24/7 Customer support here

Lineage and physiological characteristics are the foremost basics in identifying kinship

   Evolutionist, Lewis Henry Morgan (1871) tried to establish that by comparing systems of kin classification, one could reveal the path of cultural evolution, on the notion that contemporary usages of non-western people were survivals of earlier stages of society. In this view, the Hawaiian system, in which the same kin term is used for all relatives of common sex and generation, originated from the earliest stratum of human experience, that of group marriage. This "consanguine family," Morgan felt, had originated in plural marriages including own brothers and sisters hence Morgan presumed that kinship ultimately referred to biological relations. Although Morgan's work was one of the first to recognize kinship amongst other societies, it is nonetheless out dated. Moreover, Morgan may have been influenced by the enlightenment period, thus his methodology may have been biased in understanding kinship.

   Symbolic interactionist David Schneider rejected the presumption that kinship relationships are biological/reproductive relations and advocated that these presumptions were used as a universal genealogical grid, and made allegedly relevant to all cultures. The presumed biological reproductive basis has been introduced, he suggests, since "kinship has been defined by European social scientists, and European social scientists use their own folk culture as the source of many, if not all, of their ways of formulating and understanding the world about them" (Schneider 1984:193).

   Therefore Scnheider argues that sex is only referred to when they are referred to as metaphors, for example, wesitamental demonstrates that for zumbaugaua's the bond of blood signifies the emblem of parenthood and those who eat and live together (Weismental, 693)

   Schneider presumed that common presumption of kinship amongst American society is based on scientific research, hence from Schneider's viewpoint (Schneider,1964;393), America's reference to kinship ultimately refers to that of bio-genetic relations, hence the remaining of blood is culturally defined as being an objective fact of nature. Therefore the western fetishism with law advocated that genealogically related kin will always remain. Schneider illustrates the importance of the blood relations amongst the American law through his analysis of American kin terminology "ex". For example, when a person is describing a previous terminated affinal relationship, it is referred to as ex-husband or ex-sister-in-law. However, when one is describing a consanguine relationship, the term ex, in regards to a child's genitor or genetrix is not used, thus ex-mother or ex-father are not recognized. Therefore using 'ex' with only affinal terms suggests that by American law, a relationship with consanguine kin cannot be terminated due to the genetic connection, thus Schneider identified the importance of blood ties within the American system.

   However, Schneider is critical of this 'universal' usage of terminology especially when anthropologists carry out cross cultural studies and try to establish the social function of kinship groups. His study of the Island of yap demonstrates how using a universal kinship terminology whilst applying it to other societies could be misleading. For example, the yaps did not specify genealogical relationship as non-relatives and often the same term used for genealogical brother was also applied to a non-genealogical relationship (Kuper, 126). Therefore if the dichotomous terms of blood-ties and non-blood ties are applied to other kinship groups than this could be misleading as what the brother in Euro-American culture refer to blood ties may not refer to blood ties in another. Therefore Schneider is correct to point out that anthropologists should be careful of what they use in regards to their analysis of kinship terminology.

   Thomas suggests that if procreation and reproduction are to be presumed as 'real' kinship relations then these terms should be examined rather than presumed (Thomas, 1999;21). For example, substance can refer to not only sperm, but blood, saliva and breast milk (Thomas, 1999; 22). For example, when a nurse shares her breast milk with the infant, she is biologically transferring a substance, therefore if one would to understand kinship in terms of substance, she would also be seen as the child's 'real' or 'natural' mother. This illustrates that Thomas is right in suggesting substance can be misleading in itself therefore does not give a fixed definition of kinship. Furthermore, Turner advocates that it is not actually the solid substance that determines the relationship between of kin in terms of biology, but it is rather the action of 'transferring' the substance which establishes the relationship thus, the biological nature of kin has to be initiated by an action, thus making it cultural. Although it can be argued that ancestry includes blood relations, this could also be misleading in and exemplify ethnocentric bias.

   However, affinal links seems to widen kinship patterns and the eternal bond can be maintained through marriage laws. However, by having children substance is passed genealogically and so bond is made 'forever' and beyond, because new blood kin is created, culture has become genetic. Nevertheless, it is difficult to undermine what is more important in term of kinship and marriage. Is it important that a genealogical substance has been passed into the child or is it because a cultural importance of marriage has been symbolized? .

   In Western Society, being a genetic father entitles to rights to the child, in this case no social ritual is necessary in order to have rights towards law. However, it has been found that those who exercise such rights and express such obligations are those who are usually physiologically connected (Barnard 1994;792 cited in Heady & Loizos,2000;5). Neverthelees, maintenance payments are the minimum a biological father has to do, therefore even in western societies kinship in biological terms alone is not enough, as nurturing is required in order to establish a kinship relationship. Thus kinship although legally defined by blood ties, entails culture too. This is further exemplified by Edwards and Strathern's (2000) ethnography on Alltown in England and how kinship ties were defined by being biologically part of a family, but in order to sustain that status, one must be socially there for others. It was also perceived that the biological ties could be cut by moving away from the native family. This would suggest, that in Western society doing is based on a form of being, creating a relationship of cause and effect (Weston, 1995,pp. 87f).

   Furthermore, if Kinship relations are based on the notion of procreation than why is it that a flexible kinship group, 'chosen family', consisting of lovers, ex-lovers and friends, are based on voluntary relations, which can easily be dropped out of (Weston, 1995,p.94). Homosexual relationships are based on the belief that this is culturally and not natural therefore kinship in this perspective is not biologically determined but is performed under choice through cultural bonds (Weston, 1995, p. 93). Cultural takes the precedence here, for the kinship group rest upon those sharing a social relationship and not that of substance. While nurture takes on the role of performing kinship, in legal terms what has happened is the affirmation of being as prime denominator of kinship. For an adoption is taking up a child into one's own family and making it a part of it, giving it the same surname and pretending it to be one's own child.

   In China, Stafford (2000) observed a similar notion of caring for others, which forms kinship. Marriage is exogamous, where the female moves out and become a servant to the husband's family (Stafford,2000;41). Her children become the property of the patrilineal family she has moved into. Upon leaving her native family's residence she performs a ritual to break her ties with her family and moves to her husband. There she practices the concept of "yang", to care for and work for her husband's and now her new family. The performative act of caring supersedes the "natural" kinship ties, because the foster parents, also called yang mother/father, create descent through 'yang' (Stafford,2000;42). Therefore anyone who provides yang can become a relative. Conversely a failure of providing 'yang' can cause termination of relations of descent. Thus Stafford concludes that "in China, as elsewhere, people make kinship" (Stafford, 2000;52). Therefore the cultural act is what determines the relationship in kinship. This performing of kinship is epitomized by a traditional Chinese custom, a spiritual marriage. If, for instance the only son in a family dies young, his spirit may be married to a woman, who then moves in with his family and adopts a child which will continue the lineage.1 Although a very uncommon practice, it depicts the incorporation of substance becoming related to cultural kinship. The performance is based on the relationship between a dead spouse, who spiritually procreates with his wife in order to sustain a lineage. This is similar to Nuer 'ghost marriage', in which the widow remains married to her dead husband and, after his death, can continue to perform her reproductive obligations to her lineage by bearing him children through having sexual intercourse with a stranger or by one of his brothers. Nevertheless, both Stafford's study and Evans-Pritchard studies illustrate the centrality and the importance of procreation in kinship, even though it is on a pretense term.

   However, Thomas (1999;27) advocates that for Temanambrando's, procreation is not considered as important in determining what is ultimately a kinship relationship, therefore the subject should not be given as much emphasis. Instead the per formative father is regarded as more prestigious. Fatherhood is established through the marriage ritual. The rite of 'fafy', a sacrifice of a zebu, gives the man the right as performing as the child's legitimate father of the woman's children, regardless whether he is the biological genitor (Thomas, 1999;34). What might be interpreted as an adoption, might not carry all the notions of adoption in Western societies, the child attains the father's ancestry, or name. Therefore it is not coitus that makes the father but the ritual itself (Thomas, 1999;34) The reality of the kinship ties is based on their cultural norms and values. However, just because the temanbondro's do not have a clear perception of conception and paternity does not mean that they do not regard it as irrelevant.

   Additionally, natural is not always seen as a right "even birth mothers, then, can lose their children by becoming "unnatural" which is thus transgressing against natural categories of sex o race"(Weismantel p686) However, Cardoso stresses that adoption tends to take place when biological kinship fails but Weismantel advocates that this is not the case with Zumbagua families. 

   1  2

BACK TO ANTHROPOLOGY