Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.

24:567-92
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further
Copyright © 1995 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved Quick links to online content

ALL MADE UP: Performance Theory

and the New Anthropology of Sex and
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Gender
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

Rosalind C. Morris

Department of Anthropology, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027

KEY WORDS: sexual difference, feminist theory, embodiment, social subjectivity

ABSTRACT
This review considers the impact of recent performance theory, especially the
theory .of gender performativity, on anthropological efforts to theorize sex and
gender. In brief, the theory of performativity defines gender as the effect of
discourse, and sex as the effect of gender. The theory is characterized by a
concern with the productive force rather than the meaning of discourse and by
its privileging of ambiguity and indeterminacy. This review treats recent per­
formance theory as the logical heir, but also the apotheosis, of two anthropo­
logical traditions. The first tradition is feminist anti-essentialism, which first
distinguished between sex and gender in an effort to denaturalize asymmetry.
The second tradition is practice theory, which emphasized habitual forms of
embodiment in its effort to overcome the oppositions between individual and
society. In concluding, questions are raised about the degree to which current
versions of performance theory enact rather than critically engage the political
economies of value and desire from which they arise.

Introduction
Until recently, anthropologists concerned to theorize culturally and historically
specific forms of subjectivity and identity could rest assured that the material
body would serve as the index of unity and continuity across time. But in an

0084-6570/95/1015-0567$05.00 567
 568 MORRIS

age of surgical plasticity and prosthetic extension, it becomes necessary

to rethink the nature of sexed bodies and gendered personhood on a new
level (62). Fragmentation, which seems to have been as much a concern for
Medieval Christians (21) as it is for anxious postmodernists, now re­
turns to us-not as a violation of selfhood but as the paradigmatic form of
subjective experience. And social theory gropes to account for that fact,
half blind to its own ideological situation but seeking explanations in the
logics of "flexible accumulation" (85) and late capitalist panic (141). The
categories of sex and gender have fallen under the shadow of radical doubt and
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

become the objects of an effort to retheorize the very nature of social subjec­
tivity. Increasingly, gender is thought of as a process of structuring subjectivi­
ties rather than as a structure of fixed relations. Sex identity, once the bastion
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

of nature, is no longer immune to ideological critique. Some of the most

important interventions in this area have been made under the influence of
postmodern performance theory, a discourse with roots in both classical social
constructionism and Foucaultian analytics (cf 162). This review attempts to
trace the impact and the effect of those interventions in the anthropology of
sex and gender.
When Foucault published Herculine Barbin's memoirs (51), he introduced
one of the most poignant and provocative testimonials to the constructedness
of gender ever to have been conceived. An eighteenth-century French "her­
maphrodite" who was assigned an exclusively male identity after having lived
as a female, Barbin seemed to condense the history of modern Western sexual­
ity (as outlined by Foucault) in her/his very being. From an initial state of
ambiguity in which practice and community membership rather than genitality
determined gendered status, Barbin was forced by medical and legal authori­
ties to adopt a single gender, which was reduced to anatomy and named as sex.
Particularized and subjectivized to a degree that ethnographic description can
never attain, the diary provided stunning evidence for Foucault's (50) theory
that the very perception of sex identity presumes a regulatory discourse in
which the surfaces of bodies are differentially marked, signified, and charged
with sensitivity.
This version of social constructionist theory found enthusiastic reception in
anthropological circles, where it was greeted by many with a sense of recogni­
tion. It resonated especially well with the arguments of feminist anthropolo­
gists who had differentiated between gender and sex in an effort to refute the
conflation of the universality with the biological necessity of gender asymme­
try (101, 112, 113, 123, 125, 157). But it also transcended these arguments: If
the distinction between sex and gender denaturalized gender asymmetry, it
also demanded a theory of the relationship between them (25, 27). Foucault's
thesis on the discursive nature of sexuality responds to this problem of rela­
tion, inverting earlier feminist teleologies in which sex was defined as the
 SEX AND GENES 569

ground on which culture elaborates gender and replacing it with a notion of

gender as the discursive origin of sex. De Lauretis (37) has focused this
argument most pointedly by asserting that gender is a representation, and at the
same time, that the representation of gender is its construction.
Under the influence of Butler's (18-20) re-reading of Austin's (7) speech
act theory, the process by which difference and identity are constructed in and
through the discourses of sexuality is referred to increasingly as gender perfor­
mativity. Although this term introduces new issues, it remains deeply indebted
to Foucault. Indeed, the impact of Foucault's original insights and the fortui­
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tous historico-ethnographic data that Barbin's memoir offered the theory of

sexuality can hardly be overestimated. The History of Sexuality prompted a
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

veritable cottage industry of related ethnography and ethno-history, much of it

stamped by longing for exemplary cases like Barbin's, in which the production
of sexual difference and the elimination of categorical ambivalence can be
seen-in the flesh.
Barbin's ambiguity was exceptional, however, and neither the memoirs nor
the life history expressed therein can ever serve as anything more than meta­
phors for a more general process by which gender identity was assumed as a
form of sexual dichotomization. Inspired by, but also departing from, Fou­
cault's work, Laqueur's (79) monumental history of premodern Western sexu­
ality also relies on the writings of extraordinary individuals, but it suggests
that ambiguity may have been attributed to all bodies, if not all genders, during
this period. Using copious textbook illustrations and correspondences,
Laqueur argues that the dominant ideology of premodern Europe conceived of
one sex and two genders, male and female bodies understood as mere inver­
sions of a single morphological possibility defined by the penis (interior for
women, exterior for men). Although Laqueur is quick to point out that this did
not preclude a radically binary gender system, nor a habit of attributing gender
differences to the particular configuration of bodily organs, his work forces
readers to acknowledge that gender dichotomies can be imagined in a variety
of ways, none of which are reducible to the absolute oppositions that contem­
porary biology posits in the so-called natural body. As Laqueur demonstrates,
different consequences are entailed by discourses in which masculinity and
femininity are imagined as matters of interiority and exteriority rather than the
presence or absence of the phallus. This concern with the historical varieties of
binarity demonstrates how a "sex/gender" system [to use Rubins's term (125)]
that privileges the visible organ both reflects and enacts an epistemology in
which reality is reduced to appearance, to visible surfaces. Laqueur criticizes
Freud for submitting to this logic, and in doing so, he tacitly urges a history of
gender that includes the rise of commodity aesthetics and the technologies of
the gaze. It is a task for which anthropology is particularly well suited. Indeed,
 570 MORRIS

the relativization of binarity already suggest the need for an anthropological

intervention.
Feminist film theorists have long been concerned with the processes by
which power and visibility have been entwined and allocated to the masculine
along with the right to look (see especially 36, 102). However, many anthro­
pologists have implicitly reproduced and extrapolated a phallocentric logic by
defining visibility and power as synonymous terms rather than as historically
related positions. This is especially true in analyses of domestic and public
domains. The anthropology of gender that is emerging under the influence of
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

performance theory resists such conflations, however. Instead, it is concerned

with the relationships and the dissonance between the exclusive categories of
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

normative sex/gender systems and the actuality of ambiguity, multiplicity,

abjection, and resistance within these same systems. Oscillating between a
desire to unseat the hegemony of sexual dichotomies in the modern West
through exemplary counter-example and a yearning to locate resistant prac­
tices in non-Western systems, much of the new anthropology of gender seeks
its Barbins in the examples of "institutional transvestism" such as the ber­
dache of North America, the hijra of India, or the kathoey of Thailand. Or it
looks to societies wherein gender is explicitly marked in rites of passage,
where the production of difference as power is more transparent by virtue of
ethnographic estrangement.
Given that the constructedness of bodies becomes most visible when it
deviates from the expectations of the dominant ideology from whence the
writer comes, it is not surprising that so much of the work on embodiment and
the performative constitution of gender should focus on cases of seemingly
ambiguous genders, whether these are institutionalized, temporary, or even
theatricalized states. Ambiguity is the taboo of medicalized bodies, the imper­
missible threat against which hormone therapies and surgical intervention are
marshalled so relentlessly (69, 93). Yet the fascination with ambiguity in such
theory often exceeds its comparative role. Although Foucault observed that
discourse produces its own points of resistance, and although anthropologists
generally share his vision of power as something immanent to culture, anthro­
pological uses of performativity theory rarely interpret ambiguity as one dis­
cursive effect among others. More often than not, ambiguity is postulated as
the ground and the origin of sexual and gendered difference: as a prediscur­
sive, preontological dimension of bodiliness (61). Accordingly, it is also as­
signed an explanatory force. For much gender theory, ambiguity has become
that which permits and even necessitates the formation of gender difference:
the word that demands the flesh made gender (44, 54). How has this become
the case? What kinds of questions does the theory of discursive or performa­
tive gender seek to answer that the notion of ambiguity can provide so potent
 SEX AND GENES 571

and all-encompassing an explanation? What social and historical forces are

implicated in this discourse? And what might be its consequences?

The Difference a Name Makes: Practice, Performance,

Performativity

Although much performance theory has entered anthropology surrepti­

tiously, through the back door of ritual studies-where life-cycle rites have
provided a seemingly ideal venue for the exploration of gendered subject
formation, it is doubtful that the notion of performativity would have found a
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

place in the absence of practice theory, which had emerged from the works of
Bourdieu, de Certeau, and Sahlins, among others. Indeed, the current fashion­
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

ability of performativity lies mainly in its promise of a delayed resolution to

the crisis of structuralism that appeared during the late 1970s. Performativity
theory emerges from and extends the anti-structuralist (but often neo-structu­
ralist) critiques that were made under the related rubrics of practice anthropol­
ogy (13, 35, 112, 127, 128), difference feminism (23, 67, 94, 130, 151), and
resistance studies (e.g. 1, 2, 12,26, 77, 92, 111, 122, 134, 135, 149). Like those
earlier theoretical gestures, performativity theory addresses itself to the lacuna
in structuralist explanation, namely the problems of individual agency, histori­
cal change, and plurality within systems.
Perhaps what made practice theory most attractive to constructionist an­
thropologies of gender was its promise to overcome the Manichean opposi­
tions between the given (which is not here reducible to the natural) and the
constructed, with a more dialectical sense of how what is socially constructed
comes to have the force of the given in individual lives. In Bourdieu's work
(13, 14), which provided the exemplary discussion of practice, that dialectic
was located in the habitus (a term he appropriated from Mauss) and was
imagined as a set of "structuring structures" that produced and were produced
by specifically embodied subjects. Embodiment became a key term in such
discussions, providing a way to address the productivity of collective repre­
sentations in material rather than mentalist terms (28). Embodiment was also a
temporalizing concept. By questioning the ways in which social and ideologi­
cal structures are actually made operational in time, and not just in relation to
time, and by locating this process in the socialization of the flesh, Bourdieu
helped to withdraw the anthropology of the body from its confinement in the
hermeneutics of metaphor.
There is a certain amount of irony in this, given the paucity of reference to
actual bodies in Bourdieu's work, but Outline of a Theory ofPractice (13) had
a programmatic impact nonetheless. Among other things, it staged the discus­
sion of ritual efficacy in terms that would resonate with Austinian-and hence
Butlerian-notions of performativity, emphasizing forced and forceful reitera­
tion rather than meaning. In this manner, it actually helped to facilitate the
 572 MORRIS

current efflorescence of performativity theory in anthropology.! This is not to

say that the trajectory has been one of smooth or progressive elaboration. If
reiteration would be understood as the site of difference in later theories of
gender performativity, Bourdieu himself was unable to rescue it from the logic
of reproductive enactment. Indeed, the idea of the habitus was underwritten
largely by structural-functionalist teleology; materialized in architecture and
other spatial forms, it could only shape ideal subjects who would then repro­
duce the habitus in an almost hermetic circle.
Other versions of practice anthropology include Sahlins's (127, 128) theory
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

of cultural history and de Certeau's treatise (35) on everyday acts. In the

former, historical metamorphosis is said to be the product of competing inter­
ests that are differently advantaged at particular moments in history. Here, as
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

in Bourdieu's work, change is the effect of strategic action by differently

positioned actors, and culture remains an inviolable structure of meaning and
order that both facilitates transformation and sutures the new order back into a
history of collective remembrances. De Certeau (35), on the other hand, intro­
duces a critique of strategic reason by arguing against the conflation of repre­
sentational ideals and actual, everyday practice. For him, strategy presumes a
totalizing and temporally abstracted vision in which the subject is objectified
even to him or herself. In contrast, practice pertains to the meandering, im­
provisational acts of individuals who must move through the systemized world
of collective schemes and images. Practices, for de Certeau, are not function­
ally subservient to cultural reproduction but instead are creative gestures in­
commensurable with, but not completely outside of, structural principles.
It is sobering to note how little the issue of gender entered into the major
works on practice during the late 1970s and early 1980s, especially given the
ascendancy of feminist thought in the academy at that time. In Bourdieu's
writings, gender remains an unquestioned principle of dichotomy. In Sahlins's
work, it is a positionality like any other. In de Certeau's essays, it is a palpable
absence. But it is in reference to the sexual and gendered practices that, like de
Certeau's perambulatory speech acts, elude dominant representations that the
transformation from practice to performativity has occurred. That metamor­
phosis has taken place largely through the efforts of feminist and queer theo­
rists in the radical constructionist camp of the continuing debate with essen­
tialism (see 22, 52, 53, 55, 60, 71, 82, 98, 129). In some senses one can see this
shift as a movement from representation to formation, from meaning to force.
Reaching back to Austin's (7) notion of the performative as the act of
enunciation that brings into being the object it names, Butler argues that
gender is not a fact or an essence, but a set of acts that produce the effect or

1 In Bodies that Matter, Butler explicitly and approvingly cites Bourdieu's concern with the
temporality of social process (20:246, n. 8).
 SEX AND GENES 573

appearance of a coherent substance (20). Here she reiterates West & Zimmer­
man's (160) somewhat more prosaic claim that gender is something people do
rather than an entity or a quality they possess. Butler goes further than this
when she argues that, although gender is a set of acts, it works and derives its
compulsive force from the fact that people mistake the acts for the essence
and, in the process, come to believe that they are mandatory. Performatives are
thus both generative and dissimulating. Their effect, if not their purpose, is to
compel certain kinds of behavior by hiding the fact that there is no essential,
natural sex to which gender can refer as its starting point (see also 50, 60, 136).
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Sex identity is said to be materialized by the gender system in the imitation or

reiteration of ideal corporeal styles.
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

The motivating question of this theory concerns non-normative practice:

Whence does it come? The sustaining question has to do with the origins of
difference itself. Explaining the compulsory logic of gender performativity,
Butler insists that the masculine and feminine morphologies by which Western
gender systems naturalize difference as sex are always ideal constructions
against which all subjects must experience their bodily selves as, in some
senses, inadequate (20). This is because the variegations and multiplicities of
bodily surfaces always exceed the slender categories of anatomy (however that
is defined) to which they are supposed to correspond (see also 61). Thus, from
the beginning, sex/gender systems mark individuals with the possibility of
being other than ideal, a possibility that is represented by the normative system
as failure, but that may be embraced by individuals in courageous and joyously
subversive ways. Herein lies much of the appeal of performativity as a theo­
retical construct and of Butler's work in particular. By asserting that the body
assumes its sex in the culturally mandated practices of everyday life, the
theory of gender performativity offers the possibility of restyling that same
body in non-normative and occasionally subversive ways. This approach reso­
nates well with the recent ethnography of homoerotics, especially with work
demonstrating that in many cultural contexts erotic activity and genitality do
not necessarily constitute fixed sexual identities, and even that many het­
erosexualities can and do accommodate activities that would be read as homo­
sexual in the terms of Western and many other sexual binarisms (31, 78, 114,
118, 150, 161, 168).
In the current ethnographic literature on sex and gender, one finds two
distinct but intimately related and often overlapping tendencies, both of which
derive from the presumption that gender is arbitrary but determining, con­
structed but given by history. The first of these might be called the anthropol­
ogy of making difference. It focuses on the ways in which cultural orders
construct gender and create subjects. Often, it includes detailed discussions of
bodily techniques and of ideological or symbolic representations that motivate
and valorize particular forms of difference. Frequently, it focuses on rites of
 574 MORRIS

passage in which gender is publicly marked. The second strand of thought

might be termed the anthropology of decomposing2 difference. This literature
focuses on the institutions of ambiguity, and it encompasses everything from
institutionalized transgendering in non-Western societies to specifically
framed gestures of parody and transgression in North American theater.
Whether concerned with the creation or the subversion of particular systems,
these literatures are defined by a doubled frame of reference: One frame is the
normative system of the culture under discussion, the other is that of the
ethnographer. Often, the production and decomposition of difference in other
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

contexts is a kind of proxy subversion of the binary gender system that defines
the anthropologizing culture. In this manner, ethnographies are as much about
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

performing gender as are the cultures about which they speak.

What is Written on the Body: Composing Difference

One of the most luminous discussions of gendered practice in a non-Western

context appears in Tsing's (152) account of shamanism among the Meratus
Dayak. TSing describes a society in which universal humanness is understood
to be feminine, although particular historical circumstances have enabled men
to assume political power. In a postcolonial context of rural and urban periph­
eries in which the ability to traverse distance is a source of authority, including
the authority of empowered speech, Tsing tells of male shamans who use
stories of traveling in curative ritual. A narrative return to origins gives the
healer access to universality and its therapeutic powers. In telling the story of
his own birth, which is metaphorically linked to that of all other births, the
shaman travels back to a maternal body, enters it, and becomes one with it. In
doing so, writes Tsing, the shaman becomes a woman with a penis. It would
perhaps have been better if Tsing had read the shaman as newly gendered,
neither a woman (with a penis) nOr a man (with a womb), but a transformed
exalted being. However, she does note how different are the notions of gender
in Meratus from those of the West, where femininity is precisely the lack of
the phallus and genitality is the point beyond which gender cannot be pushed.
The theory of performativity allows her to apprehend a system in which
genitality and gender are not only independent of each other, but shift con­
stantly depending on the performative, which is to say social and political,
context of the body.
Tsing's account is particularly lucid, but it is not unique. The processes by
which different sexes are written on bodies has become the subject of prolifer­
ating discussion in anthropology. Unfortunately, the emerging concern with

2 I use the term decompose rather than deconstruct to avoid assuming the full burden of Der­
ridean theory, which implies more than I mean here.
 SEX AND GENES 575

performativity often depends on a suspicious literalization of the rhetoric of

inscription. This is especially true when ethnographers address issues of bod­
ily reform such as circumcision, scarification, and infibulation. Broch-due (15,
16), for example, uses the rather dramatic vocabulary of "carved bodies" when
she describes the constitution of sexual identities among the Turkana. By her
account, a Turkana child is linguistically marked as neutral or androgynous
until initiation rites, when "she" or "he" assumes a sex identity in a system of
binary opposition. This new identity, while substantive, is also said to be
threatened by the incorporation of a (differently sexed) partner's substance
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

during intercourse. For women, that incorporated substance finally acquires a

critical mass and leads to the birth of a child, which, having been formed by a
union of different substances, is thought to be androgynous. Drawing heavily
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

upon postmodern performance theory, Broch-due reads this cyclic oscillation

as evidence of the dichotomy's instability, but only insofar as it necessitates
rites of differentiation. In her account, the indeterminacy of gender in the
androgynous stages of the Turkana life cycle is temporary. However, it is not
presented as a dimension of gender's temporality, as would be the case in more
radical understandings of performativity.
Like Broch-due, Talles (148) describes the infibulation rites of Somali
women as the actual and deeply visceral "materializations" of a sex identity
that is defined in terms of purity and in opposition to an earlier androgyny.
There is a vast literature on "surgical engenderings," some of which reads
them as the mutilation of an already existent body rather than the production of
new sexual SUbjectivity. Although there is an obvious analogy between carved
flesh (17) and discursively constructed bodies, the overliteralization of this
theory may actually obscure more than it reveals. If bodies are inscribed in
ways that both imbue them with meaning and mobilize them into particular
sensuousness, physical demarcations may be as much a recognition of the
body's perceived resistance to symbolic refiguration as of its receptivity to
inscription. This is not to say that the limits of the body can be known in
advance. Everything from Turkana ritual to transplant surgery suggests other­
wise. However, the issue of how people conceive and act upon bodily limits
must be sought through careful ethnographies in which local understandings of
materiality are made explicit.
Talles (148) attempts such an ethnography when she describes excision
rites in local terms, as a removal of the male-identified hard parts, which
would otherwise prevent the maturation from androgynous childhood to adult
female purity. But this begs the question: Whence comes the telos of this body
or of the androgynous boy's body, which will be freed of its soft, "feminine"
foreskin in circumcision? Infibulation and circumcision are undoubtedly cru­
cial acts in the process of gendered subject formation. So are tattooing, pierc­
ing, dressing, and undressing-to say nothing of plastic surgery and hormone
 576 MORRIS

therapies. But they only constitute sex identity within an already elaborated
discourse that perceives, adjudicates, and regulates bodily identity within gen­
der. The assignation of eligibility for sexual markings is as crucial in the
analysis of subject formation as is the act itself, even if cutting, tattooing,
shaving, and re-dressing are all phenomenologically formative moments for
the person who is being made, remade, or just made up. Austin's and Fou­
cault's shared emphasis on the act of naming would be well remembered in
this context.
Perhaps the most serious failure of the work that focuses on spectacular
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

events lies in its confusion of ritual as reiteration with ritual as originating act.
As formulated by Butler, the theory of gender performativity would probably
eschew ethnographies in which a discrete ritual act or series of acts is seen as
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

the source of sexual and gendered identity. Indeed, it rejects the notion of
founding acts and posits gender as the product and process of repetition. One
might say that the works of Broch-due and Talles confuse performativity with
performance. However, the tension between the spectacular and the repetitive
dimensions of ritual is not unique to the anthropology of gender. It is espe­
cially visible in works that treat ritual as a site of resistance or transgressive
practice. If ritual is reiteration, as the etymology of the word suggests, whence
comes the new or non-normative act? Until recently, and with the notable
exception of Turner's (156) later work on liminality and creativity, ritual was
identified almost exclusively with the reproduction of society. Bloch's (11)
study of male initiation rites in Madagascar represents one of the more ex­
treme returns to the Durkheimian position in which ritual is understood as the
antithesis of creativity. However, one could as easily look to Bourdieu's study
of Kabyle marriage ceremonies (13) to find treatments that, although ostensi­
bly concerned with social process, are beholden to a notion of ritual as mere
reenactment. In his more recent work, Bourdieu (14) even reduces the ritual
function in Kabyle society to the serial unification and separation of opposed
terms.
In her account of Okiek initiation rites, Kratz (76) insists that ritual be
understood as a performance whose affectivity and formative power is derived
from the simultaneous deployment of different media. Kratz goes beyond
Malinowski's classic notion of ritual pragmatics and provides a technical
theory to augment Turner's (154, 155) concern with the affective potency of
ceremonial symbols. However, while Katz situates ritual in th(: everyday
through a notion of performance that serves as a technology of remembrance
and evocation, ritual remains for her a framed moment in a system of forceful
reproduction. Indeed, it is theatrical in the sense of occupying a "subjunctive
frame" (132). The idea of a framed moment that exerts an influence over
subjects-as objects-is still not the same as the argument that there is no
subject before or outside of practice. This may be why Seremetakis (138)
 SEX AND GENES 577

eschews the notion of the performative in her efforts to describe the endless
constructions or poesis of everyday life in Greece.
Some of the more interesting work on this topic comes from scholars who
work in contexts that feature elaborate rites of physical engendering, but who
nonetheless avoid reducing the discursive production of sex to its material
inscriptions. Among them, Boddy (12), Combs-Schilling (29, 30), and Lindis­
fame (81) all suggest that the discourse of honor and shame in North Mrica,
the Mediterranean, and the Middle East can be read as rhetorical systems that
privilege certain body parts, especially the hymen, as metonyms of sex iden­
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tity, but also of purity and of relation within a system of hierarchical opposi­
tion. Combs-Schilling (29, 30) and Lindisfarne (81) claim that virginity must
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

be made visible and destroyed for witnesses in order for women and men to
assume and maintain their adult identities within the normative system of
compulsory heterosexuality. But by attending to the ways in which people
conspire to both subvert the taboo on premarital sex and hide its transgression,
these writers also show how the audience's validation of a performance serves
to constitute reality. Their accounts of wedding rituals share an affinity with
Diamond's (39) description of realist theater as a mode of performance in
which the audience conspires with the performers to produce a contractual
reality by verifying (or rejecting) the truths presented by the actors. Those who
witness the display of blood can either accept or reject it as hymenal, and in
that moment, they retroactively create or deny the virginity of the bride, even
as they reiterate the value of virginity itself. It is significant that these ethnog­
raphers resist the temptation to cease analysis here, at the level of local ideol­
ogy, where the hymen is fetishized and only female gender seems to be in
question. Lindisfarne (81) describes the erotic and homosocial bonding be­
tween men that occurs in response to the display of hymenal blood and
suggests that it is as important in the production of general masculinity as is
the act of defloration (or faked defloration) in the more particular achievement
of adult sexuality for the groom and the bride. In many ways this is a more
modest version of Devereux's (38) theory that kinship and marriage systems,
as well as the discourses of shame that surround virginity, are an avoidance of
primary homosexual desires between men (see 56, 57). But in an irony intrin­
sic to ethnography, empiricism prevents the slide into essentialism. Thus
Combs-Schilling (29) describes the use of symbolic substitutes such as henna
in ritual displays of hymenal blood and focuses as much on the play that such
deceptions permit back stage as on the masculine reality that is forged in and
for the audience. In its attention to creative dissimulation, her analysis permits
us to see how the disjuncture between body and representation, rather than the
collapse between them that is entailed by more literal notions of inscription,
can be manipulated in ways that both support the normative ideology of
 578 MORRIS

virginal purity and permit a certain freedom of action-including, in this case,

premarital sex.
Even so, it is unclear in these accounts whether such rites actually produce
women as women and men as men (as these authors claim), or whf:ther they
produce women as brides and men as grooms. How stable and how fundamen­
tal is gender identity? What is the implicit status of gender that certain rites can
only produce what already exists? Has the dissolution between the categories
of sex and gender (55) permitted gender to simply replace biology as destiny?
Can we avoid such recourse to teleology? Boddy's (12) work on hymen repair
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

and the reproduction of virginity in the Sudan suggests that, even within cults
of virginity, women's identities may be deemed highly unstable and in need of
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

constant reaffirmation. This appears to be especially true in lower class and

nationally peripheral communities. These instabilities are not synonymous
with ambiguity or androgyny, although there are some slippages in Boddy's
text; rather they are of a specifically feminine nature. In fact, Boddy's account
rehearses a more familiar (to Westerners) paradigm in which women are
subjected to patriarchal authority precisely in the process of being defined as
volatile. In this case, indeterminacy is a selectively attributed quality of gen­
dered being and an instrument of power that produces inequality and depend­
encies.
Recent work by Strathern (147) suggests an alternative way of compre­
hending these processes. In many ways echoing Broch-due (15, 16) and Talles
(148), Strathern describes the seclusion of Daulo girls and the ritual initiation
that takes place during that period as a transformation that moves an androgy­
nous person into a single-sexed state. But she makes a good case for consider­
ing these kinds of ritual processes (and the ethnographic literature is bursting
with accounts of them) as a general mode of fragmentation, in which sexually
whole and in some senses individual persons, namely children, are socialized
into relations and dependencies of kinship, age, sexuality, and gender. One
might add here race, ethnicity, and class, although such terms seem to have
limited applicability to the Daulo case. This notion of "making incomplete" is
in many ways assumed by Strathern's earlier analysis (145, 146) of gift ex­
change in Melanesia, which she describes as a process in which "dividual"
selves are able and even mandated to circulate crafted objects and, by exten­
sion, aspects of themselves in a process of endlessly deferred self-completion.
Such an understanding of adult identity-one should probably say identifica­
tion-seems to resonate well with much of the work on what Herdt (65) calls
"ritualized homosexuality" and Elliston (43) more cautiously terms "semen
practices" in Melanesia. Such practices, which require boys and young men to
be in some way inseminated by older men, often initiate and physicalize a
form of dependency and receptivity that will later be realized in other kinds of
exchanges, exchanges that are at once the prerogative, the obligation, and the
 SEX AND GENES 579

object of desire for adult men. Ironically, efforts to distinguish these kinds of
relations from the forms of homosexual identity more familiar in the West
have tended to reify them in exclusive typologies with sexuality at their center
(3). However, the notion of "dividuation" opens outward from the problem of
gender, recognizing the partiality and indeterminacy of adult subjectivity even
as it imbricates gender in widening if not always integrating spheres of dis­
course and practice.
Emphasizing an indeterminacy that other theorists of gender performativity
[notably Butler (19, 20)] have located at the heart of the performative itself,
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Strathern suggests not only that we read exchange in its gender (145), but that
we understand gender as part of a complex, temporally extended system in
which issues such as renown, age, and rank are all at work. Perhaps this will be
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

anthropology's gift to performance theory: the recuperated gift, first offered by

Mauss, of a whole that is always on the horizon, begging individuals to reach
for it and in so doing to become social and to become a social subject. The
structural deferment of identity is, after all, the object of much postmodern
performance theory. However, it remains to be seen whether the same proc­
esses exist in other societies. To speak of fragmentation and indeterminacy is
to invoke the image of a coherent subject, either as a prior entity or as a
counterpoint. Can one use these terms in reference to societies where ritual is
thought to realize rather than to transform identities or contexts where the
subject is never fully individuated? And what of those societies in which
androgyny or ambivalence are not primary states but are produced during
initiation rites, as in the case of the Thai Buddhist novitiates described by
Keyes? (74)

Decomposing Difference: Thirdness and the Critique of Binarity

The foregoing literature might well be classified under McLaren's (89) term,
as an anthropology of enfleshment. Focusing on the ways of assuming a sex
and of becoming different, it goes beyond earlier anthropologies of the body in
which flesh was construed as a surface ripe for signification and/or as a
metonymic switch point between individual and society (42, 88, 153, 157).
The complement to this work is in the literature that emphasizes moments of
collapsed, blurred, or subverted difference; instances of secondary ambiguity;
and so-called third genders-all of the forms that would be pathologized by
the discourses of medicalized sexuality in the West. The attention to such
forms is not new. At least since Mead's (90, 91) discussion of comparative
gender roles, anthropology had been asked to provide testimonial examples of
sex/gender systems less rigid or constraining than those of the postindustrial
West. The vast literature on institutional transvestism, transgendering, and/or
third genders (9, 31, 66, 69, 70, 83, 97, 103, 106, 115, 124, 163-167) provides
a case in point. But such phenomena have added appeal for contemporary
 580 MORRIS

performance theory, and much of that appeal is instrumental. In the first place,
ambiguous and/or third genders refuse to be collapsed into the system of
metonymic representation that operates in the modern West, where certain
body parts are charged with the task of signifying and predicting gender. But
more importantly, these forms serve a metaphoric function. When theorists of
gender performativity (18, 19, 20, 44, 54) say that all gender is a form of drag,
they mean that, like drag, the Western system of compulsory heterosexuality is
a set of imitations. What is being imitated is the ideal of binary difference, a
difference that not only prescribes social roles but also is supposed to deter­
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

mine sexual desires. This is why Weston (162), following Silverman (139),
can speak of transgendering as a double mimesis, the imitation of an imitation.
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

In this context, cases of third genders and/or institutionalized transvestism can

be treated as framed examples of the performativity that underlies the entire
logic of binary sexuality.
An enormous range of phenomena is covered in this body of work, and
Weston (161) has provided an admirable summary. The history of that litera­
ture is particularly revealing of performance theory's impact. Earlier analyses
of transvestism and transgendering often expressed suspicions of homosexual­
ity and reduced the practices of habiliment to sexual orientation. Institutional­
ized transgendering was said to be a site for legitimized "same-sex" relations
that would not otherwise be sanctioned by society (108). But what can be
meant by same-sex relations when the partners involved are considered by
themselves and their societies to be different? When it comes to erotic prac­
tice, the concept of gender often seems to collapse into mere body parts, or it
vanishes altogether. But if erotic practice entails more than genital con­
tact-and clearly it does-and if it is central in the constitution of gendered
subjects-and clearly it is-we need to understand how it is imbricated in
other gendered relations and in the general economies of desire.
The new literature on homoerotic relations among gay-identified men and
lesbian-identified women, much of it from "the native's point of view" (80),
offers an instructive alternative. Far from suggesting that genitals provide the
stable sexual reality behind the mask of institutional transvestism and other
forms of ambiguous gender, this new work testifies to the variety of ways in
which ostensibly same-sex relations are gendered. Faderman (48) uses the
term heterogenderal to describe the many forms of sexual engagement be­
tween lesbian-identified women, but as the work on butch-femme aesthetics
suggests, more colloquial language also provides a cornucopia of terms to
indicate how variously the self-same body can be imagined, understood, and
experienced within the seemingly stable categories of (homo)sexuality (24,
47-49, 72, 107, 126). Nor can these genderings be reduced the metaphorics of
a sexual binary. As Rubin (126) points out, terms like butch and femme are not
elaborations of masculine and feminine, but are tense relations between multi-
 SEX AND GENES 581

pIe layers of gender that are assumed at different times, not as the negation of
more primary identifications but as ironic and unstable commentaries upon
them (see also 33).
There is considerable debate about whether these forms of multiple and
ironic identification should be termed third genders, although there has been a
greater willingness to use the term in application to non-Western contexts.
Wikan (166) was one of the first to refer to a third gender in her work on
xaniths in Oman. But the concept has also been applied to berdaches,
kathoeys, hijras, and others (see 66 for an overview). Unfortunately, too few
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

analyses concerned with third genders, transvestism, or transgendering look

beyond triadic typologies to explore the ways in which thirdness is distributed
and manipulated. In many places, the potency, distinction, and/or pollution
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

that accrues to people so defined derives from the tension between different
levels of gendered identity as these are assumed at particular moments. Often,
the prerogative or stigma attached to those who inhabit these categories is
restricted or assigned to individuals who have achieved a particular identity
through the habits of everyday activity and who become third or transgendered
only in relation to a prior socialization or expectation. Sometimes, that third­
ness acquires the aura of the natural and the irrevocable. Sometimes it is a
temporary state, to be transcended or abandoned at other moments or later in
life. And occasionally, it is self-consciously manipulated, at which point it can
become a means of self-empowerment. Given this range of possibilities, third­
ness and transgendering may be better understood as forms of identity that are
embedded within other sets of gendered relations in a variety of ways and in a
range of temporalities.
Weston's (161) suggestion that the berdache (and other forms of transgen­
dering) be considered less as stable institutions than as forms of double mime­
sis, in which individuals parody the society'S representations of ideal gender,
is provocative in this context. We cannot assume a priori that the so-called
thirdness of transgendered identities represents a point of pure mediation or
liminality between genders in a system of binary opposition and contradiction
(cf 54). But it remains to be seen whether the notion of double mimesis, which
is essentially the logic of camp, can be transported so easily to other cultural
contexts. For one thing, double mimesis suggests a unity and singularity of
identity and purpose that reduces the totality of a berdache's being to his/her
gender, and in this context we would be wise to entertain the lessons of
difference feminism. If a woman is not Woman, she is also not just a woman.
The same can be said for the berdache who, if not a woman [or a man (131)],
is not the just the mimicry of Woman (or Man) either.
These are issues of conceptualization. But there are also historical issues to
be addressed and questions to be asked about the kinds of reformation that take
place when different sex/gender systems collide or, as is more likely the case,
 582 MORRIS

when one system is encompassed by another. The first gestures in that direc­
tion are now being made. In the anthropology of native North American
sexualities, for example, writers have begun to address the effect of colonial­
ism on the institution of the berdache. Opinions range from Williams's (167)
claim that the institution has persisted with formal differences emerging as a
result of contact, to Herdt's (63, 64) insistence that colonialism unequivocally
destroyed it, and Roscoe's (124) more nuanced assertion that the berdache has
both continued and been encompassed by other forms of self-conscious sexu­
ality under Anglo-American influence. My work on the changing status of
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

kathoeys in Thailand also suggests that they have been repositioned in re­
sponse to the "transnationalization of gay identity" (4) and awkwardly inserted
into an emergent regime of binary sexuality. Murray's (104) efforts to corre­
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

late the "feminization" of homosexuality in Meiji Japan with the rise of a

mercantile class points out the need to link the histories of sexuality with the
political economies of patriarchy. More historical accounts will no doubt be
forthcoming from other areas, as the forms of Western sexuality continue to
expand via the technologies of transnational representation. Stoler's (143, 144)
work on Indonesia has already provided an example of how an historical
anthropology can shed light on the effects of colonial regimes that have
regulated sexual practices and identity in order to protect the racial purity of
dominant cultures. Other studies might reveal more about how particular dis­
courses of sexuality literally engender subjects, even in the absence of legisla­
tive endeavors. These studies will be necessary contributions to the nonanthro­
pological theory of gender performativity, for which history remains more a
principle of temporality than the actual, if selectively remembered, experi­
ences of a shared past.

Performing Gender Twice Over: Drag and the Theory of

Performativity

The issue of how gendered subjectivity is related to institutional politics has

been difficult for the theory of performativity to address. Beyond studies of
ritualized homosexuality in age-graded societies, little anthropological litera­
ture has explored the connections between sexual practice and political proc­
ess. Exceptions include Lancaster's (78) work on male sexuality and patriar­
chy in revolutionary Nicaragua, and Mageo's (83) argument about the trans­
formative role played by male transvestites in Samoa. They can also be read in
some of the more acutely politicized treatments of sexuality, AIDS, and social
policy (see 161 for a summary). However, the work on performativity has
concerned itself mainly with the politics of parody and with the subversive
power of irony, both of which are strongly identified with drag, and especially
with camp aesthetics. Indeed, the theory of performativity has turned to drag
for its metaphors, its exemplary instances, and its structural models. The
 SEX AND GENES 583

literature on this topic is divided between works that treat transvestite and
transgendered performances as subversive of the dominant sex/gender system
and those that see them as an element buttressing and reconfirming binary
opposition through an instructive but ultimately resolved blurring. The ex­
tremes of this debate are represented by Newton (108), who, in her early work,
claims that transvestism would not exist (would be unnecessary) in the ab­
sence of societal contradictions associated with homosexuality, and by Garber
(54), who defines transvestism as the very ground of gendered systems. Some­
where between these poles lie Robertson's (120, 121) analyses of Takarasuka
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

performers in Japan. Robertson emphasizes the subversive dimension of trans­

gendering within a rigidly binary system, but she also addresses the ambiva­
lence of that subversion and the degree to which its radical possibilities are
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

contained by other identity structures-in particular class-that are gendered

without being reducible to gender.
In a provocative discussion of transsexual striptease, Meyer (93) shows
how drag and its reverse unveiling can mirror and parody the narratives of
natural sexual difference that are built into medical discourse. Ian (68) makes a
convincing case for including bodybuilding under the heading of drag, as a
means of exploding and defeminizing the body. Both forms of performance
draw attention to that space, already discussed by Butler, between the lived
body and its morphological ideal-type. There is an almost Brechtian element in
this theory, one that reads transgendering and regendering as devices of aliena­
tion. By making gender so fabulously artificial, these performances are said to
show up the artifice of gender. But we need to ask whether the acts of
self-conscious self-constitution in drag are in fact related and not merely
analogous to normative styles of gender. When habitual acts are brought into
consciousness and objectified, they are transformed; practice becomes repre­
sentation, and everyday acts become strategies that presume a timeless and
totalized vision (13, 35). Is parodic gender really the same as normative
gender? Or is it, as Rubin (126) suggests, a new form of relational gender, in
which difference is refracted along a temporal axis and precisely not natural­
ized? What is the status of consciousness in this theory? What is the status of
intentionality?
In the end, one also must ask: Is drag really a performance about gender?
Or, to phrase the question differently: Are maleness and femaleness the only
aspects of identity at stake in transgendering and cross-dressing? Are there
limits, such as race and ethnicity, that cannot be crossed or effaced in the same
manner (45, cf 142)? And what happens when such performances are comodi­
fied? Class, the star system, and beauty are all objects of identification in
professional cross-dressing, and the oppositions at play have as much to do
with the nature of the gaze and with the signifying power of visible surfaces as
with gender. It is even possible to read the parody of professional drag as being
 584 MORRIS

about commodity aesthetics, which happen to be gendered in particular ways,

rather than about gender itself. Of course, these issues can only be resolved
with ethnographic investigation. Newton (109, 110) has done just that with her
description of a conflict that arose in Cherry Grove, New York, when lesbians
attempted to enter a drag show and gay men rejected their right to masquerade
in the feminine. Somewhat soberingly, accounts like these indicate that, even
when self-consciously addressed to the matter of gender, drag can Teinscribe
dominant ideology-not because it provides an exemplary resolution into that
system [as in the literature on ritual reversal (115)] but because the subject of
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

conscious manipulation can never fully enter into the realm of the uncon­
scious.
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

These issues of consciousness and ironic resistance in transgendering are

acutely focused in the phenomena and discussions of spirit possession. Several
recent accounts attempt to understand possession rituals as kinds of cross­
dressing wherein the assumption of costume and new bodily postures signifies
and effects the vehicle's transformation from one gendered state to another
(12, 77, 86, 87, 95, 1 1 1). In many cases, possession rites seem to permit
women to take on the attire and gestures as well as many of the privileges
normally denied them in everyday life. On the surface, this seems to entail the
medium's transformation from female to male and often from lower status
female to higher status male, although movement is often along the vector of
class only. Thus common women and men appear to assume the personae of
similarly gendered monarchs or, as in Rouch's film, Les Maitres Fous, those
of colonial officials.
One of the most thorough attempts to read possession rites as ironic trans­
gressions of the normative rules by which men and women are engendered
appears in Boddy's (12) account of the Sudanese Zar cult. In her rendition, the
cult provides a context in which women are not only possessed by male spirits,
but they can appropriate and play with the sexual and social prerogatives of
masculinity without, in some senses, ceasing to be women. Of course, to read
possession as a kind of transgressive shape-shifting requires that personal
identity be coextensive with bodily integrity and that subjectivity transcend the
fact of possession. Different cultures may conceive of personhood in this
manner, and certainly this is the logic that operates in the modern (if not the
postmodern) West (100). Yet there are other ways of imagining subjectivity,
and in many contexts, possession is seen as evidence of a disjuncture between
body and subject and of an ontological distinction between medium and spirit.
When the moments and personae of possession are thus separated, discussions
about irony, parody, and resistance become tenuous and caution seems neces­
sary. Rubin's (126) thesis of layered and relational genders, which works so
well in application to professional drag, seems less effective here. However, it
may have more utility in cases like those in Zimbabwe (77), where possession
 SEX AND GENES 585

states are manipulated consciously toward political ends and where they both
influence and are influenced by mundane subjectivity. Just as lesbian butch
and femme can be read as secondary elaborations upon a more primary but
still constructed femaleness, so the monarchical masculinity of the Zimbab­
wean possessing spirits can be seen as secondary elaborations upon an initial
construction of specifically ethnicized maleness.
What is the status of gender in these rites of re-dressing? Considering the
Oyo Yoruba, Matory (87) has argued that, even when possession entails such
crossing, gender may not be the primary object of identification. Ethnic or
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

class affiliation, and especially royal prerogative, may be values of equal

significance. Although possession does not entail a crossing of genders, it may
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

still be gendered. We need a conceptual vocabularly that permits discussion of

engenderings that are multiply refracted in and through other categories of
identity that are not reducible to gender. Articulation theories invariably reify
the opposition between gender and race, class, or ethnicity are ultimately
inadequate to the task. We still need good ethnographies that explore the
constitution of racialized and ethnicized genders and/or genderized races and
ethnicities.

Reformations: The Limits of Resistance

A number of directions might now be pursued. One of the issues that needs
revisiting is the different status of ambiguity and indeterminacy in different
social and historical contexts. The tendency in much nonanthropological per­
formance theory has been to valorize and even ontologize ambiguity, often in a
manner that brings Freud's doctrine of primary bisexuality to mind. However,
ethnography complicates the matter endlessly. In Strathern's (147) account of
Melanesia, indeterminacy appears as the result of a child's entry into the world
of obligation, exchange, and desire. Brach-due (16) describes a context in
which ambiguity is an original state of bodiliness and a function of intercourse.
And Boddy (12) tells of a society in which instability is a particular dimension
of femaleness. In each of these cases, ambiguity or indeterminacy has been
explicated with reference to a vast arena of exchange systems, power struc­
tures, and social relationships. But what of the modern West? What of the
extraordinary resonance between the notions of ambiguity in performance
theory and the principle of general equivalence that defines the commodity
economy in which that theory has emerged? As Simmel (140) observed in his
analysis of money, the principle of general equivalence is, in the end, a form of
emptiness. A fantasy of utterly unfettered, purely elastic gender seems to
underlie much of the work on performativity. And often, the pursuit of a
freedom from essential categories seems to entail the ironic effacement of
gender itself (37). When is ambiguity a principle of "genderal" emptiness in
 586 MORRIS

this theory? And when does that emptiness become the vehicle for an asocial,
ahistorical idealism?
The risks of such idealism are great, as Errington (46) well knew when she
argued, echoeing Lacan, that a distinction might be made between "sex" and
"Sex," between the brute stuff of the world and the socially ordered systems of
representation in which bodies are said to have a particular sex identity.
Errington's gesture is, I think, intended to prevent the kinds of voluntarist
accounts of gender of which postmodern performance theory is accused in its
hasty search for resistance (34). Beyond the issue of idealism, however, it is
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

still not clear that a proliferation of gendered forms necessarily constitutes a

resistance to hegemonic sexuality. In his account of Renaissance England,
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

Greenblatt (59) shows how the State imagined and encouraged subversiveness
to advance its own ends, expanding its reach by reencompassing the seeds of
resistance that it planted itself. Similarly, Goldberg'S (58) account of Spanish
colonialism in the Americas demonstrates how the circulation of an ambigu­
ously defined term like sodomy could facilitate alterior practices but not with­
out producing the object of genocidal warfare. Both cases suggest the need for
a more scrupulously self-aware contextual analysis.
Some of the most incisive critiques of new performance theory have come
from within performance studies itself (10, 39, 116, 117, 119, 133). Anthro­
pology may do well to consider these debates now, as the notion of performa­
tivity begins its ascent both as an analytic paradigm and as the latest "romance
of resistance." Diamond (39, also 18), in particular, has cautioned against
equating irony and parody with resistance. In the theater, she notes, realism
does not just imitate reality, it produces it by asking spectactors to recognize
and verify its truths. Yet it does so by mystifying the process of theatrical
signification and by naturalizing the relation between character and actor. In
this manner it works analogously to ideology-and gender itself. Diamond
follows Brecht when she argues that, in order to understand how ideology has
falsified the relationship between a signifying system and a particular reality,
the two dimensions of the performance-the actor and the character, the sign
and the signifier-must be alienated from each other. Only then can the
inadequacies of realist mimesis be overcome-not with an anti-mimetic repre­
sentation but with a better mimesis. Exaggerated mimicry is one method by
which the failures of a particular mimetic representation can be shown up, and
in this way, argues Diamond, mimicry can serve as an alienation effect. In fact,
this is how most anthropologists of resistance seem to treat parodic perform­
ance-whether it is encountered in drag shows, in spirit possession, or in the
poetic oratory of peasant women. What is forgotten in many of these analyses
is the final step in the Brechtian system, namely the transcendence of the
bastard mimesis with a "truer," more "adequate," or more "liberating" mime­
sis. In the absence of that final moment, it may be more appropriate to speak of
 SEX AND GENES 587

ritual reversal, liminality, anti-structure, or even play, than resistance. And

when recognizing the lack of resistance in parodic performance, we may also
be forced to consider some of the more coercive structures in operation, the
structures that mitigate against voluntarist forms of performative self-constitu­
tion even as they summon creative forms of subversion and opposition.
Like practice before it, the idea of performativity offers much to a construc­
tionist anthropology, but it has yet to fulfill its promise to explain the relation­
ships between difference and normativity, society and individual, history and
its transcendence. Thinking of how to proceed from here, I am reminded of a
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

dream sequence from Maxine Hong Kingston's (75) novel, The Woman War­
rior. In an ethnic Chinese family, a young woman is summoned by her parents
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

to have her flesh inscribed with their remembrances. Of a ritual that anticipates
the future as much as it memorializes the past, the woman says, "My father
first brushed the words in ink, and they fluttered down my back row after row;
then he began cutting . . . . The list of grievances went on and on. If an enemy
should flay me the light would shine through my skin like lace." Few images
probably capture more perfectly the aspirations of an ethnography grounded in
performance theory. Here, history is written on the body, not by abstract
structures but by those who inhabit and comprise them. The inscriptions are
made of words, but they are words with force, that cause pain, and that
produce an awful beauty. Artifice and an improbably delicate art, this bloody
calligraphy is nonetheless lived as the irrevocable knowledge of a body, as the
indelible effect of a practice that history seems to demand. That the lacerating
words of a patriarch could produce for his daughter the bizarrely feminine (and
bourgeois) image of tatted lace suggests much about the complexities of
gender and its formation in particular historical circumstances. Yet, the novel­
ist reminds us that authority has its limits and that the father's words can be
read in myriad ways. Let us not forget that this young woman, her back
burdened by history, identifies herself with a warrior-a woman warrior,
against all odds.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my gratitude to Mark Auslander, Jean Comaroff, M

Elaine Combs-Schilling, Jill Harris, and Ellen Schattschneider for criticisms,
comments, and encouragement. I am also indebted to Katherine Hoffman,
whose research assistance proved invaluable.

Any Annual Review chapter, as well as any article cited in an Annual Review chapter,
may be purchased from the Annual Reviews Preprints and Reprints service.
1-800-347-8007; 415.259·5017; email: [email protected]
 588 MORRIS

Literature Cited

1. Abu-Lughod L. 1986. Veiled Sentiments: ogy and feminist theory. Theatre i. 40(4):
Honor and Poetry in a Bedouin Society. 5 19-3 1
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 317 pp. 19. Butler 1. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism
2. Abu-Lughod L. 1990. The romance of re ­ and the Subversion ofIdentity. New York:
sistance: tracing transformations of power Routledge. 172 pp.
through Bedouin women. Am. Ethno!. 17 20. Butler 1. 1993. Bodies That Matter: On the
(1):41-55 Discursive Limits of "Sex. " New York!
3. Adam BD. 1986. Age, structure, and sexu­ London: Routledge. 288 pp.
ality: reflections on the anthropological 21. Bynum Cw. 1991. Fragmentation and Re­
evidence on homosexual relations. See Ref. demption: Essays on Gender and the Hu­
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

9, pp. 19-33 man Body in Medieval Religion. New York:

4. Altman D. 1994. The invention of "gay " as Zone. 426 pp.
a global category. Presented at Conf. Iden­ 22. Caplan P, ed. 1987. The Cultural Construc­
tities, Ethnicities, Nationalities: Asian and tion ofSexuality. London: Routledge. 304
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

Pacific Contexts. La Trobe Univ., Mel­ pp.

bourne, Aus!. 23. Carby H. 1982. White woman listen: black
5. Altman D, ed. 1989. Homosexuality, Which feminism and the boundaries of sisterhood.
Homosexuality? Essays from the Interna­ In The Empire Strikes Back, pp. 212-35.
tional Scientific Conference on Lesbian London: Hutchinson
and Gay Studies. London: Gay Men's 24. Case SE. 1988-1989. Towards a butch­
Press. 253 pp. femme aesthetic. Discourse 11(1):55-73
6. Atkinson JM, Errington S, eds. 1990. 25. Collier J, Yanagisako S, eds. 1987. Gender
Power and Difference: Gender in Island and Kinship: Essays Toward a Unified
Southeast Asia. Stanford, CA: Stanford Analysis. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ.
Univ. Press. 498 pp. Press. 369 pp.
7. Austin JL. 1962. How to Do Things With 26. Comaroff 1. 1985. Body ofPower, Spirit of
Words, ed. 10 Urmson, M Sbisa. Cam­ Resistance: The Culture and History of a
bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 166 pp. South African People. Chicago: Univ. Chi­
8. Deleted in proof cago Press. 296 pp.
9. Blackwood E. 1986. The Many Faces of 27. Comaroff, JL. 1987. Sui genderis: femi­
Homosexuality. New York: Harrington nism, kinship theory, and structural "do­
Park. 217 pp. mains." See Ref. 25, pp. 53-85
10. Blau H. 1992. To All Appearances: Ideol­ 28. Comaroff lL, Comaroff 1. 1992. Bodily
ogy and Performance. New York: Rout­ reform as historical practice. In Ethnogra­
ledge phy and the Historical Imagination, ed. lL
1 1 . Bloch M. 1986. From Blessing to Violence. Comaroff, 1 Comaroff, pp. 69-91 . Boulder,
Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 214 CO: Westview
pp. 29. Combs-Schilling ME. 1989. Sacred Per­
12. Boddy 1. 1989. Wombs and Alien Spirits: formances: Islam, Sexuality, Sacrifice.
Women, Men, and the Zllr Cult in Northern New York: Columbia Univ. Press. 377 pp.
Sudan. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press. 399 30. Combs-Schilling ME. 1991. Etching patri­
pp. archal rule: ritual dye, erotic potency, and
13. Bourdieu P. 1977. Outline of a Theory of the Moroccan monarchy. i. Hist. Sex. 1(4):
Practice. Trans\. R Nice. Cambridge: Cam­ 658-81
bridge Univ. Press. 248 pp. 3 1 . Cornwall A. 1994. Gendered identities and
14. Bourdieu P. 1990. The Logic of Practice. gender ambiguity among travestis in Salva­
Transl. R Nice. Stanford, CA: Stanford dor, Brazil. See Ref. 32, pp. 1 11-32
Univ. Press. 333 pp. 32. Cornwall A, Lindisfarne N. 1994. Dislocat­
15. Broch-due V. 1993. Carved flesh, cast ing Masculinities: Comparative Ethnogra­
selves: an introduction. See Ref. 17, pp. phies. New York: Routledge. 236 pp.
1-39 33. Davy K. 1 994. Fe/male impersonation: the
16. Broch-due V. 1993. Making meaning out of discourse of camp. In The Politics and Po­
matter: perception of sex, gender, and bod­ etics of Camp, ed. M Meyer, pp. 130-48.
ies among the Turkana. See Ref. 17, pp. New York: Routlege
53--82 34. Dean T. 1993. Transsexual identification,
17. Broch-due V, Rudie I, Bleie T. 1993. gender performance theory, and the politics
Carved Flesh, Cast Selves: Gendered Sym­ of the real. Lit. Psycho!. 39(4): 1-27
bols and Social Practices. Oxford: Berg. 35. de Certeau M. 1984. The Practice ofEve­
299 pp. ryday Life. Transl.S. Rendall. Berkeley:
18. Butler 1. 1988. Performative acts and gen­ Univ. Calif. Press. 229 pp.
der constitution: an essay in phenomenol- 36. de Lauretis T. 1984. Alice Doesn 't: Femi-
 SEX AND GENES 589

nism, Semiotics, Cinema. Bloomington: der distinction. In Beyond Marx? Interven­

Ind. Univ. Press. 220 pp. tions After Marx, ed. J Allen, P Patton, pp.
37. de Lauretis T. 1987. The technology of 142-61. Leichardt, NSW: Intervention
gender. In Technologies ofGender: Essays 56. Gillison G. 1993. Between Culture and
on Theory, Film, and Fiction, pp. 1-30. Fantasy: A New Guinea Highlands Mythol­
Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press ogy. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 392 pp.
38. Devereux G. 1978. Ethnopsychoanalytic 57. Gillison G. 1994. Symbolic homosexuality
reflections on the notion of kinship. In Eth­ and cultural theory: the unconscious mean­
nopsychoanalysis and Anthropology as ing of sister exchange among the Gimi of
Complementary Frames of Analysis. Highland New Guinea. In Anthropology
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press and Psychoanalysis: An Encounter
39. Diamond E. 1989. Mimesis, mimicry, and Through Culture, ed. S Heald, A Deluz, pp.
the "true-real." Mod. Drama 32:58-72 210--24. New York: Routledge
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

40. di Leonardo M, ed. 1991. Gender at the 58. Goldberg J. 1991. Sodomy in the new
Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist An­ world: anthropologies old and new. Soc.
thropology in the Postmodern Era. Text. 9(4):46-56
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 422 pp. 59. Greenblatt S. 1988. Shakespearean Nego­
41. Deleted in proof tiations: the Circulation o/Social Energy in
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

42. Douglas, M. 1973. The two bodies. In Renaissance England, pp. 21-46.
Natural Symbols, M Douglas, pp. 93-112. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
London: Penguin 60. Grosz E. 1989. Sexual difference and the
43. Elliston DA. 1992. "Ritualized homosexu­ problem of essentialism. In Traveling
ality" in anthropology: critiquing a con­ Theories: Traveling Theorists, pp. 86-101.
cept, re-situating practices. MA thesis. Santa Cruz, CA: Group Crit. Stud. Colon.
New York Univ. Discourse/Cent. Cult. Stud.
44. Epstein J, Straub K. 1992. Body Guards: 61. Grosz E. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a
The Cultural Politics of Gender Ambiguity. Corporeal Feminism. Bloomington: Univ.
New York: Routledge. 382 pp. Ind. Press, 251 pp.
45. Epstein S. 1987. Gay politics, ethnic iden­ 62. Haraway D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and
tity: the limits of social constructionism. Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Lon­
Soc. Rev. 93/94:9-56 don: Free Assoc. 287 pp.
46. Errington S. 1990. Recasting sex, gender, 63. Herdt GH. 1991. Representations of homo­
and power: a theoretical and regional over­ sexuality: an essay on cultural ontology and
view. See Ref. 6, pp. 1-58 historical comparison, part L J. Hist. Sex.
47. Faderman 1. 1991. Odd Girls and Twilight 1(3):481-504
Lovers: A History ofLesbian Life in Twen­ 64. Herdt GH. 1991. Representations of homo­
tieth Century America. New York: Colum­ sexuality: an essay on cultural ontology and
bia Univ. Press. 373 pp. historical comparison, part II. J. Hist. Sex.
48. Faderman 1. 1992. The return of butch and 1(4):603-32
femme: a phenomenon in lesbian sexuality 65. Herdt GH. 1993. RitualizedHomosexuality
of the 1980s and 1990s. J. Hist. Sex. 2(4): in Melanesia. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
578-98 419 pp. 2nd ed.
49. Forrest D. 1994. We're here, we're queer, 66. Herdt GH, ed. 1994. Third Sex, Third Gen­
and we're not going shopping: changing der: Beyond Sexual Dimorphism in Culture
gay male identities in contemporary Brit­ and History. New York: Zone. 614 pp.
ain. See Ref. 32, pp. 97-110 67. Hooks B. 1989. Talking Back: Thinking
50. Foucault M. 1978. The History ofSexuality, Feminist, Thinking Black. Boston: South
Vol. 1. Trans!. R Hurley. New York: Vin­ End
tage. 168 pp. 68. Ian M. 1994. How do you wear your body?
51. Foucault M, ed. 1980. Herculine Barbin: Bodybuilding and the sublimity of drag. In
Being the Recently DiscoveredMemoirs of Negotiating Lesbian and Gay Subjects, ed.
an Eighteenth Century Hermaphrodite. M Dorenkamp, R Henke, pp. 71-92. New
Transl. R. McDougall. New York: Pan­ York: Routledge
theon. 199 pp. 69. Jackson PA. 1996. Kathoey >< Gay ><
52. Frye M. 1983. The Politics of Reality: Es­ Man: the historical emergence of gay male
says in Feminist Theory. Trumansberg, NY: identity in Thailand. In Sites of Desire/
Crossing. 176 pp. Economies ofPleasure: Sexualities in Asia
53. Fuss D. 1989. Essentially Speaking: Femi­ and the Pacific, ed. L Manderson, M Jolley.
nism, Nature, and Difference. New York: Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. In press
Routledge. 144 pp. 70. Jacobs S-E. 1968. Berdache: a brief over­
54. Garber M. 1992. Vested Interests: Cross view of the literature. Colon. Anthropol.
Dressing and Cultural Anxiety. New York: 1 :25-40
Routledge. 443 pp. 71. Jay N. 1981. Gender and dichotomy. Fem.
55. Gatens M. 1983. A critique of the sex/gen- Stud. 1:38-56
 590 MORRIS

72. Kennedy EL, Davis MD. 1993. Boots of 92. Messick B. 1 987. Subordinate dis­
Leather, Slippers of Gold: The History of a courses: women, weaving, and gender re­
Lesbian Community. New York: Rout­ lations in' North Africa. Am. Ethnol. 14(2):
ledge. 434 pp. 210--25
73. Deleted in proof 93. Meyer M. 1992. Unveiling the word: sci­
74. Keyes CF. 1986. Ambiguous gender: male ence and narrative in transsexual striptease.
initiation in a Northern Thai Buddhist so­ See Ref. 137, pp. 68--85
ciety. In Gender and Religion: On the Com­ 94. Mohanty CT. 1991. Under Western eyes:
plexity of Symbols, ed. CW Bynum, S feminist scholarshp and colonial discourses
Harrell, P Richman, pp. 66-96. Boston: (revised). In Third World Women and the
Beacon Politics of Feminism, ed. CM Mohanty, A
75. Kingston MH. 1977. The Woman Warrior. Russo, L Torres, pp. 5 1-80. Bloomington:
New York: Vintage. 242 pp. Univ. Ind. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

76. Kratz CA. 1994. Affecting Performance: 95. Moore H. 1988. Feminism andAnthropol­
Meaning, Movement, and Experience in ogy. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. 245
Okiek Women s Initiation. Washington, pp.
DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press. 465 pp. 96. Delete in proof
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

77. Lan D. 1985. Guns and Rain: Guerrillas 97. Moore H. 1994. Gendered persons: dia­
and Spirit Mediums in Zimbabwe. logues between anthropology and psycho­
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 244 pp. analysis. In Anthropology and Psycho­
78. Lancaster RN. 1992. Life is Hard: Ma­ analysis: An Encounter Through Culture,
chismo, Danger, and the IlIlimacy ofPower. ed. S Heald, A Deluz, pp. 131-52. London:
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 332 pp. Routledge
79. Laqueur T. 1990. Making Sex: Body and 98. Morris RC. 1994. The empress's new
Gender from the Greeks to Freud. Cam­ clothes: dressing and redressing modernity
bridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. 313 pp. in northern Thai spirit mediumship. In The
80. Lewin E. 1991. Writing lesbian and gay Transformative Power of Clorh, ed. L Mil­
culture: what the natives have to say for gram, P Van Esterik, pp. 53-74. Montreal:
themselves. Am. Ethnol. 1 8(4):786-91 Canadian Asian Stud. Assoc.
8 1 . Lindisfarne N. 1994. Variant masculinities, 99. Morris RC. 1994. Three sexes and four
variant virginities: rethinking ' honour and sexualities: redressing the discourses on
shame.' See Ref. 32, pp. 82-96 sex and gender in contemporary Thailand.
82. Lofstrom J. 1992. Sexuality at stake: the Positions 2(1): 15-43
essentialist and constructionist approaches 100. Morris RJ. 1990. Aikane: accounts of Ha­
to sexuality in anthropology. Suomen An­ waiian same-sex relationships in the jour­
tropol. 17(3):13-27 nals of Captain Cook's third voyage
83. Mageo 1M. 1992. Male transvestism and (1776-80). 1. Homosex. 19:21-54
cultural change in Samoa. Am. Ethnol. 19 1 0 1 . Mouffe C. 1986. The sex/gender system
(3):443-59 and the discursive construction of
84. Deleted in proof women's subordination. In Rethinking Ide­
85. Martin E. 1992. The end of the body? Am. ology: A Marxist Debate, ed. S Hannimen,
Ethnol. 19(1):121-40 L Paldan, pp. 139-43. New York: Int. Gen­
86. Masquelier A. 1993. Ritual economies, his­ eral
torical mediations: the poetics and power 102. Mulvey L. 1989. Visual and Other Pleas­
of Bori among the Mawri of Niger. PhD ures. Bloomington: Indiana Univ. Press
thesis. Univ. Chicago 103. Munroe R, Whiting JWM, Hally D. 1969.
87. Matory JR. 1994. Sex and the Empire that Institutionalized male transvestism and sex
is No More: Gender and the Politics of distinctions. Am. Anthropol. 71:87-91
Metaphor in Oyo Yoruba Religion. Min­ 104. Murray SO. 1992. Homosexuality in Japan
neapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. 295 pp. since the Meiji Restoration. See Ref. 105,
88. Mauss M. 1979. Body techniques. In Soci­ pp. 363-74
ology and Psychology: Essays by Marcel 105. Murray SO. 1992. Oceanic Homosexua/i­
Mauss. Trans!. B Brewster, pp. 97-123. ties. New York: Garland. 409 pp.
London: Routledge & Kegan Paul 106. Nanda S. 1986. The hijras of l ndia: cultural
89. McLaren PL. 1988. Schooling the post­ and individual dimension of an institution­
modern body: critical pedagogy and the alized third gender role. In The Many Faces
politics of enfleshment. 1. Educ. 1 70(3): of Homosexuality, ed. E Blackwood, pp.
53-83 35-54. Harrington Park, NY
90. Mead M. 1949. Male and Female: A Study 107. Nestle J. 1992. The Persistent Desire: A
of the Sexes in a Changing World. New Femme-Butch Reader. Boston: Alyson. 503
York: Morrow. 477 pp. pp.
91. Mead M. 1963. Sex and Temperament in 108. Newton E. 1979. Mother Camp: Female
Three Primitive Societies. New York: Mor­ Impersonators in America. Chicago: Univ.
row. 335 pp. Chicago Press. 136 pp.
 SEX AND GENES 591

109.Newton E. 1993. Cherry Grove, Fire Is­ 126. Rubin G. 1992. Of catamites and kings:
land: Sixty Years in America s First Gay reflections on butch, gender, and bounda­
and Lesbian Town. Boston: Beacon. 378 ries. In The Persistent Desire, ed. J Nestle,
pp. pp. 466--82. Boston: Alyson
110. Newton E. 1994. Baking ziti for the coro­ 127. Sahlins M. 1976. Culture and Practical
nation: homophobia, sexism and the subor­ Reason. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press. 252
dinate status of lesbians in Cherry Grove. pp.
Presented at Annu. Meet. Am. Anthropo!. 128. Sahlins M. 1981. HistoricalMetaphors and
Assoc., Atlanta Mythical Realities: Structure in the Early
1 1 1 . Ong A. 1987. Spirits of Resistance and History of the Sandwich Islands. Ann Ar­
Capitalist Discipline: Factory Women in bor: Univ. Mich. Press. 84 pp.
Malaysia. Albany: State Univ. NY Press. 129. Sanday PR, Goodenough RG. 1990. Be­
268 pp. yond the Second Sex: New Directions in the
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

1 12. Ortner SB. 1984. Theory in anthropology Anthropology of Gender. Philadelphia:

since the sixties. Compo Stud. Soc. Hist. Univ. Penn. Press. 350 pp.
26(1): 1-26 130. Sandoval C. 1991. U.S. third world femi­
1 13. Ortner SB, Whitehead H, eds. 1981. Sexual nism: the theory and method of opposi­
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

Meanings: The Cultural Construction of tional consciousness in the postmodern

Sexuality. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. world. Genders 10: 1-24
Press 131. Schaeffer CEo 1965. The ketanai female
114. Parker RG. 1991. Bodies, Pleasure, and berdache: courier, guide, prophetess, and
Passions: Sexual Culture in Contemporary warrior. Ethnohistory 12(3): 1 93-236
Brazil. Boston: Beacon. 203 pp. 132. Schechner R. 1985. Between Theater and
1 15. Peacock J. 1978. Symbolic reversal in so­ Anthropology. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn.
cial history: transvestites and clowns of Press. 342 pp.
Java. In The Reversible World: Symbolic 133. Schmitt NC. 1 990. Theorizing about per­
Inversion in Art and Society, ed. B Bab­ formance: why now? New Theatre Q. 6:
cock, pp. 209-24. Ithaca, NY: Cornell 231-34
Univ. Press 134. Scott Je. 1985. Weapons ofthe Weak: Eve­
1 16. Phelan P. 1988. Feminist theory, poststruc­ ryday Forms of Peasant Resistance. New
turalism, and performance. Drama Rev. 32 Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. 389 pp.
(1):107-27 135. Scott Ie. 1990. Domination and theArts of
1 17. Phelan P. 1993. Unmarked: The Politics of Resistance: Hidden Transcripts. New Ha­
Performance. New York: Routledge. 207 ven, CT: Yale Univ. Press. 251 pp.
pp. 136. Sedgwick EK. 1990. Epistemology of the
1 18. Povinelli EA. 1991. Organizing women: Closet. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press. 258
rhetoric, economy, and politics in process pp.
among Australian Aborigines. See Ref. 40, 137. Senelick L, ed. 1992. Gender in Perform­
pp. 235-54 ance: The Presentation ofDifference in the
1 19. Reinelt J. 1989. Feminist theory and the PerformingArts. Hanover, NH: Univ. Press
problem of performance. Mod. Drama 32: N. Eng!. 372 pp.
48-57 138. Seremetakis CN. 1994. The memory of the
120. Robertson J. 1991. Theatrical resistance, senses, part I: marks of the transitory. In
theatres of restraint: the Takarasuka Revue The Senses Still: Perception and Memory
and the "state theatre" movement in Japan. as Material Culture in Modernity, ed. CN
Anthropol. Q. 64(4): 1 65-77 Seremetakis, pp. 1-18. Boulder, CO:
121. Robertson J. 1992. The politics of androg­ Westview
yny in Japan: sexuality and subversion in 139. Silverman K. 1992. Male Subjectivity at
the theater and beyond. Am. Ethnol. 19(3): the Margins. New York: Routledge. 447
1-24 pp.
122. Rofel L. 1992. Rethinking modernity: 140. Simmel G. 1978. The Philosophy ofMoney.
space and factory discipline in China. Cult. Trans!. T Bottomore, 0 Frisby. London:
Anthropol. 7(1):93-114 Routlege & Kegan Paul. 512 pp.
123. Rosaldo M, Lamphere L, eds. 1974. 141. Singer L. 1993. Erotic Welfare: Sexual The­
Women, Culture, and Society. Stanford, ory and Politics in the Age of Epidemic.
CA: Stanford Univ. Press. 352 pp. New York: Routledge. 210 pp.
124. Roscoe W. 1 9 9 1 . The Zuni Man­ 142. Stolcke V. I s sex to gender as race is
Woman. Abuquerque: Univ. NM Press. to ethnicity? In Gendered Anthropology,
302 pp. ed. T del Valle, pp. 17-37. London: Rout­
125. Rubin G. 1975. The traffic in women: notes ledge
on the "political economy" of sex. In To­ 143. Stoler AL. 1989. Making empire respect­
ward an Anthropology of Women, ed. R able: the politics of race and sexual moral­
Reiter, pp. 157-210. New York: Monthly ity in twentieth century colonial culture.
Rev. Am. Ethnol. 16(4):634--60
 592 MORRIS

144. Stoler AL. 1991. Carnal knowledge and 157. Vance CS. 1990. Anthropology rediscovers
imperial power: gender, race, and morality sexuality: a theoretical comment. Soc. Sci.
in colonial Asia. See Ref. 40, pp: 5 1-101 Med. 33(8):875-84
145. Strathern M. 1988. The Gender of the Gift: 158. Van Gennep A. 1960. TheRites ofPassage.
Problems with Women and Problems with Trans!. MB Vizedom, GL Caffee. Chicago:
Exchange in Melanesia. Berkeley: Univ. Aldine. 198 pp.
Calif. Press. 422 pp. 159. Weeks J. 1989. Sex, Politics, and Society:
146. Strathern M. 1991. Partial Connections. The Regulation of Sexuality Since 1800.
Savage, MD: Roman & Littlefield London: Longman. 326 pp.
147. Strathern M. 1993. Making incomplete. 160. West C, Zimmerman DH. 1987. Doing gen­
See Ref. 17, pp. 41-51 der. Gender Soc. 1(2):125-52
148. Talles A. 1993. Transforming women into 161. Weston K. 1993. Lesbian/gay studies in the
"pure" agnates: aspects of female infibula­ house of anthropology. Annu. Rev. Anthro­
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1995.24:567-592. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tion in Somalia. See Ref. 17, pp. 83-106 pol. 22:339-67

149. Taussig M. 1980. The Devil and Commod­ 162. Weston K. 1993. Do clothes make the
ity Fetishism in South America. Chapel woman?: Gender, performance theory, and
Hill: Univ. NC Press. 264 pp. lesbian eroticism. Genders 17(2):1-21
by Queens College - CUNY on 08/07/14. For personal use only.

150. Trevisan J. 1986. Perverts in Paradise. 163. Whitehead H. 1981. The bow and the bur­
Trans!. M Foreman. London: Gay Men's den strap: a new look at institutionalized
Press. 204 pp. homosexuality in native North America.
1 5 1 . Trinh TM. 1989. Woman, Native, Other. See Ref. 113, pp. 80--1 15
Bloomington: Ind. Univ. Press. 173 pp. 164. Deleted in proof
152. Tsing AL. 1993. In the Realm of the Dia­ 165. Wikan U. 1977. Man becomes woman:
mond Queen. Princeton, NJ: Princeton transsexual ism in Oman as a key to gender
Univ. Press. 350 pp. roles. Man 12:304--1 9
153. Turner T. 1980. The social skin. In Not 166. Wikan U. 1991. The xanith: a third gender
Work Alone: A Cross-Cultural View ofAc­ role? In Behind the Veil in A rabia: Women
tivities Superfluous to Survival, ed. J Cher­ in Oman, pp. 168-86. Chicago: Univ. Chi­
fas, R Lewin. pp 1 12-40, London: Temple cago Press
Smith 167. Williams WL. 1992. The Spirit and the
154. Turner V. 1967. The Forest of Symbols. Flesh: Sexual Diversity in American Indian
Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Culture. Boston: Beacon. 344 pp.
155. Turner V. 1969. The Ritual Process: Struc­ 168. Winkler JJ. 1990. The Constraints of De­
ture and Anti-Structure. Chicago: Aldine sire: The Anthropology of Sex and Gender
156. Turner V. 1984. Liminality and perform a­ in Ancient Greece. New York: Routledge.
tive genres. In Rite, Drama, Festival, Spec­ 269 pp.
tacle, ed. JJ MacAloon, pp. 19-41. Phila­ 169. Deleted in proof
delphia: Inst. Stud. Hum. Issues