·One of the more interesting and controversial topics nowadays in socialanthropology is the issue of gender. The debate has led to Ireate~~!f:!~JlectiQnon the part of social scientists than is usual, and becau~ of this reflexivity theanthropologist's passive acceptance of an ideological charter of --I?~~_e~~!1dpower relations embedded within the Western paradigm of gender relations isbeing revealed. Also, because the questions asked are of such topical interest toquestions about modern Western politics and morality, the political and moralcontent of the arguments are closer to the surface ~han is normally the case,thereby highlighting - or even mocking - the illusory quest for the separation offact and value in social studies.

Just over a decade Cigo,in 1974, the collection of essays, Woman, Culture and__§.l!E~~~)!..,.edited b~R~sald9)and Lamphere, was published~ The contributors tothis volume criticized anthropology as a discipline for its male bias inethnographic descriptions and theory constructions. They noted that because ofthis bias the voice of women, who universally get the short end of the stick when itcomes to power relations and who therefore are associated with the devalued,was left out of descriptions. To quote Rosaldo and Lamphere (1974: 9):

Because men everywhere tend to have more prestige than women, and because menare usually associated with social roles of dominance and authority, most previousdescriptions of SOCIal processes have treated women as being theoretically·uninteresting. Women who exercise power are seen as deviants, manipulators, or, atbest. exceptions.

The contributors, and especially ~(1974), argued that women areuniversally devalued because of ~~~_iEr.~P.!S?E~_~tive~~2~c;ities,which place themculturally on the side of ~ure, the emotions, the particular, the domestic, theprivate - and the irrelevant.--

That women had been ignored as informants during the fieldwork process is,without question, a sad commentary both on lack of ethnographic objectivity

tntemational Journal of Moral and Social StudiesVol. I, No.2: Summer, 1986

~~--..-~------------ .•.--------------~

and ma.~ in anthropological thinking. The question that led to debate, andstill is subject to it, centres on the universality of such a bias. Is male biasuniversal, or is it a more restricted 'problem' created by our own Westernprejudices? Quite correctly, some authors stressed the methodological pitfalls ofany formulation where the project was to discover the universal 'essence' 5?X ~.~.!~.domination abstracted from history and cultural co....nte~t. Such abstractions arebut grist for the socio-biologist's mill, and thus. work, against the feminist'sintentions (see Lowe 1983, Smith 1983: 123). It could be seen to be natural for-----_._-,-_.,--_.-._._ ..--,. __ .._--~_._ ..~..• _._-_.""'-._.-

men to be dominant. Women could be viewed as naturally, and not justculturally, subordinate. .

A second observation was that the problem itself, when phrased so as to relatemale domination and female subordination to the devaluation of women as 'of---------- ------nature', 'ignorant', 'uncontrolled', and 'of the domestic domain', placed itdecidedly within the idcology of the We~ten:l..p.~~~_<;U~~rpower relati<?.!!.~:Assuch, it becomes but one with the powerful myth about gender relationsassociated with the rise of science. Jordanova has elegantly argued (1980) that inthe West this image of the female is a construction of Enlightenment writers,who. forming a small and powerful male elite, imposed their values in the name ofsocial, scientific. and mcdical progress (1980: 61, 64). Nature, which was to bedominated, understood. manipulated, was frequently designated by these writersas a woman to be unveiled, uncl<;>thed, and penetrated by masculine science(Jordanova 1980: 45) I. Jordanova further observes that an ideology whichequated women with subordinate status and animalistic nature (and with thehated Church) was pan of a scheme for domination and exploitation aimed atvery specific ends. It dId not in fact reflect the rather chaotic material conditionsof the time. but rather was a programme of reforms to create a certain kind ofuniverse where nature. a category including other peoples and societies. was to bea realIT' (JrJ~Vl ""hlch European man acted and which he controlled. ~

T~.~ 'pr'"'blem' of gender. then. when placed within comparative framework,becomes in large part one of not taking the rhetoric and claims of Western scienceat face value. In the meantlme. we have learned in the process of our mistake agood dcal about \\reSlern Imagcs and cvaluations of gender. its moral judgementsahout it. The)' are hased on a hierarchy of values in Western folk usage arising inpart from a popularllatlon of.:Q~sc~ views on mind and body andEnlightenment rhetoric In general (see Parkin' 1985: 135-7; Overing 1985: 7,9.21).Western academic notions of order and rationality favour the play of dominanceand subordination. In so doing they assume the (universal) authority of the logicof such hierarchical oppositions as reason over emotions, mind over the body,the universal over the particular, culture over nature, man over nature, man overwoman - and of special importance to anthropological analysis, the political over

)' the domestic and the public over the private. The ethnographic evidence supportsthe view that this particular package of values is not a universal.

The contributors to the volume Nature, Culture and Gehder , edited by

,M~Mnd~ and published in 1980, explore specifically andtlui>ugli rich ethnographic detail the difficulties of applying the analogy ofwomen: nature :: men: culture cross-culturally. As SJrathern observ~s (1980:219), we must always be wary of translating other people's dichotomies intoschemes of our own. And as MacCormack concludes (1980: 17):

The statement that women are doomed by their biology to be natural, not cultural,is of course a mythic statement...

Moreover, the metaphor of culture's dominion over nature is far fromuniversally recognized, and, as Strathern suggests (1980: 216, 1984: 16), it is ourown notions of property and our own view of the natural world as acted uponthat makes the metaphor a salient one for us. Strathern goes on to note that(1980: 217):

It is our culture which sets up males as creators and inventors and females thereforeas perilously near objects, for we define 'culture' itself as manifested in things whichare made and are alienable ...

Women within such a scheme, being viewed as obj~~_t_s,are then treated as anatural resource (Stra thern 1980: 217) - as indeed they also are in ethnographictheety construction. However, thc:_~ntrat~.Q~~!:!)_~f!1!Cln)'~p~~eti~~_is'.!~L~~at?!.

'i. dominating the environrn.~!lJ, and images of gender therefore can be framedagainst the backdrop of ontological concerns radically different from our own.AS(~~~~~ in the same volume observes (1980: 172):

it culture's understanding of its supremacy is not universally demonstrated. then"the argument for using that attitude as the underlying metaphor for men'ssubordination of women cannot be easily made. To say that culturcs are ccntrallyconcerned with dominating their environments is drastically to underrate thecomplexity of indigenous cosmologies and to deny the importance of differentobsessions. .

By listening only to our own 'discourse on the natural', by imposing our ownptCuUar obsessions upon others, we can see these others only as a (poor)reflection of ourselves (also see Overing 1985a: 20, 1985b: 173-174).

It is dear that in the West our understanding of gender is tied to notions notjust about the relations between the sexes, but to more ~ner~lideas about how"f~!~tf_!~~_djJTerentfrom (ind superior to -Q~turc;/Atthe core of this paradigm ofthg felation of culture to nature is also a theory about powet '!!!fL!!lep_oJ~tical,whil;h includes' very specific notions about relations of domination andsub(:)rdination, exploitation, coercion, control, and, of course, inequali-ty. Apoint that is not without relevance to a discussion on the perils of ethnocentrismis that ift the West these relationship~~_r~_~nv!saged on one powerful level, atI~a§t, as having amoral content: _humankind's relat!_~r:t_!~._the<:E_~!~_~_~~~!'!tis

(theoretically) an exploitative one without a morality to order it; the scientist'struths, free from value, are amoral ones3• I think that one can say withoutstretching the truth too much that our theories of power and the politi~t=~!!4_QJgender relation~._=_!endto reflect this bias to\\'ii!Q.Jhe amoral f()l:"Jh~Qmi~gfromthe world of science._Our view of power and dominance, then, carries with it agood deal of baggage. The understal!,gJpgofWestern science both qftruth and of~!leJ~!:~perrelationship of humans !.o the environ~£~_~co.ntrasts sharply with theidea systems of many other societies where both truths and the relationships ofhuman beings to the environment are seen to have moral, social, and politi9al.value4• Following this line of thought, we should expect theories of power

X relationships in many other societies to differ substantially from our own. Yet inthe continuing debate on gender in anthropology very little direct attention hasbeen paid either to systems of morality or to variations in conceptions of powerand the political 5 • Our o--;~epresentations of oppression; donunatio~-,--andinequality tend to direct and shape the descriptions of gender relations andconclusions about them.

Aside from the disturbing fact that there exist various modes of discourse inanthropology which appear in a variety of modern guises and which entail,inadvertently or otherwise, .re:rior commitment to se.eing_!-l!~ub_<?!dil!a~i2noJ_women as being the norm , many contributors to the gender question still

t. ass.ume as.!l1eir starting _point_t~e subordinate predicament of women as. aumversal.cOr1~~E_andW_b!~.elt.~~_gA1981a: x) define ~.I}.4~L.~~_..~_Jor:!!1__QL~Q~1~LiJ1~_9.!!_~h!yand therefore view the study of gender as 'inherently a study ofrelations of asymmetrical power and opportunity' (Ortner and Whitehead 1981b: 4). They argue that (Ortner and Whitehead 1981b: 16, their italics):

A gender system I" first and foremost a prestige structure itself ... ln every knownsociety. men and women compose two differentIally valued tcrm"s of a val.ue set. men 1

being as men, hIgher E:;~ 0/) '2. Vle<\{,t\ "'_ (?-fJt/}-.

No longer assuming a universal in the content of asymmetry. their goal is to':lTlaJ).·_~~_.tJ!~__~~Eiety 0 r ~OCI o-cu Itura I ma niresta tions <?llh~._I~n_~i_!\[_()rmen over~mC;.D:

In recent scheme~ constructed on the basis of comparative data of maledomination. tht;rei~ ..(1rl ...~~,?lutiona.r..Y bias which takes a surp'rising turn. In themore politiGilly egaliLI r l:m societies. 'simple' ones. such as hunter and gatheringgroups and those that cumbine hunting and gathering with agriculture. whereone would expect to see more egalit~rian relations between the sexes, theconclusion has been the reverse. It is argued that one of the primary ways inwhich political and social dominance is e~~~,sed in such societies is tbroughgender (Ortner and \Vhi tehead 1981b: 16, Collier and Rosaldo 1981r,while in'tf10fe advanced' societies 'gender recedes into the background as a formal socialorganizational principle', and male dominance becomes primarily expressed

r-~'-.., ~--~----------- .

instead through psychol()~ical Dleans (Ortner and Whitehead 1981b: 16)8. TheMarxian argument of(MelllassQll}~is that the formation of the sexual division oflabQ.Yr,itself, entailed the'soCio=political subjugation of women, and th~s mad;'the woman (or slave) a servant of men' (Meillassoux (1975) 1981: 21). Kinshipinstitutions, such as m?rriage, conjugality and p~temal filiation, were imposedupon women by men to be the m~ns "thr,2u£~i~_~e~ constr!lined women togain control over both the means o(~eprod:':lc~iO~_~!!~la~o~~ (Meillassoux (1975)1981: xii-xiii, 20). In societies where hunting - and therefore war - is valued,Meillassoux continues «1975) 1981:28=29), women are correspondinglydevalued and made inferior because of their social vulnerability, and thus 'put towork under male protection and given the least rewarding, the most tedious andabove all. the least gratifying ta~!-~_such as agriculture and cooking' (Meillassoux(1975) 1981: 19, my italics)9.

Whether women or men are writing, th~.~~~_~em'!!Ele bias lurking within suchgeneralizations is e~.treme, as too are the meth04Qiogicai Qroblems in supportingthem. The rhetoric through which both descriptions and conclusions arepresented makes assessment difficult. I shall mention just a few of the problems,those with which I shall be concerned in the remainder of the paper.

It is often the case in the literalU.r~,that discussions on male 'dominance'f.conflate critical analytical levels. ~rdan~yiinoted (1980: 65) that the evaluative(the value of good/bad or superior/in'ferrorS is merged with and given as supportfot judgements about co.ntrol (sub/superordinate status). Frequently, too, tpL~hsand the n:t'!!Q9~" of gender are conflC;tteg"Withideology, and all three with~.lUh>n' (also see Strathern 1984: 159). Violence or aggression becomes a free-lfoating card to support any of the above - which has a good deal to say about ourown concept of political power. When the evaluative is presented, especially in

( comparative or general schemes such as those just cited by Meillassoux, Ortner\ "andWhitehead, and Collier and Rosaldo, it is impossible to know from whence"I, the evaluation comes: from men? from women? or from the author(s)? When

S~t;b ~..~~ ..~~~it1~igc=no~p:H)iaU"~ement~ ~~~...theorie~ o~~rsonhood,a~~~.Q,~presented. and they rarely are as such. all evaluations have about them aconsiderable lack of clarity. These factors combine to make many discussions ofgender puzzling to read.

Despite the warnings that concluded the nature/culture debate, the mainproblem continues to be the obvious one, that of Western bias. Many. and Ihasten to add not alL arguments on female subordinatio-;;-;re"'predicated on atleast some of the following assuml2tions:Q) 0E~!E;L!;~,}!.,'!~!':!!:-~,'!.Y}'~!!!!~!!l£!l!.C!!!1!!!2E!1~r~e,o[ ~,~ma!!fl£!l::Uy. Theassumption is also that if in all societies men occupy the main positions ofleadership then male do_minance is universal (also see Sanday 1981: 113). One

~ questionable equation is that of public l~der.ship and dominance. The importantdistinction here may be between dominance defined as ~on, certainly aWestern notion, and dominance defined as control over 'the most valued'lO.

'Political' systems may be about both, either, or conceivably neither. The term'control' would be a bothersome one for many societies. The main point is that

i- the conception ofpoliti£~Q,ower as a coersive_~?_~ceis n~~J!.~i'yersal. If this is thecase for many societies, then the leap from 'the polliical' to 'domination' (ascoercion), and from thert· to 'domination of women', should be in large part ashaky one. We should also remember,· as Strather~ (1981: 167-168) hasremarked, that the notions of 'the political' and. 'politjcal personhood' arecultur!!l o\)sessionsQf ours, a bias -re-fiected in anthropological constructs. We

,--,~-".",,- ...•..._._.". ",~, .._'-'-"--"'-'''''''-'''''''''."'''"_'' ..

should be wary about projecting our own value of 'the political' upon others.@ t'?t!{f.1I!-llQ/j!i~a'.!.d~ol~Jf~~';lre,~a!!'?~,!se~.This is ~ost likely a corollary ~f.theassumptIOn that the-poTltlCal IS about male dommance. Therefore pohtlcalideology is assumed to be about male dominance and the control of women, e.g.,of their labour, the products of their labour, and their reproductive capacities.Women must, then, be presented in ideology and rhetori~as unequel to the men.However, as Pocock has pointed out (1986: 8), decision and judgement making in

X pre-literate societies often entails a m~ral complexity that members of modern___ ~", __ .,\",,''''''~U''''_''~' ••••.•••'~••.••••,.•••.'-"'..,...." •••.,_ •.••••..,...

State societies, through the process of compartmentalization, avoid. Strathern(1981) has demonstrated through the case of the Hagen of New Guin~t apre-literate political system predicated upon the values of personal autonomyand equality may as well have its inegalitarian and competitive aspectS (or malebias). Judgements consequently reflect this ambiguity, and vary accordingly.Hagen political ideology cannot. therefore, be accurately characterized as onepredicated on male bias, or as not being so based.

Q) Tha T t~~ •.:E!i..v~b Ii~·.:,l1n~!.he~.:1!!!!l:s!ic!J!I!!!!J.£ql.:.,tjL~:t!,~~£mi!L'!L~.,,'1rlj~:£~~'9JcontrasTS and hold the sar:1('\·11Iue.asin. The.~:es[. The assumption is that women;;~-tf~toihed~m-;i'~'"oT~the"'p'rT~:atean'd"th~'d'omes tic. and that thi s d'oma in isdevalued vis-a-vis the malc puhllc and political domain. I think that if theethnographies of many SOClctieswere examined closely. the dichotomy would not

~me. r..ge a..5 a.clear one for.. tl..1.c..m I..~._.c_..~.._..~j~__~_.~._.tL()11Jl.~_p~.~ialor physicalconnotationrto th~_(:hstinc.tlon>which.Qoc;~ ~.<:!_!.al~:,'.lY,~_h()ld.Among the Piaroa. Amerindians

'orihe Venezuelan rain forest ahout whom Iwill speak below. the family 'owned'hearths within the large communal house are not designated as solely 'domestic'space. Le;Jders conduct <.IttheIr he;Jrth husiness with foreign leaders: the nightlyritual of a WIzard leader I~conducted at his hearth. Similarly, the large communalspace in the centre of the house and the plaza outside it are used as areas for bothfood preparation and polItical and ritual activities. Yet the distinction of publicand private is one that carries with it the notion that women are excluded from the~ic...lVJJi~.h.QfL~_I}..~,~.D.2.~lb~.~~~~:At the worsCTi1'soCietles where women are notexcluded, as through institutions of men's houses, much male political (andritual) activity is perforll1.ed f?r t~e .\Vomen as audience, and the performancewould have fio poifitwithouitheprese;c~~["th~-~-omei1l1. Female performance,as listeners or as provocative commentators, is as public as that of the men.

@) thaI eu/tuff! and social rules constrain women, but not men. This is a hidden~""'l"'l'~ilt'''''1l.~ll\,I;<''Y~~~;'~~':I:''';<:'1i.I'M.I~,~~j'"'~,~-*,'¢,~ ,"""'--,' -:"~",,,, ... _,~'j1U\,":~~~

clause in many of the arguments that stress the political control of women by menand the manipulation of women through institutions of kinship and marriage.

~ •..• '_, •.•.•••.• ~ .•, .•.. ,.. ,_", .. ', " ,,' ,._ .. e"--,,, 'c,,, '_ - -,···-"_·.L'..,...•,","_.~'"_, •••_.~"" __ ·~"............. .. " .•-----" .. ,._., •••• __ . _

I This assuinptioncan be more generally stated to read: male obligations give the< 'J man status, while female obligation's constrain the woman. Such an assumption

is especially confusing when simultaneously there is the argument that women-----are devalued because of their 'spontaneity', their relative autonomy, and theirlack of involvement in the establishment of 'important' relationships outside the'domestic' group, which on the contrary does involve the son-in-law through hisobligations to his father-in-law (see, for example, Collier and Rosaldo 1981: 197,295)12.

f® as a corollary of the above, ~~i!:t.wo"!!!.~'Lr:!~!.~mel!.n~~,a'!d cfJ.ntroJ.!Etthro!f:K.btaboos and ideas ahout pollution, while nJ.e'1.,~[f!J1Q.e3. This assumption will be~,-~."~--~.".... , .....".~,,.•.."._."".,,~.~..~ ..,."'''....""'~"'""'.' ..." .. "" .. ,examined further in the next section where I shall discuss Piaroa ideas onpollution.® that the.l!r:.!!!£!Pl~,.8L.~!ff.~!}!!!~'3!!~ ••e!.i!.!!!!!!J~!!!L"'.!!.!!!!f,.!!JJ!LbJ![,.g[£by;

>( that women's activities are universally judged as inferior to those of men; thatgender symbolism is universally about male superiority. It is assumed that with thedivision of labour women's work is by definition judged to be inferior to that ofmen's. Ethnographic evidence would have to support this evaluation. My owndata on the Piaroa do not (see below). Too often comparative analysis on thistopic is based upon warri<.?!L~':lnti~~~~.!~tiesand not upon the less dramaticpeaceful societies where it may well be the case that no more 'value' is placedupon male hunting activities than upon female agricultural labour. Nor is meatnecessanly valued more than agricultural products as food 14. What is never

~:;:.;;-~ recognized is that a principle of 'difference' can be just as much a mechanism for'-" il/ 1/ creating equality and complementarity as for creating hierarchy. Classiflc~li,oJls

are value-free in and of themselves: their meaning is arbitrary. a lesson_w;;:;:· ""F .••••• 1111~~

anthropologists should have learned well from their semiological andstructuralist past.

The symbolism of gender is often associated with highly complex the~es oft.h au :ua" ..'" .. ~ 1111.,. ..-

energy in the universe, and therefore to reduce the meaning of such idea systems'IT;the political om~'''-ofmale dominance over women would be absurd. -~.~£.bsymbolism is about many things. and, especially in tropical South Americansocieties. may provide a root paradigm of forces operating in the universeresponsible for order, th~'eter~al. the ephemeral, fo~ creation, periodicity. anddestruction (see Hugh-Jones 1969, Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971, Crocker 1985). Theordering of relations hetween the sexes may well be a tangential concern in suchschemes. The potion of sexuality, itself.~...sf;!lL~~.~'p'owerf!!!.wa~."".2fenvi..~(igil1gprimary forces in the l(nTv~rse,and one that is J!Ot necess.ari!YJ.~!}.k~2-t~,,~~d:.!:.,but in the human world to personhQ.od (both men and. women are fertile)l 5.

The point is that the symbolism of gender or sexuality may be situatea~ithin acomplicated network of meanings having to do with the material universe, forcesbeneath and above the earth, thus worlds beyond society, as well as with

relationships between humans - with kin and affines, men and women. Suchsymbolism rna/, well also be about relationships among humans, animals, andplants, ana between all of these with forces and beings of other worlds (seeOvering Kaplan 1982, Overing 1985b). The philosophical notion of what it is tobe similar and different, a notion whose basic meaning may well not be that or_~~,Ie ''-- •• ~t'itt(."IliC~IUi'i'_ m..J ~gender, is a primary obsession for lowland South American Indian societies(Overing Kaplan 198n~Sucli'philosophical notions are, often associated withelaborate political ideologies tied firmly to an overridins principle of reciprocity,reciprocity being understood as a relationship both of eql/aifty a""iai"ojdljJerence(also see Clastres 1977)16.

As the arguments in much of the discussion of gender in anthropologyillustrate, Western analysts of society can deal much better with 'structures of

~ inequality' than with 'structures of equality', and with the 'rhetoric of inequality'than with the 'rhetoric of equality'.

In the following section, where I examincrl5ilfO) ideas about gender relations,their pollution ideas and proscril?~io~s, and their understanding of person.h.Q9ji,Ishall argue that the 'situation of women' is analytically one of 'Catch 22'17 whenWestern paradigms of power and gender relations are not shed. In the finalsection my point will be that iE~~~1~11~,~!I"~,~a,,I,!~~,ti~n,e~.~~~~a~i:~!~!!!~._!J~~relationship between the sexes can also be relatively egalitarian. The egalitarianpolitical philosophy-ca~-havestrong-beanngon'The re"liiTonship between thesexes, for within it is expressed an ideology and associated morality that affirms ingeneral the value of egalitarian relations among people who live together. Thestress ifi anthropology has probably been too much on difference, while not

~ sufficient attention has been paid to ho.~ cO,~_~':p-~~!-.~ly_~~~,~.~~~_~~~!:?~,~~.~~~sharing a common humanity.,~_.._-'Catch 22': The Symbolism of Gender and Sexuality.

It is dangerous to as;n~~.~~f.!"~m.J!l>:~hal~~.n~.!.E.~r!i~l~~,~~~~~lo~!~_ClJ~E~P~~!i_Y.~;for as Leach (1954) demonstrated so persuasively with the Kachin a given set ofmyt,~,! can be used as charter to support conflicting ideological claims. But

'oecause South American Indian myths 'about male domination' have been usedso extensively in the literature on gender (see for example Bamberger 1974,Nadelson 1981), I shall begin this section with a Piaroa myth on 'the oriSiIl-<2f...~ens!rualiR!l':, the only Piaroa myth that can easily be seen as 'sexist', to explorevarious possible interpretations of it both out of the context of fuller data andwithin it. This discussion is a continuation of my argument that any piece of

)<1 information can be interpretated as 'sexist', demeaning of females. Thus, femalesare placed universally in an analytic 'Catch 22' position: if women do it, it is areflection of their subordinate place in society; if it is about women, then themessage is that women are being debased. Of course, 'it may well be that it is .correct to interpret a specific message or action as such, but often the matter is

more correctly interpreted as much more complicated.The following myth is chanted by a wizard both.,at the onset of a girl's first

)( menses and during a wizard's apprenticeship fOr sorcery.

The wives ofWahari, the creator god of the Piaro3:,playe,don a swing in the jungle everyday after working in their gardens. They swung over a ravine between two hills, eachtaking their turn.

Buok'a, Wahari's older brother, who had no wife but was very successful with women.found Wahari's wives at the ravine and played with them. One after the other, the womentook turns on the swing, sitting on it, bottoms bare, inviting Buok'a to make love withthem. Each time a woman swung across the ravine, Buok'a, from the far bank, made lovewith her. He had a very long penis which he normally ~ore wrapped about his shoulders,and he could therefore make love from a great distance and very often. The wives adoredhim.

Wahari, finally irritated by his brother's success, transformed himself as a beautifulwoman and joined his playing wivesat the ravine, where he took his turn on the swing. Heswung across, legs spread wide apart. Buok'a sent his penis out to Wahari and tried topenetrate him • but he found no opening. 'The penis hit Wahari on the belly button,looking for an opening, on the thigh, searching. When it hit Wahari's thigh, he rapidly cutBuok'a's penis into five parts with a knife until it was shaped down to normal size.

From the end of Buok'a's shortened penis blood flowed, and he became sad. Thus, heisolated himself in a small hut set apart from his regular house. He lay in his hammock

,,/'thete with his menstruation, and brooded· just as a woman does with her first mensesC>when she has to stay in such a small hut for a week. (The Piaroa with whom I lived did not

have this tradition, but they said that some Piaroa far in the interior do have it.)The Wivesof Wahari, in the meantime, mourned for their lover. They went to their

iWing, but found no lover with a long penis. They then moped and refused to work. Theystayed in their hammocks and wept. Wahari was cross with them for their bad temper andthe knOWledgethat they adored his brother.. One day, when Wahari was hunting in the mountains he decided to visit his brother,Buok'a. He did not know that his brother was menstruating. He saw the small hut andsmoke coming from it, so he opened the palm door to peer inside. Wahari asked, 'Who'sthere?' and Buok'a answered, 'I am menstruating!' Wabari retorted, 'What is going tohappen to us? It is not right that men menstruate. Women in this world menstruate, notmen. Because you have a period, you should belong to the family of the sun; for among

i them men menstruate' (this is a reference to North West Amazon societies, whosesymbolism is interpreted by the Piaroa this way).

Wahari arrived back home with all of his hunt. He had all types: toucan, peccary,pheasant, lapa. But his wives were still sad, and they refused to take the hunt and prepareit. He asked what was the matter, but they would not answer. Irritated with them, hecommented that he was the one who should be sad, not they - 'I encountered my brothertoday, and he was menstruating! Men should not menstruate!' The women leapt to theirr«t and asked in chorus, 'Where is he? from where is he menstruating? from the head? theears? tbe mouth? from the point of his fingers? from the knees? the feet? the anus? thepenis?' They did not yet know about menstruation.

The women dressed up for their lover. They put on leg bands, necklaces, and they.I p~int~ themsel.ves.Then they ~ent to Buok'a.'s house w~ere he quickly made love with't. e!ach- and that IS how they received menstruation. Wahan announced 'Now women will

have menstruation.'The women returned to Wahan's house. The first woman who entered said·, 'I am

menstruating', and she went to her hammock. The second wife, in the middle of removingthe feathers from a bird from Wahari's hunt, announced, 'I am menstruating', and shewent to her hammock. The third woman, cleaning a bird, did the same',As the fourth wascooking, her period came, and she dropped her work to go to her hammock. As the fifthwas taking food out of the pot, she had to go to her hammock. And the same happened tothe sixth when she was offered a portion of curare-killed meat QYher husband. (Womencannot eat, without ritual chanting by the wizard, meat killed with curare.) Wahari wasleft with all the work to do, and he announced, 'Men should not menstruate, womenshould.' Therefore, all women menstruate,

The str0.!l.g apP~~~~..!i~n '?r..!?.~..~meri.n~aI!~} ~~.~~!i~t!!,~~~!:-,,~!!~t!J!~jrIt keen sense of ~.h.~.~!?.s,~.tii!.i',.2L~~hll",m.~..EI~£!i£4!m,~IJ.tare often reflected in their

myths, but these sensibilities are rarely discussed in analyses of mythic structure.Ihave commented elsewhere on the importance of PSl.[Q.Ullilnce- and the comicand the tragic - in the myth telling process to an understanding of myth (Overing1985c), and this is no less the case with the myth given above where hilarity oftone is a key feature of it. The tale is part of a more general one about thecompetitive relat'ionship between the two creator gods, Wahari and Buok'a,where the latter inevitably is the loser in this fraternal battle. It is the only mythwhere Wahan - or anyone else - is portrayed as having simultaneously more than

"4 one wife. The story is certainly much better in the telling by presenting him hereas polygamous t 8. Some of the slapstick elements, such as a man missing the markin a sexual attempt, are repeated in other myths.

This myth could easily be taken as a typical example in South Americanmyth"k.;y of male domination and female inferiority: women, and not men,menstruate: and to add insult to injury they received menstruation from a man.The first question, however, that might be asked of this myth from theperspective of gender rela tions, is who gets the raw deal in this story? The women,who receive menstrudtion') Buok'a, who suffers his brother's knife? Or Wahari,who suffers the behaviour of both Buok'a and his wives? As a story about Buok'aand Wahari, it is clearly one about Wahan's revenge on Buok'a - which had a

~ surpri~tns ~!d.~effect t.h~~...!.9_!?e £.'?!~E~E~~,~'Thus, the story is also about thel importance in the Piaroa world of keeping 4igi.nctions and categories straight.

- .. '_~""."'~"_~'_~_. __ JiU'Io, __ ""._",_~-" llllii'ol>_ •••."' ••• "__ ~~-"",

There is no denigration of the 'men of the sun' because they menstruate: they arepresented merely as puzzlingly different from the Piaroa order of things. Buok'ain his menstruation hut is a silly figure, but still a potent one - and desirable.Clearly, the men do not want menstruation, but the reason for this is unclear:because it is not tbe order of things? or because it is a 'bad' thing to have ingeneral? The only evidence of the latter is Buok'a's brooding in the hut - just as aWrHilari docs when she is isolated. The problem as depicted here seems to be morethe one of isolation, than of the 'state' itself. Buok'a also lost his magnificent andactive p~as after this event that men had penises of normal size andb~caffie less virile in their love-making stamina.

Wahari does not get off too well in the story, either. He is cuckolded, hisbrother shames him, and his wives refuse, then cannot do, their share of the work.His predicament when left with all the work is given a~position of high drama inthe telling of the story: it is the telleris reaction to Wahari's cutting short the fun.

As for the wives, they lost a lover, and regained him only to receivemenstruation. It is not clear whether they mind receiving menstruation, norwhether Wahari considers their receiving it a revenge for their lusty adultery, apossible interpretation of events. They are given freedom from work each month- but as law, ialddo;~'"bythe'~;Ie) creator god, Wapari. It is also 'law' that they,and not men, menstruate, as he pronounces at the end of the myth. They alsoreceived menstruation from a man who, if a Freudian interpretation is allowed,causes the metonymical castration of women. Finally, women whenmenstruating are forbidden curare killed meat, unless ritual has purified it forthem. This is clearly a constraint on them.

As far as gender evaluation goes, and the 'plight of the sexes', the events of the,_ .u _

myth can be interpreted two ways: 1) a positive transformation for women meanta negative one for men: as women received their fertility (menstruation), men lostrt their virility and the constant labour of women, or 2) more negativeiy for women,a castrated man castrates women, their castration being the 'curse' ofmenstruation. It would be my own judgement that the myth, other than as astraightforward story of revenge and as one detailing the 'proper' order of things,could not be interpreted further without more data from myth and, moreimportantly, on Piaroa ideas about menstruation, which are associated with amore general theory of ph~~ls!l~U'..which relates' to bodily functions andexcretions, to ~lOi~ns of gower, danger and pol~tion, and in the end to culturalcapability.

PiatQa women do not enjoy their monthly menses, and a woman will.sometimes refer to ~ as 'her guilt' (ka'kwakomena). which can also be----::...Jtranslated as 'her responsibility', 'her will', and as such 'her thoughts'. She isexpressing guilt over the danger that her blood has for maleKlnsmen. Indirect~ontact with it makes men ill, while its direct contictor sight causes them toweaken so that they waste away and die. To protect her kinsmen. she must notduring her menstruation touch their food. prepare it or cook it; though as herhusband becomes older, he may acquire sufficient strength as a wizard for hiswife to cook for him. The proscription for women is especially important for theprotection of the more vulnerable young males in her house. As a 'Catch 22',

V wome!!..~!:U~!!t~"~~"L!.~"~}Lf~E!!~i!~.,£Q~~!1!ns~~~.mto a set of Qr~scriQtions/!\ which are but ,telling of their pollution for others.

However, men mu~t_-!)so obel .E!£~criE!~ns, including the one onmenstruating women. A young man knows full well the penalty for giving in tohis desires and touching a woman with her menses. It is not only women whohave prohibitions placed upon them and restrictions on their behaviour. If girlsdo not appreciate the restrictions on them during their menses and especially

during the first two they experience (Overing and Kaplan, in press), boys expressgreat fear of the E!i!L~pd, ~he Pt~~.~!~_!!!~1!!~tH.I!.<!g'&Q.9.!!rtpg!,~~rJ.ID.Y!tiQ!linto hunting and fishing. They remember afterwards the hal1~~~~?gensthey hadl" to take and, with terror, their stinging an't and bee ordeals (Overing"Xaplan 1975,Overing and Kaplan, in press) which give them the power for the hunt. Also. thetaboos on food are more stringent than those a girl must follow during her first

~ menses. The 'Catch 22' to such differential emphasis.being"placed upon male andj female initiation is that, although women have few imposed ordeals during their

initiation and men do, men have more cultural attention paid to them. Thus, thestatus of manhood can be interpreted as being more highly valued than is thestatus of womanhood.

After initiation, the ritual restrictions on male be:1aviour are far from ended.During and after the pregnancy of the woman in whose pre~~!!£y._!_!Jla!!J~~(" __ . .,_.''_._. .,_"._.. . ••_~.~"".," .__ •,._,,_~._.·,_,·"w''''' ... ".' ", , '

y played a role, he must follow the same taboos on food as does the woman, and he,r must.,e involved in even mo~e ritual than she is. Both the taboos and the ritual

are to protect the woman and the child, and their lives are dependent upon his ...attention to detail, some of the reasons for which I shall more fully explain below.

""'E~1ii<riirini the pregnancy, the father must be present in the chorus for theall-night chanting of the wizard, who includes in his chants the protection forpregnant women. If the father were not present, the mother would die inchildbirth, a catastrophe for which the man if he is the cause pays heavily to thefather of the woman 19. Both parents are equally vulnerable to the odours, urine,and excrement of other people; while mother, father and child are equallysusceptible to the dangers of jaguar odour.

The re:' or the taboos on the fooTof a man with a pregnant and lactatingspouse art interesting in the context of a discussion on the equality and theinequality of gender relations. The man's bodily p~ity to the wife, andduring gestation through her to the child con.!.-aminatesboth mother and baby. In

___ the Piaroa theory of physicality, men, ar~"J!:l_~J~.2~~x:1..!~~om~!h,,!.s vice,,=> versa. Both man and woman, and especially powerful wizards, are dangerous to~ung and the vulnerable. The semen of men is as dangerous t9..~omen as'! menstrual blood is for men. and ritual must protect women from it. Both give an

equal number of dangerous (named) diseases. Semen within a mother isespecially dangerous to her unborn child, and through it the man can furthercontaminate the child with any strong food he eats, as too can the motherthrough her milk. In short. for the Piaroa all bodily excretions - sperm, m~nstrualblood, urit,'lez.~,~eat,E"!"s,vomit, eXE!e~ent - ..~re.P2Jb•.R!?tent and dangerous, andpeople b~}~~~~.£.!.~~?_t:ltami!1.~.!.c:..2.n~!~<Uherbecause of them through mereproximity. Each person is responsible for preventing, as much as is possible,his/her danger to others. How general such beliefs are to other societies is difficultto know, since investigator bias directs attention to the polluting effects ofmenstrual blood (see ~r') 1985, for instance)20. .Nor, in Piaroa symb"olism, can one find reason to say that there is

differential disgust over the bodily functions of one gender over and above theother. Rather, the force of one piece of evidence from such a point of view is

)ldeflated by the next. Wahari, it is said, made braJns for people ftQmJh~l>oils of!!isown venereal disease: these boils are given the same name as the paint marksthat tell of a woman's kno~.ledse o(~~I.l!}s!!~I'P,~ti~!1-iwiz mizruwa (see below).On the other hand, the box of origin for the boils of venereal disease is labelledunizsayu, or 'a lusty old man'. Miscarriage is given the same word as ejaculation

"'7-(puikwa). And the triad of vomit, semen and excrement carry the same label-edeku. .

It would be all too easy to Er.?i~.t0ur own notio~~ oft~~ f~~ti~~.9.~~!.~.our ..~own 'taboos' on to an interpretation of such (surprising) semantic associatlons-which would be an unfortunate mistake. To reduce them to symbols ofdebasement, for either men or for women, would be a simplification to the pointof the absurd of a rich symbolic system that contains within it a cQmplicated

7' ~~()t¥_~~~c:>,2!tbe relation of physicality, reproduction aD(ts~!!y!~!£!~ty. Amyth about the origin of cura.te sheds light on the association of vomit,excrement and semen. In this myth, vomh and excrement are se!=n.,tohave mak_fertilizin! powers similar to semen,..;.From the bleeding vomit and excrement of a-;"ounded toucan, curare was created. Because curare is a product of a purelymale source of fertility, curare killed meat is dangerous for women, just asmenstrual blood (and after birth), a purely female source of fertility, is dangerousfor men. The s~~~t and uti.I!~.9.f~..e.o..~~.if.!!l~z.!(~is dangerous for those aroundhim because they have been c.~_~tamin.atedb~__~h':.,dan~erous and .e.ois~fer:ility Jif.his thoughts .•(see Overing 1985), or rather, by his capacities for~rafis(Qrming matt~r (see below). Freudian insight need not be entirely excludedfrom the interpretation of some aspects of the Piaroa symbolism of sexuality; forthe Piaroa link 'the vagina dentata', the mutual castration of men and-women,

K venereal disease, and the can~ib~E~..!i~Eroc~~.s~ncomplicated symbolism that Ido not have the space to detail here21. However, in brief, the Piaroa see theFowerful. forces_~~-!h.~..l£_!eEr~duce themselves - their means forphysical reproduction and for using the earth's resources - to be part of one inrer:_

rl /inked process. and this assumption is based on ideas about the transference ofcreative powers that would be alien to our own thought system.

rEach Piaroa wears strands of beads and face desisn~ to represent the powersand knowledge the individual has hidden from view and which are containedwithin the body. The beads of women are referred to as their 'beads of knowledgeof menstruation', while the paint designs on her face are her 'marks ofmenstruation', (iwa maruwiz ), marks that 'order' her monthly cycle. Men havewithin their 'beads of knowledge' the capabilities for hunting and fishing, whicheach receives during his initiation. Later, men can, if they wish, specialize furtherift hunting and fishing, or as chanters and sorcerers. Women also can specialize asthanters, though they rarely do. With each ritual for specialization, one increasesthe 'beads of knowledge' within them. As a 'Catch 22', this seems a clear equation

of women with their biological processes (on the side of demeaned 'nature'),while men are placed on the side of 'culture' in terms of capabilities both to actwithin this work! and others.

There is a catch here, though not of the '22' nature. For the Piaroa all cultural)4 cal?ability is wizardry, including menstruation, which is considered along with

hunting, fishing and sorcery as transcendent knowledg~ acquired through maripafeau, or 'lessons in wizardry' (Overing in press a). Menstru~tion, and the fertilitywith which it is associated, formsa woman's 'thoughts' (ta'kwaru), as similarlyhunting and fishing capabilities are the 'thougiiiMta'kwaru) ofa man (Overing1985 c). These capabilities are given to individuals during their t!ii.!i~tl9n, whenthe leader wizard flies to celestial space to take from the crystal boxes of thecelestial goddess dangerous and poisonous cultural capability and brings it backsafely bound in beads for the individual's use and incorporation within his/herbody. Notice that it is from a goddess that culture comes. Today she owns

1IiliIC ' __ ,., II. r w. __ 4I!ltIi,~ot:\

\"" cultural capabilities - in contrast to the 'male domination' myths from some

[I societies of the South American jungle where 'culture', on~ owned by women,

I.. ~._~~.£>.J~.!1.,1!:£!E~~by ~~ Pi~.?a myth tells of cul!}!~~..~~in~ taken fr~m~_~~, b~~. w0JT.l.~n:_the creation and then misuse by male gods of dangerous and

poisonous cultural capability during mythic time drove them to madness; malesthieved culture from one another, and peace was therefore impossible; thus, atthe end of mythic time, the female goddess took all culture from them into the

" --.safety of crystal boxes in celestial space.

Once th~~~,~9~or.~!:1~~~_~!:.~L~,~.9~ 0!1~'s.Q29Y,the individual is thereafterresponsible for their safety. In ~hefirst lessons in wizardry, when children are 6 or7 years of age, the boys and girls are taught~t<2_geth9by the wizard the capabilityof mastering the 'life of the senses', one's emotIons and desires. Through these

•lessons, one is able later to protect the powerful capabilities taken within one.When a girl receives her 'beads of menstruation', she then has the pm~'er to

rJ.- •• ,S0••nt!'?(!t£' CJJE!1£!J.,{{t.tr.Such a notion would be unthinkable in a society where awoman's fertility is considered to be under the control of the (male) politicalgroup. The idea that the woman has control over her own fertility is probably oneof the strongest indicators that a society is not very concerned about maledominance and female subordination. It is understood, in Piaroa thought, thatwomen have control over their. own biological processes and ~ust take-. -. .' -. ". b' . _."-., .._._ "_ " .,, ...• - ,,.. , ,.,..' •......'" -,." .. ,,---,.-,., .. --."',-' .• - ..".-- ..--.----~~,_.'"resEo_~L..i!.~!.L.f£~","J_~..~~,: they therefore have control in large part over thebiological reproduction of the society. In brief, the Piaroa place on the same levelboth thcpmeans of, teproducingl,ocial life ~the means for reproduction ofh!!!JllIDs:both are wizardry,and mastered by individuals.

-..:z::::_ •

In Piaroa classification all creation for which an individual is responsible issaid to be that person's a 'kwa, or 'thoughts'. Thus, the products of one's labour, apcrsotfs child, and a sorcery transformation, such as the wizard's transformationifitd jaguar or anaconda, are all said to be that person's 'thoughts'. A woman'sgarden produce is her a 'kwQ, as too is the blowgun made by a man his a 'kwa, and

a grater made by a woman her a'kwa.1,1lemost powerful transform~tj.2.naJl£!eati.y.~f~llill?lHt!~Sare considered to be

those of the women, who bear children, and those of the wizard, who transforms_~~_.li!Il. . ... '''II.'IIJ'''~ eo ••.•••• kIi!w1rilli 1111

humans who dwell in homes beneath the earth into animals and fish for the hunton this earth. As mentioned above, the myth on the origin of menstruation ischanted not only at the first menses of the girl, but also at the learning ceremoniesfor wizardry. The am2rentice wizard menstruate~2 2:he sheds the menstrual bloodof women. Theieaching\vizarc.ipi.~I~.~~..!he tongue oftheappre~yce with a stingray spine, ~'nd thellfo'oc(iiiat'flows is th~"mensiiualbiood'ofthe women withwhom he has lived in his house. He acquired their blood through his daily contactwith them. The sting ray spine ~heds him.of po~nous blood.2: __~g~Lthereby£.urifie.tJMm, giy,ingJ)iJllJ..h~,,&2--wersfQLJr~JJ!i.fQJ:ro.Mio.n.It is the shedding of

~"'-female menstrual blood, then, that gives both th.ew..0..man and the man their greatYr. creative capabilities. There is also a peri04J.£iJY to male menstruation: to

maintain and increase his powers, a wizard must undergo this ritual every six:>( months, twice a year. ,,( '1J 'JQ !./ I • '" 'f'!~

Male menstruation may be viewed as a ·Catch 22': men have notransformational power until they have shed the dangerous female blood thatcontaminates and weakens them. On the other hand, there is no guarantee thatwithout this process they could acquire powers for sorcery. Men need the

)J~~~~~~\~~~t~e;~~:~i;;~~~~l~~-f~l&io;~r~lJuok'a. a man. The principle at work here is one without a valuation ofifi"fetiority and superiority, but rather one of difference and equality.24 ThePiaro. are 'playing' with the notion of transference o~energi~!, and not with a

=-'-:. principle of gender inequality. It is a sign o~uality that energies can be./ t" --------- ..------.---

/' t!~;~.;P~~·~~~(ihe resultof lransfonnal~o:al-(creative) abthty, and Ptaroa understanding of 'ownership' reflects thisdistinction. Foog from the garden and a~!efacts~.lw~y.s~~.~.e_~!!_~~~~~'the oneresponsible for their production: ~hile food from the jungle. merely gathered orkilled. is the eropertv of the entire comm~ouse:. and7he distribution of suchfood is in accordanc~ ~ith this pri~cipTe~·ri-ls~ihIsprinciple.the one that a personowns the products of his/her labour. which goes against another 'Catch 22'clause. C~do (1981) in their discussion of male domination in_ ...--------"brideservicc' societies (a category that the Piaroa fit where a man owes his______ . __ "_0_., -'

parents-in=1aw labour rather than wealth) say that because women onlydistribute the, fruits of their labour within ,the family and men distribute theirswithin a wider net~k of relatIonships, v.:c;m~~·arein an inferior position. Men,

1 through distribution, are able to establish important social and prestige links on\i a community-wide hasis, while women are not. However, in the Piaroa case, the

tf distribution is based on a principle of ownership: men do not own game killed,i'1ordo women the results of their gathering; whereas women do own their garden

(' ,,[! !',''1/ : ·t·'~ .'.

J

produce. Thus, they are not obliged to give the products of the garden to anyoneoutside their immediate family. Women do, however, also participate in widernetworks of distribution. On a daily basis they distribute throughout thecommunal house the products of their gam-ering, and on ceremonial o~sionsthe women serve t~e beer they make to all guests. Meat, on the other hand, isdistributed equally in the house by the wizard, and not by the hunter. It is the\y'izard who has ultimate right to products of the hun~ as the one who isresponsible for transforming humans to edible (animal) form.

In conclusion to this section on the Piaroa understanding of male and femalecreative possibilities, it can be said that 'the ~_,!!!u!:~E~!l.q,.:!h~~rc:.E!.~g_~c~h'_~~~_~~I!QL~~~J~~t!r2!..!h,0\!8.!t!. For the Piaroa, the interrelationship of maleand female powers, while necessary for survival, is also dangerous, and it isthrough this unqerstanding that we can begin to understand their symbolism ofsexuality and fertility, their proscriptions on behaviour, an~ the relationshipbetween the sexes - and between all beings c<?~~!~~~~I~~!, and danger2~~,for one another.2 5 The idiom ordering these relationships is not one of the 'battlebetween the sexes', nor does it entail a rhetoric of male domination.

In recent years a good deal of attention has been focused on the inegalitarianaspects.. of r~l.atiQ!!.~~between males and females in relatively egalitarian

c-political structures (see, for-'ciam'j)fe, A. Strathern, ed., 1982, Meillasoux 1981(1975), Ortner & Whitehead, eds., 1981, Bamberger 1974, Turner 1979, Riviere1985, Gregor 1985). It is true that for some of the societies, upon which thetheories of gender inequality have been developedand based, siich as for many ofN~inea and for so~~ouJhAmerica, antagonism between the sexes andthe emphasis upon male warfare, hunting and political dominance are culturallyelaborated. There exist. however, many 'egalitarian' political structures where~elaboration is not the norm. In these societies there is a more direct

')'"",Ij

relationship between theIr political philosophies of equality and personalautonomy and the relations between the sexes. The focus of rhetoric of equality isoften upon the relationship between persons, and notjust upon the relationshipbetween men. . ~~.---_ ..".~ .~,,_..

~_--,In evaluative discourse on honourable and dishonourable behaviour, the

Piaroa place great stress on tranquillity in relationships to others (Overing-=----Kaplan 1975, Overing 1985 c, in press a). For them, the good life is the tranquilone (adiupawi) wher:e moderation is achieved in both the 'life of the senses' and'the life of thought'. As mentioned above, the first lessons in wizardry thatchildr~t1 receive, girls and hoys together, is on the art of peaceful living. No valueis placed on the show of male dominance, the display of virility, or aggression.Indeed, it is a society where all physical violence and the show of aggression areideutoJically disallowed (Overing in press b), and where the character traits of

arrogance, cruelty and vanity are vie~ed as social deficiencies. The hand~<?me~~tunm:~l&~ ..h,l!!!.!,~r.i~>!.~~~S~,"!?f_~~hhogd,~l!L!~,.b<:._~?.P!~~""!'},_I~':!!!&~~1'l'The individual, both male and female, is responsible for mastering emotions andcultural capability, and thereby fOfachieving tranquillity in social relationships.

!d Custom and 'law' reside quite literally within the person. 26 .

The Piaroa, as is generally the case with Amerindians of the South Americanrain forest and particularly of the Guianas (see Clastres 1977, Overing 1985c,Henley 1982,Thomas 1982, Riviere 1985),place a s...tron&'y_~eedom..9f the person, have an aversion to political tyranny, and demonstrate concernover the ambiguous relation between personal freedom and both socio-politicalright and constraint. At the same time, the Piaroa view their shaman/wizards as~~Q~~~xtraor~ina:!, power. The wizard leader is a 'warriof'aiifnst forcesand beings who dwell in worlds beyond society, and his power is the knowledgehe acquires from these worlds to which he flies and his detailed knowledge ofthem. In his role as both political and religious leader he uses as weapon thisknowledge to deal with these other worlds and to handle relationships betweenthem and the world of social reality. He has, however, very little power of

'i coercion over social matters in human society. Indeed, it is the wizard leader whoteaches formally against it and who is the knowledgeable teacher of the ethicalvalues of autonomy, equality, and tranquillity. In the Piaroa view, tJ!.~yh!!ye

Jeradicated c?erc.!~!'a~.~.~~!!....l,2.,.~~." ~eJLt>E~~i,!g//J the possib~lity of t~E~.~t:l!!!.~_of D!ateti!! reso':!.~~s. Humans have

equal usufruct rights over the forest and the rivers: they cannot own either.27

So~nty is in the hands of the gods who ~lso own all material resources andthe capabilities to use them thougn they themselves cannot do so. I would arguethat despite the remarkable powers of the wizard, the Piaroa rhetoric o~alityand personal autonomy, and the metaphysical system ofwhichitisaPart, are"not

~'tilyst1fymg~ hiding 'real' coercion and control (of, for instance, men overwomen), but state the social case as it pretty much is. No one can order anotherperson to do work - male, female or child - nor can anyone appropriate theproducts of the labour of others for their own benefit nor create 'scarcity' ofmaterial wealth.28

The Piaroa theory of power cannot be understood outside the context of theirontology of a multiple-world universe and their theories of p~ysicality,intelligence, and E~rson~ Such theories which, not surprisingly, are radicallydifferent from Western ones, are not epiphenomenal to the Piaroa everydayexperience of their bchavioural environment but rather affect practice, are a partof it, and are., therefore, critical to our understanding of it. The relationshipbetween the sexes in Piaroa society is hig~tarian by anyone's"'Standa'rds,'anttanemphasis7 for instance, on 'hidden' or 'mythic' control mechanisms thatmight allow for male dominance can too easily lead one to miss the more sociallyprevalent institut!Q.Q~1.hAL£~~~!~.~quality.However, most of our analytical~>discourse works against the obvious when it comes to struc:!~r~~,2[~q,!~I~ty,andin uae masks them and serves them up as 'in fact' being about inequality. And

inequality is, of course, then believed to be the more predominant mode ofexistence.

}

To be sure, it is still the case that women are not the politicalleadfrs in Piaroa_society, although they do participate in die poli't'iCil"'Process.Men are the great~, not women. 29 And, it canbe said that it is very general to human societyas a whole that women giVirtll!Q~~_~l>.~es, while men do not - they do otherthings, and often their domain is what we loosely CCJ,nc(\ll.'the political'. Butstudents of society and of gender relations should beware facile generalizing fromthis situation; for '~e po~itical' in one society is not 'the political' in the next. In ahighly interesting and provocative article,(~acIntyre::{1972) has quitepersuasively raised doubts about our ability toac1iieve a true comparativepolitics. Stated very simply, the main problem is that we cannot logically

Aisengage the JiUdy of th0TI-~~tution or ~!ice from the study ofpOlitical~_or vice versa. More specifically pertinent to any attempt at cross-culturalanalysis are the doubts Macintyre (1972: 18ft) raises 'about identifyinginstitutions in different cultures as "the same'" and therefore as interestingly.different. '

I could just as easily argue that the Piaroa have no 'political' institutions, butrather a religious structure only. In other words, it could with reason be said that

j< the Piaroa have no political positions of dominance, if by that we assume therestricted W~sJ~!-1!-_!!2_~i()_I)9L!h~poJiJic_a.Lone which is tied to ideas aboutphysi£~lcoe~~ClI'ld theco_I1~~(.)Lofl~J?(.)~~and!h~p!:.<J.411_ct~()Ltt.The problem ismuch more COmplicated than that of merely assuming the legitimacy of speakingof ' the political' or 'the religious' aspects of any given institution. Rather, it is onethat reflect., the poverty in general of our categories for classifying thephenomena we find in at least some 'exotic' societies. Until such conceptualdifficulties are better met. we are far from being able to handle on any kind ofgeneralizing level the 'problem of gender'.

London School of Economics

1. Also see Bloch & Bloch (19!W) who write on the complexity of the Enlightenment concept of'nature', -

2. Also see Harris (1980), Strathern (1980) and Gillison (1980): all make the similar point thatJordonava does.

3, In anthropology, we recogni7:c the great divide between those political systems based upon 'themorality of kinship' and those that are not, e.g., the State.

4. See the volume Reason and Morality (Overing,ed., 1985), where I in my introduction (1985a) andmost or the contributors to the volume are concerned with this issue.

5. A notable exception is the work MM. Strathern (1980,1981, 1984) on the Hagen of New Guinea.

Also see Medicine (1983), Leacock (1983) and Sacks (1976).6. Ibenefited from discussions in tutorials with my student, Jos Hincks, on this issue and also on the

one of the bias in anthropology toward 'structures of domination'.7. There are few 'statuses' in these societies, so the argument goes, other than 'age' and 'gender'. But

this varies (see, for example, S. Hugh-Jones (1979) on a Northwest Amazon society).8. Many feminists would disagree with this point, and would see gender inequality as formulated

quite explicitly in modern State political institutions.9. The male bias throughout this set of essays by Meillasoux..(1981 (1975» is extraordinary.

10. See Sanday (1981: chapter 8) who provides a list of various definitions of 'dominance' as it hasbeen used in the literature on gender.II.For example, in the great ceremony among the Piaroa where the men play ~cred ft~Jes which t~

women cannot see, the men are presenting the ceremony to the women (see Overing 1985c). The tworltualleaders, the wizard (Ruwang) and his wife (Ruwahu). chant to one another, he from the plaza,she from inside the house; in so doing they are creating together a mimetic re-enactment of a criticalmythical event: the festival held by the creator god, Wahari, and his sister, Cheheru, when hetransformed jungle beings (human) into animals.

12. A Piaroa woman is also obligated to her mother-in-law, not just to 'kin'.13. For examples of overt expression of this notion see Bamberger (1974: 277) and Ortner (1974: 69).

The general idea is that while boys receive esoteric privileged knowledge, girls only suffer prohibitionsand restrictions at initiation. But contrast below with the Piaroa notions of knowledge and pollution.

14. The Piaroa insisted on the equal value of products of the hunt and products of the garden. 101k'tl.K15. See, for instance, Crocker (1985) on the (Brazilian) Bororo distinction of bope. the

')4 creative/degenerative force oflife in both men ana women, and aroe. the eternal, transcendent aspect/ of all men and women.

16. For an elegant discussion of the principle of r~cipr!?.~ty acted out as relationships of 'endo-cannibalism' and 'exo-canmbalism' among the Yanomami of Brazil, ~1985). The complexstructure of reciprocity underlying Yanomami political organization only makes sense within thecontext of the notion ~h<lt·~h~.~!(H~l~r~of(jifference' is al.so a.'~tt:Uctll~~..".f eq\1ality'.

11. See Heller's novel Cal('h-~2 1961: 'There was only one catch ...and that was Catch-22'. 'Catch-22'says you are damned if you do something and you are damned if you do not do Il.

18. There may possibly be some notion here about the synchrony of the menstrual cycle of womenliving together.

19. Such ethnographiC detail makes one sceptical of Meillasoux's stance «(1975) 1981) that kinship'is about' controlling women. What better wa) to keep a young father from wande:1ng from hiS

" responsibilitIes than these ntual obligatiuons whICh bind him to the house of the pregnant girl., 20. Contrast, however. with Crocker (1985: 44) who states for the Bororo that semen IS dlrecth

equated With menstrual blood. both being temporal markers of creation and degen;;t;~n Also ~hiSdiSCUSSion(1985 6 i) of la"boos on parental eating dunng pregnancy. which are for Similar reasonsas those of the Plaroa

21. But one must be war) of easy use of Freudian theory .•Gregor (1985), for Instance. moves fromthe symbolism In Mehmacu myth to attribute a societal castratIOn complex for them (the males only).22. Accordmg to F. Santos Granero (personal commumcallon), among the Amuesha (a priestdom

of Peru) the shaman apprenllce is confined in a hut similar to that in which a girl is confined during herfirst menses, and both ha \T Imposed upon them similar sexual and food taboos.23. It is not clear, but the PIaroa assumption seems to be that women too are purified each month in

'I the process of shedding blood, and it IS, then, this purification that gives them power. It is also asdangerous for a woman to see the sting ray spine ceremony as for a man to see a woman menstruating.24. Religion need not be "mystifying' dominance relationships.2$. Elsewhere, Ihave wnt tcn (Overing: 1982, in press b) on Piaroa ideas about their relationship to

the ahift1al and spirit world, and central to their understanding of this relationship is thedUlhittetization of the Plaroa as beings who have both a 'life of thoughts' and a 'life of the senses',

while these other beings have lost either their 'life of thoughts' or their 'life of the senses' (this latterdoes not include fertility, which belongs to the 'life of thoughts').

26. This can give a feeling of 'fluidity' to the social organization of the area. See Riviere (1985) on theGuianas.

27. A cleared garden for the time it is being tended isequaUy the property of both the husband whocleared it and the wife who plants and cares for it .

.,~. The Piaroa are noticeably allergic to any notion of 'order-giving' or 'rule', and individualde":lsion making reflects this bias when the decision is not one of life or death.29. It cannot be said for the Piaroa, even on politico-religious grounds that the men are 'a class'

superior to women. For instance, many older women are considered more knowledgeable aboutchant language and esoterica than many men, young and old.

'- ALBERT, B. (1985) Temps du Sang. Temps de Cendres. Thesis for Docteur de l'Universite de Paris X.~BAMBERGER, J. (1974) 'The Myth of Matriarchy: Why Men Rule in Primitive Society' in Eds. M.

Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (1974).'_ BLOCH, M. and BLOCH, J. (1980) 'Women and the Dialectics of Nature in Eighteenth-century

J. French Thought' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M.Strathem (1980).~CLASTF.l:2S, P. (1977) The Society against the State: the Leader as Servant and the Humane Uses of

Power an ng the Indians of the Americas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.'" COLLl~ . J; and ROSALDO, M. (1981) 'Politics and Gender in Simple Societies' in Eds. S. Ortner

.J. and H. \J~iitehead (1981).~ CRC>CKaR, J. (1985) Vital Souls: Bororo Cosmology. Natural Symbolism, and Shamanism. Tucson,

Arizotia 'Tbe University of Arizona Press."GILLISON, G. (1980) 'Imases of Nature in Oimi Thought' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M.

Strath.i:h (1980)." GREGOR, T. (1985) Anxious Pleasures: The Sexual Lives of an Amazonian People. Chicago: The

University of Chicago Press.'\,. HARR.IS, O. (1980) 'The Power of Signs: Gender, Culture and the Wild in the Bolivian Andes' in

Eds. C. MacCormack and M. Strathem (1980).HELLER, J. (1961) Catch-22. Jonathon Cape Ltd.HENLEY. P. (1982) The Panare New Haven. London: Yale University Press.HINCKS, J. (1986) '''Muted'' or Ignored?: Women and the Category ••Subordination· ... TutonalEssay, Department of Social Anthropology. London School of Economics .

••••HUGH·JONES. S. (1979) The Palm and the Pleiatks' Inillalion and Cosmoiogy '" Norlh .•...('stAma:Oflilt. Cambridge: Cambndge Universlt)· Press.

'- JORDANOVA. LJ. (l980)'Natural Facts: a Historical Perspective on Science and Sexuality' 10 Eds.C. MacCormack and M.Strathern (1980).LEACOCK, E. (1983) 'Ideologies of Male Dominance as Divide and Rule PolitiCS: anAnthropologist's View' in M·12.~~_.~.!29...R..l!.!!.t>..!?~ar~UEds.)Woman's Nature: Rationahzations oflm·quality. New York, Oxford Pergamon Press.LOWE. M. (1983) 'The Dialectic of Biology and Culture' in Eds. M. Lowe and R. Hubbard.Woman's Nature: Ratio;'ahzalion of Inequality. - ._--~ ..~"~,"" .

••••.MACCORMACK. C. (1980) 'Nature. Culture and Gender: a Critique' in Eds. C. MacCormack andM. 8ftllthem (1980) .

'" MACCORMACK, C. and STRATHERN, M. (Eds.) (1980) Nature. Culture and Gender ..Ollflbridse, New York: Cambridge University Press.~ (1980) 'Preface' in Eds. C. MacCormack and M. Strathem (1980).

MACIN1YRE, A. (1972) 'Is a Science of Comparative Politics Possible?' in Eds. P. Laslett, W.O.Runciman and Q. Skinner Philosophy, Politics and Society, Fourth Series. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.MEDICINE, B. (1983) 'Indian Women: Tribal Identity as Status Quo' in Eds. M. LQ~eJll1~.R.Hub.!>..Yd Woman's Nature: Rationalization of Inequality.

- MEILLASSOUX, C. «1975) 1981) Maidens, Meal and Money: Capitalism and the DomesticEconomy. (First published in French as Femmes, Greniers et Capitaux by Librairie Fran~oisMaspero, Paris 1975). Cambridge: Cambridge University PreSs.NADELSON, L. (1981) 'Pigs, Women, and the Men's House. in Amazonia: an Analysis of Six

/' Mundurucu Myths' in Eds. S. Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981).~ORTNER, S. (1974) 'Is Female to Male as Nature is to Culture?' in Eds. M. Rosaldo and L.

" Lamphere (1974).".. ORTNER. S. and WHITEHEAD. H. (Eds.) (1981) Sexual MeQ1t;ngs. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.- (198Ia) 'Preface' in Eds. S. Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981)- (198Ib) 'Introduction: Accounting for Sexual Meanings' in Eds. S. Ortner and H.Whitehead(1981).OVERING KAPLAN. J. (1975) The Piaroa, a People of the Orinoco Basin. Oxford: Clarendon Press.OVERING KAPLAN. J. (1981) 'Review article: "Amazonian anthropology •••. Journal of LatinAmerican Studies, 13. Part I. ~OVERING, J. (1982) 'The Paths of Sacred Words: Shamanism and the Domestication of the Asocialin Piaroa Society'. Presented at the Symposium on 'Shamanism in Lowland South America', 44thInternational Congress of Americanists. Manchester.- (Ed.) (1985). Reason and Morality. ASA Monograph 24. London, New York: TavistockPublications.='- (1985a) 'Introduction' in Ed. J. Overing (1985).- (l98Sb) 'Today I shall call him "Mummy": Multiple Worlds and Classificatory Confusion' Ed. J.Overing (1985). .- (1985e) 'There is no End of Evil: the Guilty Innocents and their Fallible God' Ed. D. Parkin TheAntliiopology of Evil. Oxford, New York: Basil Blackwell.-- (iti press a) 'Letsons in Wizardry: Personal Autonomy and the Domestication of the Self in PiaroaSo<:iet)" Eds. G. Johoda and I.M. Lewis Ethnographic Perspectives on Cognitive Development.- (in pre~s b) 'Images of Cannibalism, Death, and Domination in a "Non-violent" Society' Ed. D.RJcMs the Anthropology of Violence. Oxford. New York: Basil Blackwell.OVERING. J. and KAPLAN, M.R. (in press) 'Los Wotuha' Los Aborigenes de Venezuela, Vol.IlI.Caracas: Fundacion La Salle de Sciences Naturales.PARKIN. D. (1985) 'Reason, Emotion, and the Embodiment of Power' in Ed. J. Overing (1985).POCOCK, D.F. (1986) 'TIle Ethnography of Morals' in International Journal of Moral and SocialStudies, Vol. 1. No. I , pp 3-20.

~REJCHEl·DOLMATOFF, G. (1971) Amazonian Cosmos Th~ Sexual and R~ligiou.s Symbolism ofllu Tukano Indians. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.RJ".£RE, P. (1985) The Individual and Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

~R.OSAlDO, M. and LAMPHERE, L. (Eds.) (1974) Women. Culture. and Societ)'. StanfordUniversity of California Press.- (1974) 'Introduction' in Eds. M. Rosaldo and L. Lamphere (1974).SACKS. K. (1976) 'State Bias and Women's Status'. Ameri~!!.'!,.~!!!.~~9J!.g!!,gj!L7!:~.~~?,~~?,:,SANDAY, P.R. '(1981) Female Power and Male Dominance: on the Origins of Sexuallnequalit)'.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.SMITH. J. (1983) 'Feminist Analysis of Gender: a Critique' in Eds. M. Lowe and R. HubbardWomahis NatUte: Rationalization of Inequality. -----.- ..,----StMtHERN; A (Ed.) (1982) Inequality in New Guinea Highlands Societies. Cambridge:dambrldgt! University Press.

STRA THERN, M. (1980) 'No Nature, no Culture: the Hagen Case' in Eds. C.MacCormack and M." Strathem (1980).

- (1981) 'Self-interest and the Social Good: some Implications of Hagen Gender Imagery' in Eds. S." Ortner and H. Whitehead (1981).

- (1984) 'Subject or Object? Women and the Circulation of Valuables in Highlands New Guinea' inEd. R. HirschoD Women and Property, Women as Property. London: Croom Helm.THOMAS, D. (1982) Order without Government: The Society of the Pemon Indians of Venezuela.Illinois Studies in Anthropology. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. .TURNER, T. (1979) 'Kinship, Household, and Community Structu{e'in Ed. D. Maybury-L~~Dialectical Societies: The Ge and Bororo of Central Brazil. Cambridge, Mass.: Ha;;"ard UniversityPress.

Author's Address: Department of Anthropology, London School of Economics, Houghton Street,London, WC2A2AE, U.K.