Medicine, Religion and Politics in Africa and the African Diaspora Short Paper Topic
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of the theoretical uses of the
“Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane
(2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of representations of Blackness and the
female body as being ahistorical and psychologically determinist. Against this view she
affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when the difference between them is
embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is always mediated by the social
context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields
(1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements is the extent to which
knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward them, is always
contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and
biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and
Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be considered: there is
the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social body, which has been
used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and culture; and the body
politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies
(1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of
knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and
the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by
diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that
there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act”
(2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper, please address the following
issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or stereotypical representations of the
Other (whether European/white or African/black) be separated from the political, economic,
and security interests of either group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about
both groups influence the medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to
twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of
knowledge construction about the Other that is free from power and politics. What would
such a project require? As you build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or
geographical case studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from
readings through those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish. In her review of
the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender, science, race, and
colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s analysis of
representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and psychologically
determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of another, even when
the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical characteristics, is
always mediated by the social context within which the two come into contact” (Magubane
2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane highlights in these statements
is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other, and the practices directed toward
them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she recalls Foucault’s discussion of
biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also reminds us of an argument presented
in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more than one “body” that must be
considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of lived experience; the social
body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to think about nature, society and
culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation, surveillance and control of individual
and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level, however, we are reminded of the way in
which the project of knowledge production itself is also a contested one. For example, in his
early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has
asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal discourse that one rediscovers the
obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other which is not also a temporal,
historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7 page, 12-point font paper,
please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic, psychological, or
stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or African/black) be
separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either group? To what extent
does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the medical and scientific
practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or vice-versa)? Finally,
discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about the Other that is free
from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you build your argument,
please discuss at least three historical or geographical case studies/theoretical approaches
from the readings (you may choose from readings through those of March 15th); however,
one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
In her review of the theoretical uses of the “Hottentot Venus” among scholars of gender,
science, race, and colonialism, Zina Magubane (2001)1 has criticized Sander Gilman’s
analysis of representations of Blackness and the female body as being ahistorical and
psychologically determinist. Against this view she affirms: “the idea one people has of
another, even when the difference between them is embodied in the most striking physical
characteristics, is always mediated by the social context within which the two come into
contact” (Magubane 2001: 821, citing Barbara Fields (1982: 148).2 What Magubane
highlights in these statements is the extent to which knowledge produced about the Other,
and the practices directed toward them, is always contextual and political. In this respect, she
recalls Foucault’s discussion of biopower and biopolitics (nosopolitics). Magubane also
reminds us of an argument presented in Lock and Scheper Hughes, namely, that there is more
than one “body” that must be considered: there is the individual phenomenological body of
lived experience; the social body, which has been used as a natural symbol with which to
think about nature, society and culture; and the body politic, the realm of regulation,
surveillance and control of individual and collective bodies (1996: 45). On another level,
however, we are reminded of the way in which the project of knowledge production itself is
also a contested one. For example, in his early work Time and the Other: How Anthropology
Makes its Object, Johannes Fabian has asserted: “It is by diagnosing anthropology’s temporal
discourse that one rediscovers the obvious, namely, that there is no knowledge of the Other
which is not also a temporal, historical, a political act” (2001: 1). In your double-spaced, 5-7
page, 12-point font paper, please address the following issues: to what extent can symbolic,
psychological, or stereotypical representations of the Other (whether European/white or
African/black) be separated from the political, economic, and security interests of either
group? To what extent does the knowledge or ideology about both groups influence the
medical and scientific practices that evolved from the eighteenth to twentieth centuries (or
vice-versa)? Finally, discuss whether there can be a practice of knowledge construction about
the Other that is free from power and politics. What would such a project require? As you
build your argument, please discuss at least three historical or geographical case
studies/theoretical approaches from the readings (you may choose from readings through
those of March 15th); however, one case must be the problem of the fetish.
