(mostly white), that sixty per cent were of retirement age, that most were lesbians, several had children and about a third had been married to men (77). In the chapter on their relationship to the land they seem to be fairly affluent and come from middle-class backgrounds whereas in the chapter on aging they seem to have become working-class or lower middle-class, which seems to be based more on income level than class identity or position. A deeply grounded sense of the different communities is missing. The second flaw is a fairly standard one: that of the dissertation which is adapted for publication. The problem here is that Luis seems to be writing for an examining committee rather than for scholars in the field or for the communities she worked with. Almost every chapter utilises a different theoretical framework and three-part structure. This technique gives the impression of an academic exercise rather than an integrated approach to understanding women’s lands. The final concern is the intrusion of the author’s voice. This is not an autoethnography, and moments from Luis’s fieldwork are scattered throughout, like the mentions of her ‘informants’, with very little contextual detail. In her chapter on trans people Luis remarks that ‘this chapter is the one that will be taken as a betrayal by at least some of my informants; but I cannot and will not betray my own knowledge and principles, which tell me that I cannot deny the humanity of trans folk’ (188). What follows is a lengthy explanation of the social construction of gender based on the work of selected theorists. Since Luis is not a landdyke and does not live on women’s land her personal views – however worthy – are largely irrelevant. It is almost impossible to tell what the women on the lands themselves think, although it is their perspectives that actually matter. Each of these flaws could have been avoided with rigorous editing, which is a shame because they undermine the rich potential of this study. In spite of these disappointing limitations Herlands greatest value may lie in that confusion of theoretical material. Luis’s attempts to make sense of these complex places are in keeping with a new generation of scholars who are re-evaluating the long-discarded politics of the 1970s and 1980s to understand their value today.

中文翻译：

---

繁荣的承诺：东帝汶的未来愿景

（主要是白人），60% 到了退休年龄，大多数是女同性恋，有几个有孩子，大约三分之一已经和男人结婚（77）。在他们与土地的关系一章中，他们似乎相当富裕，来自中产阶级背景，而在老龄化一章中，他们似乎已成为工人阶级或中产阶级下层，这似乎更多地基于收入级别高于阶级身份或地位。缺乏对不同社区的深刻理解。第二个缺陷是一个相当标准的缺陷：适合发表的论文的缺陷。这里的问题是，路易斯似乎是为一个审查委员会写作，而不是为该领域的学者或她合作过的社区写作。几乎每一章都采用不同的理论框架和三部分结构。这种技术给人的印象是学术练习，而不是理解妇女土地的综合方法。最后一个问题是作者声音的侵入。这不是自述民族志，路易斯的田野调查的片刻散落在各处，就像她提到的“线人”一样，几乎没有上下文细节。在她关于跨性别者的章节中，路易斯评论道：“这一章至少会被我的一些线人视为背叛；但我不能也不会背叛我自己的知识和原则，这告诉我我不能否认跨性别者的人性”（188）。以下是基于选定理论家的工作对性别的社会建构的冗长解释。由于路易斯不是地主，也不是生活在女性的土地上，因此她的个人观点——无论多么有价值——在很大程度上都无关紧要。几乎不可能说出这片土地上的女性自己的想法，尽管真正重要的是她们的观点。这些缺陷中的每一个都可以通过严格的编辑来避免，这是一种耻辱，因为它们破坏了这项研究的丰富潜力。尽管有这些令人失望的限制，Herlands 最大的价值可能在于理论材料的混乱。路易斯试图弄清这些复杂的地方，这与新一代学者保持一致，他们正在重新评估 1970 年代和 1980 年代长期被抛弃的政治，以了解其今天的价值。尽管真正重要的是他们的观点。这些缺陷中的每一个都可以通过严格的编辑来避免，这是一种耻辱，因为它们破坏了这项研究的丰富潜力。尽管有这些令人失望的限制，Herlands 最大的价值可能在于理论材料的混乱。路易斯试图弄清这些复杂的地方，这与新一代学者保持一致，他们正在重新评估 1970 年代和 1980 年代长期被抛弃的政治，以了解其今天的价值。尽管真正重要的是他们的观点。这些缺陷中的每一个都可以通过严格的编辑来避免，这是一种耻辱，因为它们破坏了这项研究的丰富潜力。尽管有这些令人失望的限制，Herlands 最大的价值可能在于理论材料的混乱。路易斯试图弄清这些复杂的地方，这与新一代学者保持一致，他们正在重新评估 1970 年代和 1980 年代长期被抛弃的政治，以了解其今天的价值。