DOCSLIB.ORG

Human Kinship, from Conceptual Structure to Grammar

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BEHAVIORAL AND BRAIN SCIENCES (2010) 33, 367–416 doi:10.1017/S0140525X10000890 Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar Doug Jones Department of Anthropology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112 [email protected] Abstract: Research in anthropology has shown that kin terminologies have a complex combinatorial structure and vary systematically across cultures. This article argues that universals and variation in kin terminology result from the interaction of (1) an innate conceptual structure of kinship, homologous with conceptual structure in other domains, and (2) principles of optimal, “grammatical” communication active in language in general. Kin terms from two languages, English and Seneca, show how terminologies that look very different on the surface may result from variation in the rankings of a universal set of constraints. Constraints on kin terms form a system: some are concerned with absolute features of kin (sex), others with the position (distance and direction) of kin in “kinship space,” others with groups and group boundaries (matrilines, patrilines, generations, etc.). Also, kin terms sometimes extend indefinitely via recursion, and recursion in kin terminology has parallels with recursion in other areas of language. Thus the study of kinship sheds light on two areas of cognition, and their phylogeny. The conceptual structure of kinship seems to borrow its organization from the conceptual structure of space, while being specialized for representing genealogy. And the grammar of kinship looks like the product of an evolved grammar faculty, opportunistically active across traditional domains of semantics, syntax, and phonology. Grammar is best understood as an offshoot of a uniquely human capacity for playing coordination games. Keywords: cognitive anthropology; conceptual structure; coordination games; evolutionary psychology; grammar; kinship; kin terms; language evolution; Optimality Theory (OT); recursion 1. Introduction itself in a marginal position in anthropology and cognitive science. Cultural anthropology, with some exceptions, has This article addresses a longstanding puzzle in the human grown increasingly committed to cultural particularism, sciences: Kinship and language, very different in content, and increasingly divorced from developments in cognitive are intriguingly similar in form. Kinship has to do with science. The minority of anthropologists who apply evol- aunts and uncles, matrilineages and patrilineages, and utionary theory to kinship mostly have not investigated ascending and descending generations, while linguistics its cognitive aspects. (On the “fall of kinship” in anthropol- has to do with phonemes and syllables, morphemes and ogy, see Sousa 2003 and commentators, and Shapiro word classes, and heads and phrases. But kinship and 2008.) Meanwhile, as linguistics has grown increasingly language are similar in their combinatorial structure, specialized – and especially as syntax has moved to a pointing toward general principles of cognition or com- dominant position in the field – some earlier connections munication at work in both cases (Kroeber 1909, Le´vi- with other areas of inquiry have weakened. Strauss 1963). In this article, however, I argue that the classic topic of The parallels between kinship rules and language rules kinship and language deserves a fresh look in the light of were the subject of pioneering work several decades ago, recent progress in linguistics and cognitive science – in the heyday of structural linguistics and structuralism. and, in turn, that the study of kinship is relevant to Especially in the area of kin terminology, and especially current debates about mind and language. The rest of from the 1960s to the 1970s, researchers demonstrated this section introduces advances in two areas – the that the classification of kin reflects not just social facts, exploration of conceptual structure at the interface but also cognitive and linguistic principles. Cross-cultural between semantics and cognition, and the development regularities in kin terminology were documented, compar- able to regularities in color terminology (D’Andrade 1971; Greenberg 1966; 1975; 1990; Nerlove & Romney 1967), and an assortment of formal methods was devised to DOUG JONES is Associate Professor of Anthropology at analyze systematic variation and universals in kin terminol- the University of Utah and author of Physical Attrac- ogy (Buchler & Selby 1968; Goodenough 1965; Lounsbury tiveness and the Theory of Sexual Selection (1996, Uni- 1964a; 1964b; Romney & D’Andrade 1964; Scheffler 1968; versity of Michigan, Museum of Anthropology) and co- Scheffler & Lounsbury 1971; Wallace & Atkins 1960). editor (with Bojka Milicic) of Kinship, Language and But intellectual fashions have changed since then. In Prehistory (2010, University of Utah). He is interested in how the social anthropology of kinship relates to spite of important advances (Gould 2000; Hage 1997; recent advances in the cognitive sciences and evol- 2001; Hirschfeld 1989; Kronenfeld 1996; 2009; Leaf utionary theory. Jones is also currently doing research 2006; Lehman 1993; 2001; Read 1984; 2001a; 2001b), on the cognitive anthropology of race in Brazil. the study of kinship, language, and cognition now finds # Cambridge University Press 2010 0140-525X/10 $40.00 367 Jones: Human kinship, from conceptual structure to grammar of a new approach to rules of language called optimality approach to rules of language, originally developed in pho- theory – and previews how they apply to kinship. nology but apparently of much wider application (Archan- Conceptual structure. The study of human cognition has geli & Langedoen 1997; McCarthy 2001; Prince & received a major boost from the realization that there are Smolensky 2004/1993). two distinct levels of language – ordinary and VIP, as it OT doesn’t say what the rules of language are – rules were – which differ both in linguistic behavior and in differ among linguistic domains – instead, it describes meaning (Grimshaw 2005; Jackendoff 1983; 2002; Pinker how rules interact. According to OT, rules, or constraints, 1989; 2007; Talmy 2000a). The first, open-class or don’t actively transform linguistic representations but act lexical, level includes most nouns and verbs. The as filters on randomly generated variation, with each con- number of open-class forms in any language is very straint weeding out variants that violate it. Constraints may large, and virtually any imaginable concept can receive be mutually inconsistent, so grammars manage trade-offs an open-class form. between conflicting constraints through constraint The second, closed-class or grammatical, level is a more ranking. Constraints are put in rank order, with each con- exclusive club. Forms at this level include prepositions like straint strictly dominating lower ranking ones: One viola- in and on, demonstratives like this and that, inflections like tion of a constraint outweighs any number of violations the plural -s and past tense -d, and word classes like mass of all lower ranking constraints. OT covers cross-linguistic noun and intransitive verb (but not specific instances of universals and variation in grammar in a unified frame- nouns or verbs). Within languages, closed-class forms work: To a first approximation, languages all use the are limited in number: Compare the number of preposi- same constraints but differ in their constraint rankings. tions, demonstratives, tenses, and word classes in OT has inspired large body of research: As of this English with the number of nouns and verbs. Closed- writing, one major online resource, the Rutgers Optimality class forms are also restricted in the range of meanings Archive (roa.rutgers.edu), has 1,069 articles on file. Yet in they bear. Across languages, some of the distinctions that some ways OT is still finding its place in linguistics. For regularly make it into closed-class forms are: singular example, recent theories of language evolution (Hauser and plural, bounded and unbounded, figure and ground, et al. 2002; Hurford 2007; Jackendoff 2002) have nothing near and far, present and past, unmovable/inalienable to say about the phylogenesis and adaptive significance and movable/alienable, and human and nonhuman. But of OT. We may get a better idea of the nature and poten- many more semantic distinctions – some quite impor- tial of the theory by comparing it to Utility Theory (UT) in tant – are seldom or never registered in closed-class economics. Both UT and OT are theories of constrained forms, including odd and even, legal and illegal, and absol- optimization. They posit that people mentally search a ute size or duration (e.g., more and less than x feet long or large space of possibilities to discover an optimum, t years old). either an optimal basket of goods or an optimal linguistic The distinction between two levels of language is not output. Optimal doesn’t mean perfect. It means doing as only interesting in its own right, but also potentially impor- well as possible in the face of trade-offs between conflict- tant for investigating cognitive universals. Suppose, as ing constraints. Yet optimization works differently in UT many lines of evidence suggest, that in learning about and OT (Prince 2007; Smolensky & Legendre 2006). In words and the world, people draw not just on perceptual standard UT, trade-offs and potential outcomes vary quan- data but also on an inventory of innate concepts. Then titatively, so economic optimization involves finding open-class
Recommended publications
  • Chinese Patriliny and the Cycles of Yang and Laiwang

    Chinese Patriliny and the Cycles of Yang and Laiwang

    Charles Stafford Chinese patriliny and the cycles of Yang and Laiwang Book section Original citation: Stafford, Charles (2000) Chinese patriliny and the cycles of Yang and Laiwang. In: Carsten, Janet, (ed.) Cultures of relatedness: new approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 35-54. © 2000 Cambridge University Press This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/10831/ Available in LSE Research Online: January 2011 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s submitted version of the book section. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. 55 Chinese patriliny and the cycles of yang and laiwang Charles Stafford As James Watson observes, anthropologists have tended to view Chinese society through a ‘lineage paradigm’--in part mistakenly derived from the seminal work of Maurice Freedman, and thus, by extension, from the work of his Africanist colleagues--which assumes that in China ‘the ideology of patrilineal descent takes precedence over all other principles of social organization’ (J.
  • Introduction Emerging Kinship in a Changing Middle East

    Introduction Emerging Kinship in a Changing Middle East

    Introduction Emerging Kinship in a Changing Middle East Soraya Tremayne Abstract: The introduction to this issue has two strands. First, it contextualises the articles, which address kinship from varied perspectives, and situates them in their broader cultural context. Second, it adopts a comparative perspective by differentiating between the present articles with those published a decade earlier on the same themes in this journal, to examine whether, how and to what extent kinship has changed in the face of modernity, globalisation, wars, migrations and political change. It concludes that, compared with a decade ago, kinship has not only not weakened, but it has revived further and penetrated other institutions beyond family, or called upon to ensure and protect the continuity of cultural norms and values, from the threats paused by modernity and by the global, cultural and political invasions. Keywords: change, kinship, Middle East, modernity This issue is the outcome of a panel organised on ‘Emerging Kinship in Changing Middle East’, at a conference held by the Commission on the Anthropology of the Middle East in Krakow in 2016. But, this is also an oppor- tunity to reflect on the marker, which we laid down, 10 years ago, on the impact of modernity on ‘Kinship in the Middle East’, in this journal (Shahshahani and Tremayne 2007). Revisiting that special issue of Anthropology of the Middle East has proved critical in providing a comparative base on whether and how kinship has changed during the past decade. So, the question remains how and to what extent kinship, as a key organising and guiding principle in society, has responded to change brought about by modernity.
  • Mother-In-Law Daughter-In-Law Conflict: an Evolutionary Perspective, Ethnographic Review, And

    Mother-In-Law Daughter-In-Law Conflict: an Evolutionary Perspective, Ethnographic Review, And

    Running head: AFFINAL CONFLICT 1 Mother-in-law daughter-in-law conflict: An evolutionary perspective, ethnographic review, and report of empirical data from the United States Jessica D. Ayers1, Jaimie Arona Krems2, Nicole Hess3, & Athena Aktipis1,4 1 Department of Psychology, Arizona State University 2 Oklahoma Center for Evolutionary Analysis (OCEAN), Department of Psychology, Oklahoma State University 3 Department of Anthropology, Washington State University 4Center for Evolution and Medicine, Arizona State University Corresponding author: Jessica D. Ayers, [email protected], Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, United States. Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Lee Cronk for his helpful comments on this manuscript. AFFINAL CONFLICT 2 Abstract Relationships with genetic relatives have been extensively studied in the evolutionary social sciences, but affinal relationships have received much less attention, and little work has examined both cooperation and conflict among affines from an evolutionary perspective. Yet humans have extensive interactions with the kin of their mates, i.e., in-laws or affines, as humans form long-term pair bonds with mates, with both sexes investing heavily in resulting offspring, thus leading to many opportunities for interacting with extended kinship networks. To contribute to the scholarship on affinal bonds, and particularly on perceptions of affinal conflict, we conducted an ethnographic review and collected empirical data on cooperation and conflict among affines. Here we present (1) a sample 37 of ethnographies showing cross-cultural evidence of conflict in affinal relationships. We also report (2) empirical evidence of self-reported cooperative and conflictual aspects in affinal relationships in a Western sample.
  • Structuralism 1. the Nature of Meaning Or Understanding

    Structuralism 1. the Nature of Meaning Or Understanding

    Structuralism 1. The nature of meaning or understanding. A. The role of structure as the system of relationships Something can only be understood (i.e., a meaning can be constructed) within a certain system of relationships (or structure). For example, a word which is a linguistic sign (something that stands for something else) can only be understood within a certain conventional system of signs, which is language, and not by itself (cf. the word / sound and “shark” in English and Arabic). A particular relationship within a شرق combination society (e.g., between a male offspring and his maternal uncle) can only be understood in the context of the whole system of kinship (e.g., matrilineal or patrilineal). Structuralism holds that, according to the human way of understanding things, particular elements have no absolute meaning or value: their meaning or value is relative to other elements. Everything makes sense only in relation to something else. An element cannot be perceived by itself. In order to understand a particular element we need to study the whole system of relationships or structure (this approach is also exactly the same as Malinowski’s: one cannot understand particular elements of culture out of the context of that culture). A particular element can only be studied as part of a greater structure. In fact, the only thing that can be studied is not particular elements or objects but relationships within a system. Our human world, so to speak, is made up of relationships, which make up permanent structures of the human mind. B. The role of oppositions / pairs of binary oppositions Structuralism holds that understanding can only happen if clearly defined or “significant” (= essential) differences are present which are called oppositions (or binary oppositions since they come in pairs).
  • Social Organization III

    Social Organization III

    08Ch08_Miller.QXD 12/15/08 9:34 PM Page 198 PART Social Organization III 8 Kinship and Domestic Life Social Groups and Social 9 Stratification 10 Politics, Conflict, and Social Order 08Ch08_Miller.QXD 12/15/08 9:34 PM Page 199 FREDY PECCERELLI, A FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGIST, risks his personal security working for victims of political violence in his homeland. Peccerelli is founder and executive director of the Guatemalan Forensic Anthropology Founda- tion (Fundación de Antropología Forense de Guatemala or FAFG), a group that focuses on the recovery and identifica- tion of some of the 200 000 people, mostly indigenous Maya of the mountainous regions, that Guatemalan military forces killed or “disappeared” during the brutal civil war that occurred between the mid-1960s and the mid-1990s. Peccerelli was born in Guatemala. His family immigrated to the United States when his father, a lawyer, was threatened by death squads. He grew up in New York and attended Brooklyn College in the 1990s. But he felt a need to reconnect with his heritage and began to study anthropology as a vehicle that would allow him to serve his country. The FAFG scientists excavate clandestine mass graves, exhume the bodies, and identify them through several means, such as matching dental and/or medical records. Anthropologists In studying skeletons, they try to determine the person’s age, gender, stature, ancestry, and lifestyle. DNA studies at are few because of the expense. The scientists also collect Work information from relatives of the victims and from eye- witnesses of the massacres. Since 1992, the FAFG team has discovered and exhumed approximately 200 mass grave sites in villages, fields, and churches.
  • Anthropology's Disenchantment with the Cognitive Revolution

    Anthropology's Disenchantment with the Cognitive Revolution

    Topics in Cognitive Science 4 (2012) 354–361 Copyright Ó 2012 Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights reserved. ISSN: 1756-8757 print / 1756-8765 online DOI: 10.1111/j.1756-8765.2012.01199.x Anthropology’s Disenchantment With the Cognitive Revolution1 Richard A. Shweder Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago Received 25 June 2011; received in revised form 3 November 2011; accepted 28 November 2011 Abstract Beller, Bender, and Medin should be congratulated for their generous attempt at expressive aca- demic therapy for troubled interdisciplinary relationships. In this essay, I suggest that a negative answer to the central question (‘‘Should anthropology be part of cognitive science?’’) is not necessar- ily distressing, that in retrospect the breakup seems fairly predictable, and that disenchantment with the cognitive revolution is nothing new. Keywords: Cognitive revolution; Behaviorism; Anthropology; Jerome Bruner; Roy D’Andrade; Clifford Geertz; Roger Shepard Some of the leaders of the cognitive revolution of the late 1950s and 1960s began parting from the cause almost as soon as it triumphed. Jerome Bruner, for example, who always enjoyed writing essays for both the left hand and the right hand, turned to hermeneutics, the study of law, and the interpretation of narratives (see Bruner, 1979, 1990). Even in the early days of the rebellion Bruner was attentive to language pragmatics, which may be one reason he named his 1960s big tent interdisciplinary center at Harvard University the ‘‘Center for Cognitive Studies’’ and not the ‘‘Center for Cognitive Science.’’ Bruner had just as much interest in the humanistic writings of E. H. Gombrich, Nelson Goodman, and Clifford Ge- ertz as in the latest claims about basic ⁄fundamental⁄universal cognitive processes coming out of experimental labs situated in Cambridge, London, or Geneva.
  • CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: the Man and His Works

    CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: the Man and His Works

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 1977 CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: The Man and His Works Susan M. Voss University of Nebraska-Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro Part of the Anthropology Commons Voss, Susan M., "CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: The Man and His Works" (1977). Nebraska Anthropologist. 145. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/145 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in THE NEBRASKA ANTHROPOLOGIST, Volume 3 (1977). Published by the Anthropology Student Group, Department of Anthropology, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588 21 / CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS: The Man and His Works by Susan M. Voss 'INTRODUCTION "Claude Levi-Strauss,I Professor of Social Anth- ropology at the College de France, is, by com­ mon consent, the most distinguished exponent ~f this particular academic trade to be found . ap.ywhere outside the English speaking world ... " (Leach 1970: 7) With this in mind, I am still wondering how I came to be embroiled in an attempt not only to understand the mul t:ifaceted theorizing of Levi-Strauss myself, but to interpret even a portion of this wide inventory to my colleagues. ' There is much (the maj ori ty, perhaps) of Claude Levi-Strauss which eludes me yet. To quote Edmund Leach again, rtThe outstanding characteristic of his writing, whether in French or in English, is that it is difficul tto unders tand; his sociological theories combine bafflingcoinplexity with overwhelm­ ing erudi tion"., (Leach 1970: 8) .
  • Anthropology of Relatedness | Oxford Brookes Reading Lists

    Anthropology of Relatedness | Oxford Brookes Reading Lists

    10/02/21 Anthropology of Relatedness | Oxford Brookes Reading Lists Anthropology of Relatedness View Online (Semester 2) 106 items Week 1: Introduction & Overview (2 items) Forever is a long time: romancing the real in gay kinship ideologies - Kath Weston Chapter | Essential | You can read Kath Weston's chapter online, through Google Books preview. Kinship Chapter | Recommended Week 2: Kinship as Social Structure (2 items) Kinship as descent Chapter | Essential English ancestors: the moral possibilities of popular genealogy - FENELLA CANNELL, Fenella Cannell, 2011-09 Article | Essential Week 2: Further Reading (8 items) If you are interested in exploring this topic for your essay, you may find the following readings interesting. Part IV: Descent & Alliance - Adam Kupar, 2017 Chapter Common Principles of Variant Kinship Structures among the Gola of Western Liberia - Warren L. D'Azevedo, 1962-06 Article Uses of the past in Gola Discourse - Warren L. d'Azevedo, 1962 Article Kindreds, cognatic and unilineal descent groups: new perspectives from Madagascar - Rita Astuti Chapter Ghosts and Ancestors in the Modern West - Fenella Cannell Chapter Fasu Solidarity: A Case Study of Kin Networks, Land Tenure, and Oil Extraction in Kutubu, 1/10 10/02/21 Anthropology of Relatedness | Oxford Brookes Reading Lists Papua New Guinea - EMMA GILBERTHORPE, 2007-03 Article Speech, silence, and slave descent in highland Madagascar - Luke Freeman, 2013 Article Where Do You Belong? Identity, New Guinea Islanders, and the Power of <i>Peles</i> - Kirsten McGavin,
  • A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying Forms of Ghost Marriage Among Five Societies

    A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying Forms of Ghost Marriage Among Five Societies

    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Nebraska Anthropologist Anthropology, Department of 2010 Grave Vows: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying forms of Ghost Marriage among Five Societies Lucas J. Schwartze Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro Part of the Anthropology Commons Schwartze, Lucas J., "Grave Vows: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying forms of Ghost Marriage among Five Societies" (2010). Nebraska Anthropologist. 60. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nebanthro/60 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Anthropology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Anthropologist by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Grave Vows: A Cross-Cultural Examination of the Varying forms of Ghost Marriage among Five Societies Lucas J. Schwartze Abstract: Marriage is one ofthe most ubiquitous social relationships in human societies. However, the forms this institution takes do not follow the same patterns across all cultures. This paper examines one ofthe rarer forms ofmarriage; ghost marriage. After introducing the societies that practice this rare form ofmarriage, the similarities and differences between the forms this practice takes are examined. Various scholarly explanations for this form ofmarriage are presented as well. Introduction Pasternak et al. note that in all known human societies adults generally spend some, ifnot the majority, of their lives in a bonded relationship, which is often referred to as marriage (pasternak et al. 1997:77). The forms this relationship takes, however, are so varied that the creation ofa single definition of marriage has proven to be difficult.
  • Ethnomusicology a Very Short Introduction

    Ethnomusicology a Very Short Introduction

    ETHNOMUSICOLOGY A VERY SHORT INTRODUCTION Thimoty Rice Sumário Chapter 1 – Defining ethnomusicology...........................................................................................4 Ethnos..........................................................................................................................................5 Mousikē.......................................................................................................................................5 Logos...........................................................................................................................................7 Chapter 2 A bit of history.................................................................................................................9 Ancient and medieval precursors................................................................................................9 Exploration and enlightenment.................................................................................................10 Nationalism, musical folklore, and ethnology..........................................................................10 Early ethnomusicology.............................................................................................................13 “Mature” ethnomusicology.......................................................................................................15 Chapter 3........................................................................................................................................17 Conducting
  • Assisted Reproduction and Middle East Kinship: a Regional and Religious Comparison Marcia C

    Assisted Reproduction and Middle East Kinship: a Regional and Religious Comparison Marcia C

    Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online (2017) 4,41–51 www.sciencedirect.com www.rbmsociety.com ORIGINAL ARTICLE Assisted reproduction and Middle East kinship: a regional and religious comparison Marcia C. Inhorn a,⁎, Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeli b, Soraya Tremayne c, Zeynep B. Gürtin d a Department of Anthropology, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA; b School of Nursing, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel; c Institute of Social and Cultural Anthropology, Oxford University, Oxford, UK; d Department of Sociology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (M.C. Inhorn). Marcia C Inhorn is the William K Lanman, Jr. Professor of Anthropology and International Affairs at Yale University, CT, USA. A specialist on Middle Eastern gender, religion and health, she has conducted research on the social impact of infertility and assisted reproductive technology in Egypt, Lebanon, the United Arab Emirates and Arab America over the past 30 years. She is the author of six books on the subject, including her forthcoming, America’s Arab Refugees: Vulnerability and Health on the Margins. Her current research project is on oocyte cryopreservation for both medical and elective fertility preservation, funded by the US National Science Foundation. Abstract This article compares the use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) and resultant kinship formations in four Middle Eastern settings: the Sunni Muslim Arab world, the Sunni Muslim but officially 'secular' country of Turkey, Shia Muslim Iran and Jewish Israel. This four-way comparison reveals considerable similarities, as well as stark differences, in matters of Middle Eastern kinship and assisted reproduction. The permissions and restrictions on ART, often determined by religious decrees, may lead to counter-intuitive outcomes, many of which defy prevailing stereotypes about which parts of the Middle East are more 'progressive' or 'conservative'.
  • Claude Lévi-Strauss at His Centennial: Toward a Future Anthropology Albert Doja

    Claude Lévi-Strauss at His Centennial: Toward a Future Anthropology Albert Doja

    Claude Lévi-Strauss at his Centennial: toward a future anthropology Albert Doja To cite this version: Albert Doja. Claude Lévi-Strauss at his Centennial: toward a future anthropology. Theory, Culture and Society, SAGE Publications, 2008, 25 (7-8), pp.321-340. 10.1177/0263276408097810. halshs- 00405936 HAL Id: halshs-00405936 https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00405936 Submitted on 5 Oct 2009 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. 321-340 097810 Doja (D) 1/12/08 11:52 Page 321 Published in: "Theory, Culture & Society", vol. 25 (7-8), 2008, pp. 321–340 Claude Lévi-Strauss at His Centennial Toward a Future Anthropology Albert Doja Abstract Lévi-Strauss’s centennial is an opportunity to show his inextricable connec- tions with the evolution of 20th-century thought and what these promise for 21st-century anthropology. He has mapped the philosophical parameters for a renewed ethnography which opens innovative approaches to history, agency, culture and society. The anthropological understanding of history, for instance, is enriched by methodical application of his mytho-logical analysis, in particular his claim that myths are ‘machines for the suppression of time’.