Naturalizing Power

Essays in Feminist Cultural Analysis

Sylvia Yanagisako, Carol Delaney, Sylvia Yanagisako, Carol Delaney

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• Print ISBN: 9780415908832
• eBook ISBN: 9781136652943
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Anthropology
• Index: Social Sciences

This collection of essays analyzes relations of social inequality that appear to be logical extensions of a "natural order" and in the process demonstrates that a revitalized feminist anthropology of the 1990s has much to offer the field of feminist theory. Contributors:Susan McKinnon, Kath Weston, Rayna Rapp, Janet Dolgin, Harriet Whitehead, Carol Delaney, Brackette Williams, Sylvia Yanagisako, Phyllis Chock, Sherry Ortner and Anna Tsing.

1

American Kinship/American Incest: Asymmetries in a Scientific Discourse

Susan McKinnon

The family, then, as a paradigm for how kinship relations are to be conducted and to what end, specifies that relations between members of the family are those of love. One can speak of the family as “the loved ones.” Love can be translated freely as enduring diffuse solidarity. The end to which family relations are conducted is the well-being of the family as a whole and of each of its members.—David Schneider, American Kinship

The most dangerous place for children is the home, the most likely assailant their father.—Linda Gordon, The Politics of Child Sexual Abuse

When David Schneider undertook to analyze American kinship as a cultural system, he did so by reference to the “distinctive features” of nature, blood, and law, and to the “core symbols” of sexual intercourse, love, and enduring diffuse solidarity (Schneider 1980). The terms of his analysis became central to the work of many who subsequently investigated the intricacies of American kinship and culture.

In the wake of two decades of feminist writings and gender studies, however, one is puzzled by Schneider’s insistence that the core symbols of American kinship should be (indeed could be) considered separate from cultural ideas of gender and sexuality (Collier and Yanagisako 1987). Yet the distinction Schneider draws between the “pure” and the “conglomerate” levels of cultural analysis, between the person as a relative and the relative as a person, forces him to neutralize these core symbols in their “pure” form. Stripped of the specificity of cultural understandings of gender and sexuality, sexual intercourse (in both its permitted and prohibited forms) becomes an abstract articulator of the structures of relation within the family:

The distinctive features which define the members of the family and differentiate them from each other and which at the same time define the family as a unit and distinguish it from all other cultural units are those which are contained in the symbol sexual intercourse. Father is the genitor, mother the genetrix of the child which is their offspring. Husband and wife are in sexual relationship and theirs is the only legitimate and proper sexual relationship. Husband and wife are lovers and the child is the product of their love as well as the object of their love; it is in this sense that there are two kinds of love which define family relationships, one conjugal and the other cognatic, and it is in this sense that love is a synonym for sexual intercourse. (Schneider 1980:43)

Sexual intercourse, in its abstracted form at the “pure” level of cultural analysis, defines the “person as a relative.” It is only at the “conglomerate” level of cultural analysis that “the relative as a person” is given flesh as other “components” of the person—sex role, age, class, occupation—are rejoined to the kinship “component” (Schneider and Smith 1973; Schneider 1980). Such factors are deemed irrelevant to the definition of a person as a relative and to the core symbols of American kinship relations.⁵ Logical rigor more than cultural logic (and the Parsonian theoretical framework more than informants’ statements) compel Schneider to exclude gender, age, and other “components” from the core symbols of American kinship at the “pure” level.

While it is still provocative to think about American kinship in terms of Schneider’s core symbols, it is no longer possible to think about these symbols in the abstracted framework in which they were first conceived or to neglect the ways in which Americans understand them as “naturally” gendered configurations.⁶ Indeed, it would be hard to imagine what could be more saturated with ideas about gender and sexuality than the symbols of sexual intercourse, love (vs. money, home vs. work), and, even, enduring diffuse solidarity.

Moreover, by abstracting the core symbol of sexual intercourse from cultural understandings of gender and sexuality, Schneider has been able to defer a consideration of relations of hierarchy and power that are central to the symbolic meaning of (hetero)sexual intercourse.⁷ It is, however, important to see sexual intercourse not as an abstraction, but rather as a set of culturally constituted practices that have different meanings and entailments for men, women, and children, depending upon the context and the combination of players. These differences flow from the structures of power and the hierarchy of values that define the relations of gender and sexuality central to cultural ideas of American kinship.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the asymmetries of hierarchy and power that shape American understandings of gender and sexuality with regard to the symbol of sexual intercourse in American kinship. I do this by looking not at the “grammatical” forms of sexual intercourse but at the “ungrammatical” forms that are manifest in relations of incest.

Regardless of the presumed universality of the incest taboo, it is necessary, Schneider has suggested, to look at incest as it is differentially constituted in different cultures (1976:160). Indeed, an examination of the cultural discourse on incest reveals much about the manner in which ideas about American kinship and the symbols of sexual intercourse, love, and enduring diffuse solidarity are structured in terms of a hierarchy of cultural values and along the power lines of gender.

Schneider conjectured that incest would be conceptualized as an inverse and opposite of “normative” behavior:

“Incest” is symbolic of the special way in which the pattern of social relationships, as they are normatively defined, can be broken. “Incest” stands for the transgression of certain major cultural values, the values of a particular pattern of relations among persons. . . . “Incest” means the wrong way to act in a relationship. . . . To act not merely wrong, but to act in a manner opposite to that which is proper. It is to “desecrate” relationships. It is to act “ungrammatically.” (1976:166)

Yet, at least in American kinship, this is only partially true. Because Schneider did not see (en)gendered relations of power and hierarchy as integral to the “grammatical” forms of American kinship, he could not anticipate the manner in which they would be asymmetrically skewed in their “ungrammatical” forms. A reversal of hierarchically related opposites does not simply carry over the same oppositional values but, rather, transforms them in asymmetrical ways.

The “grammatical” forms of (hetero)sexual intercourse, love, and solidarity do not bear the same meanings for men and women. The difference in meanings derives from the difference in the positional values that gender gives to “traditional family” kinship configurations. That is, men (fathers and husbands) are seen as the “naturally” active (even aggressive) agents of sexuality and the possessors of power and authority over women and children; women (mothers and daughters) are seen as the acquiescent objects of sexuality and the sole possessors of “naturally” nurturant qualities.

Because ideas of gender refract asymmetrically through the “grammatical” forms of (hetero)sexual intercourse, love, and kinship, it should be no surprise that the “ungrammatical” forms are not simply a mirror-image reversal but instead, become more deeply skewed. That is, given the asymmetries in the conventional understandings of the nature of fathers and mothers, it is not surprising that the behavior of incestuous mothers is “pathologized,” whereas that of incestuous fathers is, as it were, “normalized” (Tavris 1992).

The interpretations of incest⁸ that I have chosen to focus on in this paper are limited in certain ways. First of all, they comprise those developed in the “scientific” literature by (primarily nonfeminist) clinical psychologists, psychoanalysts, and social workers up to the early 1980s, when the feminist critique began to revolutionize the ways in which incest is viewed in America. Mapping that critical transformation is, unfortunately, beyond the scope of this paper. Second, they concern heterosexual but not homosexual incest and parent-child but not sibling incest. For most commentators during the 1980s, incest was, by definition, not only heterosexual but also predominantly paternal (father-daughter). This paper traces, in part, the difficulties with which analysts began to conceptualize the possibility of heterosexual maternal (mother-son) incest. Although father-son incest also began to be conceptualized during this period by a few writers, mother-daughter incest remained a noncategory altogether. In future work, I hope to address the invisibility of homosexual incest as well as the very different configurations of sibling incest.

Decent Men and Model Citizens

In discussions of father-daughter incest, what is remarkable is the repeated refrain of normalcy. The families are “intact”⁹ or, at least, they present a conventional appearance (Justice and Justice 1979:59–61; Herman and Hirschman 1981a:968). The incestuous father is virtually indistinguishable from any other man in American culture, “at least in regard to any major demographic characteristics. Such offenders do not differ significantly from the rest of the population in regard to level of education, occupation, race, religion, intelligence, mental status, or the like. They are found within all socioeconomic classes” (Groth 1982:215). Rist reports that the incestuous father is “both more intelligent and better educated than the criminal population. In fact, these men are often considered outstanding citizens: their only ‘crime’ is the hidden one of incest” (1979:686; see also Cavallin 1966:1133–34; Forward and Buck 1978:31; cf. Weinberg 1955:46–47). As one bewildered man himself put it, “‘I am a decent man. I provide for my family. I don’t run around on my wife, and I’ve never slept with anyone except my wife and my daughters’” (MacFarlane 1978:89).

Many analysts maintain that fathers who assault their daughters are often patriarchal, authoritarian, and conservative—both religiously and sexually (Cormier, Kennedy, and Sangowicz 1962:212; Lustig et al. 1966:33; Dietz and Craft 1980:603; Gordon 1986:256). The high moral and religious profile of incestuous fathers is repeatedly mentioned. As Westermeyer remarks, “Some of these fathers maintained a righteous or religious social image: one father was a clergyman, another a church elder, and a third led his church choir” (1978:645). The religious conservatism of these men also extends to a conservativism with regard to sexual practices and extramarital sexuality (MacFarlane 1978:89). Adultery is not, on the whole, considered an option, or, if an option, it is considered worse than incest. “One Catholic aggressor, when asked by the police why he had seduced his daughter instead of having an affair or hiring a prostitute, replied incredulously, ‘What? And cheat on my wife?’” (Forward and Buck 1978:32).

The outward picture of incestuous fathers as patriarchal, authoritarian, moralistic, and both sexually and religiously conservative may perhaps exaggerate the cultural norm, but it is hardly at odds with it (Gordon 1986:260).¹⁰ So too, turning inward, the psychological profile of incestuous fathers is also hardly exceptional (Herman 1988:701–702). Serious psychic disorders such as psychosis and schizophrenia are almost never mentioned in relation to paternal incest (Weinberg 1955:51–52; Weiner 1962:621–24; Finkelhor 1979:21; Justice and Justice 1979:87). Rather, various personality disorders—ones that might afflict any otherwise functional person—are often discussed. Cavallin (1966:1134) reports that the incestuous fathers in his study had no previous psychosis, but displayed “1) inadequate or weak object relations, 2) weak psychosexual identity, 3) signs of unconscious homosexual strivings and 4) projection as a major defense.” In describing such fathers, Rist (1979:686) outlines three personality types: introversive personality (socially isolated and highly dependent emotionally upon his family), psychopathetic personality (indiscriminate promiscuity), and psychosexual immaturity (pedophilia)—of which the first is most predominant in clinical studies.

Groth discusses two forms of personality disorder that he sees as characteristic of the incestuous father: passive-dependent and aggressive-dominant. Yet each is characterized by a

deep-seated, core feeling of helplessness, vulnerability, and dependency. As he experiences the stresses of the adult life-demands of marriage and parenthood, his underlying insecurities and feelings of inadequacy become activated and increasingly prominent. He feels overwhelmed and not able to control or manage these life-demands. As a result he may exhibit one of two basic responses in an effort to cope with his crisis. He may either withdraw from adult responsibilities and adopt a passive-dependent role as a quasi child with respect to his family. Or he may overcompensate by adopting an excessively rigid, controlling, authoritarian position as the “boss in the family.” (1982:225)

In the end, the incest offender is just like the rest of us: a little guy over-whelmed by the stresses of a complex adult world. The man who would molest his daughter is, at heart, a helpless, vulnerable, and pitiful victim himself. “The more common type of aggressor . . .,” according to Forward and Buck (1978:34), “turns to incest as a response to loneliness and emotional neglect. Although he may be a good father in every other respect, he loses control at some point and is virtually victimized by his own impulses.”

While Groth asserts that the assault is a “sexual misuse of power” (1982:227), he short-circuits this line of argument when he claims that it is motivated by common “issues surrounding competency, adequacy, worth, recognition, validation, status, affiliation, and identity” (1982:227). In a similar vein, MacFarlane suggests that the offenders’ “negative self-concepts and low personal esteem make them prime targets for the adoption of behavior that is destructive to themselves and to others” (1978:89). In the end, Herman maintains, such accounts see sexual assault as “an ineffectual attempt to meet ordinary human needs” (1988:708).

Paternal Love and Protection

It is not only the analysts who view the sexual assault of a daughter by her father in terms that stress the relative “normalcy” of the motivations. The fathers, themselves, have a battery of rationalizations that interpret their actions in light of their protective, caring role as a good parent (Cormier, Kennedy, and Sangowicz 1962:206). Some claim that “this is the way love and affection are expressed in their family” (MacFarlane 1978:90; see also Groth 1982:234). Others stress their education...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Preface
• Naturalizing Power Sylvia Yanagisako and Carol Delaney
• American Kinship and the Facts of Life
• 1. American Kinship/American Incest: Asymmetries in a Scientific Discourse Susan McKinnon
• 2. Family Law and the Facts of Family Janet L. Dolgin
• 3. Heredity, or: Revising the Facts of Life Rayna Rapp
• 4. Forever Is a Long Time: Romancing the Real in Gay Kinship Ideologies Kath Weston
• The Birds and the Bees: An Uncontrolled Comparison
• 5. Empowering Nature, or: Some Gleanings in Bee Culture Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing
• 6. The Gender of Birds in a Mountain Ok Culture Harriet Whitehead
• The Origin of Nations
• 7. Father State, Motherland, and the Birth of Modern Turkey Carol Delaney
• 8. Classification Systems Revisited: Kinship, Caste, Race, and Nationality as the Flow of Blood and the Spread of Rights Brackette F. Williams
• The American Dream: Gender, Class and Ethnicity
• 9. “The Self Made Woman”: Gender and the Success Story in Greek-American Family Histories Phyllis Pease Chock
• 10. Ethnography Among the Newark: The Class of ’58 of Weequahic High School Sherry B. Ortner
• 11. Transforming Orientalism: Gender, Nationality, and Class in Asian American Studies Sylvia Yanagisako
• Contributors
• Index