ANTH_100_LECTURE_12_PART_2_SPRING_2023_

docx

School

University of Waterloo *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Anthropology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by DoctorUniverse26131

ANTH 100 - LECTURE #12, PART 2 (SPRING, 2023).mp4 Speaker 1 [00:00:04] Well, we're back. This time. Oh, sorry. There are. This time for part two of lecture 12 on genders, sexes and sexuality. So I hope everyone is doing well today. Yeah. Let's, uh. Let's get moving on this one. Still a little bit to go. So last Monday, we ended on this idea of gender performativity. And I give this definition not of linguistic performativity, which is a little bit different, but gender performativity that explains that. Gender and gender roles are performances and performances that we all enact and partake in every day. And they're based on ideas of what? Masculinity is or femininity is, or whatever it is that one might feel owing to the fluidity of gender expression sometimes for some individuals. So I explain to that performativity to include identity sexuality, but also other forms of identity, race and ethnicity, just to name a couple. You know, there is this interesting photo of a drag queen, and this is a really interesting instance of gender performativity in. Taking on attributes of what this individual's thinks is, you know, femininity, maybe adding some exaggerations, etc.. The textbook goes over some examples of this in a Latin American context. I wanted to just show or include a couple of quotes by a philosopher named Judith Butler who centers almost exclusively on gender and gender performativity. And she says, to say that gender is performative is a little different, I think, than linguistic performativity because for something to be performative means that it produces a series of effects. So you perform, it produces something, right? An interpretation, or it's based on an interpretation and people can interpret that. We act in walk and speak and talk in ways that consolidate, consolidates or an impression of being a man or being a woman. She is gay and a very successful and very prominent philosopher in the United States, but also the world over. So she's writing from a very particular perspective. But you can see here, it's already, you know, confined to this binary oppositional thinking. We've got another sort of meme here. She says there is no original or primary gender a drag imitates, but gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original because there is no sort of code or, you know, something written in our our DNA or our chromosomes or ALS or whatever, what have you, that tells us exactly what it means to be a man or what it means to be a woman. This is all sort of culturally ingrained and based on a series of interpretations, you know. And it's interesting because if you're watching TV or sometimes here in everyday conversations or on social media. Sometimes people, you know, it might be a commercial where a woman might say like, I want a real man or I want a real woman from a male perspective. These are American interpretations of what masculinity is or what femininity is. But to someone from Japan, it would be completely different what they consider a real man or a real woman. So there is a degree of cultural relativity here, and this is what Butler is saying is, But gender is a kind of imitation. We're mimicking, in essence, or throughout the formative years, what we think it means to be a man or a woman or whatever between or even outside of this binary opposition. And it's really interesting that way. There really is no original because there is no codex or code, you know, from which we can base. Ah, this is what it says. I mean, there are religious prescriptions. Um, but in the grand evolutionary scheme of deep time, right, there is really no one way, like I said, of being a man or being a woman. Now, psychology, which is a very problematic discipline, sometimes especially evolutionary psychology, tries to use as a tether point. You know, humans in history and in link up. Well, from an evolutionary perspective, you know, men oftentimes did this and women oftentimes did that. And so we can link back in time some sort of tether point here, however tenuous that might be, and that offers us a prescription for how men should be or how women should be in terms of acquiring mates, you know, in terms of aggression, in terms of passivity. But it's all bullshit because what culture does, and this is the fascinating aspect, is it completely rewrites and recreates things. It's plastic, it changes over time, and there's so much variation in the world, um, in so many different ways of being a man or

woman or anything in between or even, again, outside of that binary opposition or spectrum. Um, that you can't, I think trying to find some originally. Model or mode is is it's impossible. So let's move on. The textbook considers this idea of transvestite ism. I don't know if I like that term, but it defines it as the practice of dressing and taking on mannerisms associated with a gender other than one's own. And I think a very obvious example of this is, is drag queens. And we saw a photo of a really interesting photo, just slide before two slide for transvestite ism can incorporate gendered speech, which might be hyperbolic or exaggerated. It can include gendered forms of dress, but also bodily movement. And this you know, it's interesting because this idea is not, you know, it's it's quite old and it goes back, you know, quite a ways to the turn of the century, 19th century into the 20th. Yeah. And it was Lancaster who had explored this in Nicaragua. But we can see here that this is this is not a very new thing. So here we have a male dressing in women's clothing, you know, probably late 19th century, you know, And then here we have a more modern context where we have a male getting ready to dress in drag and and perform. And so these again, these are just very different ways of being. And sometimes, you know, it doesn't need even to involve exaggeration of appearances, you know, like putting on lots and lots of makeup, you know, stuffing shirts and all of this stuff. I remember there was when I used to teach social determinants of health, health to 60 before all of my classes were canceled in public health to save money. And then they got rid of me to save money because of the pandemic. Scare was ridiculous. But anyways, it was a class of 200 students usually, and the first year I taught it, there was a group of individuals who wanted to audit the class and they were all, I think, 60 and over. And there are there was a whole family and they brought their kids in who were probably, you know, in their late thirties. And then there was another group of people who were 60 plus. So I think all in total there is about ten people who knew each other and were really interested in this idea. And one of them, he didn't provide a label to himself, but he was, I would say, mid-sixties, and I saw him around campus at various points, but he would wear women's clothes. And, you know, I had a beard and everything. And I just thought, oh, that's that's really interesting. Just another way of being in the world. And, you know, he had come up to me several times after class and had asked questions when we were talking about, you know, capitalism and health and neoliberalism and health and had some interesting things to say. But then about halfway through the. Semester. That semester I had done a gender Sex and health lecture and he had come up to me at the break with his partner, who was a female. And, you know, he the person who was wearing a woman's dress in shoes, said, you know, do you mind if I talk to the class about, you know, my particular way of, of, you know, expression, you know, wearing a dress and stuff like this? And I said, oh, yeah, sure. You know, I should be flexible here, so take as long as much time as you need. And he took about 20 minutes just explaining that at one point in his life, he just felt this desire to wear women's clothes. And when he would, it would make him feel comfortable, got him into some trouble with his work at points. But he just felt that it was something for his own mental health to to do, to partake in. And I thought that was really brave of him. To get up in front of 200 undergraduate students thought, Oh, that's, that's really great. So yeah, it needn't sometimes involve these exaggerations of drag, but I still don't know if I like the term transvestites a more transvestite. It sounds sort of derogatory to me. Okay, now the textbook then moves on, following its lead as per usual, to Michel Foucault, and we're introduced to him. He's a philosopher and cultural historian of a very particular sort. I think I've. Mention the name a couple of times before he was a gay man and had. You know, growing up in the era that he did had a lot of difficulty with that, especially unaccepting parents, etc., etc.. What a very complicated life, but was a very, very successful academic and wrote many, many works that are very influential even today and used in anthropology departments. Oh, my gosh. Geography, political, science, sociology, philosophy. So he influenced a lot of people and is still, you know, making it still influential today. What I don't

like is the textbook explains that, you know, it drops this idea of zuko's notion of social power in explaining how anthropologists employ this term and use this term to analyze how social power acts on individual bodies. But it doesn't really explain how or why. And so I thought I'd fill out the details here and the gaps in the textbook. So this is full go here. Many of you who are not in first year have probably heard about this idea panoptic system or the Panopticon. This is based on this idea here of a very particular kind of jail context or prison context. The plans are misattributed to Jeremy Bentham, who was an American utilitarian philosopher. In actual fact, it was his brother Samuel, who should be credited with the original plans and sketches of such a distinctive form of prison, where you have a central tower wherein the guards occupy at various points during the day and radiating around it in a circular form, You have the prison cells. And I'll get to that in a minute. What I want to say first about this idea of power loops and the anthropological use of it and how it works on individual bodies. Is. All aspects of sociality occur in the context of power. And by power, Cuco means something much more subtle. It's everywhere. It has as few code explains. You know, it works in terms of these sort of capillary actions where sometimes its circulations are so enveloping and so small it's almost invisible, but it's always there and it shouldn't be confused with. Force or violence, which is very physical. This is much more subtle. It circulates and it flows through society in these interesting forms of of reason of culture, of civilization and scientific progress. So Fusco says that there there's something called the power knowledge nexus. And power is always tethered to knowledge and a form of knowledge, usually over the body, over people. And without it, there, there oftentimes isn't any power. Or there wouldn't be. So because power circulates within between and around culturally ingrained values. It's hegemonic. And what do I mean by that? I use the term a couple of times already. It means it's dominant to the point where you don't question it. You just see it as natural. And so many of you might be, Oh, what the heck is this guy talking about? Well, power displays itself. In these unquestionably dominant forms, through social norms, through social expectations, through social assumptions, but also through individualized rationality. So this is how power is. This is what it does to people. It keeps us in check. It keeps us behaviorally regulated. It keeps us following rules, following social norms. Right. So I think in class, I oftentimes give the silly ideas for their silly sort of, you know, example that, you know, the way power works on us in terms of reason, in terms of culture, norms, expectations, assumptions, but also individualized rationality is if you have to go to the bathroom and you're in a lecture hall. So I often would give this class in OP 347 So maybe some of you know that it's a fairly large lecture hall over across the street in optometry. And if a student or myself has to really go to the bathroom, which would sometimes happen number one or two, I would have to hold it. I'll use my self an example. As an example, I would have to hold it. And you know, what would happen sometimes is I be talking usually held to 60. The example I used before is a three hour class. So halfway through I would go for break, but then I'd have an endless stream of students wanting to ask questions and just make comments and stuff. But I really have to go to the bathroom and I would never want to be rude and be like, Yeah, anyways, So I'd wait until the last student, you know, had their say and I'd be like, okay, and then I'd make a run for the bathroom. And then I would come back and be like, Oh my gosh, But this is power working on me. Now. If for some reason something went wrong, you know? I would think, Oh, you know, I'm just going to go pee in the corner right in the middle of my lecture. I'll be like, okay, everyone, we're going to be talking about fuko. Just let me drop down. I'll go pee in the corner. Don't mind me going can be a little wet in that house. You might want to stay away from it, right? I would never do that because of all of these aspects again, of norms, expectations, assumptions, individualized rationality, which has as its tether point in this context, the knowledge of what it means to be proper. Now, what are these disciplines that govern what it means to behave and regulate behavior? You have psychology, you have psychiatry, you have sociology. All of them sort of work

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

together to develop this this knowledge of the body and this behaviors. And we all know what it means to act inappropriately. You know, we all know, oh, it wouldn't be proper. People might think I would have a huge problem if I just unzipped my pants and peed with my back, turned everybody, but still peed in the corner of the lecture hall while I'm lecturing. Right. So these are the circulation that this capillary circulation is a power enveloping me to make it to the point where that's not even a thought of mine. Like it might cross my mind. Oh, I got to. I gotta pee so bad. I'm just going to go here. But you would keep yourself in check and head yourself off the past, so to speak, to be like, Oh, well, that's not even a possibility. The fact that it's not a possibility means that this knowledge coming from these disciplines, even if it's a rudimentary knowledge, you know that. Well, you know, obviously if I did that, I would have a problem maybe psychologically. And I don't want people to know that or think that if I do so, I'm just not going to do it. Um, you know, and it's these disciplines giving us what it is to, you know, regulate ourselves, what it means to behave. And these are all sort of set as well within our experiences in school, having our behavior regulated in that context. You know, if you have to go to the bathroom, you hold it. And if you can't hold it, you put up your hand and say, May I go to the bathroom? Can I get a pass to go? And if it's a good time, the teacher may say, okay, you run now, but you have to keep yourself in check and in order to keep yourself in check, we have these disciplines, like I said, psychology, psychiatry, sociology that provide us information on what is here comes the word and they don't like it normal and what's abnormal? Another binary opposition that needs to be broken first. Not in this class. So let's get to this. So what does this all have to do? Everything I've said in the last 2 minutes, what does it have to do with this? Samuel Bentham's. Conceptualization and idea of a panoptic prison or call referred to as the panopticon. Well, very few of these penitentiaries, prisons or jails were actually built according to this principle. But this is a nice little town and it's a postcard. When I send my mom this weird. But anyways, so here you have a tower and here you have the guards in the tower. Now, one of the ideas was to have the glass here either darkened or have a two way mirror. Right. So the guards can see out of it, but the prisoners cannot see in. So what about this, then? Well, the prisoners are all around this in a circular fashion around here. So the idea in a literal form is that these guards here can look at and observe each cell. And if a prisoner is acting out of hand or, you know, out of sorts or not behaving. The guards can actually do something about it. Usually they would be armed. Right. Which adds a little bit of violence and aggression to this idea. So over time, what happens is, you know, based on the understanding that the prisoners can't see who is in here and when they're in there is that over time the prisoners will come to regulate themselves because they know what the consequences of poor behavior will be. And they know that, you know, there will be repercussions to poor behavior. And they know that they're being watched. They don't know exactly know when. And so, again, the idea is there might not even be guards in the tower here. You know, they can enter and exit by way of a stairwell in the basement. Right. So the prisoners over time, again, are looking at this, thinking, well, there is someone armed in there or there might be and I don't want in trouble. So I'm just going to end up behaving because I'm probably being watched right now and it's uncomfortable. You know, I don't know how many are in there. They might not even be in there. But, you know, chances are they might be. So this is the metaphor of the panopticon. And let's now introduce what it means for power. So prisoners, as I had just said, are theoretically being watched by guards located in the center of the prison. The prisoners. Technically, if this tower is a two way mirror, never really know if the guards are there, but they know that there are firearms there. They know that, you know, there will be repercussions of poor behavior. So ends up happening then is over time and this is sort of a theoretical ideal is that the prisoners will come to watch each other end themselves. Right. So at points there might not be anyone in this tower, but after a certain length of time, they'll realize, okay, well, let's just regulate

ourselves. Here is where Franco explains that power acts upon the actions of individuals. Right. So it acts upon the behavior. It keeps people's behavior regulated and in check. So, in essence, then using this this panopticon or this panoptic prison as a model here, it's self action by the influence of broader social forces, structures, policies and programs. So now what we need to do is not think about this panopticon in a literal form. We'll think about it metaphorically and think. For fuko what circulates around us, what represents that tower is knowledge. And these are, you know, structures, policies, programs and disciplines. Experts, psychiatrists, psychologists, sociologists in the idea was that what happens to people is they end up internalizing metaphorically this panopticon and we then as citizens in a nation state, end up watching and governing ourselves and each other. And we keep each we keep ourselves in check and we keep each other in check by our very presence. I don't want that person to think I'm crazy, you know, like that term either. But I don't want that person to think I'm crazy. So I'm just going to keep myself in check and I'm going to, you know, whether it's on the bus or wherever, you know, I'm just going to keep myself on the street narrow. And that that's that. After all, isn't that normal? Right? And so what ends up happening, like I just said, is we internalize this idea of the panopticon to police ourselves, and that is power to Michel Foucault, if that makes any sense to anyone. I just wanted to go over that because, again, textbooks can only give a little bit of information because there are limits in in terms of page number or page length, and you can't really develop some ideas as well as we should be. So social institutions, schools, armies, even hospitals regulate the actions of individual bodies to make them more efficient, sometimes in terms of performance of particular skills or practice. So here we have another sort of look at a version of the Panopticon. But then I ask the question, But how? Right. Well, I kind of explained it, but, you know, this gets over into another idea of Yukos, which we don't really have time to discuss all that much in length. And that's this idea of bio power. But the idea here is persuading individuals to bring their own bodily activities into conformity with social expectations. Now, that is social power, as we've just been describing. It works very rhetorically. It persuades people to do this because there's always that fear. There are consequences. If you break the rules, you could get arrested. Right. So if I urinated and that's a silly example, but, you know, I could even get arrested for urinating in public. There are other possible consequences if you're behaving in unruly manner. Someone might call the police and then they also might call the hospital and you might end up in the hospital. Right. But here's my problem again, going on the assumption that this is all making sense to you all. The textbook makes a misattribution here. And so it says persuading individuals to bring their own bodily activities into conformity with social expectations. This is social power, but it says, i.e., the care of the self, which is a whole other concept of Michel Foucault, was that he developed later in his in his life just before he died in 1984. And it's unlinked here. And this is. About an annoyance of mine because the authors of the textbook should have known better. And I see this as being sloppiness. But it's it's encoded in this textbook now. It's fixed in text and people will read this and be like, okay, well, persuading individuals to bring their own bodily activities into conformity with social expectations, care of myself. Okay. And then they might actually remember that for a different class and then maybe write a paragraph about that and then maybe even cite the textbook. But it's wrong in. So here's why it's wrong. I care the self the hell right. So what exactly is the care of the South? I see. My animations didn't really work, but. Oh well, here's what the textbook says. Finally, Fuku argues, societies have devised ways of persuading individuals to bring their own bodily activities into conformity with social expectations, a phenomenon he calls the care of the self. Oh, no, I got a contradiction here on my hands. Well, we all do. Oh. This is coming from an authoritative paper who code defines the care of the self in terms of those intentional involuntary actions. And I don't like how this is gendered, but this is fco's own quote from the care of the self. Right is his third book in his History of Sexuality trilogy. So Fukuda says those intentional and voluntary

actions by which people not only set themselves rules of conduct, but also seek to transform themselves, to change themselves and their singular being and to make their life into an oeuvre. Or a work of art nouveau. Usually it's like a body of of. Published things that someone has written anyways. So what the textbook means to say is this is social power. The care of the self is a whole other thing, which for Franco, is an ethical and a moral principle about how to live one's life well, to cultivate one's life as glucose, as in other places, to use one's life to almost make it into a work of art. Now, wonderful KO's major influences was a German philosopher, one of the first existentialist philosophers named Friedrich Nietzsche, who at one point in his life had said people should live their lives with style, which means be an individual. Work on yourself. Cultivate yourself into an over person. Overcome all of your hardships and stand over top of them and look down on them and say, You did not beat me right? Infeccoes sort of borrowed this using many examples from ancient Greece and Rome to say that life really should be understood for each one of us as if it were an artwork, something that we we cultivate, we tend to we work on not just in terms of means to an end. When I make a lot of money. No, in terms of how we are, in terms of our moral relationships with ourselves, with each other, how we are ethically so morality in a professional sense, are we conducting ourselves in a professional manner, etc., etc.? So I'll just point this out. According to FICO, one may escape dominant constraints of subjectivity or being a person through an ancient practice called care of the self. Although focus focus remains fully grounded in the present, Tuco often turns to ancient Greek and Roman philosophies as a critical framework for his theories on ethics, individuality and freedom care. The self constitutes a lifelong practice of self formation and ethical exercises as a means of creating what he calls an art of life. It is a way of examining and freeing one's self, not by socially constructed norms and standards, but according to one's own ethical code. Falco deems this practice an essential element of maintaining freedom from oppressive power dynamics. As such, his ethics evolves not to a withdrawal from the world, but instead into an intensified relation to its politics. So care of the self has really nothing to do with. Making sure you're in conformity with social expectations. It's a questioning of those expectations. And while power. Does it work on all of us? Fuca was very quick to point out that power can deform and can take away. But at the very same time, power can be creative and it can produce identities through this limited space of being able to push back a little bit. As a skateboarder growing up my whole life, I was always skeptical of power dynamics and always wanted to do things my own way. You know, being in gym class and I hate this stuff, you know, I want to do things my way. You know what people were wearing? I want to wear things my way, right? And skateboarding, not being the corporate corporatized entity that it is nowadays, was very, very underground. And only a select a handful of people did it. My public school, two of us. Three of us. My high school, there was a handful, maybe five or six people in the entire high school. Now it's exploding. It's in the Olympics, which is crazy. But anyways, care of the self offers a way through which to have some kind of agency. The capacity to to act or decide or make a choice. And it can be very productive. Right. Being a drag queen is this productive sentence. It affects one's identity. It's an ability to push back sometimes on oftentimes oppressive and poisonous gender ideologies. Right. So I wanted to really take the time to point that out and think, well, you know, you see a textbook like this and you're like, okay, second Canadian edition. Anthropology. What does it mean to be human? Robert Lavender, Emily Schultz, and Cynthia Zetter they all have PhDs. They must be super, super smart and super intelligent and so precise in their wielding of knowledge when in actual fact people screw up a lot. And that's a screw up in the textbook. So Jib ho ho jumping as our textbook kind of does, you know, moving from power into the realm of technology now, which Philco would say it's really not that big of a jump at all. The two are interrelated. The development of new technologies in terms of reproductive technologies can have a really positive impact on the natural biological process of human reproduction.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

So individuals, couples, if they want to come into some sort of union, have a lot of choice and opportunity to have kids and they can avail themselves of a whole range of biomedical technologies like in vitro fertilization. I've got a good friend who did this story. His wife did sperm banks, female surrogates. So there's a whole range here of things people can avail themselves of. And it has really changed how. Change the way the body is conceptualized. Right. And how it's sometimes acted on. And I think what we see here. Yeah. So. What it does, Is it really you know, there are a lot of medical anthropologists who center on this and it really questions those sharp distinctions ideologically in allows for same sex couples to have children. You know and it. Yeah, it really sort of rearranges in, broadens our understandings of sex and gender and can really rearrange our conceptualizations of what the body is in terms of natural categories. So speaking of sex and gender, this is sort of an obligatory thing. I think this is pretty common knowledge, although it not it might not be depending on what programs some of you are coming from, where you might not even consider these these things. But sex and a lot of people can relate these two and think sex and gender are one of the same, but they're actually not. So sex itself is based on these physical attributes or characteristics or phenotypic expressions that distinguish males from females. You know, in that being really genitalia, that's not always the case, though, because you can have individuals who are understood as intersex. And so those genitalia might be ambiguous, underdeveloped or what have you. In going back into my undergrad, when I did take a pathology class, clinical pathology class, remember learning about KLINEFELTER syndrome and Turner Syndrome, where doctors would have to make almost like a socio moral call in terms of what sex since people have to be lumped into that medically, what sex to assign to individuals who might have ambiguous genitalia, which further on down the line would be completely problematic, especially if there was no sort of, you know, alignment with the sex that individual was assigned in their feeling inside of of who and what and how they are in world. Gender, by contrast, refers to the cultural construction of beliefs and behaviors considered appropriate for age sex. What the textbook doesn't explain to is that gender is also. That experiential component or aspect to everyday life and how people feel and. How the world, how they experience the world and how they act upon the world. So there's that second sort of more experiential component to it as well. And I really get into this in detail in my intro to to class. But the key sort of takeaway whole point here, rather simple, is that sex differences don't predict the roles of males and females in society. And there's going to be a high degree of relativity there in terms of the, you know, how rules are assigned, what the expectations are and what some of the divergences are. And so here's the nice little sort of schema here. Sex. Humans, Non-human animals and cells. Typically binary male, female. You have intersex as well. KLINEFELTER Syndrome and Turner Syndrome being two brief examples based on biology, anatomy, physiology, chromosomes, hormones, gene expression, behavior. I don't know why that's their gender. Unique to humans, multifaceted and complex exists on a continuum. As we've gauged from this lecture, it can change over time. So there's a degree of fluidity there. It can and indeed does differ from sex. I don't like this binary here, which is interesting. There we go again. Feminine, masculine. But what about demi boys and demi girls? And we'll learn about that in a moment. Her him, they this is a little random here. Socio cultural, psychological, political behavior and rules. And then we have a whole range society, environment, experience, culture, politics, history, ethnicity, race, and more. So that sort of adding those layers of complexity to it here, which I think we need to really embrace and understand. But how do you anthropologists define sexuality? Well, sexuality itself, you know, and not sex or gender, I guess, is the acting in the process and the experience of, of, you know, sexuality, um, which doesn't solely include the, the, the act of, of sex itself refers to how individuals experience and value physical desire and pleasure in the context of of intercourse. So anthropologists plural lives this instead of seeing sexuality, we use sexualities. Um. And as you probably guessed it, anthropologists who

focus on this aspect for the research are far more interested in terms of desire, pleasure. Intercourse are all shaped by larger or broader social, cultural, historical, political and even economic structures in the society in the context of which people live. Oh. There. So rather than seeing sex and sexuality and desire in pleasure confined to the individual, let's say much, I guess how psychology would anthropologists broaden out this idea and sort of taking a cue from Franco, try to see it as historically contingent, culturally contingent and relative as well, and that there are no universals historically or culturally or socially when it comes to sexuality. It's a plastic processing phenomena. And again, by plastic, I mean I mean, it it bends. It changes form and shape over time. So. This is an interesting idea, and this is not an exhaustive list, but some types of sexualities, perspectives on sexuality and sexual orientations are here, and I don't. This is from the textbook, and I've added my own in a minute to sort of counter this, but I don't even know why the textbook is doing this. But heterosexuality. Sex relations between a man and a woman. Heteronormativity. Okay, well, this might not be an everyday idea. Considering heterosexual intercourse as an ideal or normal form of sexual relations is very 19th century, I think. These old ideologies are hemorrhaging out and giving way to different forms and ideas, and their acceptance is increasing more and more each day, depending on where you are. The Southern U.S. maybe not. Heterosexism is a sexual bias or sex biased against all those who are not heterosexual homosexuality. Right? Same sex sexuality? I don't know. I get that the textbook is is wanting to make sure everyone's on the same page. Bisexuality. Sexual attraction to males and females. Pansexuality. Sexual attraction to males. Females and transgender males and females. Okay, that's fine. It's not exhaustive, but maybe we'll get with the times here. So first of all, we'll look at these different kinds of flags here. I don't know why heterosexuals have their own flag because it is normative. And so that's, you know, the image, a larger proportion of society is this way. So I don't think it needs to be acknowledged. And I guess if you're going to have a flag like that on your car or something, you're like flying on your if you're a bit of a dick, I don't know. Gay, lesbian in pride in general, the rainbow flag, bisexual flag is here. Transgender flag is here. This is a new one that I've not seen before. The intersectional flag here. Poly. Sexual. Nonbinary. Non-binary. Pansexual. Gender. Queer. Age. Gender. Asexual. Gender fluid. Because it changes over time for some aromantic just not interested. Demi sexual sliding scale there. We'll learn about that in a moment. LGBTQ people of color and leather subculture and I think a proponent of that. Would be. Gosh. Yeah. If any of you are metal fans by classic heavy metal, the British metal band Judas Priest. Rob Halford. The singer is definitely, you know, part of this. He came out quite some time ago as a gay man, heavy metal back then in the eighties, seventies, eighties and nineties, not so much the seventies really, because it didn't really exist apart from Black Sabbath. But anyway, he's pretty close minded, so he was a really strong and brave figure to come out. And so if anyone sees a picture of Rob Halford, I'll just Google the picture quickly. You'll understand that this sort of leather subculture really pertains to him. Here he is here. Um, so he is the guy with the leather police hat, and so he openly gay and again, really, really brave guy to come out. Um, I think it might have been the early eighties when he came out, so. Okay. Sexual orientation spectrum. Let's see here. So pan sexual attraction to all genders, regardless of gender. Gender does not play a significant role in their attraction. These are also understood umbrella, I guess fashion multi sexual identities, omni sexual attraction to all genders. Gender can play a significant role in their attraction. Poly sexual attraction to many, but not all genders often occurs as attraction to a binary gender and many non-binary gender identities abo sexual. So sexuality is fluid fluctuating fluctuating across some or all the orientations bisexual attraction to any gender. This includes all genders often described as attraction to the same gender and or other genders. So there's a lot of similarity here in depending on who you ask, somebody might say, Well. That's kind of they're all really similar. That doesn't apply to me. Other people might say, Well, there's even more. Right.

The fact of the matter is labels stick to some, they slip off others. Okay, so homosexual. We know this heterosexual. We know this. These are a spectrum identities, lack of limited sexual attraction. So a flux identity that constitutes our story continues to shift along our across the spectrum. Demi sexual. A strong emotional bond must occur before sexual attraction may be felt great. Sexual, rare and or weak and or ambiguous sexual attraction is experienced and asexual. Just sexual attraction isn't experienced or directed toward any gender. So a specific identities can overlap with mono sexual and multi sexual identity. So there's a lot of overlap here or a as in asexual or oftentimes referred to as aces. And again, this is not by any stretch of the imagination a comprehensive list at all. Um. So. Yeah. And this is another thing. So ethnographic research as of late, you know, concerning variations in the ideologies, beliefs and practices about sex, gender and sexuality. Sometimes you can really force anthropologists to take up new positions, to redefine the positions or even rethink their whole approach to all of these things on how they represent human experience and social realities and lived experience, living experience and lived realities. About this list of topics here. Two spirited people. Men or women are sometimes considered a third gender from indigenous perspectives. And this is signaled usually by a productive specialization not reproductive but productive socially in terms of division of labor. So I don't like this term, but I don't think it's a very nice one. So I'm not going to say it, but we'll we'll we'll talk about it in a minute. But, you know, so for two spirited people as a third gender, you know, if it's a male feeling more like a female, that individual might be given tasks that are specific to females. Right. Whatever those tasks might be. So there might be some sort of supernatural intervention or authorization that comes through dreams, through some sort of interchange with spirits that gives some sort of authorization. You know, historically, shaming might be involved to help really sanction those those tasks. But. You know, I want to want to get to this aside from. You know. This idea of a third gender. Or two spirited people and aside from how they might be sanctioned or given validation in their respective social contexts, there's this term here. And it's really understood to be Eurocentric insofar as it was Europeans who used this term and imposed it on indigenous individuals who didn't fit this sort of stereotypical gender binary, male or female. Right. What do you do when you get rid of the binary opposition? Which is a sharp contrast with the power differential on each side and replace it with an and so a linguistic linkage point, right? Historically, to Europeans it was 100% confusion. Do not compute what we do with this. So let's come up with a term for it that's nowadays understood to be derogatory. So I don't know how many of you have heard this term. I had heard it a few times many years ago, just in passing. But just to to provide some context. What does it mean? Well, let's take a look here, North America. So, um, I don't really like how this is written, but it's a nice sort of parcel. The mean among many North American tribes or groups, male children who displayed feminine characteristics at an early age or raised as this term a person with both male and female characteristics. Who has been sent as a go between to mediate between males and females. They were typically apprenticed to a shaman or a healer, and they learned to perform the work of both men and women and dressed as women. And so what's. Interesting here without using the term. Is that in these particular historical, social, cultural and political contexts? There was a place for individuals like this. They served a war. And they were needed. They were valued. And there being in the world was validated. So what it does or what it should do. Is it should make you scratch your head and think, How progressive were these indigenous contexts where individuals who didn't fit? A binary opposition or ideologies that prop them up could actually have have a role. Lead healthy, meaningful lives and be okay. And so it should bring perhaps a little bit of sadness to many of you, to all of you, ideally to think. What the f happened? Well, sadly, we know that colonialism and colonization happened. And with that, industrialization happened. And with that. Capitalism happened and then late modern capitalism and then neoliberalism happened. And with all of these things. We saw. And I'm

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

going to use some pretty powerful words here, but a butchering, a dismemberment of indigenous social relations. And a rearrangement thereof. A rearrangement on such a scale. That it was almost well, it was genocidal in terms of our residential school system here in Canada, which sought to bring about. You know, in the case of these individuals, not just a full existential transformation in terms of you're going to be either one or the other, but an ethnic translation and transformation, trying to whitewash indigenous children and force them to become white in their thinking through various tactics, procedures, in processes of cultural gaslighting, making people feel bad and crazy about who they are, making them question their own existence so they will be slaughtered easily in terms of a binary opposition between us and them white versus indigenous to see the white side of the binary opposition as desirable, as more powerful. And while they could never change their phenotype or their genetic expression of their their genotype or their physical expressions of genotype, they could, in theory, change their ways of thinking to think white. And luckily, that did not happen on the scale that these colonial politicians and administrators had hoped for. But what happened? Was. On such a scale. A grand scale that has changed things for the time being anyways. Am I going to say permanently at all? But it made it so that. There was a splintered wedge driven between genders and ideas. Historically, like indigenous equality or work, I don't want to see transformed. I'll use something much more aggressive and so deformed. And now people are feeling and even now reeling still from the effects of historical colonialism and colonization. But in its ongoing forms. Oh. So on that note, I guess we will wrap up today's lecture. You know, I've got a lot to learn about this stuff clearly, and I want to learn more. So don't treat this as like 100% authoritative. It's sort of like just trying to start a conversation. But it needs to obviously. Right. Keep going. Yeah. And so. Where did my. He's going to talk about this, but I don't want this to go on for to for too much longer. So I'm trying to keep this manageable. And so, you know, the textbook talked about two ethnographic examples, one in Mombasa and the other in Iran. And, you know, those would be those would probably add another half an hour to 40 minutes, which would, you know, in trying to keep this manageable, I'll just I'll just end here. You can read about both of those trends, sexuality and same sex desire in Iran and then females taking female lovers in Mombasa. So yeah, I what do we what's on the agenda for next week? Politics in nationalism. So we will jump to chapter what is it here? Political relations. So we are in chapter 13, if I'm not mistaken. Yes. Chapter 13. So if. There's any way you could have Chapter 13 read for next Monday? It might be a tall order. It might not. It's not a super long chapter. That would be great. And will. We'll continue our at 100 conversation about all things socio cultural and logical. That is a mouthful. All right, everyone, what's It's weird doing these lectures. From whom? Sometimes I kind of have to double check what data is I was doing in class lectures from when we went back last February through to April. But now I'm kind of like slipping back into this pandemic. Like, what? What the heck did that thing here? So Wednesday, now we got Thursday and then Friday to go. Then is the weekend. So I wish everyone have a great weekend. And I will see you back here on Monday. All right. Take care, everyone. Bye for now.