Space, Text, and Gender: An Anthropological Study of the Marakwet of Kenya

257 Pages·1996·8.54 MB·English

by  Henrietta L. Moore

W ornen talking.
SPACE, TEXT,
AND GENDER
An Anthropolo�cal Study
of the Marakwet of Kenya
HENRIETTA L. MOORE
THE GUILFORD PRESS
New York London
For Themselves
and for Hodder
Jan
©1996 The Guilford Press
A Division of Guilford Publications, !ne.
72 Spring Street, New York, NY 10012
Marketed and distributed outside Nonh America by
Longman Group Limited.
Al! rights reserved
No pan of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval
system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, microfilming, recording,
or otherwise, without written permission from the Publisher.
Printed in the United States of America
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Last digit is print number: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Moore, Henrietta L.
Space, text, and gender : an anthropological study of the Marakwet
of Kenya / Henrietta L. Moore.
p. cm. - (Mappings)
Originally published: Cambridge ; New York : Cambridge University
Press, 1986. With new pref.
lncludes bibliographical references and index.
ISBN 0-89862-825-3
1. Marakwet (African people)-Social life and customs. 2. Women,
Marakwet-Social conditions. 3. Space and time. 4. Spatial behavior­
Kenya-Sibou. 5. Sex role-Kenya-Sibou. 6. Gender identity-Kenya­
Sibou. 7. Sibou (Kenya)-Social conditions. 8. Sibou (Kenya)-Economic
conditions. l. Title. II. Series.
DT433.545.M32M65 1996
306'089'96-dc20 95-46816
CIP
Preface
<-e
The studies of space and gender have been linked together in anthropology
for sorne time. The origins of this partnership can be traced back to Durk­
heim's idea of socially differentiated space, and before that to Lewis Henry
Morgan's work on kinship and territory. It is now axiomatic that spatial re­
lations represent and reproduce social relations, and it is the view that rela­
tions of likeness exist between social distinctions and spatial boundaries that
links the study of gender to the study of space. Daughters-in-law who reside
in the corners of tents, high-status women who never leave the house, rites
of passage, foot-binding, inauspicious axes and directions, the waxing and wan­
ing of the moon, are all facets of the social and conceptual topography of
human society. In this study 1 focus on relations of space, and on aspects of
Marakwet society and culture as presented in the lived space of everyday life.
It would be impossible to describe and analyze all the "spatial" features of
Marakwet life, and 1 am aware that 1 have concerned myself almost exclu­
sively with a limited range of spatial relations. My focus is on the organiza­
tion of household space in an attempt to understand one particular form of
cultural representation, how it is produced and how it changes. My broader
aim is to discuss the relationship between symbolic forms and the social and
economic conditions within which those forms are produced, maintained,
and ultimately transformed. With this end in view, 1 have used the idea of
"cultural text'' to construct an analytical framework and to try and pursue
sorne of the theoretical issues raised by such an inquiry. In choosing this fo­
cus, 1 have given less attention to other important aspects of Marakwet life:
for example, affinal relationships, economics, the conflict of old and young,
the rites and associated rituals of birth, marriage and death, all of which could
have been considered in sorne detail and are not. Nonetheless, 1 hope that
the book sheds sorne light on the more general problems of understanding
cultural representation, and thus belies what may seem initially to be an un­
duly narrow focus.
V
vi Preface
Fieldwork among the Marakwet was carried out &om March to July 1980
and from November 1980 to August 1981. During the course of my research
a number of institutions have aliowed me the use of their facilities, and a
great number of people have given me advice and assistance. 1 should like
here to acknowledge my gratitude to them ali. My research in Cambridge
and in Kenya was funded by the Department of Education and Science. 1
am also pleased to acknowledge assistance from the British lnstitute in Eastern
Africa; the Smuts Memorial Fund, Cambridge; the Crowther-Beynon Fund,
Cambridge; the Anthony Wilkin Fund, Cambridge; and the T weedie Explo­
ration Fund, Edinburgh. Permission to carry out the work was obtained from
the Govemment of Kenya and the Office of the President, under Perrnit Num­
ber OP.13/001/10 C83/3. During my research in Kenya 1 worked under the
auspices of the National Museums of Kenya, and 1 should like to thank the
many people within that organization who were of help to me, especialiy
the Director, Richard Leakey.
My visits to Nairobi were made both pleasant and profitable by the kind­
ness and help of the staff of the British lnstitute in Eastern Africa. 1 owe par­
ticular thanks to the former Director, Dr. Nevilie Chittick, whose unexpected
death during the preparation of this book saddened the many researchers who
remember his generosity and support. While in the field 1 was supported by
the agency and assistance of many individuals. 1 cannot mention ali those
who gave so generously of their time and support, but 1 should like to record
my thanks to Dr. and Mrs. Peter Robertshaw, Dr. and Mrs. Brian Carson
and the staff of the AIC Mission at Kapsowar, Father Leo Staples, and the
Sisters and Fathers of the Catholic Mission at Chesongoch. Dr. Ian Hodder
supervised the PhD thesis on which this book is based, and 1 owe much to
his encouragement and constructive criticism. During my research 1 have
benefited greatly from discussions with members of the lnstitute of African
Studies, Nairobi; the British lnstitute in Eastem Africa; and the Faculty of
Archaeology and Anthropology, Cambridge. The preparation of this book
was made possible through the support of the African Studies Center, Cam­
bridge.
Research and writing are always corporate efforts, and although 1 cannot
mention ali those who have helped me 1 should particularly like to thank
Edwin Ardener, David Brooks, Sheena Crawford, lan Hodder, Joan Scanlon,
Marilyn Strathem, and Deborah Swaliow for reading earlier drafts of this
work, and for making the time to comment and provide encouragement. lt
would not be possible to thank the people of Sibou and To t adequately for
their patience and support during my long and inquisitive stay. 1 can only say
that working with them has added a great deal to my life and to my under­
standing of others' lives. 1 cannot mention ali those who helped me, but 1
would particularly like to thank Jacob Kipkore and his family, Mzee Ezekia,
Chief Kisang, and the staff of T ot Health Center. My work was made pos-
Preface
vii
sible by my assistants: Samuel Chebet, Josphat K.ilimo, Samuel K.ilimo, Sally
Chebiwot Kipkore, and Joseph K.isang. 1 should like to offer special thanks
to Sally, who was my constant companion and guide throughout my stay
in Kenya. 1 am deeply grateful to all my Marakwet friends for their kindness
and support, they know more than 1 that what is written here is just a be­
ginning.
-HENRIETTA L. MOORE
Cambridge
November 1984
Preface to
the Paperback Edition
7hue is no theory that is not a fragment, carefully preservul,
of sorne autobiography.
-PAUL VALERY
Space has proliferated in the social sciences, exploding into contemporary the­
ory in expanding fragmentary positions. In the ten years since this book was
first published, there has been a strange confluence of theoretical terms. The­
orists, notably geographers, writing about space-time relations have become
preoccupied with terms (locales, regions) which seek to ground the contexts
of social action, while others, notably feminists, Chicana and Black scholars,
and postcolonial theorists, have developed different terms (local, position, bor­
derlands) to characterize the multiple and overdeterrnined nature of discourses
of difference and identity.1 These arenas of writing overlap to a considera­
ble extent, partly because of the influence of discourses of deconstruction and
difference in the social sciences and humanities, and partly because all the
theorists involved are responding to the local/global forms of fragmented
capitalisms. In this preface, 1 want to say something about how 1 locate my­
self and this book in relation to these different scholars of "space" and "place."
Compare, for example, Giddens's (1984; 1985) terms (locale, regionalization, distanciation) with
1
Probyn's (1990) concepts (locale, location, local). Probyn is concemed with the "sites from which
we speak,'' the space-time constitution of subjectivity, and expericnce. Giddcns's conccms are
different, but certainly include questions of context, contextualization, and identity.
viii
Preface to the Paperbact? Edition
ix
GENDERED THEORIES: NEUTRAL SPACES
Several theorists have demanded that we recognize how representations of
space are important constitutive elements of major theoretical perspectives
(Pred, 1990a; Soja, 1989; Giddens, 1984; 1985). These writers all emphasize
that social systems consist of social practices situated in space-time and pro­
duced and reproduced through the actions of knowledgeable social actors. Their
positions differ &om earlier writers in that they reject views which characterize
space as static, neutral, or passive, as well as those that depict itas a backdrop
for, or simple container of, social action. They reject the abstract, metaphori­
cal space of earlier social theory, which emphasized geographical comparison
as a subset of historical trajectories; they look instead into the concrete lived
spaces of daily lives, and into how quotidian repetitive social practices ex­
pand outwards into social structures, social systems, and social institutions.
This shift in the analysis of space and the space-time constitution of so­
cial relations has been most noticeable within geography, where it has drawn
primary inspiration &om the social theory of Anthony Giddens. But also,
it parallels developments in many other fields which emphasize the impor­
tance of a praxis-based approach to the understanding of human agency.2 In
anthropology, praxis-based theories elaborating on the work of Bourdieu and
Foucault have become canonical in the last decade, and new ethnographies
regularly draw on a corpus of ideas about the routines of social life and their
relationship to bodily dispositions, linguistic discourses, power relations, and
social structures.3 What distinguishes anthropological writing &om the more
geographical approaches is its continuing concem with symbolism, with the
microspecificities of day-to-day routines and practices, and an increasing em­
phasis on the relationship between language, embodiment, and space. There
are, of course, theorists who bridge these differences, but for the most part
geographers and anthropologists continue to work on different scales.4 The
2 The main impetus for this theoretical perspective in geography initially carne &om Anthony
Giddens's "structuration theory'' (Giddens, 1984; 1985), although scholars subsequently criti·
cized Giddens for privileging historical ovcr spatial analysis1 and for failing to dcmonstrate in
detail how spacc-time relations constitute social relations in concrete situations, thus leading
him to ignore, among other things, the importance of gender to thc ordering of spatial relations
(Soja, 1983; Thrift, 1983; 1985; Gregory, 1989; Murgatroyd, 1989). Recent work in geogra­
phy has drawn extensively on the theoretical work of Lefebvre and Foucault, and a growing
interest in colonial and postcolonial gcographies has resulted in an increasing dialogue between
geographers and cultural theorists of ali kinds, including anthropologists (Soja, 1989; Gregory,
1994; Keith and Pile, 1993).
3 Por reccnt examples, see Ong, 1987, and Hardin, 1993. Por an overview of the development
of anthropological theory and the relationship of praxis·based approaches to earlier theories,
see Ortner, 1984.
4 Examples would include, among others, Pred, 1990a; 1990b; Camey and Watts, 1990; Pred
and Watts, 1992; Ag¡iew and 1989; Duncan and Ley, 1993; as well a body of feminist
DI.mean, as
work including Katz and Monk, 1993; Rose, 1993; Dyck, 1990; Deutsche, 1991; Valentine,
1989; and Mackcnzic, 1989.
Preface to the PaperbacR Edition
X
question of scale is an important one because of its connection to the larger
problem of the conceptualization and representation of space in social the­
ory. John Agnew has argued that theorists in the social sciences in general
exhibit very little self-consciousness about their representations of space and
scale. So little effort is expended in analyzing assumptions about space that
Agnew feels moved to call these unreflexive and unreflected-upon notions
"hidden geographies" (Agnew, 1993). These "hidden geographies" work their
effects in the texts of those who employ them, where abstract spatial
metaphors are often used as mechanisms for categorizing and selecting data.
This is a means of imposing unexamined spatial perceptions onto nonspatial
social processes as part of the mechanism of interpretation. The issue here
concerns both the imposition of the theorist's own unexamined views of space
and the concomitant assumption that space is neutral. Recent feminist writ­
ing in geography has criticized the very male nature of the space(s) discussed
in time-geography and the lack of attention devoted to the gendered nature
of space in lived contexts.5
In the following chapters, I draw on the work of Pierre Bourdieu and Paul
Ricoeur to develop a theory of interpretive action. The repetitive quotidian
activities of Marakwet life produce and are produced by sets of structuring
principies only made manifest in practice. The organization of space is not
simply a backdrop to social activity, but is the active and interactive context
within which social relations and social structures are produced and trans­
formed. Space in this context is never neutral, but neither is it ever fixed or
static. This means that while it is never ungendered, it is also never unambig­
uously or statically gendered. lt cannot be attributed fixed meanings. The or­
ganization of space is the product of enacted practices and, given the nature
of resources and power relations in Marakwet life, its meanings are always
open to negotiation and renegotiation. This is a view of space that takes ac­
count of the way in which it is constitutive through practice of social rela­
tions and social meanings.
The Marakwet make no clear-cut distinction between public and prívate,
although they do have a strong sense of spatial topography and of the nature
of lived space: which means that compound space, village space, and the space
of the fields are not the same kinds of places. The association between com­
pounds and individuals and between people and the land has much to do with
their strong sense of spatial topography, but the differing nature of compound,
village, and field cannot be glossed by a distinction between the public and
the prívate. However, as I show in Chapter 8, the experience of space is one
which is bound up with the experience of modernity and with alternative
discourses brought to bear from the world outside the valley, and thus ideas
about privacy and a particular view of the family unit were gaining ground
5 See Rose (1993, chap. 2) for a summary.