KINSHIP USAGES Introduction: A kinship relationship is characterised by role‐expectations which exhibit regularity, a more or less permanent behaviour with an element of universality. Such behaviours, verbal and non‐ verbal concerning certain categories of kin for keeping order and decorum in society are called kinship behaviour or usage. Some of the kinship usages related to certain types of coactive behaviour patterns are avoidance, joking relationship, teknonymy, avunculate, amitate and couvade. Avoidance: Avoidance is the prescribed minimisation of contact between two relatives who usually belong to opposite sexes. In most societies, father‐in‐law and daughter‐in‐law avoidance, in which the two kins tend to avoid each other, is found. For instance, to be innocuous in avoidance a Meitei daughter‐in‐law puts her wrapping cloth ‐ inaphi on her head when she meets her father‐in‐law and husband’s elder brother. Likewise, though less universally and rigorously, a son‐in‐law’s relations with his mother‐in‐law are found to be avoided by certain restrictions. Similarly, brother‐sister avoidance prevails. One of the earliest explanations of this practice was given by E.B. Tylor and opined that in the early stages of human history, when son‐in‐law used to live with his wife in a matriarchal society, he was obliged to certain restricted relation with his mother‐in‐law; because he was a complete stranger and in subservient position. Thus, Tylor suggested matrilocal residence as the cause of this avoidance. After Tylor, James Frazer and Sigmund Freud gave their explanations of such kinship usage. Frazer explained brother‐sister avoidance based on evidences drawn from the Vedda, a Cylonese tribe and the Trobriand Islanders that it is a precautionary measure against the sexual intimacy as would amount to incest. Should a Trobriand brother happen to see his sister being wooed by a man, or she making love to him, all the three will have to commit suicide. Among the Veddas, brother and sister may neither live under the same roof nor take food together; no kind of intimacy or familiarity can ever develop between them. Freud’s psycho‐analytical explanation also took great interest for interpreting avoidance. The Freudan argument regards sexual attraction and the need to prevent sexual intimacy between various kinds of relatives. However, Radcliffe‐Brown explained it as an arrangement to present any possibility of conflict between the kins. In addition, Majumdar and Madan wanted to point out the attitudes towards tabooed relatives as behaviour of respect rather than that of hostile and ambivalent nature. Joking relationship: It is the reverse of the avoidance relationship and it sanctions familiarity and intimacy between certain kins. Such joking may amount to exchange of abuse and banter, obscene and vulgar references to sex, damage of each other’s property, ridicule and so on. Among the original inhabitants of Fiji Island, a son‐ in‐law may be very friendly with his father‐in‐law and can cut joke upto the momentum of spoiling some articles for fun. Various anthropological explanations have been given to explain this queer usage of familiarity. Joking relationship may indicate equality and mutual reciprocity as well as potential sexual relationship. There may be joking relationship between a man and his wife’s younger sister, or between a woman and her husband’s younger brother. In each case the two may be potential mates in societies in which sororate and levirate are prevailing. Among the Crow Indians there prevails the joking relationship between a man and his wife’s sisters and they are very friendly to talk freely about sex matters. A joking relationship with one’s maternal uncle’s wife may be indicative of the practice of inheriting all the property of one’s maternal uncle, including his wife. It may be indicative of a joking relationship with the maternal uncle himself, expressed through sexual intimacy with his wife. Such usages have been reported from matrilineal societies of the Hopi and the Trobriand Islanders. Modern functional anthropologists explained this usage as a safety valve release mechanism for the tensions generated due to the imposition of restrictions. Teknonymy: It is the practice of addressing a person as the parent of his named child name rather than his individual name. Among some tribal groups such as the Khasi and in many rural societies of India, this usage is quite common whether as a part of orthodoxy or some convention. It is also shared by the Meitei. A married person does not address the spouse by its individual name and she/he calls him/her teknonymously, for instance, ibungopa (Ibungo’s father), chaobimama (Chaobi’s mother), etc. Commonly someone is designated teknonymously after having his child. But a married woman does not call her husband by name and so, she addresses him teknonymously like moi tamo (their brother), moikaka(their uncle), etc. Tylor regarded this usage as a relic of some old stage in culture history when women who were in supreme position did not accept son‐in‐law as one of them in their houses and recognised with him through the children he helped to bring to life. Likewise, a mother may also be referred teknonymously. Avunculate: It is a special relationship that persists in some societies between a man and his mother’s brother. If the maternal uncle enjoys a pre‐eminent place in the life of his nephew and has special obligation towards him which exceed those of his father, then the kinship usage is designated as avunculate from the Latin word avunculus (mother’s brother) and the maternal uncle’s authority as avuncupotestality. If nephews and nieces are brought up in their maternal uncle’s family, the condition is referred as avunculocal residence. This usage is commonly found in a matrilineal system in which prominence is given to the maternal uncle in the life of his nephews and nieces. But it may also be found among patrilineal societies as a consequence of cultural diffusion or as a survival of a previous mode of matrilineal social structure. Amitate: It is the usage of special relationship to father’s sister and a man gives more importance to her than his mother. Her role is similar to that of maternal uncle under avunculate and she is given respect by her nephew and niece. Sometimes they are brought up in her house and she is called female‐father. She acts virtually as the head of the household and exercises authority over her brother’s children. The usage is more prevalent among the Kongs of Poynesia, Todas of South India and Crow Indians. The Todas give name to children not through their parents but through the father’s sister. Whereas amitate is easily explicable in patrilineal organisation, its occurrence among the matrilineal Trobriand Islanders as reported by Malinowski, is a curious instance. This usage commonly in patrilineal society seems to be the outcome of an obvious emphasis on one particular group of relatives as the social mechanism for preventing certain kinship bond from falling into neglect. Couvades: Couvade is the kinship usage which involves husband and wife only. The queer practice has been reported among many people like the Khasi and Toda of India, and the Karib of South Africa. In couvade, the husband of a wife who has given birth to a child presumes himself to be sharing his wife’s agony and makes himself lead the life of an invalid along with his wife. He is not supposed to engage in hard work but goes to sick diet and observes certain taboos. A Khasi husband, like his wife, cannot cross a stream or wash clothes until the spirits connected with childbirth are propitiated. The sharing of such kinship usage has been explained by various writers. Some authorities explained it as a survival of the transitional stage of the maternal‐ paternal complex. In the paternal‐maternal stage, where residence may be matrilocal, but inheritance patrilineal, or conversely, some conventional methods of ascertaining paternity are needed and made the father confining in a room or performing bow and arrow ceremony of the Toda. According to Malinowski, the kinship usage of couvade contributes as cementing bond of married life between the husband and wife. Some have given psycho‐analytical explanation as the husband’s desire to lighten the wife’s discomforts by a process of participation through identification. Lately, some other explanations have been put forward. It is said that a woman who has delivered a child undergoes certain chemical processes within her body and affects the atmosphere around her, particularly if she is in an ill‐ventilated cell or room. It makes other persons prone to illness. This explanation is not based on superstition but on fact, however it is not yet fully corroborated by ethnographic evidences. Conclusion: The kinship usages are the more or less permanent rules of a particular kin to behave towards another particular kin. It creates groups and special groupings of kin and is significant for understanding system. The usages provide guidelines and also, regulate the proper and acceptable role of relationship among the kins as a part of maintaining order and peace in the larger social complex. For instance, anthropologists and other social scientists explain avoidance relationship as a precaution of committing incest. On the other hand, the kinship usage of joking relationship establishes familiarity to extreme intimacy in certain kin groups leading to potential married life for these kins. .