What do you think?
Rate this book
Women Writing Culture
In this collection of new reflections on the sexual politics, racial history, and moral predicaments of anthropology, feminist scholars explore a wide range of visions of identity and difference. How are feminists redefining the poetics and politics of ethnography? What are the contradictions of women studying women? How have gender, race, class, and nationality been scripted into the canon?
Through autobiography, fiction, historical analysis, experimental essays, and criticism, the contributors offer exciting responses to these questions. Several pieces reinvestigate the work of key women anthropologists like Elsie Clews Parsons, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict, while others reevaluate the writings of women of color like Zora Neale Hurston, Ella Deloria, and Alice Walker. Some selections explore how sexual politics help to determine what gets written and what is valued in the anthropological canon. Other pieces explore new forms of feminist ethnography that 'write culture' experimentally, thereby challenging prevailing, male-biased anthropological models.
Through autobiography, fiction, historical analysis, experimental essays, and criticism, the contributors offer exciting responses to these questions. Several pieces reinvestigate the work of key women anthropologists like Elsie Clews Parsons, Margaret Mead, and Ruth Benedict, while others reevaluate the writings of women of color like Zora Neale Hurston, Ella Deloria, and Alice Walker. Some selections explore how sexual politics help to determine what gets written and what is valued in the anthropological canon. Other pieces explore new forms of feminist ethnography that 'write culture' experimentally, thereby challenging prevailing, male-biased anthropological models.
474 pages, Paperback
First published December 6, 1995
4 people are currently reading
279 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
July 16, 2020
Book Excerpt Review on the Introductory Chapter (Ruth Behar)
Out of Exile is an introductory chapter by Ruth Behar in the book Women Writing Culture (Behar & Gordon, 1995), which initially emerged as a feminist critique to Writing Culture (Clifford & Marcus, 1986) and later drew on This Bridge Called My Back (Moraga & Anzaldua, 1983). Ruth Behar is a Cuban-American anthropologist and a writer, who insists that the subjective nature of research demands the use of personal voice as a research methodology (Behar, 1996). Her method to blend creative and critical writing is reflected in the arguments she made in this chapter. This approach is different from other approaches in that it does not only reflect on the importance of feminist theories, but also highlights the need for a more inclusive nature—be it the writing style, race, class, gender, sexuality, and so on—in ethnographic research and writing. However, it fails to discuss the potential dangers of being a “vulnerable observer” (Behar, 1996) and the measures that needs to be taken, particularly considering the emphasis on the native point of view as one of the features of realist ethnography (Marcus & Cushman, 1982).
The author questions the claim made by James Clifford in Writing Culture (1986) that the writings of women anthropologists were not ‘good enough’ to be included in the discipline. She argues that it is in fact the men (and the main stream anthropology) who experience, in Marilyn Strathern’s terms, “an awkward relationship with feminism” (p.14) and thus, the former is not able to settle with the latter. She asserts that anthropology is a male oriented discipline where women have little say in it and that women are equally responsible for this power dynamic, since their own insecurities—as the center of everyone’s gaze—had prevented them from writing down their thoughts so far. For instance, Behar contends that anthropologist Ruth Benedict was often criticized for her poetic writing style which eventually made her less expressive and explicit in her future writings (p.17). Nevertheless, she believes that the study of the poetics and politics of feminist ethnography and solidarity among women ethnographers that acknowledge diversities can help lessen this gender inequality.
The chapter provides brief yet strong illustrations of feminist methodology that is diverse and blurs all boundaries, that is both analytical and experimental, and that values collaborative effort and lived experiences in contrast to the conventional ethnographic method. An example would be Janet Finn’s essay on Ella Cara Deloria’s method of mixing ethnographic writing with fiction. Deloria’s positioning as a native anthropologist resulted in her work Waterlily, which is an example of a hybrid ethnographic text that compels us to analyze the relationship between the observer and the observed—and urges us to question if it is even possible to separate the two (p. 18). The collaborative approach that Behar talks about is demonstrated by the diverse range of contributors to Women Writing Culture that includes authors from all walks of life.
While attempting to critique Writing Culture, Behar is so engrossed in the whole critiquing process that she disregards the possible biases that may arise from taking a subjective approach in ethnography. Since these biases can influence and inform the entire ethnographic process, it is crucial to introduce research strategies to help navigate the challenges that come with being, in Behar’s term, a “vulnerable observer”. Just as she questions how knowledge is produced and distributed, it is also equally important to address the following questions: to what extent can one be subjective? What is the thin line between taking a subjective approach (that is empathetic) and being too focused on the self? How can researchers express their lived experiences while still emphasizing on the native point of view? Therefore, although subjectivity may offer a different and in-depth understanding of human behavior, it is best for researchers to continue taking an objective approach until the above questions are properly addressed and analyzed despite the fact that complete objectivity is unattainable. To explain it in another way, just because it is not possible for an ethnographer to be a fully detached observer doesn’t mean “one might let one’s sentiments run loose” (Geertz, 1998, p. 30). In fact, simply being aware of this brings us one step closer towards being an objective observer.
To conclude, Out of Exile offers a fresh ethnographic approach contrary to the conventional scientific methods and reflects on androcentricism in ethnography, Writing Culture—according to the author—being one of them. It attempts to produce knowledge that is accessible across all domains, and it rebels against the present hierarchy in order to create an egalitarian relationship between the self and the other. Although the experimental method it offers seems quite promising, it is vital to come up with tools for its effective implementation. Nevertheless, because of its widespread range and inclusive nature, this is not just for the feminists but also for all those people who are open to change in ethnographic research and writing and who are willing to embrace differences with open arms.
Out of Exile is an introductory chapter by Ruth Behar in the book Women Writing Culture (Behar & Gordon, 1995), which initially emerged as a feminist critique to Writing Culture (Clifford & Marcus, 1986) and later drew on This Bridge Called My Back (Moraga & Anzaldua, 1983). Ruth Behar is a Cuban-American anthropologist and a writer, who insists that the subjective nature of research demands the use of personal voice as a research methodology (Behar, 1996). Her method to blend creative and critical writing is reflected in the arguments she made in this chapter. This approach is different from other approaches in that it does not only reflect on the importance of feminist theories, but also highlights the need for a more inclusive nature—be it the writing style, race, class, gender, sexuality, and so on—in ethnographic research and writing. However, it fails to discuss the potential dangers of being a “vulnerable observer” (Behar, 1996) and the measures that needs to be taken, particularly considering the emphasis on the native point of view as one of the features of realist ethnography (Marcus & Cushman, 1982).
The author questions the claim made by James Clifford in Writing Culture (1986) that the writings of women anthropologists were not ‘good enough’ to be included in the discipline. She argues that it is in fact the men (and the main stream anthropology) who experience, in Marilyn Strathern’s terms, “an awkward relationship with feminism” (p.14) and thus, the former is not able to settle with the latter. She asserts that anthropology is a male oriented discipline where women have little say in it and that women are equally responsible for this power dynamic, since their own insecurities—as the center of everyone’s gaze—had prevented them from writing down their thoughts so far. For instance, Behar contends that anthropologist Ruth Benedict was often criticized for her poetic writing style which eventually made her less expressive and explicit in her future writings (p.17). Nevertheless, she believes that the study of the poetics and politics of feminist ethnography and solidarity among women ethnographers that acknowledge diversities can help lessen this gender inequality.
The chapter provides brief yet strong illustrations of feminist methodology that is diverse and blurs all boundaries, that is both analytical and experimental, and that values collaborative effort and lived experiences in contrast to the conventional ethnographic method. An example would be Janet Finn’s essay on Ella Cara Deloria’s method of mixing ethnographic writing with fiction. Deloria’s positioning as a native anthropologist resulted in her work Waterlily, which is an example of a hybrid ethnographic text that compels us to analyze the relationship between the observer and the observed—and urges us to question if it is even possible to separate the two (p. 18). The collaborative approach that Behar talks about is demonstrated by the diverse range of contributors to Women Writing Culture that includes authors from all walks of life.
While attempting to critique Writing Culture, Behar is so engrossed in the whole critiquing process that she disregards the possible biases that may arise from taking a subjective approach in ethnography. Since these biases can influence and inform the entire ethnographic process, it is crucial to introduce research strategies to help navigate the challenges that come with being, in Behar’s term, a “vulnerable observer”. Just as she questions how knowledge is produced and distributed, it is also equally important to address the following questions: to what extent can one be subjective? What is the thin line between taking a subjective approach (that is empathetic) and being too focused on the self? How can researchers express their lived experiences while still emphasizing on the native point of view? Therefore, although subjectivity may offer a different and in-depth understanding of human behavior, it is best for researchers to continue taking an objective approach until the above questions are properly addressed and analyzed despite the fact that complete objectivity is unattainable. To explain it in another way, just because it is not possible for an ethnographer to be a fully detached observer doesn’t mean “one might let one’s sentiments run loose” (Geertz, 1998, p. 30). In fact, simply being aware of this brings us one step closer towards being an objective observer.
To conclude, Out of Exile offers a fresh ethnographic approach contrary to the conventional scientific methods and reflects on androcentricism in ethnography, Writing Culture—according to the author—being one of them. It attempts to produce knowledge that is accessible across all domains, and it rebels against the present hierarchy in order to create an egalitarian relationship between the self and the other. Although the experimental method it offers seems quite promising, it is vital to come up with tools for its effective implementation. Nevertheless, because of its widespread range and inclusive nature, this is not just for the feminists but also for all those people who are open to change in ethnographic research and writing and who are willing to embrace differences with open arms.
December 1, 2008
I can't believe this book was written in the 1990s, and not the 1970s. For the most part, I find this project highly annoying and self-important. However, there are some chapters in the middle that chronicle the history of many earlier-generation female anthropologists, including Margaret Mead, Elsie Clews Parsons, Ruth Benedict, Zora Neale Hurston, and others.
The book is worth picking up for that middle section. Spare yourself the rest, though.
The book is worth picking up for that middle section. Spare yourself the rest, though.
May 7, 2024
I really enjoyed reading this book which is in response to Writing Culture and also tries to answer what does it mean to be a woman writer in anthropology - a discipline that is deeply rooted in the narrative of the male quests.
The book starts off with an introduction by Ruth Behar who poses the following quote by Virginia Woolf, 'as long as she writes little notes, nobody objects to a woman's writing.'
The crux of this book is the role of the personal voice which when used by women is undermined but when used by men is reclassified into more academic terms such as 'reflexive' and 'experimental.'
The book starts off with an introduction by Ruth Behar who poses the following quote by Virginia Woolf, 'as long as she writes little notes, nobody objects to a woman's writing.'
The crux of this book is the role of the personal voice which when used by women is undermined but when used by men is reclassified into more academic terms such as 'reflexive' and 'experimental.'
February 14, 2021
Read part I and part II.
July 23, 2007
It will be interesting to see how this book ages. It was extremely important to me at one time, then became an object of embarassment, and now I feel like tying up first year anthro grads and forcing them to really read it.
October 2, 2008
Anthropology's wonderful, feminist, culture writers in ONE edition!
October 29, 2011
Women Writing Culture by Ruth Behar (1996)
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews