer groups is also extremely variable.2
Scholars of hunter-gatherer societies have found several factors that influence equality between the sexes:
- the amount of time men spend away from women (e.g., on long hunts)
- social structures that provide a foundation for male domination to flourish (e.g., older men arranging marriages for young girls/infants)
- women's access to food (e.g., the control over amount of food, what is eaten, and when eating takes place)
- the open exchange of knowledge between males and females (if monopoly of knowledge develops)
- social and political processes (marriage or a propensity for warfare)
- cultural changes through incorporation of outside ideas and/or technology
To explore the diversity of gender hierarchies within foraging societies, several of these factors have been explored in greater depth below. However, as Robert L. Kelly warns scholars and students, it is important to avoid generalizations in the analysis of foraging societies. The theory that all foraging societies had egalitarian political structures, a defined sexual division of labor and equality between the sexes was first presented at the Man the Hunter conference in 1966. This generalization of foraging societies has shown to be untrue and even within seemingly egalitarian societies, some inequality exists (eg. Ju'/hoansi women only have autonomy and control when they demand it). Diversity, or similarities, between foraging groups are a result of diverse selective pressures and environments, and because of this Kelly encourages scholars and students to take into account the variability present in foraging groups.3 It is necessary to examine the role of authority and power in gender hierarchy and how institutional structures may influence relationships between males and females.4 It is also important to note that "Since equality is a subjective category, interpretation of the degree of sexual equality present in a society is subject to interpreter bias."5 Interpretations of relations between the sexes may be influenced by ethnocentric values as well as differing concepts of status.
Studying Gender Hierarchies in Foraging Societies
Elsie B. Begler explores how anthropologists describe foraging societies and how ethnocentric values and pre-conceived notions can creep into anthropological research. She has explained that many anthropologists believed all hunter-gathering societies practiced male dominance over women based on two assumptions: the importance of nature and the role of hunting in the development of culture and the concept of the biological make-up of humans. It has been suggested by these anthropologists that women concentrate on reproduction and on child bearing, where as men concentrate on subsistence. The theory states that hunting requires cooperation; thus, giving rise to leadership skills and organization among the men that led toward male authority over the supposed less organized female population. Other anthropologists contradicted this belief and said that foraging societies were truly egalitarian before the contact of western civilization and that only through this contact that the transformation of male dominance took place.
Begler has expressed that it is important to: “return to a basic, unresolved question which must be answered before any explanations become meaningful: what, indeed, is the nature of the relations between the sexes in so-called egalitarian societies?” Do men in all egalitarian societies have authority over women, or is it possible that there are societies that are truly egalitarian with women playing important social roles like men? Through research it has been discovered that status in egalitarian societies are achieved, not ascribed, age typically is attributed to status in these societies, sex is associated with ascribed status, and status is often defined in terms of control over produce and participation in public politics. Begler believes that many of these concepts are based on the ideas of how men in western society participate in civilization. She has stated that “I venture to say that if men in our society were traditionally responsible for children, we would measure the status of a woman in other societies by the degree to which they were allowed to participate in child care and education.” Also, Begler expresses discontentment over the idea that the sexes in foraging societies are separate but equal. She states that it is not important to know how the sexes operate when they are separate, but rather how they operate when the two come together.6
Egalitarianism and Gender Hierarchy
The concepts of egalitarianism and gender hierarchy in foraging societies are very closely linked. While egalitarianism defines social and political structure, gender hierarchy specifically concerns the relationship between males and females. Foraging societies may be inegalitarian, semi-egalitarian, wholly egalitarian, or somewhere in between these titles, but this may or may not include the status of women.
Egalitarianism can be defined as either pure or semi egalitarian. Pure egalitarian societies have no sociocentric statuses (no differing status between members). In these societies neither sex has more power or status than the other. However in semi-egalitarian societies men and women are differentiated socially but each sex is still egalitarian within itself, i.e. all the females are equal to the other females and all the males are equal to the other males. The foraging societies that are mentioned below are examples of semi-egalitarian as opposed to purely egalitarian societies.7
For more information see Egalitarianism.
Example
The Australian Aborigines: An Example of Semi-Egalitarianism
The Australian Aborigines have remained egalitarian foragers even with the addition of wage work and governmental handouts. Anthropologists have discovered that in this society women have a great deal of independence and are important economic persons, because the products they gather are a major contribution for the group’s diet. There is evidence for the high status of Australian Aboriginal women in their social practices. Women are not forced to distribute the food that they gather in a prescribed way; rather, they have the power to distribute as they wish. Also, Aboriginal women have the right to arrange marriages for their daughters, even before the daughter is born. A woman may refuse to marry either by complaining or, in some cases, a woman can successfully terminate a marriage by eloping with another man. It seems that the Australian Aborigines display equal rights among the sexes and thus, should be considered pure egalitarians; however, this is not the case. The Australian Aborigines are considered semi-egalitarian, because there are brutal repercussions for women when they do not perform certain tasks appropriately, where as men do not have these same consequences. If a woman does not perform her duties she may be scolded by her mother. If she continues to fail she may be beaten by her uncles, her eldest brother, her father and her husband. In theory, a wife will be taken away from her husband if he continuously mistreats her; however, there is no recorded case of this. It is also evident that women will typically come to the aide of a woman in disputes against other females, and they will come to the aide of a man in disputes with other males, but they never come to the aide of a woman in dispute with a man.8
Examples of Inequality in Australian Aboriginal Society
- A squabble between a husband and wife led to the wife hitting her husband with a stick. The husband responded by gathering three of his kin with spears to threaten her. The spear they threw landed dangerously near the paternal grandmother of the women. After this, the women’s father stepped in, but only in defense of his own mother and not for his daughter. While the husband could gather kin to be on his side, no one sided on that of the woman.
- Because of repeated beatings she received from her husband, a woman left her camp to hide at another camp. Later, she was humiliated in public by her husband, threatened, beaten, and raped until she eventually returned home.
- The aboriginal group, the Walbiri, who have two distinct sections of camp: a man’s side and a women’s side. If a woman ventures to the male side, she is beaten and raped. If a man ventures to the women’s side, people believe that he is contemplating adultery and so the women, that this man is assumed to be the lover of, is beaten by her husband.
- In another aboriginal group, the Ginjingali, fights frequently break out between men over a woman. If no resolution is found, the men beat the woman they are fighting over and sometimes this results in the death of the woman.
The Mbuti Pygmies: An Example of Pure-Egalitarianism
In Mbuti Pygmy society sexual division of labor is typical; however, unlike in most foraging societies the women aid in hunting by chasing creatures into nets for the men to beat down. Fights between men and women often have to do with the men complaining about how inefficient the women are driving game and with the women griping about how the men rely on them too much when they have other more important work to do. A lot of complaining and insults take place among and between men and women, but no physical abuse takes place. Also, women in Pygmy society frequently are involved in public affairs, and when these women speak both men and women listen. In cases when a women has been beaten both men and women will come to the aide of the wronged women. Also, women own the huts, because they make them and have the right to return to the camps of their parents and are not influenced by their husbands in these matters. It is for all of these reasons that the Mbuti Pygmies are considered "pure egalitarian". The following example further contributes to this classification:
"Pepei [a 19 year old unmarried youth] fought another youth with sticks because the other told him to beat the banja sticks, and Pepei said he was not a woman to be ordered around. Tungana's wife then beat Pepei, saying that women do not get ordered around, only children, and this is why nobody will marry him."9
Reasons Gender Hierarchies exist in Foraging Societies
Monopoly of Knowledge
Foraging societies which practice similar subsistence strategies may have differing or variant social systems, namely, the existence or lack of a hierarchal social system due to an elaborate social structure that creates and/or limits access to information. This existence of an elaborate social structure thereby creates a hierarchy of those individuals within the group who are privy to specific information and those that are not. In foraging groups where gathering and motherhood prevent women from having time to participate in public and ritual activity, religious rites and activities are often found to be within the domain of men. Thus, men in these groups have control the religious ideological activity and thus manage access to cultural secrets or knowledge. Exclusion from the religious and/or political structure of the society leaves women in a less powerful position and thus develops a gender hierarchy within the society. Thus, in foraging societies where there is a less elaborate social structure that does not exclude women from public and ritual activity there is an egalitarian social system.10
Example
Power and access to exclusive information provide prestige thus where exclusivity exists and a monopoly on knowledge exists then immediately a hierarchy is created. In the case of Aboriginal societies, the religious rites and activities are predominantly within the men's domain as gathering and motherhood prevent women from having the time to participate in public and ritual activity.11 As men control religious and ideological activity within Aboriginal society, thus controlling access to cultural secrets, the exclusion of women is automatic and endowed with less power than men. It has also been argued by scholars that African and Asian foragers have a less structured social system (including less religious and public activity) such that this monopolization of knowledge is not created and an egalitarian society is maintained.12
Australian Aboriginal men (photo from CineScene) and women (photo from JoyZine).
Result of Social and Political Processes
Marriage
In Jane Collier and Michelle Rosaldo’s article Politics and Gender in Simple Societies the authors suggest that gender hierarchies are best understood as a result of social and political processes. In the article they specifically assess the affect of marriage on gender hierarchies within bride service societies. They assert that because of the nature of marriage in these societies men are more autonomous than women. Continually they add the marriage affects the actions and attitude of both genders.
Men, they argue, are made more autonomous by marriage because marriage is essential for the success of a man in a bride service society. It links him with older generations of males and provides for a larger sharing base. Before a man is married he must work for the approval of older married men and access to women. However once he is married that burden is lifted. The opposite is true for women in bride service societies. Women are given meat from their kin regardless of whether or not they are married. As such, women gain next to nothing from a marriage but rather loose autonomy.
The affects of marriage also seem to have specific effects on the attitudes of men and women in bride service societies. Because marriage is so essential to a man’s success, the largest causes of conflict are the results of sex and violence. However the social standing of women tends to make them play up their sexual skills in order to gain affection and support from their male counterparts. As the authors note women in these simple societies are usually not honored as mothers, nurturers, or gatherer, rather only for their sexuality.13
Example
Collier and Rosaldo built their argument on the study of two foraging societies, the Ju/'hoansi of the Kalahari Desert and the Australian Aborigines.14
Warfare
Marvin Harris offers another explanation for the existence of gender hierarchies, what he terms "the-more-warfare-the-more-sexism" formula. In societies where warfare exists a greater incidence of female subordination has been found.15
"The lives of group members depend to a greater degree on males and males assessment of social and political conditions. Male tasks during times of warfare are simply more critical to the survival of everyone than is female work. Moreover, male aggressiveness and the use of force engendered by warfare and fighting render female opposition to male decisions not only futile but dangerous"16
Another, Jane Collier, states that "a man's avenue to rank and presitge was through warfare and raiding for horses. In so doing, a man acquired horses to hunt and to protect people from enemies." However, she also points out that it was only after a man had achieved high rank through the work of his wives, sons-in-law and brothers-in-law, that he could participate in such activities. The work done and resources gained by his family members provided the man time for war and horse-raiding (Kelly 1995: 288).
Cultural Changes
Incorporation of Outside Ideas and Technology
Forager societies may be grouped together due to a common, although not singular, method of subsistence but all have a unique social system and social structure. However, new ideas and technology may contribute to a change in their social structure and an emergence of gender hierarchies. As the new technology becomes incorporated into the culture, it often becomes a status symbol or a way of exhibiting wealth. In cultures that previously had sharing, the concept of ownership can create a rift between persons and could eventually result in hierarchies.
Example
When European settlers first came to America they brought with them horses, which drastically changed the way of life for many Native Americans. The horse became a status symbol and changed the economic structure of societies which in turn affected the status of different groups of people, such as women, within the tribe.
Richard White stated that the horse brought "benefits" that "accrued disproportionately to men."17 He also suggested that the horse, as a status symbol, gave men wealth and therefore power.
The Crow and Hidatsa Indians of North America were two different tribes who shared a common ancestry. The Hidatsa were horticulturalists, growing various plants including maize, while the Crow were nomadic. However, despite these differences in economy and subsistence, their shared ancestry lead to the development of similar social systems. When Europeans arrived and introduced the horse, the Crow lifestyle changed dramatically.
According to the Great Plains Model developed by Alan Klein, Margot Liberty, and Katherine Weist, the status of women decreased after the introduction of the horse. The way the horse affected the economics of the tribe altered the status of women by increasing the practice of polygyny, increasing the workload, and decreasing the level of control in trade. According to this model, the status of Crow women should decline because the horse influenced the nomadic Crow while the status of the horticultural Hidatsa women should not change.
However, research done by Martha Foster suggests that women in both tribes enjoyed relatively high status and were respected within their tribe by all members. Crow women did not experience a change in status due to the introduction of the horse. There were no records of increased polygyny and women continued to enjoy relatively high status. Women's control over trade did not change, indeed many trade posts seemed to cater to women, carrying beads, pots, and other items that women sought. This example suggests that new technology may not have the influence on gender hierarchies as previously thought, although more research with more diverse groups should be considered.18
A Crow woman in 1890 ( photo from Little Big Horn College Library).
Economic Changes: Sedentarization
Following sedentarization in some previously nomadic hunter-gatherer groups, there has been a notable decrease in gender equality. Gender inequality increased due to a change in motility patterns, however this change is not reason enough to explain why gender inequalities increase following sedentarization. A newly sedentarized group may adopt the economical and technological practices and attitudes from other neighboring non-foraging groups and, in this highly interrelated landscape, this environment will promote gender inequalities in previously egalitarian groups. Some development projects instituted by Western developers under appreciated the role of women in the group’s subsistence strategy thus excluding them from development and decreasing the traditional gender equality.19
Example
The Central Kalahari Basarwa of Kutse, a formerly nomadic foraging group, have not adopted the economic practices and attitudes of neighboring groups to the extent of other nomadic groups. In this example, the influence of patriarchal neighbors, Bantu-speaking groups, on the attitudes and behaviors of the egalitarian Kutse Basarwa increases gender inequality. Also, development projects from Western groups have eroded the equality between females and males in the Kutse Basarwa, where Western developers assume males contribute more to subsistence practices than women thus setting up a male oriented economic development project, excluding women, and lessening the autonomy that they once experienced in the foraging lifestyle. Sedentarization alone did not cause gender inequality in the Kutse Basarwa, instead influence from the outside world have wreaked havoc on the gender hierarchy of the formerly foraging group.20
Woman from the Central Kalahari Basarwa (photo from Namibiana Buchdepot).
Selected Articles and Critical Reviews
Below are links to reviews written by anthropology students which are designed to engage critical thinking of cross-cultural research in foraging societies.
Olga Artemova considers why foraging societies practicing similar subsistence strategies have developed hierarchal social systems in her article, Monopolization of knowledge, social inequality, and female status: A cross-cultural study. Artemova suggests that foraging societies with complex religious or political social structures have developed a monopoly of knowledge in which women are excluded, thus creating gender inequality.
Elsie B. Begler, in her article Sex, Status, and Authority in Egalitarian Society, explores the stipulations for egalitarian societies in foraging populations while introducing the concepts of pure egalitarianism and semi-egalitarianism. Begler finds that it is important to understand foraging societies and their gender hierarchies by studying not only how the sexes interact in their own circles, but how those of different genders react with one another.
Jane F. Collier and Michelle Z. Rosaldo discuss the effect of marriage in a brideservice society on gender hierarchies in their chapter Politics and Gender in Simple Societies.
Bibliography
Artemova, Olga
2003 Monopolization of knowledge, social inequality, and female status: A cross-cultural study. Cross-Cultural Research 37(1):62-80.
Begler, Elsie B.
1978 Sex, Status, and Authority in Egalitarian Society. American Anthropologist 80(3):571-588.
Collier, Jane F. and Michelle Z. Rosaldo
1981 Politics and Gender in Simple Societies. Sexual Meanings: The Cultural Construction of Gender and Sexuality. Sherry B. Ortner and Harriet Whitehead, eds. Pp. 275-329. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Foster, Martha Harroun
1993 Of Baggage and Bondage: Gender and Status among Hidatsa and Crow Women. American Indian Culture and Research Journal 17:121-152.
Harris, Marvin
1993 The Evolution of Human Gender Hierarchies: a trial formulation. In Sex and Gender Hierarchies. Pp. 57-79. Cambridge: University Press.
Kelly, Robert L.
2007 The Foraging Spectrum Diversity in Hunter-Gatherer Lifeways. New York: Percheron Press.
Kent, Susan
1995 Does sedentarization promote gender inequality? A case study from the Kalahari. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 1:513-535.
White, Richard
1991 It's Your Misfortune and None of my Own: A New History of the American West. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
