Collecting evidence of female subordination
According to Ortner, women are, to some extent, always considered inferior and subordinated to men, cross-culturally. To measure and collect evidence of female subordination, we must look at three types of elements (Ortner, 1974). Firstly, "elements of cultural ideology and informants' statements that explicitly devalue women" (Ortner, 1974:69), regarding women's roles, tasks, products and social milieu: all considered as less prestigious than accorded to "men and male correlates" (Ortner, 1974:69). A second element used to collect evidence of female subordination would be "symbolic devices, such as the attribution of defilement" (Ortner, 1974:69), which can be used to devaluate women. Finally, Ortner considers "social-cultural arrangements that exclude women from participation in or contact with some realm in which the highest powers of the society are felt to reside" (Ortner, 1974:69), as evidence of women's inferiority. As mentioned by Ortner (1974), although all three elements may be present in a society or culture, one of these elements is enough evidence of female subordination in the given culture. Ortner argues that in all cultures, there is a form of female subordination, including matrilineal and matriarchal societies.
To illustrate her arguments, Ortner uses the example of the matrilineal Crow. In this society, women seem to have a high status, given that their "had highly honorific offices in the Sun Dance, [...] could become directors of the Tobacco Ceremony and played [...] a more conspicuous part in it than men" (Ortner, 1974:70). However, the same women had to ride horses considered as inferior when they had their menstruations, as they are considered as filthy and polluted. Furthermore, these women are not allowed to touch the Sun doll, which clearly illustrates the second and third elements of Ortner's argument proving women's subordination in a given culture, as the woman’s menstruation seems to symbolise her inferiority and women are forbidden to touch the doll.
Nature/Culture
Ortner seems to consider "nature" as an opposition to "culture". According to Ortner, in every society, "culture" creates and "sustains systems of meaningful forms" (Ortner, 1974:72), by means of which human beings use the natural resources and natural existence to bend and transform them as wished, and control them in humanity's interest (Ortner, 1974). Culture can thus be associated with human consciousness, and what results from this consciousness, such as symbols and artefacts or technology, which are used to assert control over nature. Common concepts associated with the opposition between culture and nature would be the one of purity and pollution. Pollution (associated with nature), if left on its own, spreads and overpowers whatever it touches. A ritual is then needed, a purification ritual with the objective to pit a symbolic, self-conscious action against the polluted natural elements/acts. Thus, this purifying ritual or culture, which it is associated with, are more powerful than nature and its correlates. Consequently, "nature" seems not only to be distinct from "culture" but is also clearly inferior to it, and this is illustrated with the idea that "culture" socialises and culturalises "nature".
Women as closer to nature rather than part of nature
As Ortner argues, a "woman's body and its functions, are involved most of the time with "species life" (Ortner, 1974:73). Indeed, a woman's body is a source of pain and discomfort, when she menstruates for instance, and where the blood is dangerous and painful and mainly a process allowing the procreation of an infant. A woman's body is thus more adapted to the needs of procreation than to a woman's own requirements. Thus, the woman seems to be closer to nature due to her physiology, as opposed to a man's own, allowing him more freedom to take part in activities of "culture". In addition, a woman's association with the subordinate domestic context, with the crucial role of transforming animal-like children and infants (beings that are not fully self-conscious yet) into culture beings, seems to again reinforce the idea that women are closer to nature then men are. Furthermore, it seems to be believed that a woman's psyche is moulded to her mothering roles by her own socialisation, as women generally seem to be more personal, mediate less, and be more emotional.
However, at the same time, a woman's membership to culture seems to be essential and recognised by culture, as she is "half of the human race" (Ortner, 1974:76), but also a fully conscious human being. It is also she who, as said above, is assigned the role to transform animal-like beings to culture-beings. In this sense, the woman seems to occupy an "intermediate position" between nature and culture. A woman thus stands on a "middle status on a hierarchy from culture to nature" (Ortner, 1974:84).Furthermore, considering a woman as closer to nature rather than being fully part of it is essential, as a woman can serve as a mediating agent, having a converting or synthesising role between nature and culture, two opposite notions. Indeed, especially regarding the socialisation of the children, the woman's closeness to both nature and culture allows the conversion of animal-beings to cultured beings, who will form the society afterwards. Any society and its culture viability thus rely on the proper socialising of its individuals who will see the world through this particular culture's lens, and more or less adhere to its moral principles. However, as the woman is considered as the primary agent of the socialisation of the children and is seen as the embodiment of the domestic unit, it tends to restrict her even more around this particular unit and heavily contributes to her subordination and perceived inferiority. Considering women as intermediates between both concepts would also allow a reconsideration of the concepts of culture and nature as being strictly opposed and separated concept and would instead implicate that culture results from nature.
Women's "nearly universal unquestioning acceptance" of their own devaluation
It seems that women are socialised as infants in a way to accept their subordination to their male counterparts. Indeed, according to Ortner (1974), women are fully conscious of their subordination and their commitment to the "culture's project of transcendence over nature" (Ortner, 1974:76), by transforming their children from “unconscious” to “conscious beings”. However, as they are merely the primary agent to the socialisation of the young, their role and subordination seem to be socialised to the children women socialise, thus perpetuating the culture's beliefs in women's subordination. Although this subordination seems to be originated from cultural beliefs devaluating the domestic sphere, women thus seem to accept their subordination through their socialisation in early stages of their lives, by being socialised in a world in which women are inferior to men and where the domestic sphere is devalued and merely associated to women.
Reference Ortner, S. (1974) ‘Is female to male as nature is to culture?’ in Rosaldo and Lamphere (eds) Women, Culture and Society 67-88. Stanford: Stanford University Press *
No. Woman is culture itself. And in my opinion, "Nature" means to be Culture, not to be Wild. Woman is
1- first, a woman who cultivates a man's aggression through love and soothes him with sex (this is the case with many primates),
2 - then she is a mother who in the same way gives love to her child (regardless of gender - but it can be said that boys are more aggressive, more violent and she calms them down and directs their energy to a culturally and correctly one )
3 - then she is a grandmother, which means that she invests about 50 years (until she reaches a life of a century), she does not waste more…