斐济一所中学的性别和种族十字路口上的斐济男性

Ethnology Pub Date : 2005-09-22 DOI:10.2307/3774093
Carmen M. White
{"title":"斐济一所中学的性别和种族十字路口上的斐济男性","authors":"Carmen M. White","doi":"10.2307/3774093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article explores how two transgendered Fijian males navigate the intersections of sex, gender, and ethnicity or \"race\" in a Fiji secondary school. Their experiences illustrate, on the one hand, the negotiability of a transgendered category in Fiji. On the other hand, there is the potential for transgendered identity to open spaces for engagement with nonFijian ethnic markers in the face of essentialist discursive practices on ethnicity. The case study shows the individualized ways that two transgendered males negotiate and challenge notions of Fijian male authenticity. (Transgender, Fijians, ethnicity, Fijian schools) ********** In a seminal text, Butler (1990) problematizes contemporary Western notions of sex and gender, with sex constituting a particular biological construct rooted in a dimorphism of male and female bodies versus gender as a culturally constructed concept subject to malleability and negotiation by oppositionally sexed bodies. She notes that to reckon gender as a \"free-floating artifice\" in relation to sex leaves much unexplained about sex since it retains its status as a finite, a priori category: And what is sex anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such \"facts\" for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? (Butler 1990:6) Drawing from Foucault (1978), Butler answers her own questions, arguing that the Western notion of sex is far from an objective fact of nature, tracing its \"genealogy\" to the eighteenth century medicalization of reproduction in the West, which rendered the physiologically distinctive roles of male and female in reproduction focal, and heterosexuality morally and functionally normative. Butler (1990) identifies the resultant \"heterosexual matrix\" that provides the grid through which both sex and gender are interpreted, and which consigns nonheterosexuals, third genders, and transgendered persons to the status of exotic, deviant others. She proposes that ultimately the givens of sex in the West should be recognized as the actual outcome of patriarchal \"regulatory mechanisms\" that claim the repetitive enactment of behavioral differences between males and females as natural and as sexual conventions. In short, sex is a cultural construction; sex is work. Errington (1990) more explicitly defines and empirically confronts the situatedness of Western notions of sex as a \"particular construct of human bodies\" (Errington 1990:26) that holds that differences in genitals are normatively contiguous with such \"elements of hidden anatomy\" as chromosomal and hormonal differences, as well as differences in bodily fluids, sexual preferences, practices, and specialized roles that potentially lead to reproduction. Yet, she seizes upon the opportunities that comparative analyses present for decentering Western constructs by engaging notions of sex in Southeast Asian societies, illustrating that while sex is everywhere recognized as including some distinction in male and female biology, the way these differences are reckoned, the emphasis they are given, and allowances for additional sex categories vary across societies. Societies of island Southeast Asia are among those where not only are bodies not gendered in such fixed, oppositional ways, but where practice potentially overrides sexed bodies in social classification. In terms of relative access to prestige and power, which are defined in spiritual rather than secular terms, Errington (1990) observes that Island Southeast Asians tend not to be biological reductionists: they usually do not claim that women, because they are anatomically women, are weak or ineffective. Rather, they are probabilists: they point out that women and men are basically the same, but because of the activities women engage in or fail to do, they tend not to become prominent and powerful (Errington 1990:40). …","PeriodicalId":81209,"journal":{"name":"Ethnology","volume":"44 1","pages":"313-336"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3774093","citationCount":"8","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fijian Males at the Crossroads of Gender and Ethnicity in a Fiji Secondary School\",\"authors\":\"Carmen M. White\",\"doi\":\"10.2307/3774093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article explores how two transgendered Fijian males navigate the intersections of sex, gender, and ethnicity or \\\"race\\\" in a Fiji secondary school. Their experiences illustrate, on the one hand, the negotiability of a transgendered category in Fiji. On the other hand, there is the potential for transgendered identity to open spaces for engagement with nonFijian ethnic markers in the face of essentialist discursive practices on ethnicity. The case study shows the individualized ways that two transgendered males negotiate and challenge notions of Fijian male authenticity. (Transgender, Fijians, ethnicity, Fijian schools) ********** In a seminal text, Butler (1990) problematizes contemporary Western notions of sex and gender, with sex constituting a particular biological construct rooted in a dimorphism of male and female bodies versus gender as a culturally constructed concept subject to malleability and negotiation by oppositionally sexed bodies. She notes that to reckon gender as a \\\"free-floating artifice\\\" in relation to sex leaves much unexplained about sex since it retains its status as a finite, a priori category: And what is sex anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such \\\"facts\\\" for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? (Butler 1990:6) Drawing from Foucault (1978), Butler answers her own questions, arguing that the Western notion of sex is far from an objective fact of nature, tracing its \\\"genealogy\\\" to the eighteenth century medicalization of reproduction in the West, which rendered the physiologically distinctive roles of male and female in reproduction focal, and heterosexuality morally and functionally normative. Butler (1990) identifies the resultant \\\"heterosexual matrix\\\" that provides the grid through which both sex and gender are interpreted, and which consigns nonheterosexuals, third genders, and transgendered persons to the status of exotic, deviant others. She proposes that ultimately the givens of sex in the West should be recognized as the actual outcome of patriarchal \\\"regulatory mechanisms\\\" that claim the repetitive enactment of behavioral differences between males and females as natural and as sexual conventions. In short, sex is a cultural construction; sex is work. Errington (1990) more explicitly defines and empirically confronts the situatedness of Western notions of sex as a \\\"particular construct of human bodies\\\" (Errington 1990:26) that holds that differences in genitals are normatively contiguous with such \\\"elements of hidden anatomy\\\" as chromosomal and hormonal differences, as well as differences in bodily fluids, sexual preferences, practices, and specialized roles that potentially lead to reproduction. Yet, she seizes upon the opportunities that comparative analyses present for decentering Western constructs by engaging notions of sex in Southeast Asian societies, illustrating that while sex is everywhere recognized as including some distinction in male and female biology, the way these differences are reckoned, the emphasis they are given, and allowances for additional sex categories vary across societies. Societies of island Southeast Asia are among those where not only are bodies not gendered in such fixed, oppositional ways, but where practice potentially overrides sexed bodies in social classification. In terms of relative access to prestige and power, which are defined in spiritual rather than secular terms, Errington (1990) observes that Island Southeast Asians tend not to be biological reductionists: they usually do not claim that women, because they are anatomically women, are weak or ineffective. Rather, they are probabilists: they point out that women and men are basically the same, but because of the activities women engage in or fail to do, they tend not to become prominent and powerful (Errington 1990:40). …\",\"PeriodicalId\":81209,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethnology\",\"volume\":\"44 1\",\"pages\":\"313-336\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2005-09-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3774093\",\"citationCount\":\"8\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethnology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2307/3774093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethnology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3774093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

摘要

本文探讨斐济一所中学的两名跨性别男性如何在性、性别、种族或“种族”的交叉点上游移。他们的经历一方面说明了斐济跨性别群体的可协商性。另一方面,面对本质主义的族群话语实践,跨性别认同也有可能打开与非斐济族群标记接触的空间。本个案研究展示了两个跨性别男性协商和挑战斐济男性真实性观念的个人化方式。(跨性别者,斐济人,种族,斐济学校)**********在一篇开创性的文章中,Butler(1990)对当代西方的性和性别概念提出了问题,性别构成了一种特殊的生物结构,根植于男性和女性身体的二态性,而性别则是一种文化建构的概念,受异性身体的可塑性和协商影响。她指出,将性别视为一种与性有关的“自由浮动的技巧”,这让性有很多无法解释的地方,因为它仍然是一种有限的、先验的范畴:性到底是什么?它是自然的、解剖学的、染色体的还是荷尔蒙的?女权主义批评家如何评价那些旨在为我们确立这些“事实”的科学论述?性行为有历史吗?两性之间是否有不同的历史?有没有一段关于两性二元性是如何建立起来的历史?有没有一段谱系可以揭示二元选择是一种可变的结构?(Butler 1990:6)借鉴福柯(Foucault, 1978)的观点,Butler回答了她自己的问题,她认为西方的性概念远不是自然的客观事实,将其“谱系”追溯到18世纪西方生殖的医学化,这使得男性和女性在生殖中具有生理上的独特角色成为焦点,异性恋在道德和功能上都是规范的。Butler(1990)确定了由此产生的“异性恋矩阵”,它提供了解释性和性别的网格,并将非异性恋者、第三性别和变性人置于异域的、离经叛道的其他人的地位。她提出,最终,西方的性应该被认为是父权“调节机制”的实际结果,这种机制声称男女之间行为差异的重复制定是自然的,是性惯例。简而言之,性是一种文化建构;性就是工作。Errington(1990)更明确地定义并以经验面对西方性观念的情境性,认为性是“人体的特殊构造”(Errington 1990:26),认为生殖器的差异在规范上与染色体和激素差异等“隐藏的解剖学元素”,以及体液、性偏好、实践和潜在导致生殖的特殊角色的差异是一致的。然而,她抓住了比较分析提供的机会,通过对东南亚社会的性概念进行研究,使西方结构偏离中心,说明尽管性别在任何地方都被认为包括男性和女性生物学上的一些区别,但这些差异的计算方式,对它们的强调程度,以及对其他性别类别的允许,在不同的社会都是不同的。东南亚岛屿社会不仅没有以这种固定的、对立的方式对身体进行性别划分,而且在社会分类中,实践可能凌驾于身体的性别划分之上。就获得声望和权力的相对途径而言,这是用精神而不是世俗的术语来定义的,Errington(1990)观察到,东南亚岛屿人往往不是生物简化论者:他们通常不会因为女性是解剖学上的女性而声称女性是软弱或无效的。相反,他们是概率主义者:他们指出女性和男性基本上是一样的,但由于女性从事或没有做的活动,她们往往不会变得突出和强大(Errington 1990:40)。…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fijian Males at the Crossroads of Gender and Ethnicity in a Fiji Secondary School
This article explores how two transgendered Fijian males navigate the intersections of sex, gender, and ethnicity or "race" in a Fiji secondary school. Their experiences illustrate, on the one hand, the negotiability of a transgendered category in Fiji. On the other hand, there is the potential for transgendered identity to open spaces for engagement with nonFijian ethnic markers in the face of essentialist discursive practices on ethnicity. The case study shows the individualized ways that two transgendered males negotiate and challenge notions of Fijian male authenticity. (Transgender, Fijians, ethnicity, Fijian schools) ********** In a seminal text, Butler (1990) problematizes contemporary Western notions of sex and gender, with sex constituting a particular biological construct rooted in a dimorphism of male and female bodies versus gender as a culturally constructed concept subject to malleability and negotiation by oppositionally sexed bodies. She notes that to reckon gender as a "free-floating artifice" in relation to sex leaves much unexplained about sex since it retains its status as a finite, a priori category: And what is sex anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess the scientific discourses which purport to establish such "facts" for us? Does sex have a history? Does each sex have a different history, or histories? Is there a history of how the duality of sex was established, a genealogy that might expose the binary options as a variable construction? (Butler 1990:6) Drawing from Foucault (1978), Butler answers her own questions, arguing that the Western notion of sex is far from an objective fact of nature, tracing its "genealogy" to the eighteenth century medicalization of reproduction in the West, which rendered the physiologically distinctive roles of male and female in reproduction focal, and heterosexuality morally and functionally normative. Butler (1990) identifies the resultant "heterosexual matrix" that provides the grid through which both sex and gender are interpreted, and which consigns nonheterosexuals, third genders, and transgendered persons to the status of exotic, deviant others. She proposes that ultimately the givens of sex in the West should be recognized as the actual outcome of patriarchal "regulatory mechanisms" that claim the repetitive enactment of behavioral differences between males and females as natural and as sexual conventions. In short, sex is a cultural construction; sex is work. Errington (1990) more explicitly defines and empirically confronts the situatedness of Western notions of sex as a "particular construct of human bodies" (Errington 1990:26) that holds that differences in genitals are normatively contiguous with such "elements of hidden anatomy" as chromosomal and hormonal differences, as well as differences in bodily fluids, sexual preferences, practices, and specialized roles that potentially lead to reproduction. Yet, she seizes upon the opportunities that comparative analyses present for decentering Western constructs by engaging notions of sex in Southeast Asian societies, illustrating that while sex is everywhere recognized as including some distinction in male and female biology, the way these differences are reckoned, the emphasis they are given, and allowances for additional sex categories vary across societies. Societies of island Southeast Asia are among those where not only are bodies not gendered in such fixed, oppositional ways, but where practice potentially overrides sexed bodies in social classification. In terms of relative access to prestige and power, which are defined in spiritual rather than secular terms, Errington (1990) observes that Island Southeast Asians tend not to be biological reductionists: they usually do not claim that women, because they are anatomically women, are weak or ineffective. Rather, they are probabilists: they point out that women and men are basically the same, but because of the activities women engage in or fail to do, they tend not to become prominent and powerful (Errington 1990:40). …
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信