技术与性别

美丽与哀愁 2009-06-04 1赞

如果不考虑战争与入侵、自然灾害、戏剧性的人口变化和经济增长，1000-1800年间的中国社会体系呈现出显著的连贯性。从宋至清，基本政治秩序的景象与动作本质上持续不变：皇帝通过一个由学者组成的官僚集团统治平民，随着经济的商业化程度的增长，商人在人数和财富上啬，但是，他们从未为一个阶层的政治影响，这在很大程度上是因为他们的抱负是加入学者官僚贵州的阶层。经济史家和技术史家倾向于把这一连贯性的长时期视为停滞，而被政治、文化和思想史家看成是一种奇迹。虑及中国巨大的面积，社会的复杂性和地区差异，以及其反复遭受的人口增长、战争、入侵的影响，如果不提精英阶级和未受教育阶层的差异，我们何以能说明这样一个事实：晚期中华帝国的文化日益融合、坚固持久，各社会阶层的人民具有如此多的共性？

历史学or人类学？

风吹坏了木头飘 2011-06-20 0赞

对于人类学实在缺少了解，而如果此书作为一部历史学著作，未免有几分不知所云。且不说那导言似乎并无关于内容，其第一部分和第三部分的大部分也都过于繁杂。对于中国的读者来说，那里面所论述的恐怕很多是来自于常识，而没有太多学术意义。
“晚期帝国”，这一论断涵盖了将近一千年的中国历史；而中国本身地域辽阔，各地区的经济社会状况迥异。本书所论述的经济史和社会史现象，似乎都是单一层面的解说，完全没有地域性与时代性的差异。这一千年的时间里发生了怎样的变化，中国不同地区之间又有着怎样的区别，这绝对不是可以忽略的。当然，做出全面的考察是相当困难的，那么就更应该指出特定的时代尤其是某一地区，而不是这一大而化之完全没有变化与多样性的阐述。
空间隔绝是怎样在技术层面上反映了女性地位的变化，生育的生理控制又与女性的地位有何关系，鄙人实在未能领会。不过第二部分对我还是有相当大的启发的。传统观念虽然时时说着所谓“男耕女织”，但女性在生产上的贡献确实易于被忽略，似乎女性始终都笼罩在男性的阴影下，没有独立的声音，也没有独立的地位。可事实上她们的织布绝不仅仅是像后来绣花般的消遣，而是对于社会生产相当大的贡献。想那乌寡妇清，多么叱咤风云！而到后来完全进入家庭后院，那确实是宋代以后的事情了。至于理学的禁锢和这有无关系，就是更深层面的事情了。
这种著作在观念上面确实会给人一些耳目一新的感觉，只不过不能太较真，不能当做史学著作读吧。

空間、紡織、生育

之犬 2012-03-17 2赞

本書反對傳統中國男性壓迫女性的簡單話語，從三方面——空間、工作、生育揭示女性生活的一些深層內容。第一部份介紹了中國房屋的形式和內涵，在儒家禮儀特別是祖先祭祀中的意義，女性在其中的角色，婚禮和婚床、嫁妝箱子的重要性；女性在家內外的活動，女性和孃家的聯繫，女性之間的聯繫等。

第一部份介紹了婦女的生活空間後，第二部份談婦女的工作，布匹作為女性的私人財產，經濟增長與勞動分工的變化：宋代絲織品需求增多，國家開設工廠；元代，黃道婆帶來棉花種植的普及；明代高級絲織由男性從事。商業和家庭內的勞動分工將婦女限制在報酬最小，技術含量最低的工作中。婦女的工作與地位之間沒有直接聯繫，從事高級織造的可以是奴隸。

第三部份談生育科技及其功用，如如何避孕，如何墮胎，如何給女人看病；詳細討論月經不調，懷孕流產的問題；最後談生育與家庭內部的女性等級，妻妾與子女問題等。

全書談了三方面的技術：建築、紡織、生育。它們確實都與女性的生活息息相關，或者限定女性活動的空間，或者直接涉及她們的身體，或者影響她們的家庭和社會地位。其中後兩項技術確實都與女性尤其相關。

然而，全書似乎只是介紹了很多或常見或不為人提及的內容，提醒我麼理解女性生活應該注意的角度。作者所用的材料並不罕見，視角還算新穎吧。然而我們真的能從中瞭解傳統中國女性的power（權利經緯）嗎？此書與Zito’s Of Body and Brush同為人類學家研究中國古代問題，其介入角度固然新穎，但是似乎未能引人入勝或深思。

Post-colonial Feminist Anthropology of Technology

rhapsody 2013-03-26 3赞

简单说一下，这本书繁琐的细节让我头痛，但是它所用的人类学和历史学方法，女性视角和后殖民主义认识论很是厉害。学界评价很高的一本书，不明白为什么大多数人给了三星。

In her cultural study of technology, Bray has two themes. First, she revisits the reproduction of gender identity through technology in the late imperial China. With an emphasis on reinterpretation rather than archive, she relies exclusively on secondary literature without visiting China for her anthropological research. Second, Bray criticizes the western-centrism in our understanding of technology by re-conceptualizing the relation between technology and culture.
Bray focuses on artifacts that are mostly related to everyday life: food, shelter and clothing. These objects are not only physical, but also social and imbued with meanings concerning gender and social order. They are not merely practiced upon, but also experienced under the guidance of fengshui knowledge, Confucius teaching and traditional Chinese medicine. Bray chooses these objects of study for two methodological reasons: first, she is interested in the reproduction of cultural tradition through technology, and these objects perform normative functions by structuring Chinese people’s everyday experience. Second, Bray focuses on an ancient period of history so that most material cultures no longer survive. One exception is the textual record of everyday objects that allows Bray to make historical reconstruction.
According to Bray, the domestic space is a micro representation of the social order. The segregation of gender, the generational hierarchy and the warship of ancestors are all embodied in the design and use of the house. The domestic space then becomes a text inscribed in everyday surrounding for regulated interpretation and learning. It is to be noted that such text does not have a definite meaning; the gendering of the domestic space may either denigrate or respect women living inside. In the latter case, Chinese women enjoyed dignity and privacy, thank to the gendered house.
The second part of Bray’s book suggests that the traditional division of labor – he in grain and she in cloth – not only maintained gender norms, but also served normative functions. That is why even noblewomen worked in the production of textiles. While the commercialization and specialization of textile production drove women away and lowered women’s social status, politicians and scholars tried hard to restore women’s function in textile production. Such attempt was aimed at not only promoting economics but also upholding the social order.
The third part of the book discusses conception, abortion, childbirth, and child-rearing. It highlights a divergence between elite and popular ideals of femininity. While women in the lower classes are likely to be judged by their natural fertility, those in the higher classes are entitled to appropriate any children fathered by their husband and are appreciated for educating the children.
Bray largely treats “gender” as a definitive than developmental category. She devotes most discussion to adult females and little to girls before marriage. Further attention paid to the latter would enable Bray to analyze not only “gender” as a state, but also “gendering” as a process. Another shortcoming is that Bray recovers the dignity and autonomy of women in the higher classes at the expense of those in the lower classes. Poor families cannot afford spacious house and women living inside did not really enjoy privacy. While women in poor households are more likely to be judged by their fertility, did they no enjoy the opportunity to develop any non-biological virtue? Bray makes no attempt to answer. Perhaps these shortcoming stems from Bray’s methodological emphasis on the text, which selectively records information based on class.

Post-colonial Feminist Anthropology of Technology

rhapsody 2013-03-26 3

简单说一下，这本书繁琐的细节让我头痛，但是它所用的人类学和历史学方法，女性视角和后殖民主义认识论很是厉害。学界评价很高的一本书，不明白为什么大多数人给了三星。

In her cultural study of technology, Bray has two themes. First, she revisits the reproduction of gender identity through technology in the late imperial China. With an emphasis on reinterpretation rather than archive, she relies exclusively on secondary literature without visiting China for her anthropological research. Second, Bray criticizes the western-centrism in our understanding of technology by re-conceptualizing the relation between technology and culture.
Bray focuses on artifacts that are mostly related to everyday life: food, shelter and clothing. These objects are not only physical, but also social and imbued with meanings concerning gender and social order. They are not merely practiced upon, but also experienced under the guidance of fengshui knowledge, Confucius teaching and traditional Chinese medicine. Bray chooses these objects of study for two methodological reasons: first, she is interested in the reproduction of cultural tradition through technology, and these objects perform normative functions by structuring Chinese people’s everyday experience. Second, Bray focuses on an ancient period of history so that most material cultures no longer survive. One exception is the textual record of everyday objects that allows Bray to make historical reconstruction.
According to Bray, the domestic space is a micro representation of the social order. The segregation of gender, the generational hierarchy and the warship of ancestors are all embodied in the design and use of the house. The domestic space then becomes a text inscribed in everyday surrounding for regulated interpretation and learning. It is to be noted that such text does not have a definite meaning; the gendering of the domestic space may either denigrate or respect women living inside. In the latter case, Chinese women enjoyed dignity and privacy, thank to the gendered house.
The second part of Bray’s book suggests that the traditional division of labor – he in grain and she in cloth – not only maintained gender norms, but also served normative functions. That is why even noblewomen worked in the production of textiles. While the commercialization and specialization of textile production drove women away and lowered women’s social status, politicians and scholars tried hard to restore women’s function in textile production. Such attempt was aimed at not only promoting economics but also upholding the social order.
The third part of the book discusses conception, abortion, childbirth, and child-rearing. It highlights a divergence between elite and popular ideals of femininity. While women in the lower classes are likely to be judged by their natural fertility, those in the higher classes are entitled to appropriate any children fathered by their husband and are appreciated for educating the children.
Bray largely treats “gender” as a definitive than developmental category. She devotes most discussion to adult females and little to girls before marriage. Further attention paid to the latter would enable Bray to analyze not only “gender” as a state, but also “gendering” as a process. Another shortcoming is that Bray recovers the dignity and autonomy of women in the higher classes at the expense of those in the lower classes. Poor families cannot afford spacious house and women living inside did not really enjoy privacy. While women in poor households are more likely to be judged by their fertility, did they no enjoy the opportunity to develop any non-biological virtue? Bray makes no attempt to answer. Perhaps these shortcoming stems from Bray’s methodological emphasis on the text, which selectively records information based on class.

空間、紡織、生育

之犬 2012-03-17 2

本書反對傳統中國男性壓迫女性的簡單話語，從三方面——空間、工作、生育揭示女性生活的一些深層內容。第一部份介紹了中國房屋的形式和內涵，在儒家禮儀特別是祖先祭祀中的意義，女性在其中的角色，婚禮和婚床、嫁妝箱子的重要性；女性在家內外的活動，女性和孃家的聯繫，女性之間的聯繫等。

第一部份介紹了婦女的生活空間後，第二部份談婦女的工作，布匹作為女性的私人財產，經濟增長與勞動分工的變化：宋代絲織品需求增多，國家開設工廠；元代，黃道婆帶來棉花種植的普及；明代高級絲織由男性從事。商業和家庭內的勞動分工將婦女限制在報酬最小，技術含量最低的工作中。婦女的工作與地位之間沒有直接聯繫，從事高級織造的可以是奴隸。

第三部份談生育科技及其功用，如如何避孕，如何墮胎，如何給女人看病；詳細討論月經不調，懷孕流產的問題；最後談生育與家庭內部的女性等級，妻妾與子女問題等。

全書談了三方面的技術：建築、紡織、生育。它們確實都與女性的生活息息相關，或者限定女性活動的空間，或者直接涉及她們的身體，或者影響她們的家庭和社會地位。其中後兩項技術確實都與女性尤其相關。

然而，全書似乎只是介紹了很多或常見或不為人提及的內容，提醒我麼理解女性生活應該注意的角度。作者所用的材料並不罕見，視角還算新穎吧。然而我們真的能從中瞭解傳統中國女性的power（權利經緯）嗎？此書與Zito’s Of Body and Brush同為人類學家研究中國古代問題，其介入角度固然新穎，但是似乎未能引人入勝或深思。

1000-1800年间的中国

美丽与哀愁 2009-06-04 1

如果不考虑战争与入侵、自然灾害、戏剧性的人口变化和经济增长，1000-1800年间的中国社会体系呈现出显著的连贯性。从宋至清，基本政治秩序的景象与动作本质上持续不变：皇帝通过一个由学者组成的官僚集团统治平民，随着经济的商业化程度的增长，商人在人数和财富上啬，但是，他们从未为一个阶层的政治影响，这在很大程度上是因为他们的抱负是加入学者官僚贵州的阶层。经济史家和技术史家倾向于把这一连贯性的长时期视为停滞，而被政治、文化和思想史家看成是一种奇迹。虑及中国巨大的面积，社会的复杂性和地区差异，以及其反复遭受的人口增长、战争、入侵的影响，如果不提精英阶级和未受教育阶层的差异，我们何以能说明这样一个事实：晚期中华帝国的文化日益融合、坚固持久，各社会阶层的人民具有如此多的共性？

历史学or人类学？

风吹坏了木头飘 2011-06-20 0

对于人类学实在缺少了解，而如果此书作为一部历史学著作，未免有几分不知所云。且不说那导言似乎并无关于内容，其第一部分和第三部分的大部分也都过于繁杂。对于中国的读者来说，那里面所论述的恐怕很多是来自于常识，而没有太多学术意义。
“晚期帝国”，这一论断涵盖了将近一千年的中国历史；而中国本身地域辽阔，各地区的经济社会状况迥异。本书所论述的经济史和社会史现象，似乎都是单一层面的解说，完全没有地域性与时代性的差异。这一千年的时间里发生了怎样的变化，中国不同地区之间又有着怎样的区别，这绝对不是可以忽略的。当然，做出全面的考察是相当困难的，那么就更应该指出特定的时代尤其是某一地区，而不是这一大而化之完全没有变化与多样性的阐述。
空间隔绝是怎样在技术层面上反映了女性地位的变化，生育的生理控制又与女性的地位有何关系，鄙人实在未能领会。不过第二部分对我还是有相当大的启发的。传统观念虽然时时说着所谓“男耕女织”，但女性在生产上的贡献确实易于被忽略，似乎女性始终都笼罩在男性的阴影下，没有独立的声音，也没有独立的地位。可事实上她们的织布绝不仅仅是像后来绣花般的消遣，而是对于社会生产相当大的贡献。想那乌寡妇清，多么叱咤风云！而到后来完全进入家庭后院，那确实是宋代以后的事情了。至于理学的禁锢和这有无关系，就是更深层面的事情了。
这种著作在观念上面确实会给人一些耳目一新的感觉，只不过不能太较真，不能当做史学著作读吧。

技术与性别

推荐文章

猜你喜欢

附近的人在看

推荐阅读

拓展阅读