Graduation Date
1987
Document Type
Thesis
Program
Other
Committee Chair Name
Dr. Pat Wenger
Committee Chair Affiliation
Cal Poly Humboldt Faculty or Staff
Second Committee Member Name
Dr. Paul V. Crosbie
Third Committee Member Name
Lloyd Fulton
Keywords
Art
Subject Categories
Art
Abstract
The sexual division of labor, or activity differentiation between males and females, is one of the most distinctive features of culture. The importance of the sexual division of labor to anthropology is basic to the discipline and of widespread impact; for this reason anthropological interest in it stems from many perspectives. Rooted in human evolution, the division is considered a key to the success of the human species (Lancaster 1978). Regarded as the original and most basic form of economic specialization and exchange (Murdock and Provost 1973) the sexual division of labor is grounded in the mutual dependence of males and females. In turn, this is seen as the origin of the human family, family types and consequently, the binding cause of marriage and kinship organization (Murdock and Provost 1973). Cross-cultural survey indicates the sexual division of labor is fundamental to all human groups (Guyer 1980; Murdock 1949) and a basic defining characteristic of humans. Additionally, Guyer (1980) views the division as integral to ideological systems, political structures and economic organization. Variation in primary subsistence activities within vi the sexual division of labor have been correlated cross- culturally with variation in residence and descent patterns, marriage practices, beliefs about gender, gender roles, socialization patterns and relative status of women (Burton, White and Dow 1981). Specifically, female subsistence contributions have been linked to "fixity of residence" (Murdock and Provost 1973; Driver 1956), polygny (Heath 1958; Gillen 1948; Goody 1977; Burton and Reetz 1981), occupational and agricultural specialization (Murdock and Provost 1973) and male warfare (Ember 1983). This paper will focus on the causes, rather than consequences, of the sexual division of labor beginning with an historical conspectus of available literature. From the inception of the term "division of labor" through present anthropological investigations, the diversity of theory and methodology will be examined. While a useful review of the subject was accomplished by Brown (1970), this was neither historical nor was it able to encompass the profusion of post- 1970 research. Historical reviews of specific topics are useful to most disciplines, at once furnishing an understanding of the academic progression of a subject and serving as a reference for future students. Repetitious treatments are revealed allowing reassessment of themes rather than reargument. In the same manner, voids in theory are exposed. Through the combination of these factors direction to future research may be provided. Historical approaches are not without pitfalls, vii viii however. Foremost among these, especially for Anthropology, is what Langham (1982) terms pseudo- or fictitious kinship, in which professor-student relationships are purveyed in an academic "descent" pattern. Prior workers are not the direct ancestors of the recent, however, and while one cannot be "self-borne", one can be "self-taught" and incorporate the views of many. With this hazard duly noted, academic relationships, where known, will be described to facilitate a grasp of the anthropological "family", with disregard for the validity of implications. I also acknowledge three additional problems of historical review: selective emphasis, with potential misrepresentation, of particular episodes in anthropology; distortion caused by self-interest (Langham 1982); and isolation of a topic from the complex interaction of an entire discipline. In this case, the latter cannot be avoided. I will attempt to avoid the others. The present historical review indicates that no single hypothesis offered to date adequately explains the sexual division of labor through the evolutionary continuum or accounts for variability within given modes of subsistence. Many theories have been presented specific to particular modes of subsistence, with implied applicability to all sexual division of labor. Others continue to rely on unproven assumptions even when recent evidence disrupts their validity. And still more are not open to validation to verification. Chapter 2 presents a testable hypothesis ix with which to investigate the sexual division of labor, utilizing the interaction of human reproductive and exercise physiology, as well as other biological and cultural factors.
Recommended Citation
Douglas, Barry Kevin, "Division of Labor Between the Sexes: An Historical Review of Anthropological Literature and Presentation of an Hypothesis for Analysis" (1987). Cal Poly Humboldt theses and projects. 2355.
https://digitalcommons.humboldt.edu/etd/2355