interpreting kinship through
marriage
Alliance theory and LeviStrauss
INTRODUCTION
• Anthropologists distinguish between
descriptive systems of kinship
terminology and classifactory systems:
– Descriptive systems are ones in which
lineal and collateral relatives are
distinguished.
– Classificatory systems are ones in
which lineal and collateral relatives
are NOT distinguished.
– The distinction between them is not a
NATURAL one; no terminological
system can be described as a system
of classifying relatives ‘naturally’.
– Lineal relatives are those in a direct
line of descent; collateral relatives are
‘off to one side’, e.g. FB=F, MZ=M,
FBS=B; MZD=Z.
Descent Theory and the
Classification of Cousins
– However, within many classificatory
systems, descent theory cannot explain
why there might be a distinction between
parallel cousins and cross-cousins.
– For example, the Dravidian kinship system:
Here there is a difference posed between
parallel and cross relatives. For example, a
FBC and MZC would all be given the same
kin term, while FZC and MBC would be
differentiated.
– However, since these are patrilineal
descent groups, there is a problem
including MZC within the same kin term.
– Why does this happen? Cannot be
explained by descent.
– But it can be explained through
STRUCTURAL MARRIAGE RULES: I.E. RULES OF
ALLIANCE.
Basic Features of Alliance Theory:
•
•
•
•
•
It holds that the basic principle of kinship is the incest
taboo: i.e. the near-universal rule that one marries
outside of a close category of relatives.
In tribal societies, this is expressed at the level of the
lineage or clan in the rule of exogamy.
The function of this rule is to establish marriage ties
BETWEEN lineages and so knit the society together.
Most basic form is symmetrical alliance, in which two
lineages, groups of ineages or moieties exchange
women between them. Levi-Strauss also referred to
this as restricted exchange and saw it as
disharmonious because only two groups were united in
marriage alliances. Basic monad was two kinship
groups exchanging women.
A different form was asymmetrical alliances, in which
wife-giving lineages,wife-taking lineages and others
are distinguished and marriages are arranged such
that theoretically all lineages can be related to each
other in a kind of chain. This Levi-Strauss also termed
harmonious exchange. Found in highland south and
southeast Asia.
An Example of Symmetrical
Exchange: The Kareira of Australia
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Four section system, two sections subdivided
into two more by generation.
Karimera and Burung are in a fa son
relationship; so are Palyeri and Banaka.
Both exchange wives between themselves; i.e.
Karimera and Palyeri will exchange women and
so will the Burung and Banaka.
Entire universe is divided into ‘us’ and ‘them’,
those who you cannot marry and those who
you can and should.
Children of a Karimera man and Palyeri woman
will be Burung; children of a Burung man and
Banaka woman will be Karimera. Vice-versa if
we consider women, since this is a patrilineal
society.
Other Australian societies are in 8 section
systems, in which each of the two are further
subdivided.
One only has to know one’s father’s lineage in
order to know one’s own lineage and who is
marriageable.
An Example of Asymmetrical
Exchange: The Purum of Assam
•
•
•
In Asymmetrical exchange, the lineages can
either be ranked or unranked. The Purum are
unranked. The Kachin have ranked lineages.
The crucial rule in such systems is that a lineage
that gives wives to yours cannot also take wives
from yours.
All lineages are therefore divided into:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Wife-giving lineages.
Wife-receiving or wife-taking lineages.
One’s own lineage.
Other lineages with whom marriages have not
been contracted.
• Marriages are with the classificatory mother’s
brother’s daughter.
Hence women characteristically move in one
direction, goods and bride-service move in the
opposite direction. (See diagram on board).
Can result in marriage in a circle.
Women from inappropriate lineages are often
adopted into the appropriate lineage.
This typically is associated with a dualistic symbolic
worldview.