Print

Print


I don't know the text Carrol refers to, so this may be a very different
focus.  But it reminds me of a long concern in feminist history about
the difference between "women in history" and "women as history."  The
former just retains traditional periods and assumptions about what was
important and sticks in a few women here and there, mainly queens or
women like Marie Curie--in Peggy McIntosh's terms, "add women and stir."
 The latter goes back and reconsiders all of history on the assumption
of women's presence.  It creates very different perspectives.  We tend,
for example, to think of the rise of universities in the 12th century as
a great opening of possibility, even for those not in the aristocracy,
to study and think.  But for women it was a setback because learning had
been mainly done in convents and monasteries.  Women could be scholars
in convents, and some, like Hildegard von Bingen, were powerful:  she
was the head of a double monastery and a brilliant scholar herself.  But
women were barred from universities and lost a primary base of knowledge
for centuries.  

Putting women back in "as" history means seeing what they did as
important, equally with wars and political power; it is very related to
social history.

So there sounds like a parallel between "in" and "having," and "as" and
"being."
Nancy


>>> Carrol Cox <[log in to unmask]> 08/05/07 10:29 PM >>>
I'm having difficulty in remembering. The only book I can locate right
now by a French anthropologist on my bookshelves is Emanuel Terray,
Marxism and "Primitive" Societies, but I remember the sentence as being
the _first_ sentence, and I can't locate it in Terray now. If it's in
another book I own, I haven't got it indexed in a Word Table yet, or
didn't put the keyword Anthro in! Pound says culture begins with "I
can't remember what book I read it in," but senility may begin that way
too*. If I come across it I'll post the book.

[*And I can't remember what book Pound said that in. :-)]

Carrol

Diana Manister wrote:
> 
> Carrol, the distinction between having a history and being your
> history in sense more than a personal sense is illuminating. I wonder
> if he or she means history in a strictly Darwinian sense. Any chance
> of getting the name of the anthropologist? Diana
>