Gender in Pohnpei and Aztec Culture
A society cannot evolve without a system that is run by men and or women. Many cultures involved gender roles to achieve their goals and lifestyles. There can be so many similarities in the statuses a gender is labeled but just in a different way. I enjoyed reading the anthropological story of Martha Ward on Pohnpei culture and I figured to compare it to the Aztec culture. You will find how gender played in these two cultures. They both have social classes and what role men and women played.
Let’s start with Pohnpei, there is a strong coherence to this vital society due to increasing modernization, areas of gender. In social and political structures contain aspects of both order and freedom. There’s harmony between tradition (males running politics and woman determining clan ranking) and freedom. Some men achieve status in both the traditional and modern political systems (Ward 57). Elders draw young people into marriage, titles, even land ownership (Ward 57).
The political aspect of society is run by men. Each district is headed by a man called Nahnwarski or king or also Paramount Chief, then High Chief, high ranked citizens, and the commoners (Ward 14). Ambition is a respected, even an ancient idea, one not tied to job status and education. Dedicated work for the Paramount Chiefs and loyalties to a geographic section and district are signs of worthy ambition (Ward 76). A man advancing through title ranks pulls his hard-working relatives, male and female, up with him, just as his older relatives lifted him (Ward 77). Titles are the correct and preferred form of address and change at any time (Ward 90).
Women hold important positions throughout the hierarchy, though their title is in most cases dependent on their spouse's (Keating). The tides are gender marked; a woman's title is the feminine counterpart of her husband's. If the husband dies, the wife usually doesn't retain the title. Every title holder has "specific responsibilities to the chiefdom as dictated by the title bestowed on him or her" (Mauricio 1993:68), including fulfillment of tribute contributions at feasts. Pohnpei’s matrilineality “gives mothers and sisters a primary place of value” in the society (Kihleng) especially with regard to the legitimacy of rank claims. Women ultimately determine the ascribed status and political ranking their male kinsmen, and social differentiation between chiefs and commoners is more salient than gender in matters of status and dominance (Kihleng). The Paramount Chief, for example, outranks many of the men in the chiefdom. Pohnpeian women “maintain their power and efficacy” through their central involvement in feasting and exchange (Kihleng), which are important sites for reproduction of hierarchy (Keating). The Pohnpeians interactions show that women play a significant role in constructing and maintaining status asymmetries through honorific speech (Keating).
The majority of "mature" men "must possess tribal [chiefdom] titles" (Riesenberg 1968:76). Men's titles are related to where they hold lands or work lands for others (Riesenberg 1968:31). Many of the titles were originally priestly titles (Mauricio 1993), and titles have proliferated as they have been secularized. All members of the society are eligible to achieve chiefdom titles (Mauricio 1993:66). Each person has a particular position in the hierarchy (instantiated by a particular title). Because the chiefdoms themselves are ranked, the same title held by members of two different chiefdoms are not equal (Riesenberg 1968).
Within the sub-clan every man is graded according to seniority of descent, and titles are distributed roughly according to the same standard. Actually, then, no two men have the same rank. Even two men holding the same title in different tribes [chiefdoms] are not equal, for the tribes are likewise graded. ... Nor are heads of sections on the same level, for various sections have superior status (Riesenberg 1968:15).
American feminism is not a proper fit for Micronesian women, equality is not there goal. Social roles between men and women were in the past and continue to be complementary. The sexes are not competitive, hierarchical, patriarchal, or even postcolonial according to the women. It means that women and men do different but equivalent work in kinship, households, agriculture, offices, and at feasts. Women do the work of women just as men do the work of men; each are rewarded by both men and women, but in different ways (Ward 145). The Pohnpeian ideal of complementarity does not make female and male equal- it makes them parallel and balanced (Ward 150).
Now for the Aztec culture, you will see the similarity of gender stratification but in a different way. There are four social classes: nobles, commoners, serfs, and the slaves (Althoff). The nobles were called pipiltin and the commoners- macehualli (Aztec). The nobles had privileges such as receiving full education, allowed to wear fancy clothes, decorate their homes, hold important government offices, and move up ranks. Most government offices were hereditary but one could obtain a high office by serving the emperor (Althoff). Slaves were obtained through war and people who couldn’t pay their debts and were enslaved (Althoff). Commoners made up the majority of the population and survived by farming (Althoff). Serfs worked the land for the nobles (Althoff).
The Aztec society was dominated by men. They could have all the wives they wanted. Although women had power in the beginning of the Aztec era and then men taking more power towards the end of the era (Aztec). Women were able to run businesses out of their homes and had a lot of influence in the family and the raising of their children. The ambition of Aztec women was marriage and for men it was to participate in war, take captives, and increase his stature in his youth group (Curtis). Woman could not have any public role and men were the only ones to speak on high public places (Curtis). Men were primarily hunters and gatherers and woman did the cooking and weaving.
Men basically ruled their household and provided for the family while women were cooking, preparing household items, and taking care of the family. The men set the rules and the women had no say and had to abide them. This all happen towards the end of the Aztec era as I previously mentioned. I guess we can say men got a little smarter on the subject and felt they had to be on top.
Pohnpeian culture has modernized greatly since the book was written but the women and men still agree with their customs and that male and female are complementary and it is all about sharing and helping each other. Therefore there is no gender division they just balance each other. Although in my opinion woman are still not able to do things men have done for centuries such as be a chief. Unfortunately the Aztec culture came to an end and all we are left is with the stories and history but it shows us that not too far their customs were similar to or close to cultures throughout the world, in the exception of the sacrificing of animals and children. I really enjoyed looking back in time and learning a new culture.
Works Cited Althoff, Chris, Randy Habeck, and Brad Hegseth. "The Aztec Culture." Www.angelfire.com. North Dakota State University. Web. 05 May 2012. <http://www.angelfire.com/az/atid410/>. "Aztec Culture." Aztec History. 2012. Web. 5 May 2012. <http://www.aztec-history.com/aztec-culture.html>. Curtis, Jerry. "Gender Roles among the Aztecs." Helium. Helium, 04 May 2007. Web. 5 May 2012. <http://www.helium.com/items/682495-the-aztec-culture-had-definite-and-set-roles-for-males-and-females>. Keating, E. "Contesting Representations of Gender Stratification in Pohnpei, Micronesia. Ethnos: Journal Of Anthropology." Academic Search Premier. Web. Kihleng, Kimberlee. "Women in Exchange: Negotiated Relations, Practice, and the Constitution of Female Power in Porcesses of Cultural Reproduction and Change in Pohnpei, Micronesia." Web. 5 May 2012. <http://www.anthropology.hawaii.edu/Alumni/Graduate%20Alumni/pdfs/1996_Kihleng.pdf>.
Mauricio, Rufino. Ideological Bases for Power and Leadership on Pohnpei, Micronesia: Perspectives from Archaeology and Oral History. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oregon (UMI # 9402036).1993.
Riesenberg, Saul. The Native Polity of Ponape. Vol.10, Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press. 1968. Ward, Martha Coonfield. Nest in the Wind. 2nd ed. Long Grove (Illinois): Waveland, 2005. Print.