AWA: Academic Writing at Auckland

The Aka are a people residing in the tropical rainforests of southwest Central African Republic and northern Republic of the Congo (Hewlett 1991:11; Berl and Hewlett 2015). In relation to gender equality they will be compared with the Mundurucú who live within the Amazonian basin of Para, Brazil (Ramos 1978:676). Both societies show significant regional variability, as well as temporal in the case of the Mundurucú (Burkhalter and Murphy 1998: 107; Noss and Hewlett 2001:1027). Because of this variability, and since field work has been done in samples rather than systematically I cannot use them as reliable inferences for the entire society therefore I will focus my comparison. For the Mundurucú, in the traditional savannah villages of 1952-53 when field work was carried out by Robert and Yolanda Murphy; considerable cultural changes in the following decades meant a larger time period would not be reliable (Murphy and Murphy 1984:60). For the Aka I will focus in the Bokoka region, Republic of the Congo, where field work was carried out by Bonnie and Barry Hewlett from 1973 until after 1984 (Hewlett 1991:5,17). The Aka live in nomadic camps of around 25-35 individuals and move several times a year (Hewlett 1991: 20; Berl and Hewlett 2015). Sustenance is primarily gained from traditional hunting and gathering techniques but some camps have adopted agriculture and food is also gained via trade (Hewlett 1991:21,24). The Mundurucú on the other hand are both hunters and agriculturalists (Ramos 1978:76). I will first compare equality in terms of their segregated roles, secondly through their living relationships and thirdly through ideology including rituals and customs. Finally I will evaluate how these differences can be interpreted for the equality comparison using the entire cultural context. These two societies have been selected because in many ways they appear on opposite ends of the gender equality/inequality spectrum. The Aka are described by Hewlett (1991:43) as ‘egalitarian as human societies get’ and the Mundurucú are used by scholars such as Coltrane (1992:87) as an example of male dominance to the degradation of females. Yet when compared, they highlight the complexity in assessing gender equality. Therefore I will use this comparison to argue that gender equality is not clear cut but dynamic based on perspective and at times is contradictory in nature.

The Aka stand out because genders are highly integrated throughout daily life. Labour roles are flexible. Both genders gather food and hunt using traps or nets, often together but also separately (Hewlett 1991:25). The same is true for childcare. Based upon proximity and handling, father involvement with infants for the first 18 months was the highest recorded cross culturally though still not as high as mothers (Hillary 2008:292). Gendered roles are still retained as females do the majority of gathering, domestic labour, and child care while spear and crossbow hunting is only performed by males. However the lines are far more blurred with both genders performing the others’ roles more often when compared cross culturally (Hewlett 1991:25,38-41). The foundation of this gender integration derives from the importance of the family unit; the husband, wife and children. Partners are observed by Hewlett as exceptionally close, spending a lot of time together and carrying out a large proportion of subsistence activities as a partnership (Hewlett 1991:20,38). However Aka spend 3-4 months of the year doing work for local villages where gender roles become far more segregated as subsistence patterns replicate that of the village. Females there contribute to the majority of labour, producing an excess of 70% of calories consumed, compared to the relative equitable labour of the forest camps (Hewlett 1991:38-39). Mundurucú contrast to the Aka through extensive gender segregation.  Through division of labour males would fish, hunt and clear forests (Murphy 1959:91-92). Inequality manifested through exploitation of labour as females did most of the agricultural work, food preparation and domestic chores whereby males did far less on a daily basis (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:152-154,164; Ramos 1978:676; Murphy 1959;91-92).

Beyond labour, as opposed to the Aka family unit, in the Mundurucú society gender was segregated in the villages between the ‘dwellings’ which housed extended families of females as well as juvenile males, and the ‘men’s house’ which were exclusive to males. Females stayed with their family after marriage. Thus the dwellings were maintained as tight knit matriarchal communities based upon kinship (Murphy 1959:91). As juveniles, males and females underwent very separate upbringings. For females early attachment was maintained and strengthened with their mother and other females while male attachments were eroded and marginalised. However male separation granted freedom of mobility and very few obligations while females remained confined, introduced to house hold labour and were under the authority of the matriarchy (Murthpy and Murphy 1974/2004:200-201). Adult males would usually leave their local man’s house and move to one close to their wife’s dwelling. Although males had interactions with the dwelling they were outsiders encroaching on a highly insular community to which matrimonial ties allowed only a limited and slow gateway into.  Therefore the male social domain developed through solidarity with other males as mutual outsiders and both sexes developed in mutual commonality of gender in opposition and antagonism to the other. Segregation was thus both self-enforcing and proliferating. This sets up for male ideology to become one of differentiation based on dominance (Murphy 1959;91-92).

Similarly to labour roles ideology and rituals within Aka society integrate both genders as relative equals. Dogmas that different genders are better suited to certain roles is minimal and the Aka also practice prestige avoidance whereby any individual who is salient about personal achievement will generally be mocked by peers (Hewlett 1991:27-28,42). This would clearly aid in maintaining ideological equality by making it difficult for individuals to gain status superiority. However status positions, while limited in influence, can only be obtained by males (Hewlett 1991:27,40-42). Rituals (usually involving dancing and singing) are also relatively gender integrated. Hunting is especially celebrated, which although is not male exclusive still has male dominant aspects (Hewlett 1991:31). However Aka also have rituals for gathering (the primary female activity) as well as love and sexuality, things universal though perhaps more closely identified with femininity; however contextual research would be required to establish this (Hewlett 1991:31; Hewlett and Lynn 2013:42-43). There are also exclusive female rituals which in some cases mock males, suggesting active assertion of female power (Hewlett 1991:40). On the other hand males have exclusive religious ritual rights associated with the forest spirit called dzengi. Shortly after puberty males are introduced to the secret dances and songs thought to gain powers from dzengi to aid in elephant hunting (Hewlett 1991:30-31). Overall however, most rituals usually involve both genders, in different but relatively equal roles (Hewlett 1991:40)

Rituals and customs within Mundurucú society had a profoundly male orientation. Primary activities celebrated were the male disciplines of warfare and hunting, and religious practices were almost exclusive to males (Murthpy and Murphy 1974/2004:166; Murphy 1959:92). At social gatherings males sat in front of females and ate first (Murthpy and Murphy 1974/2004:65). The sacred Karökö instrument was exclusive to males, kept within the men’s house and was taboo for a female to sight. It was believed by the Mundurucú that the spirits within the Karökö protected the villages and granted plentiful game to hunt (Murphy 1959:92). The symbolic significance for ideological dominance is perhaps best displayed in myth as told to the Murphy’s, whereby females were the original founders of the Karökö instruments and with which gained dominance over the males. Gender roles were reversed. Females occupied the men’s house and spent most of their time playing the instruments. The males were forced into the dwellings and to carrying out domestic chores associated with the females, such as caring for the children, making manioc and carrying fire wood and water. This subversion of gender roles was complete with the females entering the dwelling houses and forcing themselves sexually upon the males, “just as we do to them today” as quoted by a local during the telling. However, as the females still could not hunt and produce meat to offer the spirits within the Karökö they were forced to give the instruments up to the men, who gained gender supremacy (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:114-116; Murphy 1959:92-93). As a legacy of the myth, when the males would play the Karökö the women would remain inside and carry out ritualised wailing to express grief for losing the source of power (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:119). The myth clearly indicates that roles were symbolic of hierarchy linked with the power of the Karökö. Thus gender segregation, Karökö exclusivity and rituals were clear manifestations of a well defined hierarchy which placed females in subordinate positions to males. Murphy (1959:91-92) further argues male ideologies of masculinity at its core were of differentiation, reinforced by segregation and expressed explicitly through dominance. Key also was that myth placed male dominance not as something intrinsic but something that had been gained, so also could be lost, and therefore needed defending. Thus there was motivation for males to actively assert dominance, resulting in gender antagonism (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:121; Murphy 1959:95-96). Murphy and Murphy (1974/2004:120-121) also argue that males saw sex as a means to enforce gender hierarchy, comparing the Karökö as a phallic shaped object symbolic of male dominance through the penis. Males would often joke amongst themselves about subduing females via sex. “We tame them with the banana”. This ideology takes on a darker turn with males claiming gang rapes would be used as punishment for females who transgressed their gender position (Murphy 1959:93-94). While in matrimony the ideal wives were supposed to be obedient and serve their husbands, or else could be beaten (Murphy 1959:92; Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:184).

While these aspects compared do highlight the contrasting relative gender equality of the Aka and inequality of the Mundurucú, when taking into account the entire context there are underlying discrepancies which makes assessing the relative equality complex. For the Mundurucú Murphy’s later work highlight how an ideological position can differ to reality. Segregation meant that each gender occupied separate social spheres where the other had very little influence (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:136. The two interacted mostly through husband-wife relations primarily within the dwellings, where power resided with the matriarchy and the husband could face retribution should he try to assert authority. Violence while prescribed as a right by males seemed to have little basis in reality. No partner violence was observed by the Murphy’s in an entire year and in fact they describe husband and wife relations as egalitarian (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:183-186). The ideological cultural basis of male dominance was present but was only propagated by males. Females did not adhere to these views, seeing themselves as independent and while they respected the cultural traditions Murphy (1974-2004:165-167) observed them putting little significance to their symbolic meaning of hierarchy. I would argue the Mundurucú were a society of two separate subcultures which co-exist, yet were segregated, each in its own right having dominance in its own sphere but not in the other. The male ideology of dominance in one sense was a disadvantage as males were marginalised from the dwellings; their identity became reliant on a masculine ideology of differentiation from females through asserting dominance (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:203-204). Symbolic rituals allowed this identity to be maintained, yet was tenuous, undermined in reality. In short they were stuck between their ideals of masculinity which defined them and an encroaching reality with a complete loss of identity. By congregating amongst themselves males defended against this via reassuring and propagating their own perceived assertiveness. Females in response asserted strength through solidarity which acted to further undercut male dominance. Thus a cycle of ideology, segregation and mutual antagonism is argued as self-maintaining (Murphy and Murphy 1974/2004:252-256). Therefore antagonism while often directed at females was representative of male insincerity while female identity was maintained.

Ramos (1978) questions Murphy’s approach as it relies on psychological speculation based on observation rather than empirical evidence. Instead he argues segregation had become part of the social norm in a cohesive society and was not representative of suppressed antagonism (Ramos 1978:679-681). I find this view too dismissive in its entirety; Murphy and Murphy (1974/2004:164-165) cite multiple examples of antagonism manifesting and while they can be difficult to interpret due to the importance of social context Murphy as the first hand witness is best placed to do this. However, the difficulty remains in interpreting the extent of this antagonism and how it impacts inequality. How greatly did the male identity crisis affect them in relation to females? It also does not counteract inequality imposed upon females by male ideologies of dominance and male actions that express it however limited. Males were mobile, able to inhabit both social spheres and make decisions as an individual, while female strength was reliant on the matriarchy; outside of which they were still vulnerable to male dominance. Male assertions of sexual violence may have been rare in reality but undoubtedly could have happened away from the Murphy’s observations. Even as a legacy of past dominance they still had a level of physiological degradation along with the other male assertions of dominance throughout Mundurucú culture.

The Aka despite being portrayed as egalitarian also have discrepancies. The relative egalitarian labour roles have to be contended with their stark change to more segregated roles in the villages. Female labour there far exceeded males and has far more in common with the Mundurucú labour roles. So while exhibiting labour role equality they also present labour inequality. Many of the indicators that are used for the inequalities in the Mundurucú are also present in the Aka. The Aka have male exclusive religious rights based on power with the forest spirit dzengi similar to the Karökö instruments for the Mundurucú. Similarly in both societies only males can occupy positions of status. Yet when taken in their entire contexts it is clear the Mundurucú examples are far more significant in terms of inequality as part of a greater ideology of male dominance which is actively asserted by males. Therefore to assess the equality of each society clearly the entire cultural context is important as comparisons of single aspects can be misleading. But what is also clear is that interpretation of this social context can be difficult in itself. The complexity of male ideology of dominance, yet a reality of female strength and a male identity crisis for the Mundurucú could clearly be interpreted in multiple ways. The root of the difficulty comes with inequality itself as it can manifest in multiple ways and interpretation is often based (as in much of this comparison) on qualitative observations, rather than relative quantities. These are at risk from bias from scholars own cultural backgrounds or a lack of understanding of the cultural context. Anthropologists such as the Murphy’s and Hewlett’s are well placed to make these assessments spending years immersed in the cultural context they are studying. Yet when comparing two societies, inequality is relative but also often fundamentally different in different ways, thus from different perspectives contradictory views of equality can be claimed. The Mundurucú have extreme ideologies of inequality yet are complicated and through segregation and have elements of comparative equality while the Aka although clearly relatively egalitarian share many of the inequalities expressed in the Mundurucú.

I have chosen to compare gender equality between the Aka and Mundurucú societies in terms of their segregated roles, living relationships and ritual ideology as each aspect highlights the extensive differences while at the same time exhibiting underlying discrepancies. Through gender segregation and male dominant ideology there is clear female inequality in the Mundurucú villages, while the Aka show relative equality with gender integration. Yet the segregation and male dominant ideology is also contradictory with the reality which show male inequality as well as female and levels of equality between them. The Aka also exhibit many similar aspects of inequality as the Mundurucú contrary to their equality status. I have used these contradictions to argue that gender equality is complex, changeable from different interpretations and understandings of the cultural context.

References

Berl, R. EW., and B. S. Hewlett. "Cultural Variation in the Use of Overimitation by the Aka and Ngandu of the Congo Basin." PloS one 10, no. 3 2015.

Burkhalter, S. B., and R.F. Murphy. "Tappers and sappers: rubber, gold and money among the Mundurucu." American Ethnologist 16, no. 1 (1989): 100-116.

Coltrane, S. "The micropolitics of gender in nonindustrial societies." Gender & Society 6.1 (1992): 86-107.

Fouts, H. N. "Father involvement with young children among the Aka and Bofi foragers." Cross-Cultural Research 42, no. 3 (2008): 290-312.

Hewlett, B. S. Intimate Fathers: The Nature and Context of Aka Pygmy Paternal Infant Care. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.

Hewlett, L., and B. Lynn. Listen, here is a story: ethnographic life narratives from Aka and Ngandu women of the Congo Basin. Oxford University Press, 2013.

Murphy, R. F. "Social structure and sex antagonism." Southwestern Journal of Anthropology (1959): 89-98.

Murphy, R. F., and Y. Murphy. Women of the Forest. 30^th ed. Columbia University Press, 2004.

Murphy, R. F., and Y. Murphy. “preface to Second Edition.” in Women of the Forest. 30^th ed. Columbia University Press, 2004

Noss, A. J., and B. S. Hewlett. "The contexts of female hunting in Central Africa." American Anthropologist 103.4 (2001): 1024-1040.

Ramos, A. R. "Mundurucu: social change or false problem?." American Ethnologist 5.4 (1978): 675-689.