My current "To Read" stack is at least 35 books deep. I have this notion (perhaps silly?) that I can actually read them all before I start grad school in August, if only I put down the computer and really start reading again. The simple truth is that, of course, I could read 35 books by August. I used to read at least 2 books a week. Now, not so much....and the internet is mostly to blame. Damn you cursed internet! Why are you so beguiling?
Not having time, or at least feeling as though I didn't have time, during the last several of the 10 odd years it took me to finish my BA while working didn't help either. Somehow, it felt less like I was being too distracted from school if I spent time on the internet than if I spent time reading what I wanted to read (in book form.) I'm currently working diligently to break the habits of not reading enough books, often enough and to return to my former ways; I've read 7 books in the last month and having recently started/joined a book club with a friend helps. It's struggle though. And yet, somehow, that doesn't stop me from desiring more books on a pretty regular basis.
I was just made aware of this brand new book by way of another blog and am filled with such an intense desire to own it immediately that I just don't quite know what to do with myself. I suspect it would have been such a huge addition to the study I did two years ago for my senior thesis and contains at least one essay by one of my Anthropological heroes, Robbie Davis-Floyd. It's just a shame that the $189.00 price tag is so incredibly off-putting. However, with a title like Childbirth Across Cultures it will have to become a part of library at some point, and will hopefully be an invaluable reference for my eventual graduate level thesis research.
Speaking of too many books, as I went to add Childbirth Across Cultures to my Amazon wish-list (which I use more as a convenient way to keep track of the books I want to read/buy than to actually order off of Amazon) I noticed that it already contains 376 other books. Oy veigh. Someday we will have a house large enough for a real library....or at least one with many, many built in shelves all over the house.
T says I can't take all the books I currently own with us when we move to North Carolina next year. Given that, or even the option of taking them anyway, I should really should work on not adding anymore books to my collection between now and August, or at least attempt to glean the shelves of things I really don't want and can donate to Title Wave.
Really though....how is one ever supposed to read all the books one would hope to read in a lifetime? Aren't there just simply too many?
Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Anthropology. Show all posts
Monday, November 23, 2009
Monday, October 29, 2007
More thoughts on Feminism and Medical Anthropology...
I just had a small epiphany. Frequently the problem of many medical anthropologists, myself included, with the standard western biomedical complex is that it tends to lean toward reducing everything to biology.
However, this is precisely the problem with critical feminist theory, in medical anthropology and elsewhere. Feminism leads to a perspective that is entirely too reductionist in nature. I suppose that is the risk you run with any theory, especially critical theories.
People are too tied to their ideas and the motivation behind the development of such theories. But tunnel vision is dangerous in theory and anthropology (esp. medical or applied I think.) People are going to end up missing the big picture...and probably several smaller more nuanced parts of the picture as well.
People are complex, neither biology nor behavior nor culture can be easily reduced by any theory, no matter how hard anyone tries.
However, this is precisely the problem with critical feminist theory, in medical anthropology and elsewhere. Feminism leads to a perspective that is entirely too reductionist in nature. I suppose that is the risk you run with any theory, especially critical theories.
People are too tied to their ideas and the motivation behind the development of such theories. But tunnel vision is dangerous in theory and anthropology (esp. medical or applied I think.) People are going to end up missing the big picture...and probably several smaller more nuanced parts of the picture as well.
People are complex, neither biology nor behavior nor culture can be easily reduced by any theory, no matter how hard anyone tries.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Feminism and Theory
I'm having issues with critical feminist theory.
When I was in high school I felt very strongly that I was a feminist, but felt uncomfortable with the term...much the same way many liberal people seem uncomfortable with the term "liberal." The problem is that liberals who feel constrained by some of the potentially negative connotations with the term have "progressive" as an alternative. I was not sure in high school, nor am I now, what term I can substitute for feminism.
The issue is that, certainly on many levels I am a feminist. I feel a distinct level of disquiet in terms of the place of women in the workforce (i.e. equal pay for equal work) and am frequently frustrated by the clear devaluing of many traditional "female" roles...as well as my need to differentiate myself from "the girls." I feel the conflict and double standard between thinking of women (and myself) as sexually empowered and free to choose versus the woman as slut or as sexually objectified person. I feel the conflict between my own need to proceed in all things rationally and my sometimes uncontrollable tendencies toward emotional response. And I sometimes feel frustrated at my insistence on calling the later "behaving like a girl" with a distinct negative connotation.
All that being said, I'm a feminist. I desire equal rights, equal treatment and equal respect for my gender. And the crux, perhaps especially for women of my generation, is demanding this while also embracing the differences that are inherent to the sexes and genders (based as much an evolutionary-biological perspective, as a cultural perspective.) I'm not sure. But really, none of that has much at all to do with the issues I'm having.
Because of where many of my professional and academic interests lie (reproductive medicine and reproductive medical anthropology) I find myself reading a lot that seems to have been written by one form or another of a critical feminist. And I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with the stands taken by said personages. I am, in many regards, a Neo-Marxist. I do view many issues of the world in terms of who holds power over whom and the resultant outcomes. However, I'm realizing that this does not extend into a strong critical feminist framework of thought in my brain, especially in terms of medical anthropology.
Too much of the feminist perspective is about the bio-medical complex trying to keep the woman down. I do believe that too much of the Western bio-medical complex looks at many things (not just reproduction and reproductive cycles) in terms of disease and ill-health, however I believe this is a problem system wide and not directed simply at women's issues. It's a problem with the cultural upbringing of the complex. Western bio-medical providers, at present, exist primarily as problem solvers. It's why more providers practice curative medicine than preventative medicine. In this country especially, it is probably due, at least in part, to the profit and corporation based system under which we operate.
Yet still, I'm a firm proponent of the bio-medical complex (something of which I someday intend to be a practitioner.) And it is difficult for me to believe that the system is still governed in an entirely patriarchal way that just hopes to point out how weak and unfit women are. The issue is not about being in control of women, it is simply about being in control. (Which, we must admit, has led to a lot of gains in terms of survival rates of humans in general, and particularly for women of child bearing age and their offspring.) The feminist perspective seems to be too wholeheartedly dismissive of medical intervention without firm scientific reasoning for such a standpoint. Yes, interventions happen unnecessarily, and probably too frequently, but it's a complex issue.
I'm currently reading this book, or trying to read, that I just ordered from Amazon.com. I was all excited about it, just like the last one I ordered for the same purpose (a paper I'm supposedly writing on how immigrant women perceive the childbirth experiences here)...but find myself frustrated as I go along. I was able to deal with this perspective from the books that are 30 or 40 years old. A generation ago feminism NEEDED to be different. A generation ago feminism needed to be highly critical of our patriarchal system. A generation ago women really were being kept down as a whole.
But, the author of the book I'm reading now originally wrote it in the early 90's. A new edition came out early this decade. This women, as is the case with many women who are interested in the cultural transects of reproduction, are just too focused on the narrow feminist world-view which is, frankly, outdated. It just turns everything into too black and white an issue. Nothing is simple and black and white. All issues that deal with human health and human culture are complex and multi-layered.
Seriously, is the issue REALLY that the bio-medical complex views sperm as virile and aggressive while viewing the uterus and ovaries as passive receptors?
When I was in high school I felt very strongly that I was a feminist, but felt uncomfortable with the term...much the same way many liberal people seem uncomfortable with the term "liberal." The problem is that liberals who feel constrained by some of the potentially negative connotations with the term have "progressive" as an alternative. I was not sure in high school, nor am I now, what term I can substitute for feminism.
The issue is that, certainly on many levels I am a feminist. I feel a distinct level of disquiet in terms of the place of women in the workforce (i.e. equal pay for equal work) and am frequently frustrated by the clear devaluing of many traditional "female" roles...as well as my need to differentiate myself from "the girls." I feel the conflict and double standard between thinking of women (and myself) as sexually empowered and free to choose versus the woman as slut or as sexually objectified person. I feel the conflict between my own need to proceed in all things rationally and my sometimes uncontrollable tendencies toward emotional response. And I sometimes feel frustrated at my insistence on calling the later "behaving like a girl" with a distinct negative connotation.
All that being said, I'm a feminist. I desire equal rights, equal treatment and equal respect for my gender. And the crux, perhaps especially for women of my generation, is demanding this while also embracing the differences that are inherent to the sexes and genders (based as much an evolutionary-biological perspective, as a cultural perspective.) I'm not sure. But really, none of that has much at all to do with the issues I'm having.
Because of where many of my professional and academic interests lie (reproductive medicine and reproductive medical anthropology) I find myself reading a lot that seems to have been written by one form or another of a critical feminist. And I'm finding myself increasingly uncomfortable with the stands taken by said personages. I am, in many regards, a Neo-Marxist. I do view many issues of the world in terms of who holds power over whom and the resultant outcomes. However, I'm realizing that this does not extend into a strong critical feminist framework of thought in my brain, especially in terms of medical anthropology.
Too much of the feminist perspective is about the bio-medical complex trying to keep the woman down. I do believe that too much of the Western bio-medical complex looks at many things (not just reproduction and reproductive cycles) in terms of disease and ill-health, however I believe this is a problem system wide and not directed simply at women's issues. It's a problem with the cultural upbringing of the complex. Western bio-medical providers, at present, exist primarily as problem solvers. It's why more providers practice curative medicine than preventative medicine. In this country especially, it is probably due, at least in part, to the profit and corporation based system under which we operate.
Yet still, I'm a firm proponent of the bio-medical complex (something of which I someday intend to be a practitioner.) And it is difficult for me to believe that the system is still governed in an entirely patriarchal way that just hopes to point out how weak and unfit women are. The issue is not about being in control of women, it is simply about being in control. (Which, we must admit, has led to a lot of gains in terms of survival rates of humans in general, and particularly for women of child bearing age and their offspring.) The feminist perspective seems to be too wholeheartedly dismissive of medical intervention without firm scientific reasoning for such a standpoint. Yes, interventions happen unnecessarily, and probably too frequently, but it's a complex issue.
I'm currently reading this book, or trying to read, that I just ordered from Amazon.com. I was all excited about it, just like the last one I ordered for the same purpose (a paper I'm supposedly writing on how immigrant women perceive the childbirth experiences here)...but find myself frustrated as I go along. I was able to deal with this perspective from the books that are 30 or 40 years old. A generation ago feminism NEEDED to be different. A generation ago feminism needed to be highly critical of our patriarchal system. A generation ago women really were being kept down as a whole.
But, the author of the book I'm reading now originally wrote it in the early 90's. A new edition came out early this decade. This women, as is the case with many women who are interested in the cultural transects of reproduction, are just too focused on the narrow feminist world-view which is, frankly, outdated. It just turns everything into too black and white an issue. Nothing is simple and black and white. All issues that deal with human health and human culture are complex and multi-layered.
Seriously, is the issue REALLY that the bio-medical complex views sperm as virile and aggressive while viewing the uterus and ovaries as passive receptors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)