A Challenge - for your consideration

I considered the readings for this week largely a reiteration - compelling or not - of themes and thoughts all ready dispersed throughout the classes’ lectures and readings. As the selected authors seem to largely rely on the same bits of evidence to support the thesis that women were important contributors to Spanish-American society, with sometimes separate but nonetheless significant spheres in life, I question whether this redundancy augments the argument made or discounts it.

So we all should well understand by now that women, throughout indigenous, African, and Spanish societies, had distinct social and economic rights, as well as sometimes political rights granted in differing degrees. These lines for comparison are compelling in terms of analyzing women’s pre-colonial status as parallel, though perhaps not equal, to men’s. It certainly seems that the qualities associated with women’s status in the colonial era - subservience, obedience, chastity, etc. - are inventions of European culture, oft tied to the influence of and the virtues associated with the Church. Further, individual societies’ differing degrees of compliance with the proclaimed and expected virtues for each gender role demonstrates both the independently determined values of the society as well as the decentralization of authority, characteristic both of Spanish governance and society and that of Spanish America. This model most readily transferred to the New World on account of the shift of Spanish recognition of monarchical authority to the new colonial lands as well as similar governance patterns established, through the establishment of primary colonial centers, known as viceroyalties, and satellite centers of economic production, cultural practice, and local government.

However, some of the analyses contending that women’s situation in the colonial (and pre-colonial) society was not one in the periphery or on a subservient level to that of men lead me to question the assertion, simply in that most of said analyses rely largely on extrapolation from sources produced by the elite or by the government (run by elites) rather than direct inference from primary sources of women in a variety of social classes. For example, the most interesting (and perhaps enlightening) sources have been those from legal documents, often cited when arguing women’s economic participation and rights, and sermons highlighting the respectable respective situations of men and women, such as the purpose of and roles within marriage. However, both of these are provided not from the men or women themselves, discussing their respective statuses and lot in life, but rather from supra-individual forms, which both reflect cultural attitudes but also provide a guide for such. We have rarely, if ever, been granted direct testimony from women that can support or deny the primary assertion.

The dearth of such leads me to beg the question, “Why?” Is it perhaps because women were largely not granted much education through which to express their ideas formally (or informally) in a record that could be referenced historically? Is it because women did not have the social or political freedom to express their opinions greatly, especially in contrast to the status quo? I do not mean to come at this analyses from a ethnocentric perspective, declaring that there are only certain types of legitimate, meaningful rights and liberties; I rather simply to challenge the idea that we can accept these arguments on face-value as compelling.

Whore or Woman?

Perhaps the most significant period in Spanish history is the Reconquista, the reclamation of the Iberian Peninsula from the Moors, significant due to the lasting legacy imposed by the nature of this reclamation and the system and style of power distribution that proceeded in its wake. As noted in analyzing the divided unification of kingdoms through the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabel, the manner of their marriage union while maintaining separate dominions influenced the manner of rule upheld as a unified Spain, or rather a unified state of many autonomous and distinct Spains. This greatly reflected the historical development of communities under Moorish rule, with isolated communities in the North functioning independently of one another.

Through this style of development, distinct cultural and political communities grew, and the manner of the unification of Spain through Ferdinand and Isabel’s marriage furthered and perpetuated the creation and upholding of these distinct communities. Further, having noted the connection between the decentralized monarchical rule and that between the state and local communities, these forces of decentralization as historical and cultural influences penetrated to the systems of governance, power, and honor within the community and within the home.

This decentralization is particularly evident through the adoption of fueros, negotiations of special rights and legal practices that demonstrated the authority of the Crown but also the authority of the kingdom (and even local community). Fueros indicated that legitimate authority was bound by negotiated consent. However, due to constraints of geographic rule, flexibility and autonomy most ignorantly characterize the Spanish governance system in this period; this included both fueros and local lack of enforcement of national policies promoted through the monarch (directly or indirectly), including policies and expectations of the Catholic Church.

One of the most glaring examples of this decentralized political, cultural system is the promotion of “proper” values, principally the independent consideration of virtue as the central contributor to a woman’s sense of honor. Formerly, analyzing early modern Spanish values through literature produced in the period as well as the influences of the Catholic Reformation, scholars firmly believed that female chastity was central to conceptions of both male and female cultural models, as the texts of the time supported the notion that women were weak and sinful and that marriage served a positive purpose both for individuals and society in a woman’s subservience to her husband (Poska 136-138).

However, as noted by Poska in “Elusive Virtue: Rethinking the Role of Female Chastity in Early Modern Spain,” it seems clear that this value, promoted by the Church and upheld in elite writing of the time, does not accurately reflect local beliefs and practices, as women often did not marry, women were not socially isolated from men to promote chastity and further the male sense of honor, documentation supporting the frequency of prenuptial sex is extensive, and yet this documentation, including legal documents and social contracts, does not suggest that female sexual behavior carried with it a social stigma. Poska declares that there was a “significant disjunction between early modern rhetoric and sexual practice. The restrictive discourse on female sexuality and honor favored by Spanish elites and enthusiastically instigated by the early modern historians had little resonance among the majority of the Spanish population” (136). Poska’s ideas about how this cultural more should be reexamined, considering demographics, economics, class distinctions, and regional differentiation, are particularly interesting.

In line with Scott’s “Credit, Debt, and Honor in Castille, 1600-1650,” Poska demonstrates that female virtue depended much more upon a woman’s economic value, such as her access to credit, than upon chastity. These practices directly contradict the sense of gendered virtue promoted by the Church and state and support the idea of both cultural and political decentralization in Spain, with communities designating their own values. As Polska stated in regards to this, “Only as we study early modern people in their own context, neither completely isolated from larger societal issues not completely subordinated to them, can we come to a better understanding of women’s roles, women’s bodies, and the complex social forces on their lives” (Poska 146).

European Strippers

Everyone is quite familiar with the Atlantic slave trade that helped develop and prosper various European colonies through exploitation and injustice, but few know the diverse and complex history of African civilization that underscore that exploitation and injustice. African civilizations, similar to the indigenous civilizations of Latin America so far examined - Inca and Mexica, promoted ideas, values, and systems contrary to European colonial rule, such as communal land ownership and kinship ties emphasized throughout various spheres in society (including labor).

However, in each empire, conquest through violence was integral to the maintenance of the empire; therefore, to overcome the demands of collective ownership and kinship bonds, African civilizations determined wealth and power through one’s control of human labor, which could then take into account kinship and communal land rights. With this conception of power and wealth, conquest through violence manifested itself through prisoners of war and slaves.

Only after the decimation of the indigenous population did the importation of slave labor begin for labor-intensive crops and activities, such as mining. However, as noted in the Amistad film clip and the readings, the Spaniards stripped the Africans of their previous culture and civilization upon arrival to the New World, as Spaniards had done to the indigenous people when they arrived and confronted the existing populations. The diverse indigenous populations of Latin America became simply and narrowly known collectively as “Indians”’ by the Europeans, while the diverse African population arriving in Latin America was simply and narrowly known collectively as “Black.” Both of these terms fail to recognize previously complex societies from which the designated person came and also diversity within those societies. This phenomena is blatantly demonstrated with the Africans’ renaming upon their arrival before being purchased, being named Christian names or descriptive names in the Spanish language and thereby disregarding the significance of the existing African civilization.

In each case - Inca, Mexica, African, the Spaniards (and by extension, other Europeans) imposed their economic, religious, and political belief systems and further extended these systems’ ideological implications upon the conquered persons in terms of their gender and their labor. For the Africans, this meant similar consequences, though clearly more severely displaced from their traditional way of life, to those for the Incas and the Mexica. In each circumstance, the Spaniards perceived (directly or indirectly) the conquered men as more threatening to Spanish male power than the conquered women; men were also deemed more capable at performing labor-intensive work, as strength is associated with masculinity. For both of these reasons, male African slaves were generally selected for the most labor-intensive or dangerous jobs in agriculture and mining. This same pattern applies to the indigenous men enslaved under Spanish colonization.

Similar patterns also apply to female African slaves and indigenous women, with certain domestic roles designated to them, allowing for greater proximity between enslaved women and the European colonizer. This proximity arguably had several social and economic advantages, but it also carried many clear disadvantages, such as sexual exploitation. (See previous post about the inequality of sexual and marital relations.)

These clear and repeated similarities between these diverse groups make sense in the context of their contact with and treatment by European colonizers, in which the Europeans react in the same way to the perceived same “good,” over and over again for their own purposes.

Parallel but Unequal: Seen through the Voices of Mexica Midwifes and Sermons on Marriage

In considering parallel social structures within a culture, many people often assume parallelism necessitates equal social relations, but one does not automatically imply the other by any means, as Kellogg (125, 132) and Burkhart state in their analyses of Mexica society. Both scholars discuss the complementary roles of men and women, with distinctly separately sphere assigned to each, but both Kellogg and Burkhart’s analyses highlight (intentionally or not) men’s higher social position through their direct connection to and therefore glorification through warfare as opposed to women’s indirect connection to warfare, such as supporting the warrior, generally viewed as in connection to the man.

Further, negative qualities in Mexica society are designated feminine traits, more likely to be exhibited by a woman, such as cowardice (Kellogg 132) and immorality (Burkhart 28). This conception of immorality as “associated with a failure to stay home” (Burkhart 28) either is the cause of justification for women’s extremely restricted existences in Mexica society, confined largely to the home to keep domestic order but permitted to further their spiritual education.

As in our society, naturalization began at birth with very specific gender rituals performed by the midwife (Burkhart 45/ Nahuatl speech), continued until death (Burkhart 45), and invaded every person’s every moment of existence, such as through occupational expectations, relational expectations (particularly in marriage), wardrobe, etc. The midwife’s speech from Book VI, particularly the Thirty-first Chapter, of the Florentine Codex (Nahuatl speech) emphasizes this immediate, penetrating naturalization at birth.

The Florentine Codex (named for its current holding place) is an accumulation of written and pictorial records from about 1540 to 1585 (the prehispanic era) in this region, documenting conversations and interviews with indigenous people. This demonstrates the Mexica’s desire to keep a historical record of their way of life, their rituals and practices. The aforementioned chapter records a representative ritual performed by a midwife at a birth, both of a male and of a female.

But why? To preserve the history of their civilization, as countless other civilizations have done before them - simply to remember their way of life, specifically this custom at birth. To legitimize their way of life - with established traditions, described formally in writing and in glyphs, these beliefs and practices are less easily challenged by those belonging to the society or outsiders due to the seemingly long-standing, entrenched quality of the way of life à and thereby perpetuate the practice.

While it is unclear who the author of the additional portions of the codex is and why he or she felt it necessary to make the additions included with the midwife’s direct quotations, the midwife herself (as did the anonymous author) devoted greater attention and energy to discussing the male’s entrance to the world and what awaited him than that of the female. Further, the discussion of the male, while more extensive, was also more glorified: the midwife compares the male to an assortment of strong, noble, fierce animals; the midwife emphasizes the male’s ability to move and grow with little attachment to the domestic sphere but rather the male’s purpose’s for war; lastly, the midwife declares the male’s potential for renown and eternal glory through warfare.

On the other hand, the midwife primarily associates weariness, anguish, and fatigue with the realm of the female, a realm limited strictly to the home. The midwife declares that the female will grow tired, specifically using the phrases drudge and sweat in describing her expected duties. There is no glorification in the life of a woman.

While the parallelism in this ritual is certainly evident, equality is not. It seems to me that equality was not really of any concern - to men or to women; the society functioned in an orderly, efficient fashion as it was established, and people generally respected the nature of things.

The most glaring example of this - parallelism without equality - is demonstrated through Mexica marriage ritual and practice, in contrast to the Andean tradition, particularly in consideration of women‘s relative position in society and in the household; however, I have not the time to go into this now (but I hope you are interested - if so, ask/comment) - see Anderson 60-61, 70, 85.