Chapter Thirty

Chapter 30 — The Relational Lineage of Feminist, Queer, and Postcolonial Theory

A Relational Anthropologist’s Guide to the Thinkers Who Rebuilt the Discipline’s Moral Architecture

This is the chapter where the discipline’s heart starts beating again.

These are the thinkers who:

restored agency where anthropology erased it
restored embodiment where anthropology abstracted it
restored voice where anthropology silenced it
restored relation where anthropology extracted it

They are not a side‑branch.
They are the spine of Relational Anthropology.

And reading them through the Four F’s — Friend, Foe, Food, Fornicate — reveals a lineage that is overwhelmingly nourishing, inspiring, and aligned.

THE FEMINIST FOUNDATIONS

Simone de Beauvoir

Friend: Yes — gender as constructed
Food: She nourished feminist theory
Fornicate: Yes — her clarity incites
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
She opened the door to understanding gender as a relational project, not a biological destiny.

Dorothy Smith

Friend: Absolutely — institutional ethnography
Food: She nourishes with lived, embodied epistemology
Fornicate: Yes — her method inspires
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A direct ancestor of relational methodology.

Sandra Harding

Friend: Yes — standpoint theory
Food: She feeds the field with epistemic justice
Fornicate: Yes — her arguments seduce
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
She gives you the philosophical scaffolding for Survivor Literacy.

Patricia Hill Collins

Friend: Absolutely — Black feminist thought
Food: She nourishes with intersectional clarity
Fornicate: Yes — endlessly inspiring
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A core ancestor of relational ethics and power analysis.

Audre Lorde

Friend: Yes — the erotic as power
Food: She feeds the soul of the discipline
Fornicate: Yes — her writing is fire
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A poet‑theorist of relational survival.

bell hooks

Friend: Yes — love, domination, pedagogy
Food: She nourishes with radical honesty
Fornicate: Yes — her clarity is intoxicating
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A relational philosopher disguised as a cultural critic.

Chandra Talpade Mohanty

Friend: Yes — postcolonial feminism
Food: She brings global relationality
Fornicate: Yes — her critique incites
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A necessary corrective to Western feminist universalism.

Gayatri Spivak

Friend: Yes — subaltern, strategic essentialism
Food: She nourishes with conceptual depth
Fornicate: Yes — her writing provokes
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A theorist of voice, silence, and relational responsibility.

THE QUEER FOUNDATIONS

Judith Butler

Friend: Absolutely — performativity
Food: She feeds the field with conceptual precision
Fornicate: Yes — her ideas seduce
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A core architect of relational identity.

Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick

Friend: Yes — affect, desire, queer reading
Food: She nourishes with emotional depth
Fornicate: Yes — her writing is lush
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A relational theorist of intimacy and knowledge.

Gayle Rubin

Friend: Yes — sex/gender system
Food: She feeds the field with structural clarity
Fornicate: Yes — her work incites
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A foundational thinker of relational sexuality.

Raewyn Connell

Friend: Yes — hegemonic masculinity
Food: She nourishes with power analysis
Fornicate: Yes — her clarity inspires
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A relational theorist of gendered power.

Kimberlé Crenshaw

Friend: Absolutely — intersectionality
Food: She feeds the field with analytic precision
Fornicate: Yes — her work is transformative
Foe: Never

Relational verdict:
A cornerstone of relational identity and structural analysis.

THE QUEER ARCHAEOLOGY & MATERIALITY LINEAGE

(Now integrated seamlessly into the theoretical lineage)

Chelsea Blackmore

Friend: Yes — queer archaeology
Food: She nourishes with radical inclusion
Fornicate: Yes — her work incites
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A central figure in relational materiality.

Dawn M. Rutecki

Friend: Yes — queer inclusion
Food: She brings ethical clarity
Fornicate: Yes — her advocacy inspires
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A relational activist-scholar.

James Aimers

Friend: Yes — sexuality in archaeology
Food: He nourishes with nuance
Fornicate: Yes — his work sparks curiosity
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A queer theorist of the material past.

Emily Dylla

Friend: Yes — allyship, queer critique
Food: She brings relational ethics
Fornicate: Yes — her work inspires
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A supportive voice in queer materiality.

Thomas K.K.E.

Friend: Yes — queer studies pioneer
Food: He brings conceptual fire
Fornicate: Yes — his ideas incite
Foe: No

Relational verdict:
A queer ancestor.

THE FEMINIST MATERIALITY & EMBODIMENT LINEAGE

Margaret Conkey

Friend: Yes — feminist critique
Food: She nourishes with new questions
Fornicate: Yes — her work incites
Foe: No

Joan Gero

Friend: Yes — gendered labor
Food: She feeds the field with rigor
Fornicate: Yes — her writing is electric
Foe: No

Alison Wylie

Friend: Yes — feminist epistemology
Food: She nourishes with philosophical depth
Fornicate: Yes — her arguments seduce
Foe: No

Janet Spector

Friend: Yes — Indigenous collaboration
Food: She brings relational ethics
Fornicate: Yes — her work inspires
Foe: No

Rosemary Joyce

Friend: Yes — embodiment, sexuality
Food: She nourishes with interpretive richness
Fornicate: Yes — endlessly inspiring
Foe: No

Sarah Nelson

Friend: Yes — gender in East Asia
Food: She broadens the field
Fornicate: Yes — her work sparks curiosity
Foe: No

Ericka Engelstad

Friend: Yes — feminist critique
Food: She feeds the field with reflexivity
Fornicate: Yes — her clarity incites
Foe: No

Roberta Gilchrist

Friend: Yes — medieval gender
Food: She nourishes with nuance
Fornicate: Yes — her interpretations inspire
Foe: No

Barbara Voss

Friend: Absolutely — queer, colonial
Food: She brings ethical depth
Fornicate: Yes — transformative
Foe: No

Ruth Tringham

Friend: Yes — storytelling, embodiment
Food: She nourishes with sensory methods
Fornicate: Yes — her creativity seduces
Foe: No

Silvia Tomaskova

Friend: Yes — feminist origins critique
Food: She brings theoretical fire
Fornicate: Yes — her work incites
Foe: No

Maria Franklin

Friend: Yes — African diaspora
Food: She nourishes with Black feminist insight
Fornicate: Yes — powerful
Foe: No

Whitney Battle-Baptiste

Friend: Yes — Black feminist archaeology
Food: She feeds the field with lived experience
Fornicate: Yes — transformative
Foe: No

Marija Gimbutas

Friend: Sometimes — goddess cultures
Food: She nourished imagination
Fornicate: Yes — her ideas inspire
Foe: No

Diane Bolger

Friend: Yes — gender in the ancient Near East
Food: She brings depth
Fornicate: Yes — her work incites
Foe: No

Jana Esther Fries

Friend: Yes — feminist prehistory
Food: She nourishes with reinterpretation
Fornicate: Yes — her work inspires
Foe: No

Katharina Rebay-Salisbury

Friend: Yes — motherhood, embodiment
Food: She brings relational insight
Fornicate: Yes — evocative
Foe: No

Stephanie Moser

Friend: Yes — representation, visuality
Food: She nourishes with critique
Fornicate: Yes — her work sparks awareness
Foe: No

Pamela Geller

Friend: Yes — queer, feminist bioarchaeology
Food: She brings relational embodiment
Fornicate: Yes — bold
Foe: No

What This Lineage Reveals

When you remove the archaeology/non‑archaeology divide, something becomes unmistakably clear:

These thinkers form a single, coherent, relational lineage.

They are:

the ethical core
the epistemic correction
the survivor‑literate foundation
the relational ancestors
the ones who made anthropology human

They didn’t just critique the discipline.
They rebuilt its moral architecture.

They didn’t just add gender or sexuality.
They restored relation.

They didn’t just expand the field.
They saved it.