The second chapter focuses on how, why, and who among the feminist movement first embraced the myth of matriarchal prehistory and also introduces - via side comments - the equally questionable theory of patriarchal prehistory.
The fact is that as things stand there's no definitive method or discovery that states that either patriarchy or matriarchy were dominant in prehistory let alone all over the world at the same time. Also interesting is the repeated assertion by pro-prehistoric matriarchy advocates and works that implies or states that the patriarchy spread from Europe to the rest of the world. I have to wonder if this is a reverse echo or reaction to the colonial expansion of relatively recent European history, that is to say that, having been ground under the bootheel of racist, sexist, profit and power motivated imperial powers this theory/myth of prehistoric matriarchy is being painted as the polar opposite of patriarchal despotism via looping in the dark history or European colonialism.
It is important to note that in and of itself archaeology is limited to studying the material remains of past cultures and peoples. Such materials rarely provide a clear and succinct narrative regarding religion or politics particularly if there are no inscriptions or written records still existing. Therefore claiming an artifact like the Venus of Willendorf as definitive and incontrovertible evidence of a world wide prehistoric matriarchy is a bit silly.
Anyway, back to the book.
From a brief survey of the modern feminist championing of the myth (and note that not all feminists do claim the myth as reality, it seems many ignore it or give it lip service to avoid schism) Eller goes on to describe and discuss works of fiction, art, music, and even international tours and videos about 'historical goddess' sites that are wildly popular. She notes the rising popularity of the movement and the fact that there are some works aimed at young girls and women that also champion the prehistoric matriarchy. She notes that some college courses touch on or focus on the myth while others discuss it as a phenomenon or aspect of modern culture or feminism. The point is that this myth is gaining a larger profile in cultural areas outside of feminism.
The chapter closes with this , "Given that this story has become (if mainly by default) the feminist account of prehistory, and given too its increasing currency among environmentalists, Afrocentrists, and even cultural theorists ... it is imperative that we take the time to see how this story developed and found its way into feminist circles, and to examine the picture of feminist matriarchalists paint of prehistory, the explanations they offer for its demise, and the hopes they hold out for the future" (pg 29).
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 2 Popularizing the Past. Print.
The fact is that as things stand there's no definitive method or discovery that states that either patriarchy or matriarchy were dominant in prehistory let alone all over the world at the same time. Also interesting is the repeated assertion by pro-prehistoric matriarchy advocates and works that implies or states that the patriarchy spread from Europe to the rest of the world. I have to wonder if this is a reverse echo or reaction to the colonial expansion of relatively recent European history, that is to say that, having been ground under the bootheel of racist, sexist, profit and power motivated imperial powers this theory/myth of prehistoric matriarchy is being painted as the polar opposite of patriarchal despotism via looping in the dark history or European colonialism.
It is important to note that in and of itself archaeology is limited to studying the material remains of past cultures and peoples. Such materials rarely provide a clear and succinct narrative regarding religion or politics particularly if there are no inscriptions or written records still existing. Therefore claiming an artifact like the Venus of Willendorf as definitive and incontrovertible evidence of a world wide prehistoric matriarchy is a bit silly.
Anyway, back to the book.
From a brief survey of the modern feminist championing of the myth (and note that not all feminists do claim the myth as reality, it seems many ignore it or give it lip service to avoid schism) Eller goes on to describe and discuss works of fiction, art, music, and even international tours and videos about 'historical goddess' sites that are wildly popular. She notes the rising popularity of the movement and the fact that there are some works aimed at young girls and women that also champion the prehistoric matriarchy. She notes that some college courses touch on or focus on the myth while others discuss it as a phenomenon or aspect of modern culture or feminism. The point is that this myth is gaining a larger profile in cultural areas outside of feminism.
The chapter closes with this , "Given that this story has become (if mainly by default) the feminist account of prehistory, and given too its increasing currency among environmentalists, Afrocentrists, and even cultural theorists ... it is imperative that we take the time to see how this story developed and found its way into feminist circles, and to examine the picture of feminist matriarchalists paint of prehistory, the explanations they offer for its demise, and the hopes they hold out for the future" (pg 29).
Eller, Cynthia. The Myth of Matriarchal Prehistory: Why an Invented past Won't Give Women a Future. Boston: Beacon, 2000. Chapter 2 Popularizing the Past. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment