ANTH 2390 A02 Social Organization
Module 3 Kinship and Marriage
We have so far covered a broad overview of basic social institutions and how they fit together to form broader patterns of socio-cultural integration both in general terms and in the context of particular societies. Beginning with this module we will turn to investigating specific institutions in greater detail. Our specific concern in the next units will focus on kinship, perhaps the most basic of all systems of organizing individuals into social groups, roles, and categories. Some form of organization based on parentage and marriage is present in every human society and probably emerged in the earliest phases of human prehistory. Although contemporary family structures in Western societies have been weakened by the dominance of the market economy and government social services, the nuclear family household is still the fundamental institution responsible for rearing children and organizing consumption. In non-industrial contexts, kinship groups normally have a much wider array of functions. They often serve as basic units of production, political representation, and even as religious bodies for the worship of spiritual beings, who are sometimes also considered to be members of the family. In recognition of its widespread importance we will chart the differences in kinship practices that are evident in many cultures around the world and attempt to explain these wonderful and often curious expressions of our common humanity. We will be specifically interested in:
1. the formation of groups and relationships based on descent (parentage);
2. the semantic and sociological significance of kinship terms;
3. marriage rules and conjugal relationships; and
4. the structure and dynamics of the household.
Readings
Lee, Richard, Dobe Ju/’hoansi, chapters 5 & 6.
Uchendu, Victor, Igbo, chapters 5-7.
Stirling, Paul, TurkishVillage, chapters 5-9.
Figures
There is a large diagram set that accompanies these notes to which references are made in the relevant part of the text (e.g Figure 9.2). All these illustrations are available in a companion document that can be downloaded from the course website or from Jump.
Note that the diagrams are in colour, so that the on-screen version will usually contain information that will be lost in a black and white print-off.
Preliminary definitions, terms, and concepts
Kinship is a fundamental feature of human experience and social organization
that is present in some form or another in all societies. On the basis of patterns in
Western societies, anthropologists generally define kinship as a system of
thought, custom, and behaviour that is based upon people’s ideas of biological
relatedness (parentage and descent) and reproduction (marriage). They are
interested in the comparative study of these institutions for the purposes of
discovering common patterns and variable forms that they assume in specific
societies. They are widely divided over which if any features can be viewed as
universal and why regularities and variations occur. On one extreme,
sociobiologists take a reductionist position and see all family institutions as
conforming to a basic plan that is determined by human biological and
evolutionary necessities. On the other, cultural relativists maintain that kinship
has no intrinsic relationship to biology and is unlimited in its possible forms. I
will assume a middle ground and maintain that kinship is based upon culturally
determined knowledge, beliefs, and values concerning biological relatedness and
reproduction. Accordingly, an underlying framework is present but is
substantially modified by cultural ideologies and social practices. Furthermore,
these variations on common themes are considerably more interesting and
instructive than the more tenuous universals.
Universal features of kinship systems that have been proposed include the following:
1. a lengthy infant maturation period that requires a major commitment from
one and usually both parents to nurture and socialize dependent children;
2. the presence of a marital bond that creates a permanent and ideally exclusive
sexual and economic relationship between two or more people;
3. a division of labor based on gender; and
4. a prohibition on intercourse and marriage between close kin, which creates a
widely articulated network of relationships between individuals related by
birth and marriage.
These postulated universals are subject to extreme ranges of variation that often
challenge the validity of any generalizations. For example the determination of
kinship ties and the binding of individuals into kinship networks assumes a basic
theory of sex and birth. However, cultures have different views about the “facts”
of life and the meaning of marriage and parentage. The Trobriand Islanders
maintain that the sex act has nothing to do with a child’s birth, which they
consider to be the result of impregnation by the mother’s ancestral totemic spirit.
Accordingly, kinship is recognized only according to links through females in a
matrilineal system. Fathers and sons and other people linked through males are
technically not biological relatives at all, although they may assume important
social roles and relationships. Similarly, the Yanomamo arrange people into
localized patrilineages, whose members regularly marry into the same groups
generation after generation. Therefore a man’s wife and mother often belong to
the same familial line, creating a situation where mothers are considered to be in-
laws rather than biological kin. An opposite perspective is taken by long standing
Catholic views on consanguinity and affinity. Marriage is seen as a literal union
of the husband and wife, who become “one flesh” as a consequence of the
wedding sacrament. The resulting network of people linked by marriage are
transformed into biological kin, and, according to cannon provisions, are not allowed to
marry. Thus incest prohibitions are applied to a range of a spouse’s relatives,
which has varied over time but once included distant cousins. Beyond this
regulation, the Church also applies standards of kinship to an individual’s
baptismal sponsors, or godparents, who are unrelated to the child by birth or
marriage. Anthropologists term this relationship “fictive kinship”, but this is an
inaccurate designation for Catholic practice. The Church, at one time, prohibited
marriage between godparents and godchildren, between a godparent and a
sponsored child’s parent (i.e., coparents), and even between otherwise unrelated
people who shared the same godparents. A similar system of fictive kinship is
represented in the Ju/’hoansi institution of “namesake kin,” which we will
consider in the second unit in this module.
Kinship diagrams: Basic elements
Before we begin to understand kinship, we need to define some basis symbols
that are used in constructing kinship diagrams, the fundamental tool for defining
concepts and representing case studies.
1. A circle represents a female
2. A triangle represents a male
3. An equal sign represents a marriage
4. A vertical line represents descent or parentage
5. A horizontal line represents a sibling bond.
6. Relationships are traced through a central individual labeled EGO.
These various elements are joined to produce a kinship diagram.
Figure A.1 Kinship Diagramming and Symbols (Kinship Symbols)
Types of kinship relationships
All societies construct their kinship systems and define social groups, roles, and
relationships on the basis of a bilateral network formed through combinations of
marriage and parentage ties. In some societies, the extended bilateral network,
termed a kindred, forms a recognized social group, as in the case of many early
medieval cultures. In contemporary European cultures, bilateral kinship is
dominant, but no recognizable groups are formed. In many non-Western societies
emphasis is placed on exclusive descent through male or female relatives as was
also the case in ancient Israel and Rome. Nevertheless, these unilineal systems,
also recognize kinship relationships that are not incorporated into exclusive male
and female lines.
The following diagram below represents a bilaterally extended kindred which
forms a template for tracing a variety of kinship relationships from an egocentric,
or individually centerd perspective.
Figure A.2 An Egocentric Bilateral Kindred
It charts out a short range of Ego’s consanguineal kin (literally “blood”
relatives), to whom he is related by birth. He will also have important
relationships with affines or affinal relatives (not shown on this diagram) linked
by his own marriage or that of one of his consanguines.
Having outlined a general set of symbols and a template for diagraming, we must
now define and illustrate a few ways of classifying kin appropriate to
anthropological analysis. The terms employed should be understood as “etic”
categories, those used by anthropologists to describe and understand their data.
They differ from “emic” classifications, which are specifically defined within a
cultural context. Etic and emic ways of classifying kin may differ substantially as
demonstrated in the previous discussion of how different cultures distinguish
consanguineal from affinal kin. At this point the definitions and distinctions you
will view are merely intended to provide an general overview of concepts that
will be explained and illustrated more fully as you proceed though the subsequent
sections.
1. Lineal vs. Collateral Kin
- Lineal kin are either the direct ancestors or descendants of a particular Ego.
- Collateral kin are composed of Ego’s siblings and their descendants and the siblings his/her lineal kin of ascending generations and their descendants as well. They can be pictured as side branches off of the main trunk that links a person to his ancestry and progeny.
Figure A.3 Lineal vs. Collateral Kin
2. Matrilateral vs Patrilateral Kin
- Matrilateral kin include all family members related through Ego’s mother
- Patrilateral kin include those related through his/her father.
Figure A.4 Matrilateral vs. Patrilateral Kin
In medieval England the bilateral kindred was an important group for many
social and political purposes, as was the division between the matrilateral or
“spindle” kin (all of a person’s mother’s relatives) and the patrilateral or “spear”
kin (all of person’s father’s relatives). This distinction is still evident in our
current term “distaff” to indicate mother’s family members.
(Note that the distinction between matrilateral and patrilateral kin and that
between matrilineal and patrilineal relatives discussed next are quite different)
3. Matrilineal and Patrilineal Kin
- Patrilineal , or agnatic, relatives are identified by tracing descent exclusively through males from a founding male ancestor.
- Matrilineal , or uterine, relatives are identified by tracing descentexclusively through females from a founding female ancestor.
Figure A.5 Matrilineal vs. Patrilineal Kin
Unlike the patrilateral and matrilateral grouping, these unilineal connections are
consistently traced through a series of relatives of the same gender. Accordingly
there are kin on each side, who are neither patrilineal nor matrilineal. These are
known as cross relatives. Among the members of this category, cross cousins
are of particular importance, especially for some marriage systems we shall
discuss. Cross cousins can be identified as the children of opposite sexed siblings
(of a brother and sister) and parallel cousins as the children of same-sexed
siblings (of two brothers or two sisters).
Having defined a number of symbols, conventions, and distinctions used to
describe and analyze kinship relationships, we will now proceed to our first topic
on the reckoning of descent and activation of unilineal kinship ties to form social
groups and define social roles, statuses, and relationships.
Unit 7 Descent Systems
The first critical area of substantive kinship analysis involves the study of
descent systems. This topic is concerned with the rules that people in different
cultures use to determine parenthood, identify ancestry, and assign people to
social categories, groups, and roles on the basis of inherited status.
Descent systems are divided into:
1. unilineal systems, in which descent is traced through parents and ancestors of
only one gender, and
2. cognatic systems, in which descent can be traced through either or both
parents.
Uninlineal systems are further subdivided into patrilineal and matrilineal forms.
Cognatic modes also have two variants: bilateral and ambilineal.
Several ethnographic examples will be covered to illustrate both the formal rules
of kinship involved and the practical management of on-the-ground social
relationships as they are worked out in the different descent systems. The
examples chosen are identified in the following table:
Culture Descent System Location Form of Social
The Akan culture has been added to the case studies to provide an example of a
matrilineal order. The Yanomamo have been included to demonstrate some
additional features of unilineal organization. The Gilbert Islanders are an Oceanic
people with an ambinleal system typical of the area. We will also draw
comparative examples from Western social experience, which is based on a
cognatic-bilateral structure.
Culture / Descent System / Locatoin / Social complexityYanomamo / Patrilineal / Amazon / Tribe
Igbo / Patrilineal / West Africa / Tribe
Akan / Matrilineal / West Africa / Chiefdom*
Turkish / Patrilineal / Eurasia / State
Ju/’hoansi / Bilateral / South Africa / Band
Gilbertese / Ambilineal / Pacific / Tribe
*A decentralized state form
Study questions
Identification
Consanguineal relative Affinal relative
Kindred Unilineal descent
Clan Moiety
Segmentary Lineage Cognatic descent
Dual descent Ambilineal descent group
Corporate group Civil degree system
Cannon degree system Cognatic degree system
Wergeld payment Umuna
Diagramming
With reference to the numbers in the figure, identify the following relatives of Ego:
1. The members of his patrilineage
2. The members of his matrilineage
3. Relatives who are both patrilineally and matrilineally related to him
4. His cross cousins
5. His parallel cousins
6. His consanguineous relatives
7. His affinal relatives
8. His collateral relatives
Essays
1. Identify the main structural and functional features of unilineal descent
systems and illustrate how they are reflected in the basic kinship group
organization of the Igbo.
2. Identify the main structural and function features of bilateral descent systems
and illustrate how they are reflected in the basic kinship group organization
of the Ju/’hoansi.
3. Compare and contrast women’s roles and importance in the Turkish and Igbo
lineage systems. Explain any similarities and differences that you observe.
4. Compare and contrast the Igbo and Akan lineage systems. Explain any
differences that you observe.
5. Compare and contrast the Ju/’hoansi and Igbo descent systems. Explain any
differences that you observe.
6. Draw a diagram of your kindred and discuss how the kinship connections
you have outlined affect your social life, i.e. what kinds of interactions and
exchanges are defined within your circle of kin.
Study notes
Many societies construct kinship groupings, roles, and relationships by tracing
descent exclusively through the male - patrilineal - or female - matrilineal - line.
The resulting units are called unilineal descent groups, either patrilineages or
matrilineages according to the prevailing descent rule. While people of
European ancestry are more familiar with bilateral systems, over twice the
number of cultures (70 percent in one sample) follow unilineal kinship rules
(Murdock 1949:59). In many of these societies, unilineal descent groups assume
important corporate functions such as land ownership, political representation,
and mutual aid and support.
Patrilineal systems are much more common than matrilineal ones, occurring at
roughly twice the incidence. They may be familiar to you from the Bible (the
“tribes” of Israel and their subdivisions were patrilineages) and from ancient
Greek and Roman family patterns, or contemporary Chinese, East Indian, or
Middle Eastern cultures. Matrilineal forms are nevertheless ethnographically
important and, like patrilineal forms, are represented in every inhabited continent.
The powerful West African Ashanti kingdom developed within a matrilineal
society. Accordingly, the heir to the throne was not the king’s (Asantehene’s)
own child but his sister’s son. Early British emissaries to Ashanti learned about
this family system the hard way during their attempts to win favour with the royal
court. They supported several of the Asantehene’s sons to be educated in England
only to realize that the allies they had so carefully cultivated were not in line to
assume the throne.
Patrilineal descent
Figure 7.1 Patrilineal Descent, Ancestor Focus
Patrilineal relatives can also be charted from an egocentric perspective and are
linked through a continuous series of male ancestors and descendants.
Figure 7.2 Patrilineal Descent, Egocentric, Male Ego
Figure 7.3 Patrilineal Descent, Egocentric, Female Ego
(Note that a woman is included in her father’s patrilineage but that her children
will belong not to her group but to her husband’s.)
Matrilineal descent
Figure 7.4 Matrilineal Descent, Ancestor Focus
Matrilineal relatives can also be charted from an egocentric perspective and are
linked through a continuous series of female ancestors and descendants.
Figure 7.5 Matrilineal Descent, Egocentric, Female Ego
Figure 7.6 Matrilineal Descent, Egocentric, Male Ego
(Note that a man is included in his mother’s matrilineage but that his children
will belong not to his group but to his wife’s.)
Dual descent
In addition to patrilineal and matrilineal principles, some unilineal systems
combine both rules to form a dual descent structure.
Figure 7.7 Dual Descent
In this arrangement ego is a member of two separate and fundamentally distinct
groups: a matrilineal group through his mother and a patrilineal group through his
father. Where dual systems are employed, one type of group will tend to take on
complementary functions in respect to the other. For example, among the Yako