DOCSLIB.ORG

Kinship Terms Are Not Kinship

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Maurice Bloch Kinship terms are not kinship Article (Published version) (Refereed) Original citation: Bloch, Maurice (2010) Kinship terms are not kinship. Behavioral and brain sciences, 33 (5). p. 384. ISSN 0140-525X DOI: 10.1017/S0140525X10001949 © 2010 Cambridge University Press This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/35580/ Available in LSE Research Online: August 2012 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. 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
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.
  • Kinship Terminology

    Kinship Terminology

    Fox (Mesquakie) Kinship Terminology IVES GODDARD Smithsonian Institution A. Basic Terms (Conventional List) The Fox kinship system has drawn a fair amount of attention in the ethno­ graphic literature (Tax 1937; Michelson 1932, 1938; Callender 1962, 1978; Lounsbury 1964). The terminology that has been discussed consists of the basic terms listed in §A, with a few minor inconsistencies and errors in some cases. Basically these are the terms given by Callender (1962:113-121), who credits the terminology given by Tax (1937:247-254) as phonemicized by CF. Hockett. Callender's terms include, however, silent corrections of Tax from Michelson (1938) or fieldwork, or both. (The abbreviations are those used in Table l.)1 Consanguines Grandparents' Generation (1) nemesoha 'my grandfather' (GrFa) (2) no hkomesa 'my grandmother' (GrMo) Parents' Generation (3) nosa 'my father' (Fa) (4) nekya 'my mother' (Mo [if Ego's female parent]) (5) nesekwisa 'my father's sister' (Pat-Aunt) (6) nes'iseha 'my mother's brother' (Mat-Unc) (7) nekiha 'my mother's sister' (Mo [if not Ego's female parent]) 'Other abbreviations used are: AI = animate intransitive; AI + O = tran- sitivized AI; Ch = child; ex. = example; incl. = inclusive; m = male; obv. = obviative; pi. = plural; prox. = proximate; sg. = singular; TA = transitive ani­ mate; TI-0 = objectless transitive inanimate; voc. = vocative; w = female; Wi = wife. Some citations from unpublished editions of texts by Alfred Kiyana use abbreviations: B = Buffalo; O = Owl (for these, see Goddard 1990a:340). 244 FOX
  • Khasi Matrilineality and Emergent Social Issues in Meghalaya Dr

    Khasi Matrilineality and Emergent Social Issues in Meghalaya Dr

    Anudhyan: An International Journal of Social Sciences (AIJSS) The Land Where Women Prevail: Khasi Matrilineality and Emergent Social Issues in Meghalaya Dr. Animesh Roy ABSTRACT Khasi society in Meghalaya follows matrilineality- a social system in which family line is traced through women. However, the society now happens to be passing through a transitional phase whereby a section of radical khasi men destines to displace the years-old tradition. Given such situation, this piece of work has attempted to understand the grounds and rationality of blooming of matrilineality among the khasi community through an ethnographic research and its survival over time despite being surrounded by the patrilineal societies across India. It has also sought to analyse the true status of both khasi male and female in terms of their involvement in social, economic and political affairs under the matrilineal system. The study, however, concludes that despite bestowing laudable respect towards women, today’s khasi society happens to be vitriolic due to its ‘customary code of conduct’ which keeps the khasi women outside all political affairs and make them to be engaged only in domestic affairs. Keywords: Matrilineality, khasi tribe, khatduh, dorbar, masculinity and Meghalaya etc. Introduction: state’s total population. However, the khasis and The state of Meghalaya in north-eastern India is jaintias have resemblance in religion, culture and the homeland to three indigenous tribal social structure and form more or less a composite communities: the Garo, Khasi and Jaintia who group (Lyngdoh, 2012). Before the arrival of the practice matrilineality by law. Matrilineality is a British in Undivided Assam1, the entire khasi social system in which the family line, unlike community followed their traditional indigenous patrilineal society, is traced through women.
  • Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with At-Risk Families

    Parent-Child Interaction Therapy with At-Risk Families

    ISSUE BRIEF January 2013 Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With At-Risk Families Parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) is a family-centered What’s Inside: treatment approach proven effective for abused and at-risk children ages 2 to 8 and their caregivers—birth parents, • What makes PCIT unique? adoptive parents, or foster or kin caregivers. During PCIT, • Key components therapists coach parents while they interact with their • Effectiveness of PCIT children, teaching caregivers strategies that will promote • Implementation in a child positive behaviors in children who have disruptive or welfare setting externalizing behavior problems. Research has shown that, as a result of PCIT, parents learn more effective parenting • Resources for further information techniques, the behavior problems of children decrease, and the quality of the parent-child relationship improves. Child Welfare Information Gateway Children’s Bureau/ACYF 1250 Maryland Avenue, SW Eighth Floor Washington, DC 20024 800.394.3366 Email: [email protected] Use your smartphone to https:\\www.childwelfare.gov access this issue brief online. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy With At-Risk Families https://www.childwelfare.gov This issue brief is intended to build a better of the model, which have been experienced understanding of the characteristics and by families along the child welfare continuum, benefits of PCIT. It was written primarily to such as at-risk families and those with help child welfare caseworkers and other confirmed reports of maltreatment or neglect, professionals who work with at-risk families are described below. make more informed decisions about when to refer parents and caregivers, along with their children, to PCIT programs.
  • 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.
  • Post-Marital Residence Patterns Show Lineage-Specific Evolution

    Post-Marital Residence Patterns Show Lineage-Specific Evolution

    Evolution and Human Behavior xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Evolution and Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ens Post-marital residence patterns show lineage-specific evolution Jiří C. Moraveca, Quentin Atkinsonb, Claire Bowernc, Simon J. Greenhilld,e, Fiona M. Jordanf, Robert M. Rossf,g,h, Russell Grayb,e, Stephen Marslandi,*, Murray P. Coxa,* a Statistics and Bioinformatics Group, Institute of Fundamental Sciences, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand b Department of Psychology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand c Department of Linguistics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06511, USA d ARC Centre of Excellence for the Dynamics of Language, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia e Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History, Jena D-07745, Germany f Department of Anthropology and Archaeology, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK g Institute for Cognitive and Evolutionary Anthropology, School of Anthropology and Museum Ethnography, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, UK h ARC Centre of Excellence in Cognition and its Disorders, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Surrey TW20 0EX, UK i School of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT Keywords: Where a newly-married couple lives, termed post-marital residence, varies cross-culturally and changes over Kinship time. While many factors have been proposed as drivers of this change, among them general features of human Post-marital residence societies like warfare, migration and gendered division of subsistence labour, little is known about whether Cross-cultural comparison changes in residence patterns exhibit global regularities.
  • 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.
  • UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations

    UC Berkeley UC Berkeley Electronic Theses and Dissertations Title Translating Sweetness: Type 2 Diabetes, Race, Research, and Outreach Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/06f5s847 Author Battle, James Publication Date 2012 Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California Translating Sweetness: Type 2 Diabetes, Race, Research, and Outreach by James Battle A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Joint Doctor of Philosophy with the University of California, San Francisco in Medical Anthropology in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor Cori Hayden, Chair Professor Nancy Scheper-Hughes Professor Charles Briggs Professor Sharon Kaufman Professor Michel Laguerre Spring 2012 Translating Sweetness: Type 2 Diabetes, Race, Research, and Outreach ©James Battle 1 Abstract Translating Sweetness: Type 2 Diabetes, Race, Research, and Outreach By James Battle Joint Doctor of Philosophy in Medical Anthropology with the University of California, San Francisco University of California, Berkeley Professor Cori Hayden, Chair Through the lens of Type 2 diabetes this dissertation considers race and problems of difference and risk with developments in treatment, genomic science, and the conduct of research and research priorities. Based primarily on fieldwork in New York and California, I interrogate public health notions of outreach with biotechnology and clinical research concepts of biomedical translation as synonymous practices. Institutional relationships and marketing drivers, I argue, reflect relatedness back onto the Type 2 diabetes patient through causal narratives of risk and inevitability. In effect, kinship—genetic, familial, racial, ethnic, and environmental—becomes the driver of both risk and emergent forms of bioliterary discipline.
  • Formal Analysis of Kinship Terminologies and Its Relationship to What Constitutes Kinship (Complete Text)

    Formal Analysis of Kinship Terminologies and Its Relationship to What Constitutes Kinship (Complete Text)

    MATHEMATICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AND CULTURAL THEORY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL VOLUME 1 NO. 1 PAGE 1 OF 46 NOVEMBER 2000 FORMAL ANALYSIS OF KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT CONSTITUTES KINSHIP (COMPLETE TEXT) 1 DWIGHT W. READ UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90035 [email protected] Abstract The goal of this paper is to relate formal analysis of kinship terminologies to a better understanding of who, culturally, are defined as our kin. Part I of the paper begins with a brief discussion as to why neither of the two claims: (1) kinship terminologies primarily have to do with social categories and (2) kinship terminologies are based on classification of genealogically specified relationships traced through genitor and genetrix, is adequate as a basis for a formal analysis of a kinship terminology. The social category argument is insufficient as it does not account for the logic uncovered through the formalism of rewrite rule analysis regarding the distribution of kin types over kin terms when kin terms are mapped onto a genealogical grid. Any formal account must be able to account at least for the results obtained through rewrite rule analysis. Though rewrite rule analysis has made the logic of kinship terminologies more evident, the second claim must also be rejected for both theoretical and empirical reasons. Empirically, ethnographic evidence does not provide a consistent view of how genitors and genetrixes should be defined and even the existence of culturally recognized genitors is debatable for some groups. In addition, kinship relations for many groups are reckoned through a kind of kin term calculus independent of genealogical connections.
  • Interview with Maurice Bloch

    Interview with Maurice Bloch

    INTERVIEW WITH MAURICE BLOCH Professor Maurice Bloch visited Finland in Timo Kallinen (TK): You have contributed to March 2014 as the keynote speaker of the different fields of anthropology, but the study of interdisciplinary symposium ‘Ritual Intimacy— ritual seems to have been there ever since the Ritual Publicity’ organized by the Collegium for early stages of your career. How did you become Advanced Studies at the University of Helsinki. originally interested in ritual? As one of the most influential thinkers in contemporary anthropology Professor Bloch Maurice Bloch (MB): My interest in ritual has made significant contributions to various has been a key concern for a very long part research fields such as kinship studies and of my career but this has been because I have economic anthropology, but he is probably been able to link it to other central aspects of best known for his groundbreaking work on human life. My main interest has been with the ritual and religion. In his writings Professor apparent authority of ritual and the nature of Bloch often draws on his ethnography from this apparent authority. I outlined my position Madagascar, where he has carried out fieldwork in one of my earliest papers (Bloch 1974). over a period of several decades. Lately he I want to explore how ritual is linked to ideology, has also become renowned for developing an that is, to systems which seem to justify and approach that seeks to find a common ground maintain social hierarchy and social continuity between sociocultural anthropology and (Bloch 1986). The connection of authority cognitive science.
  • The Extent to Which the Classificatory Kinship System Cor- Responds To

    The Extent to Which the Classificatory Kinship System Cor- Responds To

    T H R E E NO R M S O F SE X A N D MA R R I A G E I N LI G H T O F CL A S S I F I C AT O RY KI N S H I P 1 [26–35; 45–61; 149–161; 75–82] L E T U S N O W E X A M I N E the extent to which the classificatory kinship system cor- responds to modern norms of sexual intercourse and marriage. Among the Gilyak, at the present time at least, there is no question of any general prohibition of extra- marital sexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse with a woman is to the Gilyak a nat- ural act, as insignificant morally as any other natural act answering the well-known needs of man. Prohibitions and limitations extend only to definite groups of persons bound by agnatic or cognatic relationship. Outside of these groups, sexual interco u r s e is not subject to any regulation, nor to religious or public condemnation [75]. Besides the prohibitions determined by relationship, extramarital intercourse knows only one restriction, the reactions of the concerned persons. The young men of a clan who have access to the women of a certain locality, when displeased with a usurper, may give full vent to their resentment for his trespassing. Such cases are, ho w e v e r , very rare. The consequences are much more serious when a married woman is the source of trouble. A stranger caught in flagrante delicto with a married woman is killed by the husband on the spot.