Generations

Feminist Anthropology 2022 DOI: 10.1002/fea2.12095 Generations Sahana Ghosh1 and Megha Sharma Sehdev2 1 Department of Sociology and Anthropology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore 2 Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Concordia University, Montreal, Canada Both authors contributed equally to the writing of this piece. Corresponding author: Sahana Ghosh, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore, e-mail: sahana.ghosh@nus.edu.sg The notion of generations runs through feminist theory, rendering it singular and disciplining its proper subjects—but might there be modes of generational thought that explode the bounds of linearity and propriety, offering ways to think of kinship and generativity amid and despite conditions of violence? Drawing on ethnography situated in South Asia, and the gendered insights that emerge from it, we reflect on feminist knowledge as a site of kinship that complicates any simple picture of inheritance and lineage. Affiliations of thought, practice, and relating might be characterized instead by a range of gendered practices which are constituted by, and draw attention to, modes and processes such as gathering and dispersal; impasse and reconnection; and recognition and uncertainty. Keywords ethnography, feminist anthropology, gender, generation, kinship, South Asia, spatiality, temporality In this short essay, we explore the concept of generation as a social group or formation and as the process and potential of generating. Generation has been a vexed idea for feminist anthropology owing to its association with patriarchal lineages and exclusionary inheritances. We take this occasion to explore the instability within the concept and how it might appear not only as linear propagation but as a form of discovery in which we might find familiar relations unpredictably misand realigned, allowing us to think of reproduction along unexpected flights. By emplacing thought within pictures of stages and waves, linearity has played a dominant role in shaping Euro-American feminist theory. Borrowing from models of political teleology and history, this figuration in part seeks to consolidate the gains of feminist knowledge, with “consolidation” perhaps uncomfortably mapping feminist thought onto dominant models of material and social reproduction (De Alwis 2009; Jad 2007; Roy 2017). Rather than tracing pathways of feminist knowledge in ways that are predictably mapped, in this co-written endeavor, we attend to the way knowledge is generated suddenly or by surprise.1 Generation might mean walking on known and familiar paths, as much as it might consist of sudden ruptures in itinerary. Generation can also unpredictably emerge from within conditions of violence including the mixed textures that characterize affiliation and kinship. In this article, we explore generativity along axes of thought, fieldwork, and ethnographic writing—forms that are themselves mutually entangled. Written in distinct styles and placed in dialogue,2 each of our ethnographic scenes of instruction performs a mutual tracing through which commonality and difference are revealed in a generational mode of © 2022 by the American Anthropological Association. 1 S. Ghosh and M. S. Sehdev thinking. While the ethnographic stories share a particular kinship, they also reveal the polyphony of generations. Generational Modes We conceive of the generational mode of thinking as an unstable and unpredictable set of family associations, accounted for in relations dispersed across borders, space, and time and among disparate people and things. Generation here alludes to the possibility not of maintaining linear associations over time but of holding and imagining the disjunctive and the distinct together across the rending action of boundaries. The Roman concept of the family unit, descended from the male ancestor, gens, has infiltrated anthropological renderings of kinship structure and social order. Expanding scope, the etymological root gens allows us to think through gender, genus, genre, and generations—in other words, generation—not as phallic lineage but rather as “histor[ies] of contradiction between male authority and female kinship ties that signals the mix of capture and generativity that characterizes all social power” (Bear et al. 2015). Inverting the more classical definition of gens with gender, generativity, and genus does not renounce lineage per se—nor histories of feminist anthropology—but could be read as recasting kinship as mixed layers or in the image of what Anna Tsing et al. (2019, S187) calls “feral proliferations.” Feminist anthropological method and analysis, recursively laced with toxic histories and supportive aspects of relating (sometimes within the same relation), might summon such an image of feral proliferation, a ground of generativity replenished not in its centers of authority but by an unruly network of kinship (Carsten 2000; Perry 2009; Raheja and Gold 1994; Williams 2021). We might see gens, for instance, as Sahana Ghosh does in this essay, as “a form of queer kinship that begins at the molecular level but—in all its contradictions—[and] seeps into both activism and everyday life” (Tsing, Mathews, and Bubandt 2019, S193), or as Megha Sharma Sehdev does, as an uncanniness, untimely relations which suprise us and which we must struggle to re-see and re-recognize. While hegemonic masculine lineages are marked by name, property, and succession, we must look askance to perceive other modes of affiliation—a process that is not transparent but requires attunement to uncertain relational experience. In addition to forms of (mis)recognition in our midst, feminist scholars have shown how women relate themselves to the violence of forced relations (Mookherjee 2015), as well as absence and disappearance, such as missing and destroyed relations (including the documentation and archiving of these by others), and social relations mediated by dispossession (Buch Segal 2016; Zia 2019). Indeed, feminist anthropologists have long recognized the valuable counterforce to scattered and broken relations in the work of repair and gathering. The gendered labor of stitching relations described as “kinwork” (di Leonardo 1987), makes possible forms of healing and re-relating despite rupture, in both everyday life and as social reproduction (Lamb 2010; Salih 2013; Saria 2021). Significantly, in staking recognition against erasure and negation, kinwork creates space for different orders of pleasure and value in kinship. Without assuming, however, the simplistic notion that relations, either violent or reparative—are transparent to the self, we might consider instead how they appear in the textures of women’s voices and experiences as forms of discovery. Ethnographic Generativities Generativity may be imagined not by distancing from, but by acknowledging fraught relations in which mutual knowing and unknowing figure as a terrain of learning. We suggest that both feminist 2 Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 Generations collaboration and feminist ethnography can offer gendered insights on how to see, feel, and think “generation,” as embodied and lived knowledge that enacts a “politics of possibility” (Thiranagama 2014, 178). In this section, we offer two generative descriptions from our respective field sites in Northern India (Sehdev) and the Bangladeshi borderlands neighboring India (Ghosh). Uncertain Relations One afternoon in the course of my research on domestic violence laws in New Delhi, I traveled to a distant courthouse where I was to help a contact named Anita find a document she needed for an ongoing legal case. Anita’s husband had recently died in a road accident—and she had subsequently filed a case against her in-laws for domestic violence (which in India can encompass members of an extended family andwhich can include claims of maintenance, housing, property, and provisions). The in-laws however alleged that Anita was not a widow, but that she had divorced her husband, their son, prior to the man’s death. This counter-claim was, during the time of my fieldwork,serving to undermine Anita’s legal petition for money and property. Anita’s situation surfaced several uncertainties—for instance whether she was divorced or widowed, and relatedly, whether she would be able to depend on her marital family for survival and sustenance. As Anita reminded me, Hindu marriage was a sacrament and indissoluble—this “common” claim, often re-iterated to me by women in my fieldsite, appeared sometimes to contradict the attention of legal activists on socio-legal reforms and the recognition, in Hindu marriage, of legal divorce. For Anita, it remained uncertain as to whether and how her uncertain relationship with the deceased husband would be recognized by the court, and what this meant for her claims on and within the family. That day at the courthouse I thought we could resolve the problem of the mysterious divorce, which legally could have been put aside if proven fraudulent or erroneous. It would be work to extract the file (file khulwaani), Anita said, alluding to the legal-bureaucratic maze that awaited us. She had brought along cash for paying off any clerks and I had made time to accompany her through the process. As we trawled the court that afternoon, we serendipitously ran into a clerk who was rather sincere. Checking the records, he told us that the divorce file had been closed years ago, but could be re-opened if we presented the case number and filled out some forms. Anita fumbled in her purse, looking for the parchi (slip) prepared by her lawyer with the relevant details. She then suddenly set her bag down, suggesting we go home for tea. Disoriented, I asked if everything was alright. From my perspective, the forces had aligned: we had traveled so far, the clerks were sympathetic, and the file would be in our hands. Finally, her case was moving forward. Anita again refused, and added, “koshish karne se kuch hone lagaa phir to ho gaya kaam [If our efforts begin to have an effect, everything will be done].” Despite insisting for years that I accompany her to find the document, that day she firmly refused to collect it. Anita’s words marked an abrupt end to our excursion. We backtracked to the relative’s house where she was staying. After encouraging me to sit down, she turned to make tea. What happened that afternoon was not an isolated instance but one of several episodes over the years where something mysterious would jolt Anita. As much as Anita had hesitated that afternoon, I had seen her rushing the matter on other occasions, prodding lawyers, writing to the judge, and accusing her in-laws of corruption. As I got to know Anita and her familial situation, it appeared that the divorce was both there and not there as she interacted with her in-laws. Even as Anita had been living in a separate city for years, she frequently met with her in-laws and depended on them during times of crisis. During the course of my fieldwork, Anita came down with typhoid and lamented to me that her own brother living in Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 3 S. Ghosh and M. S. Sehdev the same house would not help her—but the in-laws came from their town with food and medicines and took her to the doctor. With Anita’s permission they also assumed temporary custody of her eight-year-old son, paying for his food and schooling. Yet, through this entire period, the two parties were involved in a domestic violence dispute, in which the divorce certificate became a critical piece of evidence for Anita’s in-laws as it considerably weakened her claims on them for maintenance, bank accounts, and a part of the familial property. Addressing aspects of future temporality and law, Elizabeth Povinelli (2006) has written that legal claims which seek to undo the “past-perfect” of the law, its past decisions, become inserted into an eschatological version of the future, producing exhaustion for the marginalized claimants who must await legal rectification which never arrives. In Anita’s case, however, the past-perfect of legal decision created uncertainty regarding the future, as much as it was hooked into the ongoing uncertainty of relationships and their generativity. Anita’s sassur [father-in-law] was a handsome man who came to court dressed in a crisp white kurta pajama. On one of the court dates Anita asked me to speak to him and “make him understand” her struggles [usko samjhaaiye]. I asked what he thought about dividing the property [batwara] as Anita had requested. He replied that they were not willing to discuss the property until Anita’s son, Deepak, became an adult. Besides, the father-in-law said, if she gets it, she will rent it out to someone else. “She refuses to live with us, and I won’t live with anyone else,” he said. Plus, the elderly man added in an accusatory tone, she’s had a divorce. “A divorce?” I asked. The sassur then said something curious: “No amount of explaining can get into her head. She is stubborn.” What emerged at this stage is that Anita was hardly an outcast from the family. Her relations with the in-laws even in the court waiting room were marked by a strange intimacy: on the day of a hearing, everyone would arrive in court, and Anita would hover in the proximity of her in-laws. She would greet her father-inlaw saying, “Namaste, Pappaji,” while nudging her daughter to do the same. I often saw the younger brother-in-law, whom Anita had accused of violence,—holding Anita’s daughter, his niece, as they awaited the hearing. On some days, Anita even called her brother-in-law on the phone to ensure he was coming to the right courtroom. Legal anthropologists have shown that counter acts of citizens can often refuse the state (Simpson 2014) or invite them into alternate worlds in which sovereignty and jurisdiction are negotiated and constituted anew (Berti 2010). Working with domestic violence litigants in India complicates this theory—the women I worked with did not wield any developed counter norms or sovereignties with which to challenge the state. For working-class women in Delhi, their encounters with the law were guided by something far more elusive—what we might describe as the shifting and ambient shapes of everyday life in kinship. Under domestic violence law, then, women’s actions are less determined by an alternate world of norms, than by uncertain forms of intimacy. Structures of Indian law, as well, have been historically shaped by this porousness to fickle family dilemmas (Moodie 2015), mirrored in the profusion of entangled laws that seek to address Indian women’s care in the family from a kaleidoscopic set of perspectives, including secular criminal and civil laws, secular family laws, religious family laws, counselling, mediation and other provisions. What results is an intertwinement of law and kinship that maintains a turning, rather than a definite break in kin relations, indicating kinship and “generations” as profoundly unpredictable as well as temporal in character. 4 Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 Generations The Relatives Have Come! There was a low rumbling of motors. Out of breath, children came running to announce that there were bikes and visitors. Pushing aside rows of tobacco leaves that hung like outdoor curtains in the courtyard of the ever-expanding family home, they squealed, “Sagai, sagai [relatives].” All the women in the house, of various ages and in various states of recline, jumped up. Floor mats were quickly shaken clean, plastic chairs pulled out and wiped down, and scarves drawn over heads in quick, neat motions. Two elderly women in light-colored cotton saris escorted by a young man appeared: they were Salma dadi’s cousins, and they lived in Bogra, a large city in northern Bangladesh. They had been visiting their daughters who live in and around the border town of Lalmonirhat. They said they couldn’t possibly leave without paying respect to their dear cousin with whom they had shared a childhood, on the other side of the border, in newly postcolonial India. Transnational family histories like theirs, thick with cross-border marriages that do not obey the dictates of the postcolonial national and territorial formations, track their own histories of postcolonial bordering. They were quickly hugged and ushered into the best room of the house where a ceiling fan whirred noisily. The small children started kicking around the chairs and told nosy neighbors who came in to see what the fuss was all about, “Sagai asche [Relatives have come].” Aunts and sisters and cousins darted about, preparing refreshments and a meal for the visitors—as much food and drink had to be squeezed in with no thought for reasonable appetite or else it would have been a reflection on the times or ties, or worse still, both. While cooking, they passed on in whispers the bits of information that they gathered about these women, with whose arrival the seams of the family, nation, and region, known and unknown, had burst open. Salma dadi sat close to her cousins, peered through her thick glasses, and asked after all members of their families. Salma dadi had five sons and daughters, and the two visitors about nine children between them, with many intimately related offshoots, so this became a kind of a memory game: name place children well-being. Radiating from this border village in Lalmonirhat district of northern Bangladesh, the spatial dispersal of generations across time, inheritances, attachments, and reinventions was visible. Rehana, a wife of one of Salma dadi’s sons, chimed in: “I’m from Gaibandha. My father is also in the jute-tobacco trade. I have two sons.” “Take another child,” advised one of the visiting aunts. “Don’t you want a girl? Daughters are the only ones who care.” “You remember Mansoor? My second son? The one for whom I was asking for Rabu when the war [in 1971] broke?” asked one of the visiting cousins. Turns out Mansoor never came back from Sitai, a neighboring border town in India where they had all fled to take shelter as refugees; he married the neighbor’s daughter there. “Oh khala, doesn’t one of your sons have a job in the police? Will you tell him to find a good boy from a good family for my girl? She fancies a husband like that.” Hysterical laughter and a listing of all the salaried men followed, on this side and that, and how they had fared comparatively with the rise of India and Bangladesh and demise of East Pakistan. This was generational accounting. This was historiographical. This was the transnational borderland family queering the straitjackets of the nation-state. The state, as Janet Carsten writes, is “heavily implicated in the transmission of kinship memories” (2007, 21). Disobeying orders to stay within the borders of national territory, borderland families continued to marry across (Alexander, Chatterji, and Jalais 2015; Ghosh 2017). Remembering marriages past and relations loved, lost, and Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 5 S. Ghosh and M. S. Sehdev soured through wars and displacement conjures up a transnational region and mode of belonging and historicizes a biography of the border that is different from the ones authorized by statist narratives. Here, there, then, now, the rapid-fire plotting of connections, as much across space as time, intensely maintained, fraught, vaguely remembered, blanks to be collectively completed, some to be celebrated, some named only in clearing the throat. I put away my notebook. I couldn’t keep track of where we were. And it was too much fun as these three old ladies led the way, cackling and chiding, as children ran in and out, teenage girls asked curious questions, young wives tried to find orientations, and older ones asserted their positions. This was generational accounting. This was instructional. This was regenerative. Another afternoon, soon after. “I dreamt of the betelnut garden,” Salma dadi said. On our walks, her feet would invariably start moving toward the river. Creeping closer and closer to their homestead and threatening to devour it unless the government’s embankment building project was completed, the river was also the international border between Bangladesh and India. Letting go of my arm on which she had been heavily leaning, Salma dadi practically bounded toward the riverbank, her face lit up with a thousand smiles. Her two granddaughters and I laughed. The one in jeans and a smart kurti and in the final year of high school joked, “Dadi gets so much josh when she sees India, and I feel only anger.” “I got the betelnut garden when my abba died,” Salma dadi continued, pointing to the Dharala river, where it now lay somewhere beneath, having eroded on the Indian side. “I gave it up and now it’s gone. But it comes in my dreams. Ei, Khushi, I will leave it to you. You go someday to have a look,” she said affectionately to feisty Khushi. “Hmm.” Khushi twisted her face into a magnificent guttural sound. “Keep your garden. You just said that it is in the river.” “It will rise from the river someday, pagli, and then it will still be mine, we just don’t know on which side.” Questions of inheritance—material and otherwise—that animate intergenerational relations, rights, and possibilities of (re)generating life’s horizons are central feminist concerns (Abu-Lughod 2008; Basu 2001; Gopal 2013). Inequality emerges from heterogeneous conversions of “people, labor, sentiments, plants, animals, and life-ways … into resources for various projects of production” (Bear et al. 2015). These conversions are enacted through formal modes such as money and contracts as well as intimate social relations such as marriage, parenthood, friendship, gifts, and inheritance through which the insides and outsides of capital accumulation are “fixed” (Besky 2017). The generational mode surfaces, Ghosh learned in her research in the agrarian borderlands of Bangladesh and India, most frequently in women’s renderings of family associations. Recursive as a method and an object in itself, quotidian scenes of recalling the extended cross-border family inevitably touch the scars of separated families, clandestine mobilities, hidden marriages, and serial forgetting wrought by decades of postcolonial bordering. Generations and Surfacing In her ethnographic description of families strewn across borderlands, Ghosh shows how generations surface the grounds on which the incomplete and inconsistent processes of inheritance, attachment, and accumulation unfold—and by which value is generated for individuals, families, communities, and nation-states. She shows how women’s unruly associations in these borderlands remain speculative and unconsolidated, yet gesture to a future in which disobedient intimacies might be recuperated. 6 Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 Generations Generating relations amid multiple erasures, then, entails attending to these inheritances through the attentive work of acknowledgment and repair. Practices of repair, whether those of citation or familial remembrance, are not merely additive procedures but radical examinations of legacies of exclusion and foreclosure, equally epistemological and genealogical (Behar and Gordon 1996; Harrison 1997). In contrast to this abundance of connection are the stutters, opacity, and restlessness produced in Anita’s protracted divorce case. From her fieldwork in domestic violence courts, Sehdev learns that family associations often entail a set of turning relations. Ethnographies of gendered experience have shown that social relations ranging from the institutional to the everyday can invoke an intimacy with state forms to deny or reclassify kinship (Baxi 2013; Ibrahim 2021; Mody 2008). Rather than partitioning the state and law from the family, generational thinking is an entry point into the complex presents of these relations and the pasts of their entanglements. As these two distinct scenes differently suggest, intertwined generations may be imagined as fraught or “feral” communities, in which forms of relating are not transparent but layered, partially hidden, and in constant movement. Seen as spatiotemporal phenomena, such relations are not simply fixed in the present but are staggered in relation to the past as well as future (Hurston 1935; Strathern 2004). If we are to conceive of resemblances and differences through a picture of family associations—overlapping and divergent traits that never quite resolve into a general commonality or pure difference (de la Cadena 2015)—’generations’ offers a way to think about the making and stakes of these politics. Acknowledgments Sahana thanks borderland residents of north Bengal for their kindness and generosity. Many thanks to Megha, for her comradeship and honesty in thinking together. Megha is grateful to the women and families who guided her fieldwork and awakened her to the law in Delhi. She is also thankful to Swayam Bagaria for his comments in earlier phases of writing, and thanks Sahana for her openness and skills of navigation as the writing process unfolded. ENDNOTES 1 2 As Marilyn Strathern (2005, pg. 15) writes, “relatives are always a surprise.” We are inspired by ethnographic portraiture as experiments in representation (Banerjee 2010; Bradbury and Sen 2020) and wanted to explore that form further as a transnational feminist method of collaborative and reparative (Hundle, Szeman, and Hoare 2019) reading, thinking, and writing. References Abu-Lughod, Lila. 2008. Writing Women’s Worlds: Bedouin Stories. 15th anniversary ed. Berkeley: University of California Press. Alexander, Claire, Joya Chatterji, and Annu Jalais. 2015. The Bengal Diaspora: Rethinking Muslim Migration. London: Routledge. Banerjee, Mukulika. 2010. Muslim Portraits: Everyday Lives in India. Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. Basu, Srimati. 2001. She Comes to Take Her Rights: Indian Women, Property, and Propriety. New Delhi: Kali for Women. Baxi, Pratiksha. 2013. Public Secrets of Law: Rape Trials in India. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Bear, Laura, Karen Ho, Anna Lowenhaupt Tsing, and Sylvia Yanagisako. 2015. “Gens: A Feminist Manifesto for the Study of Capitalism.” Theorizing the Contemporary, Fieldsights, March 30. Accessed May 30, 2021. https://culanth.org/fieldsights/ gens-a-feminist-manifesto-for-the-study-of-capitalism. Behar, Ruth, and Deborah A. Gordon. 1996. Women Writing Culture. Berkeley: University of California Press. Berti, Daniela. 2010. “Hostile Witnesses, Judicial Interactions and Out-of-Court Narratives in a North Indian District Court.” Contributions to Indian Sociology 44 (3): 235-263. Besky, Sarah. 2017. “Fixity: On the Inheritance and Maintenance of Tea Plantation Houses in Darjeeling, India.” American Ethnologist 44 (4): 617-631. Bradbury, James, and Atreyee Sen. 2020. “Introduction: Calcutta Characters.” Contemporary South Asia 28 (4): 427-433. Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961 7 S. Ghosh and M. S. Sehdev Buch Segal, Lotte. 2016. No Place for Grief: Martyrs, Prisoners, and Mourning in Contemporary Palestine. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Carsten, Janet, ed. 2000. Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. de la Cadena, Marisol. 2015. Earth Beings: Ecologies of Practice across Andean Worlds. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. di Leonardo, Micaela. 1987. “The Female World of Cards and Holidays: Women, Families, and the Work of Kinship.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 12 (3): 440-453. De Alwis, M. 2009. “Interrogating the ‘Political’: Feminist Peace Activism in Sri Lanka.” Feminist Review 91: 81-93. Ghosh, Sahana. 2017. “Relative Intimacies: Belonging and Difference in Transnational Families.” Economic and Political Weekly 52 (15): 45-52. Gopal, Meena. 2013. “Ruptures and Reproduction in Caste/Gender/Labour.” Economic and Political Weekly 48 (18): 7-8. Harrison, Faye V., ed. 1997. Decolonizing Anthropology: Moving Further Toward an Anthropology for Liberation. 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Anthropological Association. Hundle, Anneeth Kaur, Iona Szeman, and Joanna Hoare. 2019. “What Is the Transnational in Transnational Feminist Research?” Feminist Review 121 (1): 3-8. Hurston, Zora Neale. 1935. Of Mules and Men. New York: Harper and Row. Ibrahim, Farhana. 2021. From Family to Police Force: Security and Belonging on a South Asian Border. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Jad, Islah. 2007. “The NGO-Isation of Arab Women’s Movements.” In Feminisms in Development: Contradictions, Contestations and Challenges, edited by Andrea Cornwall, Elizabeth Harrison, and Ann Whitehead, 177-90. London: Zed. Lamb, Sarah. 2010. “Rethinking the Generation Gap: Age and Agency in Middle-Class Kolkata.” Journal of Aging, Humanities, and the Arts 4 (2): 83-97. Mody, Perveez. 2008. The Intimate State: Love-Marriage and the Law in Delhi. London: Routledge. Moodie, Megan. 2015. We Were Adivasis: Aspiration in an Indian Scheduled Tribe. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mookherjee, Nayanika. 2015. The Spectral Wound: Sexual Violence, Public Memories, and the Bangladesh War of 1971. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Perry, Keisha-Khan Y. 2009. “The Groundings with My Sisters: Toward a Black Diasporic Feminist Agenda in the Americas.” The Scholar and Feminist Online 7 (2). Accessed May 30, 2021. http://sfonline.barnard.edu/africana/perry_01.htm. Povinelli, Elizabeth. 2006. Empire of Love: Toward a Theory of Intimacy, Genealogy, and Carnality. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Raheja, Gloria Goodwin, and Ann Grodzins Gold. 1994. Listen to the Heron’s Words: Reimagining Gender and Kinship in North India. Berkeley: University of California Press. Roy, Srila. 2017. “Whose Feminism Is It Anyway?” The Wire, November 1, 2017. Accessed May 30, 2021. https://thewire.in/ gender/whose-feminism-anyway. Salih, Ruba. 2003. Gender in Transnationalism: Home, Longing and Belonging Among Moroccan Migrant Women. London: Routledge. Saria, Vaibhav. 2021. Hijras, Lovers, Brothers: Surviving Sex and Poverty in Rural India. New York: Fordham University Press. Simpson, Audra. 2014. Mohawk Interruptus: Political Life Across the Borders of Settler States. Durham, NC: Duke University Press. Strathern, Marilyn. 2004. Partial Connections. Updated ed. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira Press. Strathern, Marilyn. 2005. Kinship, Law and the Unexpected: Relatives Are Always a Surprise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Thiranagama, Sharika. 2014. In My Mother’s House: Civil War in Sri Lanka. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Tsing, Anna Lowenhaupt, Andrew S. Mathews, and Nils Bubandt. 2019. “Patchy Anthropocene: Landscape Structure, Multispecies History, and the Retooling of Anthropology: An Introduction to Supplement 20.” Current Anthropology 60 (S20): S186-S197. Williams, Erica L. 2021. “A Tale of Two Women: Genealogies of Black Feminist Anthropology in Brazil.” In “Genealogies of the Feminist Present: Lineages and Connections in Feminist Anthropology,” edited by Lynn Bolles and Mary H. Moran, American Ethnologist website, 24 May 2021, https://americanethnologist.org/features/collections/legacies-and-genealogies-infeminist-anthropology/a-tale-of-two-women-genealogies-of-black-feminist-anthropology-in-brazil Zia, Ather. 2019. Resisting Disappearance: Military Occupation and Women’s Activism in Kashmir. Seattle: University of Washington Press. 8 Feminist Anthropology, Online ISSN: 2643-7961