Introduction to Historical and Archaeological Perspectives on Gender Transformations: From Private to Public

Spencer‐Wood, Suzanne M.; Camp, Stacey Lynn

doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-4863-1_1

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Problematizing the androcentric narratives of man the toolmaker (Bird 1993;Gero 1991;Owen 2005: 37-39;Sassaman 1998), man the hunter (Doucette 2001;Brumbach2006a, b, 2009), and man the farmer (Robin 2002(Robin , 2006Watson and Kennedy 1991), various studies of the division of labor have demonstrated that task division does not inevitably align with sex or gender, potentially exhibiting complementary, non-dichotomous, fluid, or intersectional arrangements (Brumfiel and Robin 2008;Cobb 2005;Crass 2001: 109;Geller2008: 122-124, 2009aGero and Scattolin 2002;Hendon 2002;Hollimon 2000;Brumbach 2006a, b, 2009;Joyce 1992;Levy 2006;Preston-Werner 2008;Rotman 2006;Stockett 2005). Rather than hierarchizing contexts of action and domains of inquiry according to value-laden assumptions about gender, researchers are placing greater emphasis on how such spheres intersect in multidimensional and multiscalar ways (Cobb and Croucher 2016;Ferrer 2016;Spencer-Wood 2013).…”

Section: Destabilizing the Binary Binds: Approaches To Differencementioning

confidence: 99%

Introduction to “Binary Binds”: Deconstructing Sex and Gender Dichotomies in Archaeological Practice

Ghisleni

Jordan

Fioccoprile

2016

J Archaeol Method Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the hegemony of binary categorizations. Challenging dichotomies such as man/woman, sex/gender, and biology/culture, approaches informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer theories have moved beyond essentialist and universalist identity constructs to more nuanced configurations. Despite the theoretical emphasis on context, multiplicity, and fluidity, binary starting points continue to streamline the spectrum of variability that is recognized, often reproducing normative assumptions in the evidence. The contributors to this special issue confront how sex, gender, and sexuality categories condition analytical visibility, aiming to develop approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in archaeological practice. The papers push the ontological and epistemological boundaries of bodies, personhood, and archaeological possibility, challenging a priori assumptions that contain how sex, gender, and sexuality categories are constituted and related to each other. Foregrounding intersectional approaches that engage with ambiguity, variability, and difference, this special issue seeks to "de-contain" categories, assumptions, and practices from "binding" our analytical gaze toward only certain kinds of persons and knowledges, in interpretations of the past and practices in the present.The interpretation of sex and gender in archaeology has long been contained by the social polarity of "man" and "woman" as well as the confinement of sex in biology and gender in culture (Joyce 2008;Sofaer 2006;Yates 1993)-what we term the "binary binds." The aim of this special issue is to critically engage with and move beyond the limitations of sex and gender dichotomies in archaeological narratives, with an emphasis on developing approaches that respond to the complexity of theory in practices. The 2 articles emerged from the Archaeology and Gender in Europe 1 (Dommasnes and Montón-Subías 2012: 374, 382) sponsored session at the 2014 Annual Meeting of the European Association of Archaeologists in Istanbul, Turkey. Contributors were challenged to rethink the analytical categories that frame archaeological reconstructions of sex, gender, and sexuality, exploring how binary starting points and methodological practices condition and constrain interpretations of sex and gender variability.We recognize that a call to critically interrogate sex and gender dichotomies is not new. The binary binds and their hierarchical confinement of biological and social difference have been loci of contestation since the emergence of gender as an analytical category in archaeology (e.g., Claassen ). In the past three decades, gender archaeology has made significant strides toward deconstructing the imperatives of these dichotomies, informed by poststructuralist, feminist, and queer

show abstract