Search

This article considers cousin marriage rules among affines in rural Chinese culture, based on research in Hubei Province. After close evaluation of some of the existing studies, it concludes that arguments based on the Levi-Strauss model of generalized exchange have not proven to be satisfactory. A patrilineal perspective more adequately clarifies the reasons for the disapproval of FZD marriage and informs the basic principle underlying all patterns of cousin marriage. (Rural China, cousin marriage, patrlineal perspective, general exchange) ********** Studies during the last several decades have proposed different explanations of cousin marriage among Chinese, but none provides an accurate and comprehensive principle to explain the rules that guide the selection of marriage partners among relatives in rural Chinese society. This article offers a solution to this impasse in suggesting that the principles of Chinese kinship are grounded in patrilineal descent, which has a vital function in political and economic areas, as well as in ritual observances and other activities related to ancestor worship. Thus a study of patrilineal consanguinity offers a more solid basis than previous attempts for explaining comprehensively and accurately certain types of marriage among Chinese. Although much has been done concerning patterns of Chinese marriages, more in-depth studies of the Chinese kinship system are needed to fully explain them. This is attempted here by drawing on previous studies and incorporating my research. COUSIN MARRIAGE AND CHINESE KINSHIP For the Chinese, qinqi (affines) are relationships created through marriage, and are sharply distinguished from members of one's own lineage. In the kinship terminology, patrilateral parallel cousins are tang (FBS and FBD), but all patrilateral cross-cousins, matrilateral cross-cousins, and matrilateral parallel cousins are biao (remote) relatives for Ego, male or female. Marriage within the lineage, especially FBD marriage, is treated like marriage between kin and tantamount to sibling marriage. Because this type of marriage is strictly forbidden, both in custom and in law, it does not need attention here. (2) But marriages between other types of first cousins are regarded quite differently. FZD, MBD, and MZD marriages for a male ego have usually been referred to as biao or zhong-biao (outside) marriages. Although the marriage rules that prevailed during the dynastic era of China's history generally tolerated such marriages (Li 1950:99-100), they have been prohibited for genetic reasons in both mainland China and Taiwan since the 1980s (Tao, Wang, and Ge 1988:313; Liang 1995:14). In practice, however, this type of marriage continues in a great many villages (Wu, Yang, and Wang 1990:330). Previous research indicates considerable regional variation in attitudes and preferences related to biao marriages. For example, in both Kaixiangong Village in Jiangsu Province, where Fei (1939) did fieldwork, and Phoenix Village in Guangdong Province, which Kulp (1925) studied, MBD marriage was preferred and FZD marriage frowned upon (Fei 1939:50-51; Kulp 1925:168). According to Hsu (1945:91), the people of West Town in Yunnan Province favored MBD marriage, tolerated MZD marriage, but disapproved of FZD marriage. On the basis of his fieldwork and that of Fei and Kulp, Hsu (1945:100) makes the generalization that MBD marriage is preferred all over China, whereas in most regions FZD marriage is not. Levi-Strauss (1969) and Leach (1961), relying heavily on the work of Hsu, place China in an "axis of generalized exchange" and the category of societies where MBD marriage is frequent (Levi-Strauss 1969:351-58; Leach 1961:74-76). Most arguments have been based on the Levi-Strauss model of generalized exchange of women through MBD marriage. As Suenari (1985:315) has commented, "If this cross-cousin marriage were always preferable, wives would always be received from the same group and the women in one's own patrilineal group would always be given to the same group; a fixed network would be established through exchange of women between patrilineal groups. …

Bien que les terminologies de parente soient generalement classees selon leur conformite a certains types traditionnels, il n'est pas possible de classer ainsi la terminologie Kwanja, qui contient a la fois une equivalence Hawaienne entre cognats, et les regles de projection oblique Crow et Omaha. L'A. decrit la maniere dont ces regles terminologiques opposees coexistent et montre comment l'usage de la terminologie est constamment renegocie dans la pratique quotidienne. La coexistence de caracteristiques Crow et Omaha au sein d'une meme terminologie debouche par ailleurs sur une critique de certaines explications fonctionnelles des regles de projection oblique. Elle fournit egalement des arguments pour soutenir le projet de Needham d'une deconstruction des typologies traditionnelles.

Almost 50 years ago, George Peter Murdock (1949:56) could assert that systems of marriage sections had "never been reported outside of Australia and a limited area in Melanesia." Since then, ethnographers of several Pano-speaking peoples of southeastern Peru have given us reason to revise Murdock's assessment. The Cashinahua, Sharanahua, and Mayoruna have apparently maintained systems of social classification which strongly resemble the classical, four-section system of the Australian Kariera (Kensinger 1984b; Siskind 1973:55,62; Fields and Merrifield 1980). This article discusses these Panoan systems in light of comparative Amazonian ethnography, and shows how they can be understood as a way of alleviating cognitive inconsistencies generated in the articulation of emergent, exogamous descent categories and cross-cousin marriage in small, endogamous groups. Viewed as one of several possible strategies for avoiding such inconsistencies, Panoan marriage classes may shed some light on the emergence of section systems in general. During the past two decades, Dumont's (1953) two-line interpretation of Dravidian terminologies from southern India has been influential in shaping our understanding of social classification in lowland South America (Riviere 1973; Overing Kaplan 1973; Kensinger 1979, 1984a; Schwerin 1982). The defining feature of a Dravidian system is that the terms for cross-collaterals are the same as those for affines (cf. Buchler and Selby 1968:233; Shapiro 1984:2). Two-line terminologies have repeatedly been dissociated from the phenomenon of unilineal descent, with which they need not but apparently may co-exist. The kin-affine division of Dravidian systems is founded on principles distinctly different from those underlying sibs or moieties. Although they are equivalent in terms of the zero-generation opposition of parallel-cousins and cross-cousins, in the first ascending generation the two modes of classification will disagree (Shapiro 1970; Trautmann 1981:176-177). Dumont's (1953) model of the Dravidian system is implicitly cognatic in that it groups both F and M in supra-category of kin, whereas both MB and FZ are terminological affines. A unilineal principle, of course, would oppose F and FZ, on the one hand, against M and MB, on the other. In other words, a Dravidian terminology appears to classify FZ as affine, while in a patrilineal descent system she is unquestionably a kinswoman. My question is: how do societies which allegedly feature both a Dravidian terminology and patrilineal descent categories resolve this contradiction? Though a kin-affine dichotomy is fundamental to both unilineal descent categories and Dravidian terminologies, the contradiction between these two ways of delineating it seems difficult to reconcile. I suggest that the Panoan marriage class system, by restricting the recognition of kin-affine dichotomies to (1) alternate generations and (2) same-sex relatives only, represents a reconciliation, perhaps even a stepping stone, between the cross/parallel logic of Dravidian classification and unilineal descent. Shapiro (1970) demonstrates how two-section terminologies will exhibit different structures if associated with two named super-categories (such as the exogamous moieties of the Kariera and other Australian systems) than if it has no corresponding "sociocentric basis," as among the Beaver Indians of British Columbia, who have a Dravidian, two-line terminology but no moieties (cf. Ridington 1969). Whereas the former include FZ in the "lineal" (i.e., "kin") and M in the affinal category, the latter reverses their positions. Shapiro (1970:386) observes that a confusion of these two types "pervades much of the literature on two-section systems." Keesing (1975:108) has subsequently illustrated this observation by including FZ = WM in the Dravidian category of "kin," while classifying M as "affine"(!) In the same vein, Buchler and Selby (1968:135) erroneously conclude that Dravidian systems are patrilineal (cf. …

Methodologie et resultats d'une analyse transculturelle des pratiques du levirat et du sororat rapportees aux classifications et terminologies de parente

A primary purpose of this paper is to provide an accurate listing of modern Icelandic kinship terms. A second objective 1S to discuss the meaning of the consanguineal kinship terminology in order to show that patrilineal principles of social organization have persisted in spite of the abrupt economic development in Iceland. The Icelandic economy was greatly expanded as a result of its profitable role in fishing during World War II. Earlier descriptions of Icelandic kinship include a description of medieval kin terms by Merrill (I964) which is basically accurate, although two cousin terms are missing. A second article has introduced into the anthropological literature a modern Icelandic kinship terminology which is inaccurate in its cousin terms and which includes affinal kin terms that were actually constructed by the author (Rich I976). Both authors describe the social organization of medieval Iceland in relation to such economic institutions as allodial land rights and a system of wergild payments. In contrast to other areas of Scandinavia, however, allodial forms of land-holding did not exist in medieval Iceland2 (Benediktsson I967; Gudmundsson I967; Phillpotts I9I3). It is questionable whether wergild payments were made in that period in either Norway or Iceland (Phillpotts I9I3). Modern Icelandic kinship terminology is one in which affinal and consanguineal relationships are defined by separate terminologies These-two categories are not made by either Merrill (I964) or Rich (I976: I7), who claims that affinal ties are increasingly classiSed with relationships of consanguinity as part of a "centrifugal trend in conceptualizing relationships." A more accurate description of the economic institutions and the social strueture in Iceland will point to why exactly the opposite trend has occurred in Icelandic social organization. In a paper describing the lineage pattern of kinship nomenclature, Dole (I965: 40-4I) wrote that kinship systems which exhibit this kind of terminology include such European kinship terminologies as medieval Icelandic and Russian, nineteenth century Swedish, Scotch, Irish, and Polish and modern Serbian and, also, the nonEuropean kinship terminologies of China, India, and certain pastoral societies in Asia and Africa. This form of kinship terminology was correlated with forms of social organization that combined principles of unilineality and differential inheritance rules, usually, primogeniture (Dole I965

In 1957 Professor Koentjaraningrat, the most senior Indonesian anthropologist in contemporary Indonesia, remarked that, at that time, no adequate description of the Javanese kinship system existed in the huge amount of literature that had been published on Javanese culture. Of the two studies on this system that he was then able to cite, one by Hurustiati Subandriol was restricted to a presentation of the kinship terminology, while the second, by Hildred Geertz, 2 although based on extensive fieldwork in a small town in East Java, could not cover variations in the kinship system of an ethnic group consisting of tens of millions of people in different areas and of different social levels. 3

A recurrent issue in the study of kinship terminologies is whether they constitute discrete systems of classification or whether they are rather undefined, or unbounded? segments of broader systems of social classification. If they are generally discrete systems of classification, this can only be because most, or all, human societies define one subset of relations in terms of genealogical connection. There is, as we know very well, a certain amount of play in the conceptualization of such genealogical connectionsS but the fact that they are all ultimately based on the observation of the same biological processes reduces the range of variation very considerably. This naturalistic view lies behind various traditional and modern approaches to kinship terms and theorists of this disposition sometimes argue that their analyses would not hang together at all unless the assumption of genealogical definition corresponded to the basic premises of the actors' model. Cultural relativists are prone to respond that the genealogical analyses produce a spurious etic logic simply by superimposing a genealogical 2grid on what is rather (say) a moiety system of total social classification. Another classic issue is clearly related to this. The questions here concern the relationship between the set of kinship terms and the system of kinship roles. Are they two aspects of the same reality or two related but more or less disiunctive systems? And to the extent that they are related, does the jural content of the kinship roles (including marriage regulations) determine the form of the terminological system? The main theoretical positions may be read back into the Kroeber-Rivers controversy. This has provided a touchstone, although both protagonists later shifted their positions, which in any case can be traced back tO their predecessors, and although no current writer defends either of these basic positions without considerable modiScations (cf. Schneider I968). Those in the Rivers tradition, assuming the predomirlance of genealogical definition and jural determination, tend to view kinship terminologies as reflections of kinship relationships. They emphasize the recurrence of certain types of kinship terminology and attempt to identify social correlations for each type. Theorists in the Kroeber mold tend rather to stress the cultural (or linguistic, or psychological) specificity and autonomy of classificatory systems.

What are the limits of an exchange perspective in examining social facts? Certain Muyuw facts correspond to a recent synthesis of Melanesian kinship, yet indigenous notions of exchange are not exhausted by that synthesis. A more complete examination of exchange reveals a complex set of ideas whose principles interrelate persons and things and combination and separation. These ideas describe the logic of production in the society. With this logic the internal relationships in the kinship terminology and in kinship rituals are revealed. The articlejuxtaposes an exchange with a production perspective, and distinguishes between exchange and circulation. Circulation, the essence of the kinship system, consists of the perpetual metamorphisis of gender identities into other identities.

Analyse de la terminologie de parente Trobriand a Kirinawa (Iles Trobriand) et de la signification du terme tabu, prenant comme point de depart la reproduction sexuelle et considerant hommes et femmes en tant qu'agents reproducteurs.

It is currently held that kinship terminology and social structure in Central Anatolia are not a close fit because the former does not reflect the patrilineality/patrilocality of the latter. It is demonstrated here that in a particular Central Anatolian village households are the principle units of social structure, patrilineal descent groups do not exist, and households are formed not on the basis of patrilineal/patrilocal principles but instead on the basis of bilateral principles. It is additionally shown that there is a close relationship between semantic structure and social structure at an abstract level in that the formal bilateral principles underlying the social structure are clearly reflected in the semantic principles underlying the kin classification.

The status ofpatriliny in rural Greece has long been problematical in the context of the predominant, cognatic kinship ideology. Evidence from a Rhodian village, supported by comparative data from other ethnographic studies, suggests that what has hitherto been viewed as "residualpatriliny" might moreprofitably be recast as the expression ofandrocentric ideology. In particular, the concept ofthepassive, reproductivefemale is shown to be essential to the male sel"-view as active andpolitically dominant. Thisperspective, moreover, does not depend on a patrilineal descent ideology, although it has often been confused with the latter.

In modern, as well as in traditional societies, kinship structures seem to provide important functions in maintaining cohesion and differentiation of the various segments of society. It is difficult, however, especially in modern bilateral societies, to identify the precise means by which these functions are performed. These means apparently involve not only relationships between families but also ties within the nuclear families themselves. This paper describes a typology which is intended to indicate the kinds of family and kinship structures associated with the conflicting requirements of cohesion and differentiation of broader social structures. The first section of the paper pursues the problem of the relationship between kinship and regime (or polity) along the lines established by Swanson (1967, 1969) and Paige (1974). Then, on the basis of the findings described in that section, the paper summarizes a series of definitions and presuppositions with regard to the kinship typology developed in this paper. Building upon these presuppositions, the second section portrays theoretical patterns of kinship organization in the typology and reports on cross-cultural data pertinent to these patterns. Finally, the last section discusses somw implications of the typology for theories of family organization.

Afin de tester les hypotheses de H. E. Driver et G. P. Murdock concernant les causes des transformations des systemes de parente, l'A. compare les terminologies de parente des Kaje (Bajju), Katab (Atyap) et Kagoro (Agorok) de l'Etat de Kaduna, Nigeria, aux niveaux synchronique et diachronique.

Hmong kinship terminology includes many affinal relationships which denote links between otherwise discrete exogamous patriclans. I suggest that the most significant of these relationships is the yao jua alliance formed between a man and his wife's father. This paper sets out the boundaries of the relationship and suggests that the yao jua is a key factor in an explanation of the particular response of the Hmong to a situation of resource scarcity which is making it increasingly difiicult to continue swidden cultivation and associated patterns of movement and settlement. The yao jaa is also the only structural relationship that offers an explanation for the apparent contradiction between clan norms for household location and the multi-clan reality of contemporary village composi

The delays in publication of my Trobriand data have resulted in part from circumstances extraneous to the task, but also from difficulties encountered in my attempts to formulate an analytical frame of reference which would demonstrate to my own satisfaction the complementary as much as the contradictory relationship between my material on and conceptions of Trobriand kinship and marriage and those of Malinowski. The appearance of articles by others on aspects of Malinowski's work has both helped and, by necessitating revisions, held up my own efforts. These have been influenced also by developments in fields other than the study of human kinship itself; in particular, the series of articles on ethological aspects of human behaviour which have appeared in Man (N.S.) since those by Tiger & Fox (I966) and Freeman (I966) has covered some of the grounds on which rest elements in my current conception of Trobriand social institutions. This article is directed particularly to examining the reinterpretation by Lounsbury and Leach of Malinowski's data, as a preliminary to presentation in another article of an outline of my own approach, though I start the present article with a hypothesis of my own and shall adduce such of my field data as are relevant.

N A N A RT I C L E on Jinghpaw Kinship Terminology2 Dr. Edmund Leach has derived mathematically a system of kinship terminology such . , as actually exists in Kachin society. Dr. Leach posits seven structural rules (relating to descent, forms of marriage, and local communi-ty organization) and assumes that the terminology is the simplest possible which makes the distinctions required by these structural rules. The method is exciting and illuminating because it introduces that rarely-found eIement of necessity, much sought in the pseudo-sciences of society. This short paper will discuss a similar method in the analysis of Israeli political parties. The basic proposition is that there are five major issues at the present time in Israeli political life. Each of these issues distinguishes two or more political parties from others. Issue I. While Israel is a state characterized by the high degree of public control over economic life there are those who advocate a greater scope for private enterprise (hereafter indicated by (A)). The other parties are selfconsciously (with one exception) socialist (B). Issue 2. Israel is at war with six neighbouring Arab states. For eight years, except for the last two months of I956, there has been an uneasy truce along Israel's 600-mile frontier. There are those parties which advocate an 'activist' policy against the Arabs (C), involving a renewal of hostilities. The other parties, while never openly admitting their acceptance of the present boundaries, advocate restraint and moderation (D). Issue 3. Ancient Israel was at times a theocratic state; certainly religious administration of law has always been a feature of Jewish society. There are those parties which advocate a social organization based on the Torah (E). Since Israel lacks the usual prerequisite of nationhood, namely cultural homogeneity, except in its common religion, the other parties are unlikely to attack religion. They would however undoubtedly condemn further encroachments of the religious on the secular, and many would be glad to see the religious sphere diminished (F). Issue 4. There are those parties whose sympathies in world aSairs lie with the Soviet Union (G). The others vary from self-conscious alignment with the Western bloc to consonance with Western forms of dictatorship (H). Issue 5. While in a state whose very existence represents the realization of Zionism one would expect most political parties to be Zionist (I), there are some which are not (J). In a political system where representation is proportional, it would be 263

In the study of kinship and particularly in the study of residence patterns we frequently learn of cultural norms which determine rules of residence and kinship behavior. However, as so-called primitive societies are today frequently influenced in their rules of residence and kinship behavior by changing conditions owing to the acculturation situation in which a cultural group may find itself the study of these normative rules becomes more and more difficult. There seems to occur a profusion of rules due to the disorganizing effect of acculturation. This difficulty is increased with the length of time the acculturation process has been at work especially when acculturation is forced. Old rules are often confused or forgotten by the present population and the field worker may find himself in the position of noting almost as many rules of residence as he has informants. The question arises then; how can data be ordered in such a situation where patterning seems absent. If it is true that even social disorganization follows certain patterns then changes in the patterns of residence should be discernable. To find any kind of patterning it is difficult to follow the time honored methods of techniques of the anthropological field worker; the obtaining of representative genealogies with notations as to residence, etc. Though this is undoubtedly a necessary step in the study of kinship behavior, kinship terminology, and residence patterns, it provides one only with the cultural norm and gives few if any insights into the dynamics of change. Murdock, who is so admirably summarized residence and kinship rules and structures, points out himself that, "---A special investigation of the fac43

n/a

In a recent discussion of physical and social kinship, Barnes (1961: 297 and 1964) has suggested that the traditional anthropological distinction between the pater and the genitor of a child is inadequate for analytic purposes. The pater is the social father --or he who raises the child, whereas the notion genitor usually refers to the 'physical father' or 'he who begot the child'; similarly, the mater is the social mother, whereas the genitrex is the 'physical mother.' Barnes makes an additional distinction; namely, between the genetic father and the culturally defined genetic father-the genitor-and the genetic mother and the culturally defined genetic mother-the genitrex. There are, then, in each case, three terms: (a) the genetic mother, genitrex, and the mater, on the one hand, and (b) the genetic father, genitor, and the pater, on the other. This is an important distinction. In this note, I would like to discuss some of these conceptions in reference to (a) some ethnographic data on household organization and sexual behavior that I collected several years ago in the Caribbean, and (b) to some general properties of AmericanEnglish kinship terminology. These examples will, in turn, be related-on a relatively primitive level-to the more general problem of the significance of physical facts, of one sort or another, in social anthropology. Let us begin by considering some of the possible relations between the terms listed above. The relationship between the genetic (or physical) mother and the genitrex, Barnes (1961:298) points out, is usually one of identity: gestation is a biological fact that is difficult to conceal, although there are both literary and political examples of simulated maternity (Gellner 1963:242). In general, two categories, the genetic mother and the culturally defined genetic motherthe genitrex-are mutually inclusive; the social category is concordant with the 'physical reality' to which it refers. The relationship between the genitrex and the mater need not be one of identity; but the disparity between these terms is systematic and invariably known, or, at least, discoverable. The terms mater and genetrex may refer to mutually exclusive cate