Karen Endicott wrote:
Does meat-sharing lead to male power?
Arguing universal sexual asymmetry, some scholars contend that male dominance is unavoidable in hunter-gatherer societies because male hunters share the societies’ most valued commodity (meat) beyond the household, thus gaining prestige and creating debts that can be used to exert power over others. The argument makes several unwarranted or faulty assumptions: that meat is always the most valued commodity, that men have a monopoly on supplying meat, that dealings in the “public” sphere outside the household are more prestigious or valued than dealings within the household, and that hunters can turn prestige into power.
Evidence from hunter-gatherers contradicts these assumptions. The Batek, for example, do not prefer meat over all other foods; they usually mention fruit as the favored food of both humans and spirit beings. Women’s hunting in many hunter-gatherer societies undercuts the idea that men have a monopoly on meat. Many hunter-gatherer societies do not recognize a public sphere versus a domestic sphere, and there is no evidence that they value extrafamilial activities more than familial activities. The ill-defined notion of prestige is problematic. Is it admiration or something more? Some anthropologists unjustifiably assume that activities prestigious in our society (for example, leadership and politics) are prestigious in hunter-gatherer societies — or assume that men’s activities are always the most prestigious. The Batek admire industriousness, whatever the activity and whoever the worker; so do the Gidjingali. Even where people admire successful hunters, people usually undermine any hunter’s attempt to exert power over others.
Ultimately the argument that meat-sharing gives men power misinterprets hunter-gatherer sharing practices. Many scholars think of sharing as two separate networks: women share vegetable foods within the family and men share meat beyond the family. Yet, vegetable and meat sharing are two parts of the same process of generalized reciprocity among camp members. The difference is that vegetables are more reliable food sources than animals. Most gatherers are likely to succeed in finding food each day, obviating the need to regulate sharing. In some societies gatherers are expected to feed their families first; further sharing is up to the gatherer. Elsewhere gatherers share more routinely.
Hunters are far less likely to succeed in taking large game each day … Small game is commonly exempt from obligatory sharing. Large game must be shared. Many scholars interpret meat-sharing as generosity, but many societies make sure that the hunter does not have a choice. Some foragers have set rules about which cut of meat goes to which relative, while others assign distribution rights to people other than the hunter. The Ju/’hoansi say that the owner of the arrow that killed the animal is the owner/distributor of the meat. Either a man or a woman can own the arrow … By this and other leveling mechanisms — including ridiculing the meat and cutting cocky hunters down to size — the Ju/’hoansi prevent hunters from turning the sharing network into a political power base. The Ju/’hoansi actively encourage hunting through rituals, admiration of hunters, and nagging, then just as actively prevent hunters from using their successes for personal advantage.
Do hunter-gatherer men control women?
Anthropologists have argued that hunter-gatherer men control women through arranging marriages, appropriating women’s labor, excluding women from prestigious or authority-laden activities or realms of knowledge (such as hunting, religion, or politics), or through violence. Empirically there is wide variation in how men and women divide authority and control.
Not all hunter-gatherers have arranged marriages, and in those that do, generally both parents have a say in arrangements for their sons and daughters. Defining marriage as wife-exchange is one way anthropologists inadvertently overlook women’s influence over their own marriages and those of their children. Like many foragers, Batek men and women choose their own spouses. Ju/’hoansi parents arrange first and sometimes second marriages for their young sons and daughters. But unhappily married young daughters may move back home or divorce. Adult Ju/’hoansi women and men select subsequent marriages partners for themselves. The Tiwi defined women as wives, even before their births. Although a girl’s grandfather, father, or brothers formally arranged her marriage, her mother’s relationship with the prospective groom most influenced whether the marriage would take place. A prospective son-in-law had to please his future mother-in-law by doing all she asked of him, or she could void the contract. Though anthropologists often interpret Tiwi society as men exchanging women, Tiwi women exercised their own control of men through the mother-in-law relationship and extramarital affairs.
Rather than assigning all authority in economic, political, or religious matters to one gender or the other, hunter-gatherers tend to leave decision-making about men’s work and areas of expertise to men, and about women’s work and expertise to women, either as groups or individuals. When decisions affect an extended household or group, age and gender are factored in in various ways. Older men and women may coordinate the activities of a household, as among Evenki. Netsilik husbands decided where families moved; wives were autonomous in their domains and often influenced their husband’s decisions. Guemple reports that in Inuit interpersonal “politics” the general rule is that younger answer to older and females answer to males; men may “give the orders” at home but do not interfere with women’s work; moreover, Inuit men tend to defer to their grandmothers. Observing that Chipewyan women defer to their husbands in public but not in private, Sharp cautions against assuming this means that men control women: “If public deference, or the appearance of it, is an expression of power between the genders, it is a most uncertain and imperfect measure of power relations. Polite behavior can be most misleading precisely because of its conspicuousness.” Some foragers place the formalities of decision-making in male hands, but expect women to influence or ratify the decisions. Gitxsan male chiefs do not support community-wide initiatives without their mothers’ and aunts’ approval. Andamanese men act together to make a decision, then get women to endorse it before its implementation. Sometimes, too, women instruct men to undertake specific tasks. Other foragers expect both men and women to participate in group decisions. Kim Hill and A. Magdalena Hurtado (personal communication) report that Ache men and women traditionally participated in band-level decisions, though “some men commanded more respect and held more personal power than any woman”. The Batek expect individual men and women to have their say; when interests diverge, families or individuals may leave a camp group to pursue their own plans.
In addition to consensus and discussion as the means of decision-making, some foragers have leaders, either formal or informal. The oldest Netsilik male in an extended family is considered the headman for that group. He coordinates hunting activities and his wife distributes the food. Various Australian Aborigines recognize ritual leaders, usually elders. Some societies, like the Batek, have “headmen” positions that were introduced by outsiders to serve as liaisons. Such people may or may not have a “following”. The Batek, like some other foragers, also have “natural” or informal leaders, whose intelligence and abilities tend to attract people who seek their advice. Some Batek natural leaders are women. Commonly, if leaders — whether formal or informal — try to coerce others, families and individuals move away from them.
Indeed, many hunter-gatherers limit authority to specific situations like organizing rituals or arranging marriages, and leave individuals to exercise personal autonomy in broad areas of everyday life. People cannot extend such situational authority into generalized control over others. Even when people exercise situational authority, individuals exercising personal autonomy may refuse to abide by the authority. For example, children may refuse arranged marriages or may divorce shortly after the marriage takes place, even when the parent has had the right to make the arrangement. Personal autonomy and situational authority apply to both men and women, though the configurations may differ in each society. Nowhere do men or women control all aspects of each other’s lives.
Some anthropologists argue that men have an ultimate advantage over women because men are stronger and will tend to be the winners in violent confrontations. In any human interaction violence is a possibility, and women may well be the losers. The real question is whether the society institutionalizes violence, especially against women. Among some foragers, like the Batek, violence is strictly taboo and violators are scorned. For the Mbuti, “a certain amount of wife-beating is considered good, and the wife is expected to fight back”, but too much violence results in intervention by kin or in divorce. Some Australian Aboriginal men use threats of gang-rape to keep women away from their secret ceremonies. Burbank argues that Aborigines accept physical aggression as a “legitimate form of social action” and limit it through ritual.
The source:
Karen L. Endicott, ‘Gender relations in hunter-gatherer societies’, in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers, edited by Richard B. Lee and Richard Daly, Cambridge 1999.
[The unusually informative comparative chapter from which these passages — two sections — are extracted is extensively literature-referenced within-text (almost every sentence), but the non-specialist reader will find it easier to absorb the information without distracting references. Since many sentences deserve a highlight, there has been no ‘bolding’. Readers of Social Science Files can consult the references in the original and well recommended Cambridge Encyclopedia of Hunters and Gatherers.]
Social Science Files releases intelligence for deciphering the evolutions of social order from the earliest humans to the present day and future machine age.