<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:series="http://organizeseries.com/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Between Sex and Power</title>
	<atom:link href="/2005/05/18/between-sex-and-power/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>/2005/05/18/between-sex-and-power/</link>
	<description>Notes and Queries in Anthropology</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Dec 2017 18:00:10 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.9.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kerim</title>
		<link>/2005/05/18/between-sex-and-power/comment-page-1/#comment-75</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Kerim]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2005 04:41:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=40#comment-75</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I agree. Unlike many anthropologists, I actually like synthetic studies. It is really the teleological nature of this one (at least as represented by Anderson) that worries me. Peter Gran&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815626932/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;&quot;Beyond Eurocentrism: A New View of Modern World History&quot;&lt;/a&gt;, is a nice study that takes state power and local social histories seriously but still manages to weave a grand narrative.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree. Unlike many anthropologists, I actually like synthetic studies. It is really the teleological nature of this one (at least as represented by Anderson) that worries me. Peter Gran&#8217;s <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0815626932/" rel="nofollow">&#8220;Beyond Eurocentrism: A New View of Modern World History&#8221;</a>, is a nice study that takes state power and local social histories seriously but still manages to weave a grand narrative.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Colin Danby</title>
		<link>/2005/05/18/between-sex-and-power/comment-page-1/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Colin Danby]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 May 2005 04:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=40#comment-74</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I also find &quot;Hindu system&quot; a terrifyingly sweeping generalization.  But here&#039;s a question.  Synthetic studies are useful, and one is willing to forgive a certain amount of generalizing if larger patterns emerge.  In particular it&#039;s useful to be able to think of patriarchy as a large-scale, even global-scale, system.  (And incidentally patriarchy is not incompatible with individual women holding power.)  

But how does one do that without undoing decades of critical work, from Schneider onward, into the whole idea of &quot;*the* family,&quot; or of the notion that marriage or kinship are human universals?  There&#039;s something about Anderson&#039;s deployment of the term &quot;traditional family systems&quot; that makes me nervous.  Has anyone actually looked at Therborn?  Does he take account of the critical lit (Yanagisako, Borneman, Errington etc.)?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I also find &#8220;Hindu system&#8221; a terrifyingly sweeping generalization.  But here&#8217;s a question.  Synthetic studies are useful, and one is willing to forgive a certain amount of generalizing if larger patterns emerge.  In particular it&#8217;s useful to be able to think of patriarchy as a large-scale, even global-scale, system.  (And incidentally patriarchy is not incompatible with individual women holding power.)  </p>
<p>But how does one do that without undoing decades of critical work, from Schneider onward, into the whole idea of &#8220;*the* family,&#8221; or of the notion that marriage or kinship are human universals?  There&#8217;s something about Anderson&#8217;s deployment of the term &#8220;traditional family systems&#8221; that makes me nervous.  Has anyone actually looked at Therborn?  Does he take account of the critical lit (Yanagisako, Borneman, Errington etc.)?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
