Paper One (Spring 2011)

Due: Fri., Mar. 18 by 5 pm at my office (Vollum 312)

Length and Format: 5-7 pages, double-spaced, 1 inch margins all around, 12 point fonts. Please spellcheck. They should be well-organized, with a clear thesis or argument that is

• 1) articulated in the first or second paragraphs,
• 2) supported by evidence from readings, and
• 3) reconsidered and fleshed out in a conclusion.

Evaluation: I will evaluate and respond to papers based on (in order of priority):

• 1) Degree to which you respond to the assignment and incorporate ideas and issues from class materials in your discussion;
• 2) Extent to which you demonstrate clear understanding of basic terms presented in the course;
• 3) the creativity and originality of your ideas
• 4) The clarity of your organization and writing

Topics:

1) ) Thinking through the complex relationships among gender, sex, and sexuality in different cultural, political or historical contexts can challenge deeply held assumptions about the relationships between biology/the body/nature and culture. 1) Consider how one (or more) of the following theorists conceptualize the relationship(s) between biological sex/sexuality, and social constructions of gender roles, gendered bodies or gendered sexualities: Jordonova, Ortner, Fausto-Sterling, Pinker, McKinnon, Lamphere, Martin, Duncan, Kimmel, Lancaster, hooks, Weston, Stephens; and 2) discuss how their arguments are supported (or not) by the cases discussed in one or more of the following ethnographic pieces: Martin, Scheper-Hughes, Zavella, Tsing, Gutmann, Jackson, Obeler, Judd, Weston, Thorne, Mac An Ghail, Kulik, Herring, Moonwomon.

Consider especially:

• 1) How are "sex", "gender" and "sexuality" to be defined? How do these writers think of them as related?
• 2) How do specific ethnographic cases provide evidence of this or refute their arguments?
• 3) Is there a way to conceptualize these relationships so as to avoid both biological and cultural determinism?

2) In their introduction to the Gender/Sexuality Reader, di Leonardo and Lancaster advocate a methodology they call a "robust social constructionism" (p. 4), and they discuss the ways sex, gender, and sexuality are always related to other constructions of difference and hierarchy such as class, race and ethnicity. 1) Discuss what they mean by this and the methodological implications of their arguments for conceptualizing gender, and 2) consider how their arguments may or may not be applied to or supported by one (or more) of the following ethnographic or theoretical pieces: Ortner, Jordonova, Fausto-Sterling, Pinker, McKinnon, Lamphere, Martin, Scheper-Hughes, Zavella, Duncan, Tsing, Kimmel, Katz, hooks, Gutmann, Jackson, Obeler, Judd, Weston, Foucault, Thorne, Martin, Mac An Ghail, Gal, Kulik, Herring, Moonwomon.

Consider especially:

• 1) What methods should an anthropologist of sex/gender/sexuality employ in order to avoid the pitfalls of earlier approaches?
• 2) How does this perspective address questions of biological vs. cultural determinism?