Megan Jennaway's theoretical framework in the first half of Sisters and Lovers: Women and Desire in Bali, fuses feminist anthropology, Marxist power asymmetry discourse, and postmodernist concerns of representation and reflexivity. She posits that sexuality and desire have not been explored in Anthropology until recently because they have traditionally been relegated to biological realms and because they are tabooed subjects in many cultures. Most importantly, however, she maintains that sexuality has not been explored because of a male bias in Anthropology. Production of traditional ethnographies entailed a western male anthropologist studying the "other" through a western male lens. Their informants, likewise, tended to be males because "men talk to other men" (Jennaway, 61) as Jennaway expresses. Moreover, women, who were often essentialized as shy, vulnerable, or unapproachable, were difficult to engage in conversation on male-centric topics.
[...] Compatible with Nancy Chodorow's discourse on female subjectivity and male objectivity, Jennaway believes that the subjectivity associated with women may be a more useful means of understanding female desire than the “objectivity” that is associated with males. She also maintains, in accordance with R. Rosaldo, that the gap between and needs bridging. As a female studying other females, she is in many ways already a part of her study. Therefore, it can be argued that she has an advantage in bridging such a gap. [...]
[...] Do all men and women in all cultures experience their respective cultures differently? If so, as the above accounts appear to provoke, what does this say about the nature of Anthropology? If there are male and female “essences”, is it less fruitful to employ a “masculine” anthropological perspective in studying females? Or would both interpretations (masculine and feminine) create a fuller understanding? Are there cases where males can employ a “feminine” perspective? Moreover, when writing on Balinese “culture” (whether from a masculine or female perspective), should anthropologists distinguish between culture and culture? [...]
[...] Supporting Slocum's case, as a woman Jennaway is able to ask different questions from previous male anthropologists studying in Bali and does offer different answers. Reacting against the notion of women as tokens in a status game among men, Jennaway chooses to focus on women's own discourses on marriage. She finds that most women perceive marriage as means of securing economic, emotional, and social stability. She analyzes four different forms of marriage: marriage by request, capture, elopement, and force. In refuting structural-functionalist positions on marriage, she witnessed no association between favored, ideal forms of marriage (e.g. [...]
[...] In a society where a woman's reputation rests on her chastity, using pseudonyms and “fictionalizing” culturally inappropriate desires prevents social backlash against her female informants. Alternatively, it also captures emotion and desire in empathetic ways that simple analyses would lack (Jennaway, 7). On the topic of emotion, it may be noteworthy to mention Nancy Chodorow in light of Jennaway's methodology. Chodorow argues that the feminine personality tends to be involved with concrete feelings, things, and people and draws on personalism and particularism. [...]
[...] Women who were nuns were from relatively affluent families as they required support in form of a house and other economic assistance. Likewise, males who were monks tended to be a middle child for the same socioeconomic reason—the custom of primogeniture ensured inheritance for the first child and an advancement in the parents' own economic situation better ensured inheritance for the youngest child—the middle child faced the least favorable situation (Ortner, 1997). Despite the clear difference in women either choosing to marry or foregoing marriage, both accounts employ a lens through which women (and men in Sherpa case) can be appreciated as active bodies securing the best outcome for themselves whether economic, social, or emotional. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
