The issue of who makes what for whom in a cultural reality other than one that you have an intimate of is typically contentious. All too often, from outside the culture, the gendered assignment of roles is more speculative than factual and more misinformed than authoritative. And that's not to mention inclinations to exoticise 'the other' by those who have not studied the culture in question in any depth.
Interestingly, some material cultural production is usually made by men and other is designated as being 'women's work'. This varies from one cultural reality to another with distinct imperatives defining gender roles in each case.
It also seems that for reasons of cultural obligation an item that is intended as a 'no-come-back', –transient cum throwaway items – gender assignment may be more ambiguous.
Interestingly, some material cultural production is usually made by men and other is designated as being 'women's work'. This varies from one cultural reality to another with distinct imperatives defining gender roles in each case.
It also seems that for reasons of cultural obligation an item that is intended as a 'no-come-back', –transient cum throwaway items – gender assignment may be more ambiguous.
In Fiji it seems that there are mats and baskets where the intention is to make objects of high status and value, women seem to be the 'specialist makers'. Nonetheless, these objects may also be the subject of 'obligation gifting'.
None of this should be assumed as applying to any cultural reality across it, or in others linked to it, without reference to local cultural imperatives and the local people.
[Pers Com Dr Rod Ewins]
No comments:
Post a Comment