Introduction of Nisa, Shostak claims
n the Introduction of Nisa, Shostak claims that “although the !Kung were experiencing cultural change, it was still quite recent and subtle, and had thus far left their traditional value system intact” (5). What do you make of this claim? Do you agree? To what extent? Does evidence from the book, that Shostak provides, support or trouble this claim? You might want to pay particular attention to this week’s readings (Epilogue). Bring forward the evidence to support your claim. Why do you think it’s important for Shostak—and for her arguments— to make this claim? Finally, based on your discussion above, how do you think Shostak understands/theorizes “culture?” (think here of the “classic culture” concept might be helpful). https://archive.org/details/naithestoryofakungwoman/naithestoryofakungwomanreel1.mov Part 2 (A half a page or so can work here!) Is/was Shostak a feminist ethnographer? Why or why not? If yes, what kind of a feminist ethnographer is she? To help envision, think through, and illustrate your response, draw from Davis and Craven (on Moodle)—and in particular their section discussing different “Feminist Perspectives”— as well as Shostak and perhaps lecture or discussions.
