User:Jjdani15/sandbox

This is a user sandbox of Jjdani15. You can use it for testing or practicing edits.
This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course.
To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section.

Get Help

'Complex Subjectivity'Bold text Subjectivity has become more and more of a focal point for both Feminist scholars and Anthropologists as the notion of the subject has been becoming the center of more and more social theories.^[1] This new shared interest between these two groups may be the reason for the new partnership between feminists and anthropologists. "Complex Subjectivity is relational and these relations provide the possibilities for both similarity and difference to emerge."^[1] Many argue that to move forward, we must focus more on relationships of both similarity and difference, as produce in western theoretical practice and people's daily lives.^[1] Another important point within complex subjectivity is the idea of "hybridity." "Hybridity is the mixing that brings forth new forms from previously identified categories."^[2] Anthropologist and Feminist Scholars have started to integrate the complex notion of the subject at the center of social theories. The reason it is so complex is that we are talking about a notion of subjectivity which means we are moving away from what can be appropriately called the objective truth. This new idea of complex subjectivity is relational and these relations can provide the possibilities for similarities and differences to emerge. What we are calling for here is a blurring of lines between who is included and who is excluded from particular gender territories. ^[3]

Modern Anthropologists have removed the father from the family, but they did not change the basic social science concept of the "Family." The function of the "family" is the child rearing which is mapped onto a bounded set of people who share a place and who "love" one another.^[4] The normal concept of "Family" is the that Feminist Anthropologists have found to be so difficult in applying. The reason for this is that "Although the biological facts of reproduction when combined with a sufficiently elastic definition of marriage, makes it possible for us,..., to find both mother-child units and conjugal-pairs-plus-children units in every society, it is not all clear that such Families necessarily exhibit the associated features that are "proven" that modern anthropologists echo."^[3]

^ ^a ^b ^c Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.
^ Abraham and Foley. Frontiers in Catholic Feminist Theology. Fortress Press. pp. 9–24. ISBN 978-0-8006-6439-8.
^ ^a ^b Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.</ref One of the major problems that can arise is anthropologists often fail to provide what many feminist scholars are looking for in their work; the evidence of links and similarities through which to develop a politics of solidarity and connection. From the feminist perspective, the political implications of moral [[relativism]] are potentially reactionary, as they preclude the definition of either oppression or liberation. Another aspect in this field is the reproduction politics. It is an area of contemporary convergence between feminism and anthropology, the body, and the concept of embodiment. The reason for the shift in focus is the relationship between gender and sex. Bodies often contain both female and male substances. Men and women are distinguished by their genital classes, the gender of these men and women depends on their bodily state in relation to the gendered substance, and is more related to age and reproductive history. [1]<ref>Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.</ref '''Feminist Cultural Anthropology''' Some Anthropologists have argued that the basic family unit is the mother and her children whether or not a mate becomes attached or not is a variable matter.[3]<ref>Lancaster & di Leonardo. The Gender Sexuality Reader. Routledge. pp. 71–80. ISBN 0-415-91005-6.
^ Lancaster & di Leonardo. The Gender Sexuality Reader. Routledge. pp. 71–80. ISBN 0-415-91005-6.

[:0-1] Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.

[2] Abraham and Foley. Frontiers in Catholic Feminist Theology. Fortress Press. pp. 9–24. ISBN 978-0-8006-6439-8.

[:1-3] Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.</ref One of the major problems that can arise is anthropologists often fail to provide what many feminist scholars are looking for in their work; the evidence of links and similarities through which to develop a politics of solidarity and connection. From the feminist perspective, the political implications of moral [[relativism]] are potentially reactionary, as they preclude the definition of either oppression or liberation. Another aspect in this field is the reproduction politics. It is an area of contemporary convergence between feminism and anthropology, the body, and the concept of embodiment. The reason for the shift in focus is the relationship between gender and sex. Bodies often contain both female and male substances. Men and women are distinguished by their genital classes, the gender of these men and women depends on their bodily state in relation to the gendered substance, and is more related to age and reproductive history. [1]<ref>Jackson, Stevi (1998). Contemporary Feminist Theories. New York: New York University Press. pp. 73–82. ISBN 0-8147-4249-1.</ref '''Feminist Cultural Anthropology''' Some Anthropologists have argued that the basic family unit is the mother and her children whether or not a mate becomes attached or not is a variable matter.[3]<ref>Lancaster & di Leonardo. The Gender Sexuality Reader. Routledge. pp. 71–80. ISBN 0-415-91005-6.

[4] Lancaster & di Leonardo. The Gender Sexuality Reader. Routledge. pp. 71–80. ISBN 0-415-91005-6.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]