114 2. Unilateral Cross-Cousin Marriage

114

2. Unilateral Cross-Cousin Marriage : Some Observations on the Controversy

SATYA P. SHARMA

University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Canada

THERE IS a large body of literature in social anthropology centering around the controversy over the significance of unilateral cross-cousin marriage. The implications of the arguments in this controversy do not simply concern as to "whether one can be (or should be) forced to marry his patrilateral cross- cousin" (Murphy 1963: 18), but, as Schneider (1965) and Maybury-Lewis (1965) have indicated, there are fundamental theoretical and methodological issues at stake. Indeed, the debate on this topic raises most of the important issues entailed in anthropological explanation in general, and in causal versus functional explanations in particular (Spiro 1964: 30). One of the basic questions in the controversy is : given unilateral cross- cousin marriage, why does matrilateral cross-cousin marriage (hereafter mccm) occur more frequently than patrilateral cross-cousin marriage (hereafter pccm) ? Two main concepts are also central to the argument: (1) the distinc- tion between preferential and prescriptive marriage; and (2) the differential solidarity consequences of mccm and pccm. In this paper I will briefly examine Ldvi-Strauss's (hereafter LS) thesis on cross-cousin marriage (hereafter ccm) as initially presented in his Les Structures Élémentaires de la Parenti ( 1949) . I will then review Homans and Schneider's criticism of LS as presented in Marriage, Authority and Final Causes (1955) in which they rejected LS's structural analysis of the ccm problem and offered a psychological explanation in its place. Needham's Structure and Sentiment ( 1962), an extended critique of Homans and Schneider's thesis, in which Needham has attempted to reiterate LS's argument, will be examined next. Lounsbury's (1962) review of Needham's book, and the contributions of Maybury-Lewis (1965), Schneider (1965), and Leach (1962), who too have joined the controversy on ccm, will also be considered. Finally, I will try to outline some of the basic theoretical and methodological questions centering around this debate, as pointed out by Spiro (1964), and partially also by Maybury-Lewis (1965) and Schneider (1965).

' II.

To understand LS's point of view in his Les Structures Élémentaires de la Parenti, I have had to rely (because of my inability to read French) on English adumbrations, particularly those of de Josselin de Jong (1952), Berting and Philipsen (1960), Leach (1962), and Needham (1962). Les Structures ... marks the foundation of the alliance theory which has since been developed by LS, Dumont, Leach, and Needham. 115

LS examines socio-familial systems characterized by preferential marriage based on definite kinship relations (elementary structures) in contrast to those (complex structures) which as far as marriage is concerned are based on a transfer of wealth or on free choice. The following points are germane to the ccm problem: (1) The negative (universal) incest prohibition is complemented by exo- gamy which is a positive social command to marry out of the group. a) Marriage, viewed sociologically, is a series of past, present, and future reciprocal transactions between groups; b) In agreement with Mauss (1954), marriage is one form of reciprocity which is the basic principle of social life; c) There are two general ways in which reciprocal relations between groups are expressed: first, in the transfer of goods; second, in the transfer of women; d) Logically, three types of exchange can take place between groups: 1) goods for goods, 2) women for women ("restricted exchange"), and 3) women for goods ("generalized exchange"). (2) The fundamental social principle of reciprocity is encountered in so many social systems because it derives from three basic structures of the human mind: 1) the requirement of rules as rules, 2) the concept of reciprocity as the most direct form in which the opposition of "self-other" may be resolved, and 3) the fact that exchange transforms the individuals and/or groups involved into partners and adds a new quality to the exchange items. (3) Sociologically, the principle of reciprocity is realized in two different ways: a) By means of clear-cut institutions like dual organizations; or b) By the establishment of connubial relations between definite categories of individuals on the basis of kinship as in ccm. (4) Regarding exchange, the two varieties of ccm have difl'erent implications : a) In pccm, lineage A gives women to lineage B in one generation, and B gives women back to A in next generation. b) In mccm, given two lineages or lines A and B, A will continuously give goods to B, while B will continuously give women to A. (5) From a sociological view point, pccm is unimportant since it cannot preserve steady and continuous pattern of status relations between groups. Two marriages in successive generations complete a reciprocal exchange. With mccm, on the other hand, the unilaterally defined descent groups A and B stand in a permanent and persistent relationship of "wife-giver" and "wife-taker." Enduring structural relationships are thus defined by the marriage pattern. In short, LS argues that the laterality of the rules of ccm is structurally independent of the descent-lineality of any society, so long as the condition is met that the descent and residence rules are harmonic. Thus, either a patri- lineal-patrilocal or a matrilineal-matrilocal society may practice mccm. Furthermore, LS argues that mccm results in a social structure that has greater organic solidarity (in the Durkheimian (1947) sense) than that produced by pccm. Therefore, mccm leads to a more viable social system and that is why more cases of mccm are found than of pccm.