Relatedness, mutuality of being or something else:
Rethinking “what kinship is” with evidence from China
Introduction
Looking back on the history of the field of Chinese kinship studies, we can find two fault
lines running across the landscape of the field. One fault line has separated researches
focusing on domestic kinship relations from those on extra-family kinship relations
(Stafford, 2000: 37). While Chinese family as a patrilineal, patrilocal and patriarchal
institution governed by Confucian values was the dominant theme of earlier studies of
Chinese kinship (Hsu, 1971; Lang, 1946; Lin, 1947; C K Yang, 1959), Freeman’s lineage
model (1958, 1966, 1970b) shifted the focus of anthropological examination of Chinese
kinship to extra-family kinship groups as corporate entities with multiple social,
economic and political functions (Ahern, 1976; Anderson, 1970; Baker, 1968; Freedman,
1958, 1966; Pasternak, 1969; J L Watson, 1986; R S Watson, 1982). Influenced by
Freedman, most scholars did not pay any attention to domestic units when they studied
lineage organizations. (Ahern, 1976; Anderson, 1970; Baker, 1968; Freedman, 1958,
1966; Pasternak, 1969; J L Watson, 1986; R S Watson, 1982). Although some scholars
still continued to study Chinese families (Cohen, 1976; A P Wolf and Huang, 1980; M
1
Wolf, 1968), families and extra family kinship are generally seen as different social
phenomena. Even Cohen, who has had interests in both these two institutions, has seldom
studied these two institutions at the same time (1976, 1990), probably motivated by his
idea that families and lineages are formed by different processes in their development,
with the former formed by natural increase of population and the latter by fusion of
agnatic units (1969).
After China reopened its door to Western scholars in the 1980s, the new generation of
anthropologists are no longer interested in lineage studies. Except for several veterans in
the lineage paradigm (Cohen, 1990, 2005; J L Watson, 1986; R S Watson, 1982), most
researchers have put their focuses on transformations of domestic power relations, gender
roles, marriage customs and family structures (Davis and Harrell, 1993; Selden, 1993;
Stacey, 1983; Whyte, 1992; M Wolf, 1984, 1985). More recent researchers are interested
in relations constructed through everyday interactions via human agency and desire (Judd,
1989, 1992, 2008, 2010; Sangren, 2013; Shi, 2010; Song, 2008; Stafford, 2000; Y Yan,
2003). In spite of thematic variations, most researches during the post-Mao era have
focused on domestic relations or relations between close kin, with little attention to extrafamily agnatic kinship.
2
This separation between the study of Chinese families and that of extra-family kinship
organizations seems to be rooted in the Western concepts of the distinction between the
domestic domain and the public domain (Holy, 1996). Such distinctions have been found
to be a cultural construct of modern capitalism of the western society and might not
reflect social realities in non-western cultures and societies (Gal, 2005; Yanagisako and
Collier, 1987). Applying this dichotomy to the Chinese society inevitably encounters
difficulties. Freedman and other scholars already experienced the mismatch between the
western concept of family as a domestic domain and the Chinese concept of Jia, which
can be applied to a broad range of kinship relations (Freedman, 1958, 1966). Researches
examining transformations of Chinese family structure through the last half century (W-C
Chang, 2012; Cong and Silverstein, 2012; Davis and Harrell, 1993; Jing, 2004; Song,
2008; D Wang, 2010; Whyte, 2003; Y Yan, 2003; Zhang and Y Wang, 2010) have
provided abundant evidence for us to question the existence of a rigid boundary between
the domestic domain and the public domain. Conjugal units that used to form a single
domestic unit now exist as independent households, but what used to constitute domestic
relations continues to tie these independent units together. Relations between close kin
are practiced in the context of broader kinship relationship, and broader kinship networks
3
are impossible to form without the existence of relations between close kin. Examining
one without another will compromise the validity of any knowledge of Chinese kinship
thus produced.
Another fault line exists between the early approach emphasizing the determinant role of
patrilineal descent in Chinese kinship and a more recent approach emphasizing the role of
human agency and everyday interactions in the constitution of kinship. The former is best
represented by the lineage paradigm which sees Chinese lineages as corporate entities
formed on the basis of patrilineal descent (Ahern, 1976; Anderson, 1970; Baker, 1968;
Freedman, 1958, 1966; Pasternak, 1969; 1986; R S Watson, 1982). The latter approach
sees kinship relationship as a product of human agency in the dynamic interactions
between parties involved, instead of as something determined by the pre-existing
principle of patrilinity. Kinship relationship is no longer seen as rigid, static and predetermined by a priori principles, but seen as fuzzy, fluid, and in a constant process of
being shaped and reshaped by human agency (Judd, 1989, 1992, 2008, 2010; Shi, 2010;
Song, 2008; Stafford, 2000; Y Yan, 2003).
It is true that researches adopting the old approach, mainly focusing on social structures
4
and paying less attention to human agency, often mistakenly represent Chinese kinship as
rigid and static structures. But the new approach, emphasizing human agency without
considering structural constraints over social practices also commits a fallacy from the
other side. While kinship relationship is not totally determined by pre-existing rules and
principles, human subjects do not have full freedom in the construction of such a
relationship either. As Marshall Sahlins has rightfully argued on the basis of ethnographic
data on highly performative Inuit kinship, “people’s freedom to revise their kin
relationships, however, does not mean that the relationships as such are under revision –
or otherwise without determinate properties and codes of conduct.” (Sahlins, 2011a: 5).
This shows that we need to see not only social actors’ strategies in the construction of
kinship relationship, but also the kinship system within which such individual
maneuverings take place. Thus, an approach seeing kinship either as a constraining
system or as a product of individual agency is inherently inadequate.
This essay is an effort to bridge these two fault lines. In this essay, families and broader
kinship network will be examined within the same framework. In this way, families and
the broader kinship networks will be seen as interconnected aspects of kinship
experienced by Chinese villagers. Criticizing different theoretical approaches in kinship
5
studies, including Sahlins’ new concept of mutuality of being, it is argued that the major
problem with all these approaches is that they see kinship as a single “thing,” as a social
systems, a social processes or a unity of the two. A better approach is to see kinship as a
complex matrix of social phenomena involving multiple dimensions of subjectivity and
objectivity. Kinship as social systems and kinship as social processes are both
experienced by social actors as meaningful and practical parts of their social life.
This essay is based on data collected from more than ten years of ethnographic research
in Jinan Village in southern Hebei Province in north China. The village has a population
of around 1500, with 90% of the families having the surname Song and assumed to be
descended from an apical ancestor who came to this village 600 years ago. The first
fieldwork was conducted from 2002 to 2003, followed by six shorter field trips back to
the village, with the most recent one in 2013. The ethnographic data were collected both
through participant observation and interviews with villagers, which produced rich data
on both contemporary and historical kinship systems and practices in the village.
6
Relatedness or mutuality of being?
Criticizing the anthropological concept of kinship as an ethnocentric notion based on
western folk belief in the centrality of biological procreation, Schneider discredited
kinship as universal human experience and called into question the validity of crosscultural endeavor in kinship studies (Schneider, 1972, 1984). For a time, anthropology of
kinship lost its common ground for cross-cultural comparisons and many studies mainly
focused on cultural particularities (Carsten, 2000a; Holy, 1996). But since the mid 1990s,
some anthropologists have been brave enough to put cross-cultural perspectives back into
kinship studies (Carsten, 2000a; Sahlins, 2011a, 2011b, 2013). However, without the
previously assumed common ground for cross-cultural comparisons, it is necessary to
find a new common ground for such comparisons. Thus, kinship, which used to be taken
as a self-evident concept, now has to be defined and redefined before any comparisons
are possible (Carsten, 2000a; Sahlins, 2011a, 2011b, 2013).
Janet Carsten has proposed the concept of “relatedness,” to replace the outdated preSchneider concept of kinship that put consanguinity at the core (Carsten, 1995, 2000a,
2004, 2011). Freed from the shackles of consanguinity, the examination of kinship from
the lens of “relatedness” has expanded the field to a great variety of phenomena not
7
covered by the old-fashioned kinship studies, and shifted scholarly attention from the
rigid and fixed relationship determined by birth to the fluid, procedural and
transformative relations in everyday life (Stone, 2004). At the same time, however,
unlimited expansion of the “relatedness” runs the risk of confusing kinship relationships
with other kinds of relationships (Holy, 1996; Schneider, 1984; Stone, 2004).
Overemphasis on the contingency and fluidity of kinship relationship often leads to the
neglect of the durative and systematic side of kinship.
Marshall Sahlins has recently proposed the concept of “mutuality of being” as another
effort to redefine kinship relationship cross-culturally (Sahlins, 2011a, 2011b, 2013).
Mutuality of being refers to a relationship between people who are ‘intrinsic to one
another’s existence – thus “mutual person(s)”, “life itself “, “intersubjective belonging”’
(Sahlins, 2011a: 2).
According to Sahlins, the virtue of using this concept of mutuality of being is its capacity
‘of describing the various means by which kinship may be constituted, whether natally or
post-natally, from pure “biology” to pure performance, and any combinations thereof’
(Sahlins, 2011a: 14). That is, this mutuality of being can be based on biological ties but
8
can also be equally based on socially constructed ties. As a result, it helps kinship studies
to transcend the dualism of nature and culture that has long haunted this field.
Using this new concept, Sahlins also intends to bridge the division between preSchneider approaches seeing kinship as an enduring system and post-Schneider
approaches seeing kinship as social processes enacted in practice through human agency.
While recognizing the importance of kinship as practice, Sahlins argues, “Kinship is …
the perduring condition of the possibility of its (unstable) practice” (Sahlins, 2011a: 6). In
other words, a stable system is also an important aspect of kinship. Distancing himself
from both the objectivist and the interactionist stances, he set mutuality of being in the
realm of human consciousness. This enduring system, instead of having any objective
existence, is made up of
“diffuse enduring solidarity and the like,” which is “the
corollary subjectivity of mutual being” (Sahlins, 2011a: 12). Participating in each other’s
existence is not just physical interactions between human subjects, but a kind of
“intersubjective belonging” (Sahlins, 2011a: 12) and “intrinsic attachment” (Sahlins,
2011a: 11) toward each other. Thus, kinship is seen as subjective and intersubjective in
nature. But for such intersubjective emotional attachment to serve as the basis of an
enduring kinship system, two assumptions need to hold. One is that different parties
9
locked in kinship relationship need to share the same emotional attachment toward each
other. Another is that such diffuse solidarity and intrinsic attachment toward each other
should remain constant across contexts and through time. But ethnographic evidence
from my research shows that different people might have different attitudes towards their
kin and kin group, and emotional attachment towards each other can vary from time to
time. Thus, it is hard to see such intersubjective amity as the basis of the enduring kinship
relationship, which is supposed to remain relatively stable and constant for a community
for a significant period of time.
In this essay, it will be shown that these problems arise as a result of his attempt to
combine what is interpersonal and intersubjective with what is communal and multisubjective. These two are related but are not the same thing. While the former is
contingent and transient, the latter is perduring and not subjective to day-to-day changes.
Although Sahlins has tried to bring the two under the umbrella of a single concept of
mutuality of being, the gap between the two is still there.
A better model is to see kinship as a complex matrix of phenomena, manifested in
different dimensions of subjectivity and objectivity.
In such a model, instead of
10
combining different levels of abstraction into one, as Sahlins has tried to do, we can keep
them separate. In this way, Sahlins’ perduring system is nothing but communal belief in
the intrinsic relationship between people involved. Thus, such intrinsic relationship does
not have any objective existence but in the collective consciousness of the community.
They are not intersubjective, but multi-subjective, forming part of the shared belief of
people in the community, which is relatively stable and constant across contexts and
through time. On the one hand, the emotional feeling of being part of each other exists in
the minds of people thus involved. Parties involved do not need to share the same
emotional feelings toward each other, nor do such feelings need to remain constant
through time and across time. What is stable and enduring is the communally recognized
mutuality of being between parties involved, instead of the emotional feelings between
parties of in the relationship. Keeping the intersubjective and multisubjective separate can
also help to explain the animosity among kin in many cultures. From this perspective,
animosity between kin is nothing but the consequence of frequent interactions between
parties bound by certain types of kinship relationship. But kinship does not only involve
these two aspects. Such intersubjective and multi-subjective ties are manifested in actual
behaviors, and physical materials, giving rise to different social institutions.
11
Family and close kin in Jinan Village
The first time when I went back to the village to do my fieldwork in 2002, I saw a cottage
located lonely at the outskirts of the village. I soon learned that this was the home of
Qiushan and his wife. His son was married a couple of years before. For his son’s
marriage, he remodeled his house. But after the son was married, conflicts soon came.
The daughter-in-law would not like to live with her parents-in-law and persistently
harassed the latter. Finally Qiushan and his wife decided to move out. But their son’s
marriage had already used up their savings. They could not afford to build a proper house
for themselves. They borrowed money from relatives and built a simple hut. Finally they
could escape their daughter-in-law’s harassment.
However, it is not always juniors who are the causes of family conflicts. Cunlu could not
get along with his son Yingqi’s wife. Many conflicts occurred between him and the
daughter-in-law. Unable to stand him, the daughter-in-law went to live with her parents
in another village and refused to return. Cunlu wanted his son to divorce. According to
villagers, he said to his son Yingqi, “You need to make a choice between me and your
wife.” His son replied, “Dad, I have three young children. What could I do without my
wife?” Cunlu was very angry. But before he realized, his son already packed up his
12
belongings and took the three young kids away to join their mom. The son lived with his
wife in another village for many years.
When parents were old, obligations to parents were often the causes for conflicts between
conjugal families of brothers. An old lady in the village was hospitalized. After spending
a lot of money, none of his sons wanted to contribute anymore, while the hospital was
waiting for the money before they would continue to treat the old lady. Eventually a
distant relative paid first. Shamed of that, the six sons finally pooled their money together
and paid the money back. A more serious case happened to another cohort of brothers
several years ago, also due to conflicts over the support of parents. The eldest son refused
to contribute even though he was the wealthiest among the brothers. His second brother
scolded him at a family meeting. At night, his sons went to his brother’s house and
attacked the latter with machetes. Although not killed, the brother was hospitalized for a
time. Elders among relatives stepped in and mediated the case. Eventually no lawsuit was
filed against the two nephews.
These are some of the negative cases of kinship relationship I found during my field trips
in the village. I also found many positive cases, whereby some brothers have been good
13
to each other, and even their wives were in very good relationship with each other. Some
brothers once not on good terms with each other came very close years later, especially
after parents passed away. There are also daughters-in-law in good relationship with
parents-in-law. On my 2013 trip, I heard many people praising a daughter-in-law, who
married into a very poor family but treated her parents-in-law quite well.
These positive and negative cases show that relationships among close kin in the village
varied greatly from case to case and also from time to time, with close kin sometimes
hating each other, but at other times helping each other. They are quite different from
descriptions of Chinese family and kinship in classic researches, which see relationships
between close kin as determined by Confucian values of filial piety and male supremacy
or the principle of patrilineal descent (Freedman, 1958, 1966: 196; Hsu, 1971; Lang,
1946; Lin, 1947; M Yang, 1945). They seem to confirm the narratives of contemporary
anthropological examinations of Chinese family and kinship, which focus on the fluidity
and variation in the relationship constructed through negotiations and interactions
between individuals in everyday life (Santos, 2006, 2008; Shi, 2009; Stafford, 2000; M
Yang, 1945).
14
Obviously the fluid and contingent relationships constituted in practice form an important
part of everyday life in Jinan Village. But what villagers in Jinan Village see as
relationships between close kin is more than that. Behind such personal intimacy or
animosity, villagers recognize another type of relationship that is more enduring than
such personal relations. For example, the bad relation between Cunlu, his son and
daughter-in-law was a result of personal interactions, but no one in the village would
deny that a special type of relationship still existed between them. Similarly, the kinship
relationship between brothers in conflicts over parental support was also not terminated
with such conflicts. Villagers still saw them as close kin. In fact, even though they had
conflicts with each other, they still had to cooperate with each other to take care of their
parents, carry out parents’ funerals and perform many other rituals together. Even after
the two nephews almost killed their uncle, they were still seen as close kin. These facts
show that “Kinship is … the perduring condition of the possibility of its (unstable)
practice” (Sahlins, 2011a: 6).
Indeed, when a villager is born in Jinan Village, he or she is not born into a social
vacuum. In fact, he or she is born into an existing matrix of relationships. A person does
not need to create from scratch kinship relationships after he or she is born. He or she
15
already has a lot of relationships. Individual practices might help to maintain or disrupt
old relationships. New ones might be established through a person’s lifetime. But many
of these relationships are not subject to frequent changes by individual practices. Thus,
the fluid and transient relatedness based on interpersonal empathy, emphasized by postSchneider approaches, is inadequate in describing experience of kinship in Jinan Village.
However, we are not returning to the classic models that take consanguinity as the
determining factor in kinship relationships. Evidence from Jinan Village confirms Sahlins’
arguments that even such enduring system of relations is not equal to biological
reproduction (Sahlins, 2013), although biology is a factor in such a relationship, as “qin
sheng gu rou,” (bone and flesh of one’s own birth) carries a lot of weight for villagers. In
the village, relationship created by adoption has almost the same status as that produced
by biological reproduction. In contrast, although biologically speaking daughters and
sons are in the same relationship to parents, people do not see it that way in Jinan Village.
The relationship between parents and sons is seen as much more important than that
between parents and daughters. Parents do not normally take daughters’ children as
members of their family. This is why many people still try every means to have a son. On
the other hand, when a family does not have a son, a married-in son-in-law would take
16
the position of a son. In such a case, the daughter’s children would be taken as members
of the family. These cases show that even patrilineal descent, which used to be seen as
biologically determined, is to a large extent socially and culturally constructed.
If neither the post-Schneider models nor the pre-Schneider models are adequate in
understanding kinship in the Chinese context, what about Sahlins’ model of mutuality of
being? Examining kinship in Jinan Village, we will find that the concept of mutuality of
being does not seem to achieve what it is supposed to. As has been discussed in the
previous section, the concept of mutuality of being is intended to integrate the fluid and
transient personal relations and the perduring system of relations into one single
phenomenon. For this purpose, Sahlins emphasizes the “intersubjective” nature of kinship
relations and sees mutuality of being as a kind of “intrinsic attachment” (Sahlins, 2011a:
11) between persons, who belong to each other and participate in each other’s existence.
But for such interpersonal empathy to serve as the building block of the enduring system,
the two parties have to share the same emotional feelings towards each other and such
shared emotional feelings have to traverse time and contexts.
17
In Jinan Village, we do see examples of such “intrinsic attachment.” The daughter-in-law
who is praised by everyone does create in her everyday practice a kind of “intrinsic
attachment” between her and her parents-in-law. She likes her in-laws and her in-laws
love her. In fact, people can build very intimate relationship with each other, to the extent
that they feel as part of each other. But it is doubtful that this “intrinsic attachment” forms
the perduring system in Sahlin’s model, since such emotional attachment might be
changed and even completely terminated as a result of interpersonal interactions. When
brothers who used to be in good relations came into conflicts due to their disagreements
on parental support, previous intimate and warm attachments to each other would
disappear. Even parents and children who have cultivated such “intrinsic attachment” can
later hate each other. The case of Cunlu and his son provides a good example. When
Cunlu’s son defied his authority and joined the latter’s wife, there was an obvious
incompatibility in their emotional attachment toward each other. While the father
expected the son to be more attached to him, the son’s practice revealed his stronger
attachment to his wife and children. When the two nephews intended to kill their uncle,
the nephews hated the uncle instead of revealing any emotional attachment to him. At
least in such cases, the emotional attachment to each other, emphasized by Sahlins and
applauded by Carsten (2013) at the beginning of her comments on Sahlins’ new concept,
18
was not shared by parties involved. But their kinship relationship, in the eyes of villagers,
did not change. Father and son not on good terms would not change the fact that they are
still close kin. Brothers, even in bad relations, are still seen as brothers. Even daughtersin-law who have driven parents-in-law away from their homes are still seen as the latter’s
daughters-in-law.
These cases show that the enduring system is not equal to the “intrinsic attachment,” as
Sahlins has claimed. It is not the biological relationship either, as has been discussed
above. Then what is it? In fact, it is actually what villagers believe the relationship should
be. In other words, such an enduring system of relations exists in the form of collective
consciousness of villagers, forming part of the moral cosmology and cultural value in the
village. The above evidence shows that in such a moral cosmology, emotional feelings
toward each other, be it love or hatred, and the personal relations out of such feelings
would not change the meaning of the enduring relationships between kin. Such enduring
relationships derive their meaning from the communal moral cosmology and cultural
value, which are historical products but are conservative and resistant to rapid changes.
19
These two kinds of relationship are not completely independent of each other. In fact, this
enduring system of relations, as part of the moral values upheld collectively by members
of the community, regulates everyday practices that help to build personal relations. But
this regulation is not equal to mechanic determination, as personality, personal
backgrounds and other individualistic factors can all come into play in the process of
personal interactions and thus personal relations can vary greatly in the context of the
same enduring system of kinship relations.
Both personal relations and the enduring system of kinship relationship are subjective in
nature. While the former takes an intersubjective existence, the latter exists in the form of
collective subjectivity of the community. But that does not mean that kinship in Jinan
Village is completely subjective. In fact, these two forms of subjective relationships
seldom exist without their substantive manifestations. Frequent interactions fulfilling
moral mutual obligations are substantive manifestations of the enduring relationships
between kin. A house, a shared stove, shared budget and a group of people living under
the same roof are but the material forms of what we call family.
20
But that does not mean that substantive manifestations are mechanically determined by
such enduring relationships. In fact, the same kind of enduring relationship might have
different substantive manifestations. This is best revealed by the change of family
structure in the past century. In pre-Communist time, parents used to hold their married
children together before their own death. They shared houses and meals, collaborated in
work and shared the same budget. But during the communist rule, this family structure
was gradually replaced by small conjugal families, each with their own houses and their
own budget (Davis and Harrell, 1993; Whyte, 2003). But people’s idea of relationships
between close kin has not been changed that dramatically.
The substantive manifestations of personal relations see much greater diversity. Gifts
between each other, mutual help in child care, sharing special meals and support and aid
in farm work are all important substantive manifestations of intimate personal relation,
while lack of interactions will be clear signs of bad relation. Different people might use
different material forms to represent and construct intimate relations.
If we see kinship as a complex matrix of phenomena, both material and subjective, as
well as both intersubjective and multi-subjective, we will have a much better life. The
21
fluid and dynamic intersubjective relations are part of this cultural complex. The more
enduring and rigid (but not fixed) relationships are part of it too. Even the social
organizations in the classic version of kinship are but one aspect of this complex social
and cultural matrix.
Kinship and the wufu segment
An outsider who lives in the village for a while would easily recognize the existence of
small agnatic groups that villager call zi ji jia de, literally meaning “my own family.”
Such a group roughly covers the range of agnatic kin traditionally defined by wufu
(Freedman, 1958, 1970a). When villagers talk about their relationships with close agnates,
they often say, “We are still within wufu.” While in Confucian classics wufu refers to
five types of mourning dresses that mourners are supposed to wear to mourn the dead,
and degrees of relatedness to the dead these dresses symbolize, people in Jinan Village
only use wufu to refer to relationship along the patrilineal line extending to people
sharing a great great grand father (For discussions of wufu in English literature, please
see: Baker, 1979: 107–113; Chao, 1983: 158–174; H Feng, 1967: 38–43). For
convenience, I would call such a group “Wufu Segment.”
22
Various rituals, such as weddings, funerals, and celebrations of new births, provide
obvious evidence of the existence of such groups. The wedding of a boy was one of the
most important events for a family. A lot of relatives and friends would be invited. While
only very close affinal relatives would be invited, all agnatic relatives from the wufu
segment are obligated to be present at the event. Agnates are treated not as guests, but are
supposed to help and play various ritualistic roles. Cooking, serving and other duties are
undertaken mostly by those agnatic relatives. Many ritualistic roles also have to be filled
by senior agnatic relatives. A girl’s wedding cannot dispense with the help from members
of the wufu segment too. The bride has to be accompanied at her wedding by a large
group of relatives, among whom members from the wufu segment form the majority.
Funeral is yet another important event showing the solidarity of such a group. When an
elder in such a group passes away, all juniors in the group are supposed to attend the
funeral. White mourning dresses are passed out to all members junior to the deceased. In
addition to helping with chores at the funeral, these agnates play important ritual services.
They are supposed to wait at the mourning hall wearing the mourning dress all day long.
Whenever a guest comes to mourn the dead, these agnates will accompany him/her to
23
perform the ritual. In Jinan Village, funeral rituals normally continue for three days until
the deceased was sent to the family graveyard and buried there. All junior members of the
group are supposed to participate in the parade sending the dead to the graveyard.
Participating in rituals together leads to more interactions between members of a group
and helps people in the group to establish closer relations. But interactions between
members of the group go beyond participation in rituals. Traditionally, members of the
same group tended to live close to each other geographically. As a result, children in the
group were often playmates to each other. Growing up together, it was common for
agnates of similar ages in the group to have closer relations with each other. Mutual help
between families in the groups has also been very common. Building a house is a very
good example. Only 20 years ago, most houses in the village were not built by
contractors, but with free labor contributed by relatives and friends. Although people who
helped were not limited to agnates within the wufu segment, relatives in the group most
often did provide more reliable sources of help.
Such interactions, or “laiwang” in Stafford’s term (2000), will certainly help to cultivate
close relations among group members. That is, “laiwang” might produce a kind of
24
“relatedness” between people involved (Carsten, 2000b; Stafford, 2000). But Stafford, in
advocating for the native concept of “laiwang,” intends to overcome the overemphasis on
patrilinity in anthropological studies of Chinese kinship and transcend the distinction
between kinship relationship and other kinds of relatedness in Chinese society. The
“relatedness” produced through “laiwang” is seen as a continuum of relations
“comprising everything from the most formal relations of descent, to the least formal
relations of, say, secret friendship…” (Stafford, 2000: 75). This concept is valuable in that it
does help to reveal what is missing in traditional researches on social life in China. But the
problem also arises from abandoning the distinction between kinship and other relations in
Chinese communities. A question we might ask is whether there are any special relations
that differ from other types of relations and might be called kinship. If there are, we might
hesitate in removing this distinction.
Evidence from Jinan Village shows that wufu segment entails some relationships that differ
from those between friends, neighbors, classmates, etc. At a wedding, a lot of guests will
be present. But ritualistic roles are always played by relatives, particularly agnatic
relatives from the wufu segment. No matter how close and firm the friendship is, friends
attending the wedding cannot play these roles. This distinction is even more obvious at
funerals. Friends of the family of the deceased might come to pay respect to the dead, but
25
they will never put on the mourning dress and sit on the benches in front of the coffin to
play the mourning rituals. These duties are solely reserved for agnates of the dead within
the same wufu segment. Early morning on the Chinese New Year’s day, juniors always
first kowtowed to seniors within their own wufu segment before paying respect to other
people. Although it is true that some people have closer personal relations with friends,
neighbors or classmates than with their relatives within their wufu segments, they never
confuse the latter type of relationship with other types.
But what is the nature of this kinship relationship? Families of a wufu segment often
share the same version of ancestral scroll, with all deceased ancestors of the wufu
segment recorded and arranged in genealogical order. This seems to show that patrilineal
descent is the principle behind the unity of such a group. But patrilineal descent is not
equal to biological relations. The compositions of many wufu segments in Jinan Village
show that biology is not the only factor in the genealogical relationship. Some families
only had daughters. A daughter was kept home, with a son-in-law married in. She and her
husband’s sons would continue the family line. Their descendants are seen as members of
the wufu segment, with no difference in rights and obligations. There are also members
who have been adopted from families of different surnames, yet these members are
26
regarded equally as members of the group. Although biologically they do not satisfy the
patrilineal principle of Chinese genealogy, culturally they do. Such evidence shows that
sexual reproduction along the patrilineal line is only one way to realize this principle of
patrilinity. Adoption and marrying in a son-in-law are also acceptable alternatives.
As has been discussed in last section, the concept of mutuality of being proposed by
Sahlins takes “intrinsic attachment” as the defining feature of kinship relationship. But
evidence from the village shows that such “intrinsic attachment” is not the basis of the
unity of a wufu segment, as the lack of it between some members does not make any
difference to membership of the group. Frequent interactions between members of a wufu
segment can produce very good relationship between members, to the extent of mutual
attachment to each other, but such interactions can also give rise to conflicts. For example,
two families in a wufu segment were once in a very bad relationship, as one of the
families suspected that a child of the other family stole their money. For a couple of years,
members of the two families did not even talk to each other. They definitely did not feel
attached to each other. But that did not prevent them from being members of the same
group. They still performed rituals together, although reluctantly. People still saw them as
close kin, although everyone in the village knew they were not in good relationship. In
27
fact, personal relations within a wufu segment can vary greatly from persons to persons
and from time to time. Conflicts and quarrels are not uncommon. Whether in good or bad
relations, members are seen in the village as forming a group that plays very important
functions and is of great significance to people’s life in the village. Thus, such
intersubjective emotional attachment is not a defining feature of the relationship that
holds a wufu segment together. The concept of mutuality of being, emphasizing the
“intrinsic attachment,” does not provide a good explanation for the relationships between
members of a wufu segment in Jinan Village.
If what holds a wufu segment together is neither the relatedness constructed out of
everyday interactions, nor biological patrilinity, nor mutuality of being, then what is it? I
would argue that we should turn to the communal subjectivity, instead of intersubjectivity,
to understand what holds the wufu segment together as a socially meaningful group. In
other words, the perduring system of relations that helps to define the wufu segment
exists in the collective consciousness of the community as part of the moral and belief
system of the community. Thus, instead of merely looking at the natural processes of
biological procreation, personal interactions or interpersonal emotional attachment, we
28
need to examine the communal subjectivity, i.e. how villagers understand social relations,
as this is the only source of meaning for social relations.
Every wufu segment has a shared version of ancestral scroll. It shows the apical ancestor,
all deceased members of the group and the patrilineal genealogical relationships among
them. For Jinan Villagers, like people in other places of China (Hsu, 1971; Lang, 1946),
their relationship with their ancestors never ends with the decease of the latter. The living
still needs to continue to take care of the dead and the dead can use their supernatural
power to protect the living. The relationship between the living is just derived from their
relations with the dead. The shared rights and obligations toward common ancestors are
the basis of the kinship relationship within the wufu segment. Having descendants take
care of their afterlife is put at the highest priority by most villagers. When there are no
biologically patrilineal descendants, taking other options will be the next best. An
adoptive son can fulfill the obligations towards the adoptive parents in the same way as a
biological son towards his biological parents. In this sense, an adoptive son is no different
from a biological son. As far as they share the same rights and obligations toward
common ancestors, whether biological or social, these people are seen as intrinsically
related to each other. Personal relations between these people might be good or bad, but
29
that would make no difference to the intrinsic relationship held by the communal belief
system.
This does not mean that such communally believed relationship is the only aspect of
kinship at the level of wufu segment. It should be admitted that personal relations among
members are also a very important aspect of wufu segment. But such everyday practices
happen within the context of the perduring system of relations (Sahlins, 2013).
Substantive manifestations of such relations are also very important aspects of kinship at
this level. They can be behavioral, material or institutional. Shared ancestral scrolls,
graveyards, rituals performed, and ritualistic or everyday interactions between people,
mentioned above, are all important aspects of social life that fall within the category that
we might call kinship. Missing any of these aspects will compromise our understanding
of Chinese kinship.
The Agnatic kinship group
For Jinan Villagers, the “intrinsic” relationship based on the principle of patrilinity is not
only limited to close kin and those within a wufu segment. It can extend to more distant
kin. Such a relationship is symbolized by shared ancestral temples and ritualistic
30
activities collectively performed by the Songs, who are patrilineal descendants of a man
who came to this village in 1404, according to genealogical records.
On the main street of Jinan Village, there are three ancestral temples. Two temples are
still used today by two branches of the Songs in Jinan Village. An old temple, no longer
in use, is the shared property of the Songs in Jinan Village and in the neighboring Tiger
King Village. The latter branch of the Songs has their own ancestral temple in their own
village. Before the Cultural Revolution that started in 1966, the old temple used to be the
focus of ancestor worship during the Chinese New Year. Ancestral rituals first began in
this temple before they happened in other temples. The day before the Chinese New Year,
representatives of all three branches would go to the tomb of the apical ancestor to invite
him and all his dead male descendants and their wives to come back to the village to
enjoy the holiday with the living. Taking burning incense from the tomb back to the old
temple and put it into an incense furnace, the ancestral scroll, recording all the deceased
starting from the apical ancestor, would be put up on the wall, symbolizing the presence
of ancestors. Then representatives from three branches of the Songs would use the
burning incense to light new ones and took them to their own branch temples to perform
31
similar rituals. Individual families would send representatives to their branch temples to
invite their own ancestors back home in a similar way.
Collective ancestor worship ceremonies would be held at each ancestral temple on the
morning of the Chinese New Year. In the next 15 days, males would take turns staying in
temples making regular offerings. On the 16th of the first month, people on duty at the
temples would make their last offerings before noon, and send ancestors off by burning
incense and making offerings outside the village. Returning to the temple, they would
take off the ancestral scroll, roll it up, put it into a box, and hang it to the ceiling of the
temple.
Such rituals were forbidden during the Cultural Revolution. All temples were used as
village offices and storage houses. But in the 1990s, all temples, except for the Old
Temple, were repaired or reconstructed and rituals were restored. But the Songs in the
two villages have never been able to come together to have the old temple repaired. Since
the 1990s, rituals have only been performed at the three branch temples. That is, the
three branches are now holding their own rituals separately. But sometimes they do show
their recognition of their relationship. In the first few years after rituals were restored, the
32
Songs in the two villages sent representatives to visit each other’s temple, paying respect
to their collateral relatives.
Construction, reconstruction, and maintenance of temples and organizing rituals need
leadership. According to villagers, the man who is the oldest in the most senior
generation among living members is the official head of the agnatic group (zu zhang).
The man second to him in seniority is the deputy head (jia zhang). Officially these two
men are the ones responsible for the management of all affairs of the group. But these
official leaders are not necessarily able to provide the leadership needed, as most of them
would be very old by the time they assume the positions and even if they are not old, they
might not have the capability needed for such leadership. They often have to be assisted
by capable people who are enthusiastic on public affairs. Together, they would make
arrangement for the rituals and mobilize resources for projects of construction and
maintenance. Instead of having shared leadership, the three branches now have their own
heads and associate heads.
The above descriptions clearly show that there has been some degree of unity among the
Songs. But this kind of unity among distant kin has not been much recognized in
33
Sinological anthropology. Influenced by Freedman’s lineage model, most classic studies
see corporate estates as the cause for the unity of Chinese lineages (Baker, 1968; Faure,
2007; Freedman, 1958, 1966; Pasternak, 1972). Kin groups without corporate estates, like
that in Jinan Village, have not been regarded as lineages and thus received little scholarly
attention (Chun, 1996; Freedman, 1958, 1966). But this emphasis on the role of corporate
estates in unifying kinship groups has been challenged by historians, with the fact that
even many lineages with large estates in later days had not possessed such estates in its
early days (J Chang, 1999; Ebrey, 1986; Faure, 2007; E Feng et al., 2009). Thus,
possession of large estates was actually the consequence of agnatic cohesion rather than
its cause (Ebrey, 1986; J L Watson, 1986). Cohen (1990) might be right in his argument
that there is no advantage in keeping the distinction between lineage and other descent
groups. Thus, the unity of distant kin within groups without corporate estates is equally
worthy of investigation. But to avoid confusion, I would call such groups as Agnatic
Kinship Groups.
Behind this emphasis on the role of corporate estates, Freedman’s lineage model of
Chinese kinship shares with its African predecessor the same assumption: descent is the
most important principle in structuring kin groups. From this perspective, Chinese
34
lineages are assumed to be structured with relations produced by the natural process of
biological procreation. Indeed, in Jinan Village, a glance at the ancestral scrolls hung on
the wall of the ancestral halls will lead one to realize that this is a kin group built on the
basis of patrilineal descent. Recordings on the scrolls show that the Songs are all
patrilineal descendants of the apical ancestor who came to this village 600 years ago. But
my ethnographic data have shown that the actual biological relationship is much complex
than ancestral scrolls show. As has been discussed in last section, adoption has been very
common. Similar to the case of wufu segments, being adopted would not disqualify a
person as a member of this large agnatic kinship group. Keheng and Liheng were two
examples. These two men were cousins, but they were not biological cousins as they
were both adopted. Keheng has already passed away and his name has already been
entered as son of his adoptive father into the genealogical chart on the ancestral scroll of
the ancestral temple. The same would happen to Keheng after he passes away in the
future. Their descendants have equal rights and obligations, treated the same as all other
people in the group, although they are not biologically related to other people in the
group.
35
Adultery has been another factor distorting the supposedly biological patrilineal descent.
Almost every older people know that Lansheng is the biological son of Wushi. In the
1940s, Lansheng’s father Xide deserted Lansheng’s mother and went to live with a
widow in the same village. Lansheng’s mother received a lot of help from Wushi, a
bachelor living next door. The resemblance in appearance between Lansheng and Wushi
clearly showed the real relationship. But genealogically, Lansheng was still recorded as
Xide’s son.
These facts show that patrilineal descent in Jinan Village is not equal to biological
procreation. But that does not mean that patrilineal descent is something that people can
shape and reshape at will. As Sahlins has argued, enduring kinship system provides the
context for practice to happen (2013a). Similar to Inuit people who can make choices in
relations they are in but do not have the freedom to change the behavioral codes of such
relations, people in Jinan Village might be able to bring different kinds of people into
patrilineal relationship, but they might not be able to change the meaning and codes of
behavior implied by patrilineal descent.
36
Then what is the nature of this enduring system of meaning and codes of behavior in
Jinan Village that have unified people who are already more than 20 generations removed
from each other, if we accept that it is not determined by biological procreation?
Obviously, the unity of such a group is not dependent on personal relations constructed
out of everyday practice either. As this is a group that incorporates a lot of people, many
of them do not have many chances to interact with each other on a daily basis. But that
does not change the fact that they are seen as members of the same lineage and thus
related to each other. Therefore, the concept of “relatedness” created by “laiwang”
cannot explain the relationship that binds the agnatic kinship group together.
Furthermore, the relationship that holds members together as an agnatic kinship group is
not only enduring through the life time of members of the group, but often extends
through generations of people. In Jinan Village, no one had any idea when the Songs
began to be unified as an agnatic kinship group, but a stone tablet kept at the old temple
records the genealogy of the Songs from the apical ancestor down to the thirteenth
generation, taking the same format as that of ancestral scrolls hung on the wall of
ancestral temples of the Songs during the Chinese New Year. The Inscriptions on the
37
stone tablet date it to the 19th year of the Kangxi Reign (1680). It means that at least from
that time on, the Songs have been organized as an active agnatic kinship group and
recognized kin relationship among them. The unity of such an organization that spans
generations and generations of people cannot be based on relations that are constructed
out of everyday interactions between people, as the latter type of relations could easily
change through time and across contexts, and can disappear with the death of parties
involved.
Neither can this perduring system of relations that hold such an organization together be
the “intrinsic attachment” that Sahlins sees as essential to mutuality of being, and thus the
definition of kinship. As has been discussed in previous sections, this “intrinsic
attachment,” if understood as intersubjective emotional feelings, is inherently transient
and fluid. While it might be an essential part of the “relatedness” constructed in everyday
life, it cannot be the basis of the perduring system of relations that can unify a social
organization for centuries.
In regards to the relationship between a descent group and its members, Sahlins uses the
examples of “the kinship I” to illustrate the attachment that members have toward the
group they belong. But the problem is whether all members have the same emotional
38
attachment to the same group. In Jinan Village, apparently it is always older people who
have more enthusiasm over the agnatic kinship group. After the Cultural Revolution, it
was older people who devoted time and efforts to the construction of the temples and the
restoration of rituals. Nowadays at the Chinese New Year, it is mostly older people who
gather at ancestral temples for the rituals. In contrast, young people take the agnatic
kinship group less seriously. If anyone in Jinan village had used “the kinship I” to
represent their attachment towards the group, it might be older people instead of younger
people. But such difference in emotional attachment to the group does not make any
difference in their affiliation with the group. No matter showing more or less emotional
attachment to it, they are all seen as members of the group by villagers.
Based on these facts, I would argue that the basis of the perduring system of relations is
neither intersubjective emotional feelings nor biological relations, but a communal belief
in an intrinsic relationship. In other words, such an intrinsic relationship, instead of being
objective or intersubjective, is multi-subjective, existing in the collective consciousness
of the community.
39
What is this communally believed relationship? Chun (1996) has pointed out that, zong
zu, the Chinese term for patrilineal agnatic kinship groups, has been closely related to
ancestor worship, with the first character zong literally meaning worshipping ancestors.
This close connection between Chinese agnatic kinship groups and ancestor worship is
supported by historians who see ancestor worship rituals as the causes for the cohesion of
agnates (Ebrey, 1986; Faure, 2007; E Feng et al., 2009). Chinese belief in intrinsic
connections with ancestors has a long history. Archeological evidence has shown that
ancestor worship might have been practiced in China as early as the Neolithic age (L Liu,
2000). Historical and archaeological records all show that connections with ancestors
have been emphasized by the royal houses, nobles and commoners through the long
history of China (E Feng et al., 2009; Keightley, 2000). From Ming Time, ancestral
temples and collective ancestor worship became common with the promotions by neoConfucian scholars, who saw ancestor worship as an important part of filial piety towards
ancestors (Ebrey and J L Watson, 1986; Ebrey, 1986; Faure, 2007; E Feng et al., 2009).
These facts show that the belief in inalienable relationship between ancestors and
descendants has always been part of Chinese culture.
40
Villagers’ belief in intrinsic connections with ancestors can clearly be revealed by a story
behind the revival of rituals of the agnatic kinship group. In the early 1990s, Shanlin fell
sick. He tried many doctors, but none could cure his disease. He suspected that there must
be something unusual behind it. He remembered that when the ancestral scroll in the east
ancestral temple was destroyed during the Cultural Revolution, he was the person on duty.
That means the ancestral scroll was destroyed in his hands. He suspected that it might be
ancestors who would like him to do something to make up for his fault. He decided to
have ancestral scrolls restored and the ancestral temple repaired.
As he was just a common member of the agnatic kinship group, he could not have it done
by himself. He had to approach the most important people among the group. These
include the eldest of the most senior generation of the living. A man occupying such a
position is naturally seen as Head of the agnatic kinship group. Although this effort is
actually initiated by Shanlin, but officially only the Head has the right to launch such a
project. Shanlin visited capable and respectable people in the agnatic kinship group one
by one to seek their support. Finally they all agreed that something needed to be done.
With much effort, they had a grand ancestral scroll drawn, the temple rebuilt and most
rituals restored. Shanlin finally felt that he had fulfilled his obligations towards ancestors.
41
Such inalienable relationship with ancestors and intrinsic relationship established among
descendants form part of the moral cosmology of the Songs in Jinan Village. It is such a
relationship with common ancestors that gives rise to relations among agnates. Whether
their personal relations are intimate or not, an intrinsic relationship thus established is
seen as enduring and not subject to frequent changes at individual initiatives. Personal
intimacy alone would not bring individuals into such a relationship, and personal hatred
would not terminate such a connection either.
Seen from this perspective, temples, ancestral scrolls, and corporate estates are but
different substantive manifestations of the enduring relationship established based on the
principle of patrilinity. This principle and actual social, political and economic contexts
might produce historically different types of relations and social groups. Such groups
might have different substantive manifestations. The group in Jinan Village is one
example of such materialization of the enduring relationship and those groups with large
estates described by Freedman (Freedman, 1958, 1970a) form another type. Some other
groups might even function without temples and ancestral scrolls. Yet, all these are but
different manifestations of the same principle of association. Instead of seeing agnatic
42
groups in different places of China as totally different social organizations, we might see
them as different manifestations of the same kinship relationship.
Conclusion
In this essay, different models in kinship studies have been evaluated against evidence
from Jinan Village. It has been found that none of the important models in kinship studies,
including the biological model, the interactive model represented by the concept of
“relatedness” and Sahlins’ model of mutuality of being, are adequate in explaining
kinship experience in Jinan Village.
One cause for the inadequacy of these models is that despite their differences they all
have been trying to conceive of kinship as a single “thing.” For pre-Schneider scholars,
this “thing” is the relationship determined by biological procreation, while for postSchneider scholars it is the fluid, and dynamic personal relationship constructed in
everyday practice through human agency. Sahlins is no exception. He also assumes that
kinship is one single phenomenon with defining features, combining the opposing
features of enduring solidarity and transient fluidity. Evidence from Jinan Village has
shown that kinship is a complex matrix of social phenomena involving multiple
43
dimensions of subjectivity and objectivity. Seeing kinship as a single thing has prevented
good explanations for the different dimensions of this complex matrix. This might be one
of the reasons why Schneider said kinship was a non-subject, as he was not able to isolate
a single cultural entity as the subject of this field (Schneider, 1972).
In Jinan Village, there are different degrees of association among villagers that might fall
into what we usually call kinship. The most salient categories of associations that
villagers readily recognize in everyday life include the following: conjugal families of
close kin, including parents, adult children and siblings, the wufu segment, and the
agnatic kinship group. In spite of their differences, all these associations involve multiple
dimensions of connectedness. Close kin have regular and frequent interactions and are
more relying on each other. Intersubjective emotional attachment forms an important part
of such connectedness. But what binds these people together is more than that. No matter
whether they like each other or not, villagers still regard them as close kin. Thus, the
relationship held in communal belief is an essential part of such connectedness. Both of
these two types of connectedness have their substantive manifestations, taking behavioral,
material or institutional forms. Everyday interactions, such as caring for each other,
collaboration in works, etc. can help to build and manifests personal relations. Shared
44
houses and other properties, and family rituals, are good manifestations of the enduring
relationship.
By the same token, wufu segments also involve different dimensions of connectedness:
intersubjective relations and multi-subjective relations held in communal belief. While
the latter helps to delimit the range of such connectedness, the former forms an important
part of personal relations within the wufu segment. Rituals, shared ancestral scrolls and
graveyard are some of the substantive manifestations that reveal the existence of the wufu
segment as a socially meaningful institution and the enduring relationship it entails.
Collaborations, gift exchanges and other everyday interactions produce and manifest
intersubjective attachment.
The large agnatic kinship group involves fewer personal interactions. The relationship
between members is defined more by communal belief in their intrinsic connectedness.
Personal relations are less important than in the other two categories of associations. But
that does not mean that the enduring relations can automatically function without
personal interactions. In fact, all the rituals, organizing work, constructing and
maintaining temples and genealogy, and other practices cannot be realized without
45
personal interactions. The agnatic kinship group, with its rituals, shared temples,
ancestral scrolls, is the institutional manifestation of the enduring relationship. Rituals,
shared temples and ancestral scrolls are but its behavioral and material manifestations.
Thus, evidence from Jinan Village shows that kinship is a complex matrix of social
phenomena, with multiple dimensions in subjectivity and objectivity. Emphasizing any
aspect without taking into consideration other aspects will compromise the validity of the
model of interpretation. Based on evidence from Jinan Village, it can be seen that kinship
has subjective aspects in the form of both intersubjective attachment and multi-subjective
communal belief. It can also materialize into various behavioral, institutional and
material forms, which are substantive evidence for the existence of kinship relationship.
References
Ahern EM (1976) Segmentation in Chinese lineages: A view through written genealogies. American
Ethnologist, 3(1), 1–16.
Anderson EN (1970) Lineage atrophy in Chinese society. American Anthropologist, 72(2), 363–365.
46
Baker HDR (1968) Sheung Shui: A Chinese Lineage Village. London: Frank Cass & Co. Ltd.
Baker HDR (1979) Chinese Family and Kinship. London: Macmillan.
Carsten J (1995) The substance of kinship and the heat of the hearth: feeding, personhood, and relatedness
among Malays in Pulau Langkawi. American Ethnologist, 22(2), 223–241.
Carsten J (ed.) (2000a) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Carsten J (2000b) Introduction: cultures of relatedness. In: Carsten J (ed.), Cultures of Relatedness: New
Approaches to the Study of Kinship, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–36.
Carsten J (2004) After Kinship. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Carsten J (2011) Substance and relationality: blood in contexts. Annual Review of Anthropology, 40(1), 19–
35.
Carsten J (2013) What kinship does—and how. HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 3(2), 245–51.
Chang J (1999) Er shi yi shi ji de zong zu yan jiu (Researches on Chinese zong zu in the 21st century). Li
shi yan jiu (Historical Research), (5), 140–162.
Chang W-C (2012) Family ties, living arrangement, and marital satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies,
13(1), 1–19.
Chao P (1983) Chinese Kinship. London & Boston: K. Paul International.
Chun A (1996) The lineage-village complex in southeastern China: a long footnote in the anthropology of
kinship [and comments and reply]. Current Anthropology, 37(3), 429–450.
Cohen ML (1969) Agnatic kinship in south Taiwan. Ethnology, 8(2), 167–182.
Cohen ML (1976) House United, House Divided. New York: Columbia University Press.
Cohen ML (1990) Lineage organization in north China. The Journal of Asian Studies, 49(03), 509–534.
Cohen ML (2005) Lineage organization in east China. In: Kinship, Contract, Community and State:
Anthropological Perspectives on China, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 195–219.
Cong Z and Silverstein M (2012) Caring for grandchildren and intergenerational support in rural China: a
gendered extended family perspective. Ageing & Society, 32(03), 425–450.
47
Davis D and Harrell S (eds) (1993) Chinese Families in the Post-Mao Era. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Ebrey PB (1986) The early stages in the development of agnatic kinship group organization. In: Ebrey PB
and Watson JL (eds), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China, 1000–1940, Berkeley:
University of California Press, pp. 16–61.
Ebrey PB and Watson JL (eds) (1986) Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China, 1000-1940. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Faure D (2007) Emperor and Ancestor: State and Lineage in South China. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Feng E, Chang J, Zhu F, et al. (2009) zhong guo zong zu shi (History of Chinese Zong Zu). 1st ed.
Shanghai: Shanghai People’s Press.
Feng H (1967) The Chinese Kinship System. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Freedman M (1958) Lineage Organization in Southeastern China. London: The Athlone Press.
Freedman M (1966) Chinese Lineage and Society: Fukien and Kwangtung. Athlone P.
Freedman M (ed.) (1970a) Family and Kinship in Chinese Society. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Freedman M (1970b) Ritual aspects of Chinese kinship and marriage. In: Freedman M (ed.), Family and
Kinship in Chinese Society, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 163–188.
Gal S (2005) Language ideologies compared: metaphors of public/private. Journal of Linguistic
Anthropology, 15(1), 23–37.
Holy L (1996) Anthropological Perspectives on Kinship. Chicago: Pluto Press.
Hsu FLK (1971) Under the Ancestor’s Shadow : Kinship, Personality, and Social Mobility in China.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Jing J (2004) Meal rotation and filial piety. In: Ikels C (ed.), Filial Piety: Practice and Discourse in
Contemporary East Asia, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 53–62.
Judd ER (1989) Niangjia: Chinese women and their natal families. The Journal of Asian Studies, 48(3),
525–544.
Judd ER (1992) Land divided, land united. The China Quarterly, (130), 338–356.
48
Judd ER (2008) ‘Families we create’ : women’s kinship in rural China as spatialized practice. In:
Brandtstädter S and Santos GD (eds), Chinese Kinship : Contemporary Anthropological
Perspectives, Abingdon, UK: Routledge, pp. 29–47.
Judd ER (2010) Family strategies: fluidities of gender, community and mobility in rural west China. China
Quarterly, (204), 921–938.
Keightley DN (2000) The Ancestral Landscape: Time, Space, and Community in Late Shang China, Ca.
1200-1045 B.C. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley.
Lang O (1946) Chinese Family and Society. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lin Y (1947) The Golden Wing: A Sociological Study of Chinese Familiasm. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Liu L (2000) Ancestor worship: an archaeological investigation of ritual activities in neolithic north China.
Journal of East Asian Archaeology, 2(1/2), 129–164.
Pasternak B (1969) The role of the frontier in Chinese lineage development. The Journal of Asian Studies,
28(3), 551–561.
Pasternak B (1972) Kinship and Community in Two Chinese Villages. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Sahlins M (2011a) What kinship is (part one). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(1), 2–19.
Sahlins M (2011b) What kinship is (part two). Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 17(2), 227–
242.
Sahlins M (2013) What Kinship Is-And Is Not. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sangren PS (2013) The Chinese family as instituted fantasy: or, rescuing kinship imaginaries from the
‘symbolic’. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 19(2), 279–299.
Santos GD (2006) The anthropology of Chinese kinship: a critical overview. European Journal of East
Asian Studies, 5(2), 275–333.
Santos GD (2008) The ‘stove-family’ and the process of kinship in rural south China. In: Brandtstadter S
and Santos GD (eds), Chinese Kinship : Contemporary Anthropological Perspectives, Abingdon,
UK: Routledge, pp. 112–134.
Schneider DM (1972) What is kinship all about? In: Reining P (ed.), Kinship studies in the Morgan
Centennial Year, Washington, D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington D.C., pp. 32–63.
49
Schneider DM (1984) A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Selden M (1993) Family strategies and economic transformation in rural China: In: Davis D and Harrell S
(eds), Chinese Families in the Post-Mao Era, Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 139–
164.
Shi L (2009) ‘Little quilted vests to warm parents’ hearts’: redefining the gendered practice of filial piety in
rural north-eastern China. The China Quarterly, 198, 348–363.
Shi L (2010) Embracing a singleton-daughter: An emerging transition of reproductive choice in rural
northeast China. PhD Thesis, University of Tulane, United States
Song Z (2008) Flow into eternity: patriarchy, marriage and socialism in a north China village. PhD Thesis,
University of Southern California, United States.
Stacey J (1983) Patriarchy and Socialist Revolution in China. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Stafford C (2000) Chinese patriliny and the cycles of yang and laiwang. In: Carsten, J (ed), Cultures of
Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press, pp. 37–54.
Stone L (2004) Part II: introduction. In: Parkin R and Stone L (eds), Kinship and Family: An
Anthropological Reader, Blackwell anthologies in social and cultural anthropology, Malden, MA:
Blackwell Pub, pp. 241–256.
Strathern M (1992) After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge & New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Wang D (2010) Intergenerational transmission of family property and family management in urban China.
The China Quarterly, 204, 960–979.
Watson JL (1986) Anthropological overview: the development of Chinese agnatic kinship groups. In:
Ebrey PB and Watson JL (eds), Kinship Organization in Late Imperial China 1000-1940,
Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 274–292.
Watson RS (1982) The creation of a Chinese lineage: the Teng of Ha Tsuen, 1669-1751. Modern Asian
Studies, 16(1), 69–100.
Whyte MK (1992) Introduction: rural economic reforms and Chinese family patterns. The China Quarterly,
(130), 317–322.
Whyte MK (2003) China’s Revolutions and Intergenerational Relations. Center for Chinese Studies,
University of Michigan.
50
Wolf AP and Huang C (1980) Marriage and Adoption in China, 1845-1945. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Wolf M (1968) The House of Lim: A Study of a Chinese Farm Family. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Wolf M (1984) Marriage, Family, and the State in Contemporary China. Pacific Affairs, 57(2), 213–236.
Wolf M (1985) Revolution Postponed: Women in Contemporary China. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Yan Y (2003) Private Life Under Socialism: Love, Intimacy, and Family Change in a Chinese Village,
1949-1999. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Yanagisako SJ and Collier JF (1987) Toward a unified analysis of gender and kinship. In: Collier JF and
Yanagisako SJ (eds), Gend and Kinship: Essays towards a Unified Analysis, Stanford: Stanford
University Press, pp. 14–50,
Yang CK (1959) The Chinese Family in the Communist Revolution. Cambridge, MA: Technology Press,
MIT.
Yang M (1945) A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province. New York: Columbia University Press.
Zhang W and Wang Y (2010) Meal and residence rotation of elderly parents in contemporary rural
northern China. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology, 25(3), 217–37.
51