What is feminist anthropologists about?

Introduction: The Gender Theory as an Anthropological Question? Although gender has always been one of the central subject-constituting identification categories of humans, a gender-specific subject area, which can be categorized under the title Philosophical Gender Theories, has for a long time moved outside of the established lines of specialist philosophical discussion. Genuinely philosophical research on women only became established in the course of the second women's movement in the 1960s and 1970s. These origins also show that the gender discourse has found its way into a wide variety of disciplines - from sociology to political, linguistic and literary studies to theology, philosophy, psychology or theater and media studies. In the philosophical reflection on the gender discourse, more precisely in the anthropology of the 20th century, it was Above all Butler who set new impulses and thought of gender beyond fixation of identity. This book takes up this change in philosophical anthropology and relates the developments to previous basic anthropological assumptions of gender relations. For this purpose, two contradicting anthropological approaches are discussed, which shape the theoretical implications of the male-female relationship within philosophical anthropology: (I) the structuralist alliance theory of Lévi-Strauss and (II) the performative theory of sex by Butler, which as post-structuralist overcoming the structuralist basic idea can be seen. Accordingly, the gender concept expressed in anthropological philosophy is initially given a fundamental re-emphasis with the structural anthropological alliance theory of Lévi-Strauss. Butler, on the other hand, uses her post-structuralist performance theory to differentiate herself from previous anthropological gender images - which is evident, among other things, from her reformulation of gender and kinship understanding. Both theories are discussed comparatively and those core theses are worked out that are insightful for the leading questions. In the five main thematic chapters, the main thesis is discussed that Judith Butler's performance theory is a reversal or a reversal. Exaggeration of the basic idea of ​​structuralism acts. In order to be able to classify this development, the first chapter focuses on the role of the gender question in previous anthropology and the understanding of gender expressed in it. The key here is how the gender image changes compared to the traditional view and from which feminist movements, theoretical points of reference and social circumstances the concept of gender mainstreaming, which is known as a political instrument for gender equality, has developed. In addition to the theoretical facet, this passage also deals with the genesis and transformation of the concept of gender in the context of society as a whole. This approach is useful for two reasons: on the one hand, to trace the feminist developments, the emergence and social establishment of gender theory in general, and on the other hand, to capture the previous anthropological understanding of gender. The first section is thus a stage journey through the most important moments of gender hierarchies - from antiquity to the French Revolution to the 1968 movement and finally the gender age. The second chapter approaches the importance of structuralism for anthropology. There it is shown why Lévi-Strauss ’structuralist re-accentuation is crucial for the gender issue and what makes the kinship theory expressed in it special compared to traditional ethnology. This section highlights the characteristics of Lévi-Strauss' structuralism and shows why the theses derived from it are essential for a discussion with Butler. In addition to the disclosure of structuralist reference points, the boundaries of this anthropological current are also traced. Butler's most important theses as well as the theoretical foundations of their post-structuralist performance theory and the associated overcoming of the structuralist basic idea are presented in the third chapter. Butler differentiates himself from traditional anthropological and feminist currents and understands gender as the result of certain institutions, practices and discourses of power. This removes the gender identity category from its normative-naturalistic coherence and conceives gender as a continuous representation and staging. Her performative theory of the gender model was received many times, but it was also criticized and stimulated many areas of research, such as gender, queer and LGBT studies. But also in medicine, law, and sociology, the influences of their gender theory have meanwhile set the trend and point the way to action. In contrast, however, Butler's criticism of the psy- Introduction: The Gender Theory as an Anthropological Question? 22 choanalytical explanatory model for the formation of gender identity is not so widely received and represents a gap in this area. Her discussion of Lévi-Strauss also receives little attention in the literature. Therefore, the view should be directed and discussed what the structuralist position Butler's performative theory of gender can counter and what new insights can be drawn from this for this field of research. In this passage, therefore, Butler's heterogeneous reference points, their classification within feminist currents, their core theses and the effects of their thinking, which overcomes traditional feminism, are presented. It turns out that one of her main points of criticism with regard to the understanding of gender and kinship is the structuralist postulate of Lévi-Strauss. This section serves to uncover Butler's argumentative foundation: Overcoming the structural anthropological conception of the heteronormative gender and kinship relationship with the aim of reformulating the gender and kinship concept. The fourth chapter analyzes how Lévi-Strauss interprets the incest taboo, which supports both his theory of alliance and Butler's criticism, and to what extent he differs from the Freudian derivation of this commandment. In addition, further explanations, referring to Freud and Lévi-Strauss, are asked about the genesis of the prohibition of incest. It is essentially about the theoretical exploration of the incest taboo. The three essential theories on the universal phenomenon of the prohibition of incest are provided by the psychoanalysis of Sigmund Freud and anthropology with its representatives Lévi-Strauss and René Girard. First of all, Freud's doctrine of culture and the associated derivation of the incest taboo will be discussed, as both structuralist (Lévi-Strauss) and mimetic (Girard) theory refer to it. In addition, all three approaches are linked to one another and commonalities as well as fundamental differences are emphasized. The fifth chapter then addresses how Butler's criticism of the psychoanalytic and structuralist interpretation of kinship structures shows itself and what this ultimately means for the understanding of gender and kinship. Butler's position is compared to the structural anthropological reconstruction of the nature and culture of the gender difference. In this context, the basis is essentially Butler's interpretation of the Sophoclean Antigone drama and Lévi-Strauss ’relevant works. So, in her rereading of Antigone, Butler formulates alternative family forms that oppose the structuralist understanding of the family. Introduction: The gender theory as an anthropological question? 23 and should therefore be discussed. From the Butlerian point of view, the hegemonic understanding of gender is based on binary, since the gender identities are primarily constituted in the kinship structures that are determined by the psychoanalytic or structuralist incest taboo are mostly heteronormative and based on a bisexual coercive order. Chapter six is ​​less about a self-contained discussion than about an outline of current social issues and intercultural expressions of gender mainstreaming, which is intended to stimulate further considerations. This degree was suggested because in the summer of 2017 a feature debate3 sparked between Alice Schwarzer and Butler, which brought to mind the tense relationship between occidental and oriental gender understanding. Therefore the question has arisen how the occidental-oriental gender discourse can be made more polyphonic and - very fundamentally - how it relates to the position of women in Islam. 3 see Butler / Hark 2017; see Schwarzer 2017. Introduction: The gender theory as an anthropological question? 24