Feminist Critic of Androcentrism
From it’s early beginning feminist critiques have discussed how androcentricm
influences science in different ways (e.g. Gross 1977; Harding 1986;
Slocum 1975). Also in archaeology several have discussed the impact of
androcentrism on the study of prehistory (e.g. Conkey 1998[1984]:14–23;
Engelstad 1991:510–512; Nelson 1997; Spencer-Wood 2006:61–65). For the
purpose of this paper I will differentiate between the following three levels
or types of androcentrism in archaeology, though they intermingle and
might be said to cause each other. First, there is the overall focus on presumed
male roles, like the (male) hunter, the (male) warrior, the (male)
chief or the (male) farmer. Second, there is the major interest in processes
or activities presumed to mainly concern men or where men are supposed
to be the key actors; such as war, trade, sailing or religious rituals. The
main criticism from feminist archaeologists towards these approaches in
archaeology has not been the focus on men in itself, but the lack of attention
to women, female roles, tasks and objects, and the underlying notion
that everything in society always centres on men. In addition the critiques
have revealed that when women are brought into the picture, female roles
and tasks are often uncritically and stereotypically transferred from our
modern society to the prehistoric community and considered lower in
importance as well as status to those of men (see e.g. Bertelsen et al. 1987;
Conkey 1998[1984]; Gilchrist 1999:17–22; Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon
2002:4; Wylie 1991, see also Spencer-Wood this issue).
The third level of androcentrism is more a matter of epistemology and
concerns interpretations from a male standpoint. Feminist science critique
has shown how social sciences, and as such archaeology, traditionally have
understood society through the eyes of middle-age, middle-class, western
white men (Haraway 1991; Harding 1986; Wylie 1991). This affects which
questions they find interesting to investigate, as well as which explanations
they find most plausible. The interpretations of different objects, buildings
or structures often seem to start with the underlying question: How would
a man use this? What makes this approach problematic is not primarily
that archaeologists traditionally have been men or have seen the prehistory
through their own eyes in itself. Rather it is the implicit assumption of
objectivity and consequently the lack of critical reflection on which factors
may influence their research and how. As men traditionally have not recognised themselves as gendered, gender is not seen as relevant for the
studies and interpretations of prehistory as long as it is not explicitly concerning
women (Kimmel 2000:6; Wylie 1991). A consequence is that (presumed)
male activities and processes are recognized as representing society
as a whole (Conkey 1998[1984]; Haraway 1991; Wylie 1991).
Feminist Critic of Androcentrism
From it’s early beginning feminist critiques have discussed how androcentricm
influences science in different ways (e.g. Gross 1977; Harding 1986;
Slocum 1975). Also in archaeology several have discussed the impact of
androcentrism on the study of prehistory (e.g. Conkey 1998[1984]:14–23;
Engelstad 1991:510–512; Nelson 1997; Spencer-Wood 2006:61–65). For the
purpose of this paper I will differentiate between the following three levels
or types of androcentrism in archaeology, though they intermingle and
might be said to cause each other. First, there is the overall focus on presumed
male roles, like the (male) hunter, the (male) warrior, the (male)
chief or the (male) farmer. Second, there is the major interest in processes
or activities presumed to mainly concern men or where men are supposed
to be the key actors; such as war, trade, sailing or religious rituals. The
main criticism from feminist archaeologists towards these approaches in
archaeology has not been the focus on men in itself, but the lack of attention
to women, female roles, tasks and objects, and the underlying notion
that everything in society always centres on men. In addition the critiques
have revealed that when women are brought into the picture, female roles
and tasks are often uncritically and stereotypically transferred from our
modern society to the prehistoric community and considered lower in
importance as well as status to those of men (see e.g. Bertelsen et al. 1987;
Conkey 1998[1984]; Gilchrist 1999:17–22; Nelson and Rosen-Ayalon
2002:4; Wylie 1991, see also Spencer-Wood this issue).
The third level of androcentrism is more a matter of epistemology and
concerns interpretations from a male standpoint. Feminist science critique
has shown how social sciences, and as such archaeology, traditionally have
understood society through the eyes of middle-age, middle-class, western
white men (Haraway 1991; Harding 1986; Wylie 1991). This affects which
questions they find interesting to investigate, as well as which explanations
they find most plausible. The interpretations of different objects, buildings
or structures often seem to start with the underlying question: How would
a man use this? What makes this approach problematic is not primarily
that archaeologists traditionally have been men or have seen the prehistory
through their own eyes in itself. Rather it is the implicit assumption of
objectivity and consequently the lack of critical reflection on which factors
may influence their research and how. As men traditionally have not recognised themselves as gendered, gender is not seen as relevant for the
studies and interpretations of prehistory as long as it is not explicitly concerning
women (Kimmel 2000:6; Wylie 1991). A consequence is that (presumed)
male activities and processes are recognized as representing society
as a whole (Conkey 1998[1984]; Haraway 1991; Wylie 1991).
การแปล กรุณารอสักครู่..