Engels, Origin of the Family, Private, Property, and the State (pages 94-146)
Sacks, "Engels Revisited" in Woman, Culture, and Society
Moore, Feminism and Anthropology (pages 46-54; 89-116)

***Note: there is a typo on the syllabus. Please start the Moore reading on page 46.***

 

A few words of advice for this week's reading:
As with last week, do Moore first, since she provides important background to the debates Engels has raised within feminism and anthropology. Then, read Engels; pay particular attention to the underlying logic of his model, the plausibility of his explanation for women's subordinate status, and the terms or definitions he employs.

A central theme for this week's reading is the usefulness of the analytical distinction between public and domestic spheres as one possible way of understanding women's lower status. Related to this is the notion that women can achieve higher status by breaking out of the domestic sphere to engage in "public" wage labor. As you read, pay particular attention to the assumptions underlying the public/domestic sphere models espoused by Engels and Sacks. Consider whether their proposed solutions will solve the problem of women. If not, then what does this suggest about their models?

 

The following questions are intended to guide your reading and will serve as the basis for class discussion:

1. How does Engels explain the evolution of the patriarchal household? How does he relate economic change (infrastructure) to changes in social relations and cultural attitudes (superstructure)? Do you find his model convincing? Why or why not?

2. How does Engels explain the appearance of gendered divisions of labor? How do these relate to the tasks of reproduction and production? What kind of evidence does he offer in support of his characterizations? Compare his account to those in Boserup and Moore.

3. How does Sacks revise Engels' argument about the origins of women's subordination? What kinds of assumptions underlie her account, and what evidence does she provide to support her argument? What does she mean by "social adulthood," and how is this notion gendered? How does her account compare to that of Ortner?

4. What kinds of spaces, persons, and activities are contained within the terms "domestic sphere" and "public sphere"? How do these distinctions function, not just as social concepts, but also within academic debates about gender? Why are these distinctions important, if at all?

 

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu