Sherry Ortner 1972, on how symbolic associations of women with nature (vs. men with culture) underpin gender hierarchies across cultures.
- Katherine
- Aug 9
- 3 min read
Updated: Sep 23
(An Anthropological perspective)
'My point is simply that every culture implicitly recognises and asserts the distinction between the operation of nature as such and the operation of culture (human consciousness and its products), and further, that the distinctiveness of culture rests precisely on the fact that it can under most circumstances transcend natural givens and turn them to its purposes.
Thus culture (i.e., every culture) at some level of awareness asserts itself to be not only distinct from, but superior in power to, nature, and that sense of distinctiveness and superiority rests precisely on the ability to transform--to"socialize" and "culturalize"--nature.'
'Returning now to the issue of women, in my initial thinking on the subject, I formulated the argument as follows: the pan-cultural devaluation of woman could be accounted for, quite simply, by postulating that woman is being identified with, or symbolically associated with, nature, as opposed to man, who is identified with culture. Since it is always culture's project to subsume and transcend nature, if woman is a part of nature, then culture would find it "natural" to subordinate, not to say oppress, her.'
'I translate the problem, in other words, into the following simple question: What could there be in the generalised structure and conditions of existence, common to every culture, that would lead every culture to devalue women? Specifically, my thesis is that woman is being identified with, or, if you will, seems to be a symbol of, something that every culture devalues, something that every culture defines as being at a lower order of existence than itself. Now it seems that there is only one thing that would fit that category, and that is "nature" in the most generalised sense.
Every culture, or, generically, "culture," is engaged in the process of generating and sustaining systems of meaningful forms (symbols, artifacts, etc.) by means of which humanity transcends the givens of natural existence, bends them to its purposes, controls them in its interest. We may thus equate culture broadly with the notion of human consciousness, or with the products of human consciousness (i.e., systems of thought and technology), by means of which humanity attempts to rise above and assert control, however minimally, over nature.
Although Chodorow suggests that in a broad way the difference between male and female personality--roughly, men as more objective or category-oriented, women as more subjective or person-oriented--are "nearly universal."
Reading this book was a little unsettling and I reminded myself that alot has changed since 1972 and there are undoubtedly layers of counter arguments, which I plan to delve into....but it is an interesting historical perspective so I am allowing a few thought spirals here....
In the increasingly dominant western sphere of technology; and by that I also mean a work culture that has historically been shaped by male norms and expectations, and has often been described as being less accommodating to women’s working preferences, is the “karmic implication” (more on that later) that women may find themselves channelled into more traditional, domestic-style roles?
Thought spiral two...
Textiles, which are historically associated with women and could in the past be produced in the home, once allowed women to earn an income while also looking after children.
With technology and online work, much of this could also now technically be done from home, provided there is internet connectivity. This raises the question: do men need to go into a workplace at all? Is that even relevant here? Ok this feels slightly off topic, but will leave it here anyway.
and while we are on the subject of technology...
If technology is male orientated; as Chodorow says; being 'more objective or category-oriented' are men naturally better at technology; and therefore should they take these roles? My experience of working with older men in the workplace, both in fashion and academia suggests otherwise (sorry lads but it's true) they are often the most resistant to change, especially when it comes to adopting to new technologies. Instead, they seem to seek opportunities to give opinions on other people’s work rather than doing the work themselves, as though this is the ultimate marker of success.
These lines of thought beg the question whether the shift from physical to digital work culture disrupts gendered divisions of labour, or whether it simply reshapes them in ways that still privilege male-dominated work cultures.
So perhaps something else is going on...and clearly it is more complex...
more on that later...
References:
Sherry B. Ortner, Is Female to Male as Nature Is to Culture?
Feminist Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2. (Autumn, 1972), pp. 5-31.
Stable URL:
Comments