Infrastructures, Societies, and History [and Comments]

Godelier, Maurice; Bloch, Maurice; Claessen, Henri J. M.; Gilmore, David D.; Pi‐Sunyer, Oriol; Tagányi, Zoltán

doi:10.1086/202197

Cited by 102 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Engels also made the &dquo;forces or material production&dquo; (the growth of productivity) the prime mover in his argument, as do many modern Marxist anthropologists who assert that in periods of low overall technological productivity &dquo;living labour&dquo; is more important than &dquo;dead labour&dquo; and hence its supply and control (via kinship) becomes the dominant social institution. (See for Godelier, 1978Godelier, , 1981Makarius, 1980 and others). But to argue that a kinship structure is &dquo;functional&dquo; for a hunting-and-gathering or early agricultural economy is not the same as explaining the origin and continued existence of that kinship structure without falling into a functionalist fallacy.…”

Section: Some Methodological Issues and Efforts At Synthesismentioning

confidence: 98%

"Patriarchy:" the Analysis of Women's Oppression

Omvedt¹

1986

Insurgent Sociologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Today not only in North America and Europe but in the third world also women are coming forward to protest their oppression as womento fight against rape, bride-burning, female circumcision, inheritance systems which term them into propertiless dependents, unequal pay, lack of access to work, and sexual violence inside and outside the family. Increasing sections of this movement are becoming boldly and self-confidently feminist, though they nearly always try to formulate their feminism in terms of the special conditions of triply-exploited third world women. So we can see attempts to define a &dquo;popular feminism&dquo; is Peru and other countries of Latin America (Gabriel, 1984), attempts to conceptualize an &dquo;Asian feminism&dquo; (Bandarage, 1983) as well as efforts by many activists in the women's movement in India to trace feminist roots in their own heritage going back to the time of Buddha, the Lokayata philosophy and the first battles against the emerging brahmanic caste-patriarchy. Whatever the country, women revolutionaries now are no longer shy to call themselves feminist, to insist. that socialism must include feminism, to define domestic labor as exploitative, or to openly challenge male chauvinist practices within the left, as a remarkable article by the Association of Salvadoran Women shows (1982). In the process, the concept of &dquo;patriarchy&dquo; is being increasingly used to pinpoint a form of oppression/exploitation that cannot be defined within strictly understood economic terms, that operates within the working class and other oppressed sections almost as much as between them and their ruling class exploiters.In the third world, just as it happened in advanced capitalist societies, reaction to the rise of feminism comes not only from bourgeois forces who scorn and mock &dquo;women's lib&dquo; when they don't try openly to suppress women's organizations, but also from the traditional left. The traditional Marxist left in India and elsewhere, whose leadership remains almost entirely male, has tended to define (ill kinds of feminism as &dquo;petty-bourgeois&dquo; and to see the use of concepts like &dquo;patriarchy&dquo; as anti-Marxist and as a challenge to their efforts to integrate all social phenomena into a &dquo;class&dquo; analysis or narrowly defined concepts of &dquo;mode of production&dquo;, &dquo;economic base&dquo; and the like.In India, there have been fierce debates on this issue, debates not only between academics and party activists, but between women activists in the traditional left parties and women activists of newly emerging autonomous women's groups. Such debates marked the first session of the National Conference on Women's Studies in Bombay in 1981, and they are not likely to end soon.The value of such debates is to push feminist activists and academics to define cleariy exactly what is meant by &dquo;patriarchy&dquo; and its link with class, caste or other structures of socialeconomic oppression. This paper will attempt to do this by a critical examination of the...

show abstract

Section: Some Methodological Issues and Efforts At Synthesismentioning

confidence: 98%

"Patriarchy:" the Analysis of Women's Oppression

Omvedt¹

1986

Insurgent Sociologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…"Seja por ignorância, ou desagrado pelo raciocínio matemático, poucos 'economistas políticos' têm empregado as ferramentas analíticas estruturais para examinar as relações entre estados e grupos de interesse" (Wellman, 1988, p. 30). Inspirado em Godelier (1978) Na avaliação deste autor, as técnicas de elaboração de modelos de redes poderiam proporcionar ferramentas úteis para estudar os mecanismos de câmbios estruturais a grande escala. Segundo ele, "integrar as contribuições da análise estrutural [...] com um trabalho histórico sério poderia melhorar nossa compreensão sobre tais câmbios" (Idem, p. 47, grifo meu).…”

Section: Ars Classes Sociais E Marxismounclassified

“…o texto de Maurice Godelier (1978) e The Insurgent Sociologist Journal, edição especial sobre "Marxism and Structuralism", 9 (1), 1979.…”

Section: Ars Classes Sociais E Marxismounclassified

Análise de redes sociais, classes sociais e marxismo

Minella¹

2013

Rev. bras. Ci. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These processual actor-based approaches indude applications of economics of flexibility (McCay 1978(McCay , 1981, economic dedsion making (Laughlin 1974, Rutz 1977, and optimal foraging theory (Keegan 1986;McCay 1981;Winterhalder and Smith 1981). Intrasodetal conflicts of interest, especially involving dass disünctions, are also gaining attention (Bloch 1975;Brumfiel 1983;Conrad and Demarest 1984;Friedman and Rowlands 1978;Godelier 1978;Patterson and Gailey 1987). Archaeologists have partidpated in the critique of systems theory (Brumfiel 1992;Dunnell 1980;]oyce 1991:598-603;Mithen 1989;Rindos 1984;Wenke 1981) and are beginning to consider actor-based approach es (Brumfiel1992; ]ochim 1976; ]oyce 1994a; ]oyce and Winter 1993;Keene 1981;Schortman 1989;Schortman and Urban 1987).…”

Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies

Manzanilla¹

1997

Fundamental Issues in Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infrastructures, Societies, and History [and Comments]

Cited by 102 publications

References 6 publications

"Patriarchy:" the Analysis of Women's Oppression

"Patriarchy:" the Analysis of Women's Oppression

Análise de redes sociais, classes sociais e marxismo

Emergence and Change in Early Urban Societies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About