Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T23:59:24.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

False Specialization and the Purdah of Scholarship—A Review Article

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 March 2011

Hanna Papanek
Get access

Abstract

Within the last decade, many publications have appeared in South Asia (especially India) and North America on subjects relating to women. Scholars concerned with the study of South Asia have generally neglected these publications instead of integrating them into research and teaching on South Asia. This neglect results from a “false specialization” on both subject matter and scholars interested in research on women, which has led to a “purdah of scholarship” or segregation of the new scholarship on women. The reasons for this segregation include prejudice, the absence of an emphasis on family and kinship in current South Asia studies, neglect of research on Muslim populations, the complexities of gender in the Hindu tradition, and the nature of institutional support for research on women. Advocacy for women's equality is characteristic of the new research on women in South Asia, both by North American and South Asian writers. The core of the substantive argument presented in the article is as follows: Gender differences are among the fault lines along which the effects of major social, economic, political changes are distributed within populations. Gender relations are proving to be vulnerable in the face of rapid change. The increased consciousness of women's issues in South Asia is the result of accelerated changes within these societies which have affected gender differences and gender relations. Gender is increasingly understood to be a factor in accelerating class differentiation and in other processes of change.

New contributions to the research literature on women and gender in South Asia are reviewed under three headings: (1) “complementary” studies that highlight forgotten sectors of the population; (2) stocktaking assessments that summarize data about women and government activities; (3) “integrative” studies that aim to develop social theory and methodology. The final section of the review suggests new lines for future scholarship, particularly with regard to control over female labor deployment.

Type
Articles
Information
The Journal of Asian Studies , Volume 44 , Issue 1 , November 1984 , pp. 127 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Asian Studies, Inc. 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

List of References

Andors, Phyllis. 1983. The Unfinished Liberation of Chinese Women, 1949–1980. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bertocci, Peter J. 1970. “Elusive Villages: Social Structure and Community Organization in Rural East Pakistan.” Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Binswanger, Hans P., Evenson, Robert E., Florencio, Cecilia A., and White, Benjamin N. F., editors. 1980. Rural Household Studies in Asia. Singapore: University of Singapore Press.Google Scholar
Boserup, Ester. 1970. Woman's Role in Economic Development. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Cain, Mead T. 1980. “The Economic Activities of Children in a Village in Bangladesh.” In Binswanger et al. 1980:218–47.Google Scholar
Cain, Mead T., Khanam, Syeda Rokeya, and Nahar, Shamsun. 1979. “Class, Patriarchy, and Women's Work in Bangladesh.” Population and Development Review 5, 3:405–38.Google Scholar
Chaudhury, Rafiqul Huda. 1983. “Determinants of Nutrient Adequacy of Lactating and Pregnant Mothers in a Rural Area of Bangladesh.” Mimeographed. (May be available from author, c/o Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies, Adamjee Court, Motijheel Commercial Area, Dhaka.)Google Scholar
Chen, Lincoln D., et al. 1981. “Sex Bias in the Family Allocation of Food and Health Care in Rural Bangladesh.” Population and Development Review, March, pp. 55–70.Google Scholar
Collier, William A., Jusuf Colter, Sinarhadi, and d'A. Shaw, Robert. 1974. “Choice of Technique in Rice Milling on Java.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 10, 1 (March):106–20.Google Scholar
Dixon, Ruth B. 1978. Rural Women at Work: Strategies for Development in South Asia. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Dixon, Ruth B. 1982. “Women in Agriculture: Counting the Labor Force in Developing Countries.” Population and Development Review 8, 3:539–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dixon, Ruth B. 1983. “Land, Labour, and the Sex Composition of the Agricultural Labour Force: An International Comparison.” Development and Change 14:347–72.Google Scholar
Government of Pakistan. 1983. “Report of Expert Working Group on Women's Development Programmes for Sixth Five Year Plan (1983–1988).” Mimeographed.Google Scholar
Greenough, Paul R. 1982. Prosperity and Misery in Modern Bengal: The Famine of 1943–1944. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Indian Council of Social Science Research. 1975. Status of Women in India: A Synopsis of the Report of the National Committee on the Status of Women (1971–1974). New Delhi: ICSSR.Google Scholar
Jacobson, Doranne. 1982. “Studying the Changing Roles of Women in Rural India.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 8, 1:132–37.Google Scholar
Kelkar, Govind. 1983. “Women and Structural Violence in India.” Working Paper for Consultation on Women, Militarism, and Disarmament. Gyor, Hungary. Mimeographed. (Available from author at Centre for Women's Development Studies, B-43 Panchsheel Enclave, New Delhi 110 017, India.)Google Scholar
Krishna Raj, Maitreyi. 1982. Research on Women and Work in the Seventies: Where Do We Go from Here? Bombay: Research Unit on Women's Studies, SNDT Women's University, Juhu Road, Santa Cruz (West), Bombay 400 049. Mimeographed. (RslO.)Google Scholar
McCarthy, Florence, and Feldman, Shelley. 1983. “Rural Women Discovered: New Sources of Capital and Labour in Bangladesh.” Development and Change 14, 2:211–36.Google Scholar
Mazumdar, Vina. 1979. “Women, Development, and Public Policy.” In Women and Development: Perspectives from South and Southeast Asia, Jahan, Rounaq and Papanek, Hanna, editors. Dacca: Bangladesh Institute of Law and International Affairs. (Available from South Asia Books, P. O. Box 502, Columbia, Mo. 65205.)Google Scholar
Mazumdar, Vina, and Sharma, Kumud. 1979. “Women's Studies: New Perceptions and the Challenges.” Economic and Political Weekly, January 20, pp. 113–20.Google Scholar
Minault, Gail, editor. 1981. The Extended Family: Women and Political Participation in India and Pakistan. Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books.Google Scholar
Nandy, Ashis. 1980. “Woman Versus Womanliness in India: An Essay in Cultural and Political Psychology.” In Nandy, , At the Edge of Psychology: Essays in Politics and Culture, pp. 32–46. Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
New-York Times, August 14, 1983.Google Scholar
O'Flaherty, Wendy Doniger. 1980. Women, Androgynes, and Other Mythical Beasts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Paige, Karen E. 1984. “Patterns of Excision and Excision Rationales in Egypt.” In Good, M. J. et al., editors. Illness and Affect in the Middle East. Forthcoming.Google Scholar
Papanek, Hanna. 1964. “The Woman Field Worker in a Purdah Society.” Human Organization 23, 2:160–63.Google Scholar
Papanek, Hanna. 1979. “Family Status Production: The ‘Work’ and ‘Non-Work’ of Women.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 4, 4:775–81.Google Scholar
Papanek, Hanna. 1983a. “Class and Gender in Education-Employment Linkages: Selected Country Studies.” Paper presented at the Seventy-eighth annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Detroit.Google Scholar
Papanek, Hanna. 1983b. “Implications of Development for Women in Indonesia: Research and Policy Issues.” In Kathleen Staudt and Jane Jaquette, editors. Women in Developing Countries: A Policy Focus, pp. 67–87. New York: Haworth Press.Google Scholar
Papanek, Hanna, and Minault, Gail, editors. 1983. Separate Worlds: Studies of Purdah in South Asia. Delhi: Chanakya Publications and Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books.Google Scholar
Pastner, Carroll. 1982. “Rethinking the Role of the Woman Field Worker in Purdah Societies.” Human Organization 41, 3:262–64.Google Scholar
Sebstad, Jennefer. 1984. “Struggle and Success: Building a Strong, Independent Union for Poor Women Workers in India.” Women's Studies International, 3 (April):7–11.Google Scholar
Sharma, Ursula. 1978. “Women and Their Affines: The Veil as a Symbol of Separation.” Man (n.s.) 13, 2:218–33.Google Scholar
Stacey, Judith. 1983. Patriarchy and Socialist Revolution in China. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Timmer, C. Peter. 1973. “Choice of Technique in Rice Milling on Java.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 9, 2:57–76.Google Scholar
Timmer, C. Peter. 1974. “Choice of Technique in Rice Milling on Java: A Reply.” Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies 10, 1:121–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wadley, Susan S. 1977. “Women and the Hindu Tradition.” In Jacobson, Doranne and Wadley, Susan, Women in India: Two Perspectives, pp. 113–39. Columbia, Mo.: South Asia Books.Google Scholar
Weiner, Myron. 1983. “The Political Consequences of Preferential Policies: A Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Politics, October, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar
Zeidenstein, Sondra, editor. 1979. Learning About Rural Women. Special issue, Studies in Family Planning 10, 11/12.Google Scholar