sign in sign up
<<
Home , Father, Nuclear family, Parent

The Evolution of Biparental Care

• Male care of among is rare — (but see recent article in Nature “True in a multi-male society” Jason C. Buchan1, Susan C. Alberts, Joan B. Silk, and Jeanne Altmann 2003, 425: 179-181). Investment through grooming, carrying, fight support, & protection. • Male care of offspring by apes is virtually non-existent • Why do males provide considerable “indirect investment” (food provisioning) in offspring? — To help support offspring who develop slowly Benefits for Females in Maintaining the Pair Bond

1. Increased caloric intake from male provisioning (Lovejoy, Lee and Devore) 2. Macronutrient or micronutrient intake from male provisioning (Eaton and Eaton 1998; Hill 1982) 3. Paternal direct care (Hewlett, 1992; Marlowe in press) 4. Protection against food scrounging – food guarding (Wrangham et al. in press) 5. Reduction of abuse and/or infanticide through mate guarding (Mesnick, 1997 and Smuts 1992) 6. Reduction of infanticide (Hausfater and Hrdy, 1984) 7. Reduced transmission of sexually transmitted diseases because mating is not promiscuous (Birkhead and Moller, 1998) Costs to Female in Maintaining the Pair Bond

1. Foregone mating opportunities: lower quality 2. Foregone mating opportunities: lost direct benefits 3. Effort to provision males 4. Effort to prevent philandery through prolonged and maintaining attractiveness 5. Coercion, abuse and/or by (Daly and Wilson 1988) Reduction of Dimorphism

• Chimp dimorphism is 121 • Australopithecine is 125 • For : – Height is 107 – Weight is 130 – Canine 101 • Given our weight and terrestriality we should be 187.4 Reduction in Dimorphism in the Hominid Line

Ruff, C “Variation in human body size and shape. Annual Review of 31: 211-32 (2002) Murdock's Functions of the

! satisfies sexual needs and diminishes the disruptive force of sexual competition; ! Protects the female during her relatively long and during months and years of lactation; ! Essential for rearing and enculturation; ! Leads to a sexual division of labor which makes subsistence more efficient

= Monogamous Nuclear Family Basic Family Forms polygynous joint - 2 couples of same = = = =

stem - 2 or more matrifocal = = = Levirate and Sororate

Levirate: if a 's Sororate: if a 's husband dies, she must dies, he marries his dead marry her dead husband's wife's

= =

HB H = W WZ W = H Forms

• – Ecologically imposed monogamy – Socially imposed monogamy • – Resource defense – Male status • = = • Marriage statistics: – 83.5% of all societies permit polygyny; – 16% require monogamy; and – 0.5% permit polyandry. The "Burden" of Marriage Cross-culturally marriage carries the following attributes: " Reproduction and care of children " Sexual exclusivity " Economic cooperation

In our society we expect much more, such as: " " companionship " joint recreational activities " emotional support " career support " common social circle Living arrangements of children under 18 years of age, 1975*

Living Arrangement Percentage

Living with both 80.3 Living with only 15.5

Mother separated 4.9 Mother married, husband absent 0.9 Mother widowed 2.4 Mother divorced 5.5 Mother single 1.8 Living with only 1.5 Living with neither 2.7 Total 100.0

* N=66,087,000 children; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1975 Family Demographic Changes

1970 1998 Change

Marital births 3,332,000 2,693,00 -19% Non-marital 399,000 1,249,000 +223% births Women 40-44 5.4% 9.9% +83% never married Men 40-44 never 7.5% 15.6% +108% married 3,271,000 9,491,000 +190% Children living with unmarried 196,000 1,520,000 +665% couples Single mothers who have never 9.1% 42.2% +363% married Percent By Age of Children With Coresident Parents (n=1,326)

100

90 Mother Mother Father Father 80 Both Parents Both Parents Monog. Parents Monog. Parents 70 Monog. Parents and One GndparentMonog. Parents and One 60

50 Percent 40

30 See page 156 of Chagnon

20

10

0 01234567891011 Age-Intervals (5-Year) CausesCauses ofof NuclearNuclear FamilyFamily DecayDecay

"Mortality rate and which is affected by #age differences between #age at marriage

" rate Group Rate Location Kanuri 64 Africa Ndembu 61 Africa Kofyar *48 Africa Malaysia (rural) 48 S.E. Asia Tribal Divorce Java (rural) 47 S.E. Asia Yoruba 46 Africa Rates: Konda Valley Dani 45 New Guinea Luvale 45 Africa Lamba 42 Africa (Barnes' 'C' Ratio) Bakweri 42 Africa Irigwo *40 Africa Herero 40 Africa Gonga 38 Africa Ngoni (Fort Jameson) 37 Africa Yao 35 Africa Soga *35 Africa Huli **33 New Guinea Raiapu Enga **33 New Guinea Ngoni 29 Africa Elti 29 New Guinea Somali 28 Africa Mambwe 28 Africa Tonga (Plateau) 28 Africa Ganda 27 Africa Tonga (Gwembe) 26 Africa Notes: Kyaka Enga 23* New Guinea *Our estimate based on available quantitative data. Yanomamö 20 S. America **Mean of male and female rates. Kawelka 19 New Guinea ***Proportion of divorce rate per 1000 to marriage rate South Fore **14 New Guinea per 1000. Barnes' 'C' ratio is rarely, if ever, Telefolmin **15 New Guinea calculated for modern societies. Our measures here Shona 11 Africa should very closely match a 'C' ratio. Palestinian Arabs 8 Middle East

United States Rates 1920 ***13 van den Berghe 1979:202 1940 ***17 van den Berghe 1979:202 1960 ***26 van den Berghe 1979:202 1970 ***33 van den Berghe 1979:202 1975 ***43 van den Berghe 1979:202 Yanomamö Marriage Statistics • 75% of marriage end as a result of divorce and 25% end as a result of death • Men tend to be 5-8 years older than their • An individual will have 2.92 spouses throughout their lifetime • Marriage than end with the death of a average 12.8 years in duration and those that end in divorce last 6.4 years • First marriages tend to be the least stable and last marriage the most stable Distribution of Economic Transactions in Marriage: 75% of all societies have these transactions

Bride price 44

Bride service 19

Exchange of females 6

11 exchange

8

12 Indirect dowry 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Percent of all societies Postmarital Residence

Kin groups Matrilocal Avunculocal Patrilocal Other Total

Patrilineal 1 0 563 25 588 Matrilineal 53 62 30 19 164 Determinants of post-marital residence Post marital residence rules

Rule Percent No.

" patrilocal 68% 588 " matrilocal 13% 112 " bilocal 8.5% 73 " neolocal 4.7% 40 " avunculocal 4.3% 37 " duolocal 0.9% 8

Total 858

Descent rules

Rule Percent No.

" patrilineal 44% 248 " matrilineal 15% 84 " bilateral 36% 204 " duolineal 5% 28

Total 564 Characteristics of Corporate Descent Groups

• Name (often totemic) • Existence in perpetuity • Property ownership • Rules of recruitment • Function (political, religious, or economic) Kindreds: Children have kindreds that are different from those of either parent

Ego Ego's father's Ego's kindred kindred Patrilineal Descent Matrilineal Descent Contrasts in and descent Kinship Descent

1. defined with reference to 1. defined with reference an individual (ego) or to an pairs of individuals 2. culturally recognized in 2. universally important only some societies 3. normally bilateral, from the standpoint of an ego 3. connects only a limited 4. kinship relations are class of ego's relatives relative; you are a or 4. descent status is a nephew only in relation absolute: you are or are to some particular person not a member Segmentary

III

AB CD

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

a b c d e f g h i j k l n m o p Conical (ramage)

Founding ancestor

443 21 2 3

nobles

commoners Basics of Kin Terms: Extension Bifurcate Merging Kin Terms Eskimo or Lineal Terms Hawaiian or Generational Terms Double Cross Marriage & Sister Exchange

See Figure 4.8, p. 142 Chagnon Family Key Concepts & Terms " nuclear " Extended (stem and joint) " matrifocal Nuclear Family Decay " Causes divorce death abduction " Consequences levirate sororate Marriage " " polygyny " polyandry " " " " dowry " / Conditions for Matrifocal Families

•Poverty • Female economic opportunities greater than male — either higher income, or — more reliable employment • Male economic absenteeism — migratory labor (farm) — remote labor (mines) Partible Paternity among the Bari

• A child who had one secondary father had a higher probability of surviving to age 15 (80%) than a child who had no secondary father (64%). • (note that children who had more than one secondary father had lower survivorship). • Women who had secondary had lower miscarriage rates than those with no secondary husbands. • A woman who had suffered a miscarriage in her most recent pregnancy was twice as likely to claim a secondary husband in her next pregnancy. • Mechanism promoting survivorship: provisioning of food by males. Note: they have no data to show this, just impressions and informant statements. They also suggest that given high male mortality rates, having a second father is like an insurance policy. Cultures with Partible Paternity

•Groups – Mehinaku – Xocleng (Kaingang) – Yanomamö – Tapirape –Wayana – Kuikuru – Lusi (New Guinea) –Canela –Araweté –Matis –Aché Consequences of Partible Paternity

•Aché – 70% of those with one father survived to age 15 compared to 85% of those with two • Mechanisms for increased survivorship – Additional food given by secondary father – Less chance of juvenile killing (Aché) Cultural Commonalities

• The uterus is a receptacle • A woman can be “a little pregnant” • growth is an accumulation of semen • There is negotiation about concealing or revealing (by woman) or accepting or denying secondary fatherhood (by man) • Reproductive conflict of interest between men and women – For women she is shielded from male competition and coercion and is able to select investors in child – For men, they would rather control female sexuality and maximize paternity certainty The Honor/Shame Complex: Egyptian Bedouin