DOCSLIB.ORG

David M. Schneider

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
David M. Schneider David M. Schneider A Critique of the Study of KINSHIP j •j David M. Schneider Schneider challenges the assumptions on which anthropol• ogy has depended for the last century by showing that one of the major categories in terms of which social life has been under• stood is largely untenable. The idea of kinship is subjected to penetrating scrutiny. Unlike the proverbial Emperor, it is not that kinship has no clothes. The question is whether there is anything at all underneath those clothes. And even the clothes appear to be shreds and patches held together by a web of illusions. The critique uses a novel device in that the same set of ethnographic "facts" are looked at through different theories. This reveals a good deal about the different theories. By the same token, of course, the critique goes into the question of what a "fact" of "kinship" might be and how to recognize one either at home or in the field. Schneider's critique also uses history to raise cogent ques• tions about how kinship has been studied. But it is not as 20/20 hindsight that history is used. Due respect is paid to the climate of the time, as well as the climatic changes and the ways in which these helped to create the emperor's clothes. Right, wrong, or indifferent, Schneider's study of how the emperor "kinship" was dressed and then redressed as the winds of change threatened disarray, proves challenging to the theories by which anthropology lives, as well as to the specially privileged domain of "kinship." The implications of this study for a wide range of problems within theoretical anthropology are striking. The author of American Kinship: A Cultural Account and, with R. T. Smith, Class Differences and Sex Roles in American Kinship and Family Structure among many other books and articles, David M. Schneider is emeritus William B. Ogden Distinguished Service Pro• fessor of Anthropology at the University of Chicago. "TQUE OF STUDY <* MN*HIP SCHNEIDER D 0,dor No: 1401/965214 Dept : 001 Shelf Loc :ANT ISBN : 0472080512 A Critique of the Study of Kinship David M. Schneider The University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor Copyright © the University of Michigan 1984 All rights reserved Published in the United States of America by The University of Michigan Press 1998 1997 1996 1995 8 7 6 5 Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Schneider, David Murray, 1918— A critique of the study of kinship. Bibliography: p. 1. Kinship. I. Title GN487.S36 1984 306.83 84-5246 ISBN 0-472-08051-2 (pbk.) To Addy Preface In a paper read to the Anthropological Society of Washington in 1971 I asserted that " 'kinship,' like totemism, the matrilineal complex and ma• triarchy, is a non-subject since it does not exist in any culture known to man" and " 'kinship' is an artifact of the anthropologists' analytic apparatus and has no concrete counterpart in the cultures of any of the societies we studied" (Schneider 1972:59). I also said that the notion of "kinship as an idiom" was sheer nonsense, and this too was a bald assertion. This book is an attempt to make the grounds for those assertions clear and to back them with reasoned argument. Needham asserted a similar position at about the same time (1971). Though his reasoning differs from mine, we agree that there is no such thing as kinship. Needham's position is that since there is no unitary "thing" that kinship refers to, there can in the nature of the case be no theory about kinship, for there can be no legitimate theory about some "thing" which does not exist. Needham is thus relieved of the task of having to consider what other anthropologists, who believe that there is such a "thing," consider kinship theory. This obviously depends on the premise that there are objective "things" apart from an observer or an observer's relation to them and that their existence and nature can be objectively described. My own view is that whether kinship exists or not depends on how it is defined by the observer, which in turn states the observer's conception of "it" and his relationship to "it." Needham seems to take the view that this is simply an empirical question; kinship is either an existential "thing" that is "there," or it is not. If it actually exists, it is there, whether we like it or not, no matter how we define it or how we conceive of it, and our problem is to discover its nature and characteristics and so describe and define it correctly. I do not share this view. For me its very existence is in significant part a consequence of how it is understood and defined, and the definition does not, nor can it, arise solely as a consequence of "its" real nature. My second difference stems from the next step in Needham's argument. Despite the fact that he feels that there is no unitary thing which can be called "kinship" he affirms that "I am not denying, therefore, that the word 'kin• ship' is useful. ... it has an immense variety of uses, in that all sorts of institutions and practices and ideas can be referred to by it" (p. 5) and "Let me simply adopt the minimal premise that kinship has to do with the alloca• tion of rights and their transmission from one generation to the next" (p. 3). Needham justifies this position by invoking Wittgenstein: "the term 'kinship' viii Preface is what Wittgenstein calls an 'odd-job' word" (p. 5). In brief, despite the fact that there is no such thing as kinship, that there can be no such thing as kinship theory, it is nevertheless useful to use the word because all sorts of institutions and practices and ideas having to do with the allocation of rights and their transmission from one generation to the next can be referred to by it. Not only does the logic of this position escape me, but this only begs the question by shifting the problem onto the question of what generation means. For if we take generation in the sense in which it is usually used by an• thropologists and in studies of kinship, then we are right back where we started—is there really such a "thing"? The primary objective of this book is a critical examination of the presuppositions that are part of the study of kinship and the whole idea of "kinship" as it has been pursued by anthropologists in recent decades. It is the theory of Radcliffe-Brown, Lowie, Fortes, Eggan, Murdock, and Need- ham before he saw the light, among others, their co-workers and students. It is the theory which is the conventional wisdom of today and can be found in textbooks, monographs, and papers by anthropologists dealing with the subject. However, I will not deal systematically with "kinship terms," "de• scent," or "marriage" here although the discussion will necessarily have implications for these. In part this critical examination is conducted by juxtaposing two "de• scriptions" of the "kinship system" of the island of Yap, West Caroline Islands. Another objective of the book, though a minor one, is to make clear the degree to which I can no longer support my writings on Yap on which the first description is based. This is, therefore, a published, public correction or reevaluation of those materials. Many people have helped with this book. First, my debt to Dr. David Labby for his understanding of Yapese culture, based on a very fine piece of fieldwork, is great and obvious. As rs evident, in the light of his fieldwork and interpretation I not only reformulated my own conception of Yapese culture, but was able to understand a host of problems that had effectively prevented me from producing a monograph of my own. My interpretation of Yapese culture, as embodied in the papers listed in the bibliography, was simply inadequate. Labby did, for me at least, really "demystify Yap" and I think his demystification has held up under close study. Dr. Robert McKinley read the next to last draft of the book with great care, and in part as a result of his suggestions the book was largely rewritten and reorganized. I am most grateful for the care and attention he gave the manuscript and the many useful suggestions he made-—not all of which I had the good sense to follow, of course. He can on no account be held responsible Preface ix for the defects of the book—he tried his best. But he is responsible for some of its stronger points. Dr. John Kirkpatrick was particularly helpful with the ethnographic accounts, for he had himself done fieldwork on Yap and knew the materials intimately. I regret not having had the benefit of his views on this last draft. The penultimate draft was read by John Comaroff, Part I by Terrance Turner, and chapter 13 by Ward Goodenough. Their comments were appreci• ated even when we flatly disagreed. It is only fair to say that I doubt if any of these readers agrees with everything, or even most of the things, said in this book. I alone am responsible for its faults. D. D. Kaspin's editing helped immeasurably to make the book readable, where it is readable, that is. Grateful acknowledgment is made to the National Endowment for the Humanities for the fellowship during which the first two drafts of the manu• script were written. I am also grateful for the support of the Lichtstern Fund of the Department of Anthropology of the University of Chicago.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Ward H. Goodenough Papers 1070.2003.12
    Ward H. Goodenough papers 1070.2003.12 Last updated on March 03, 2017. University of Pennsylvania, Penn Museum Archives Ward H. Goodenough papers Table of Contents Summary Information....................................................................................................................................3 Biography/History..........................................................................................................................................3 Scope and Contents....................................................................................................................................... 4 Administrative Information........................................................................................................................... 4 Controlled Access Headings..........................................................................................................................5 Collection Inventory...................................................................................................................................... 6 Truk.......................................................................................................................................................... 6 Gilbert Islands........................................................................................................................................14 New Guinea........................................................................................................................................... 16 New
    [Show full text]
  • Learning Kin Terms
    Parkin, Learning kin terms LEARNING KIN TERMS: A SOCIAL ANTHROPOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE ROBERT PARKIN1 The first observation on the topic of how children learn kin terms from a social anthropological perspective must be that not very much work has been done on it, despite the emergence of a corpus of work on the anthropology of children in the last half-century or so. This may be because of a general rejection within the profession of an early attempt at explanation, that of the Polish-British anthropologist Bronisław Malinowski in the 1920s. His explanation was bound up with the different but related theory of extensionism, which, by contrast, is far from dead. In order to understand his explanation, it is necessary to go into what is meant by extensionism in some detail. This states, essentially, that where primary kin one genealogical step away from ego share terms with relatives more than one step away, the nearer designation is the ‘focal’ one, other specifications of the term being ‘extensions’ of it. Examples include the well-known terminological equations father = father’s brother, mother = mother’s sister, sibling = parallel cousin (i.e. mother’s sister’s children and father’s brother’s children) and child = same-sex sibling’s child (i.e. a man’s brother’s child and a woman’s sister’s child). In the first two cases, father and mother are the focal specifications of their respective terms. This position also started with Malinowski, and it has been followed by anthropologists influenced by him, including Meyer Fortes, Harold Scheffler and his collaborator, the linguist Floyd Lounsbury and Warren Shapiro.
    [Show full text]
  • History of the Pacific Islands Studies Program at the University of Hawaii: 1950-198
    HISTORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS STUDIES PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: 1950-198 by AGNES QUIGG Workinq Paper Series Pacific Islands Studies Program canters for Asian cmd Pacific Studies University of Hawaii at Manoa EDITOR'S OOTE The Pacific Islands Studies Program. often referred to as PIP, at the University of Hawaii had its beginnings in 1950. These were pre-statehood days. The university was still a small territorial institution (statehood came in 1959), and it is an understatement to say that the program had very humble origins. Subsequently, it has had a very checkered history and has gone through several distinct phases. These and the program's overall history are clearly described and well analyzed by Ms. Agnes Quigg. This working paper was originally submitted by Ms. Quigg as her M.A. thesis in Pacific Islands Studies. Ms. Quigg' is a librarian in the serials division. Hamnlton Library, University of Hawaii. Earlier in this decade, she played a crucial role in the organization of the microfilming of the archives of the U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, Office of the High CommiSSioner, Saipan, Northern Marianas. The archives are now on file at Hamilton Library. Formerly, Ms. Quigg was a librarian for the Kamehameha Schools in Honolulu. R. C. Kiste Director Center for Pacific Islands Studies THE HISTORY OF THE PACIFIC ISLANDS STUDIES PROGRAM AT THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAII: 1950-1986 By Agnes Quigg 1987 ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to a number of people who have helped me to complete my story. Judith Hamnett aided immeasurably in my knowledge of the early years of PIP, when she graciously turned over her work covering PIP's first decade.
    [Show full text]
  • The Value of Comparison Transcript of the Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture Given on November 13, 2013
    2014 | HAU-Morgan Lectures Initiative TRANSCRIPT The value of comparison Transcript of the Lewis Henry Morgan Lecture given on November 13, 2013 Peter VAN DER VEER, Max Planck Institute for the Study of Religious and Ethnic Diversity, Göttingen The HAU-Morgan Lectures Initiative A HAU and University of Rochester Collaboration It is an honor and a privilege to be invited to the University of Rochester to give the Morgan Lecture, a veritable anthropological institution. I want to salute Lewis Henry Morgan and a previous Morgan Lecturer, Ward Goodenough, who both contributed substantially to the study of kinship. Morgan is still a household name among Chinese anthropologists due to the influence he has had on Marx and Engels. It is an irony of history that the ghost of this brilliant capitalist still haunts the academic institutions of Communist China. Ward Goodenough who recently passed away and was my (very senior) colleague at the University of Pennsylvania in the late eighties delivered the Lewis Henry Morgan Lectures in 1968 titled “Description and comparison in cultural anthropology.” Goodenough argued that the description of the basic emic categories, primarily those of kin- ship that one’s informants used could be used to reconstruct their culture, as if it was a language. In my talk today I am revisiting the topic of comparison, but not from the angle of kinship. I will focus instead on the study of cultural fragments using a holistic conceptualization that problematizes the “view from the West.” This work is licensed under the Creative Commons | © Peter van der Veer. Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to the David M. Schneider Papers 1918-1994
    University of Chicago Library Guide to the David M. Schneider Papers 1918-1994 © 2008 University of Chicago Library Table of Contents Descriptive Summary 3 Information on Use 3 Access 3 Citation 3 Biographical Note 3 Scope Note 4 Related Resources 4 Subject Headings 4 INVENTORY 5 Series I: Correspondence 5 Series II: Teaching Materials 27 Series III: Research Materials 29 Subseries 1: Yap Materials. 29 Subseries 2: Kinship Materials 38 Subseries 3: Other Research Materials. 49 Subseries 4: Research and Grant Proposals. 52 Series IV: Manuscripts 53 Subseries 1: Yap Manuscripts 53 Subseries 2: Kinship Manuscripts 55 Subseries 3: Other Manuscripts. 60 Series V: Other Writings 66 Subseries 1: Other Writings on Yap 66 Subseries 2: Other Writings on Kinship 68 Subseries 3: Other Writings 70 Series VI: Personal Papers 73 Series VII: Audiovisual Material 74 Series VIII: Oversized Materials 75 Series IX: Restricted 80 Descriptive Summary Identifier ICU.SPCL.SCHNEIDERD Title Schneider, David M. Papers Date 1918-1994 Size 72.75 linear feet (125 boxes) Repository Special Collections Research Center University of Chicago Library 1100 East 57th Street Chicago, Illinois 60637 U.S.A. Abstract David M. Schneider (1918 - 1995), anthropologist. Contains correspondence, teaching materials, research materials and field notes, research and grant proposals, manuscripts, reprints and clippings, photographs, and personal files. Correspondents included Clifford Geertz, Claude Levi-Strauss, Margaret Mead, Talcott Parsons and Marshall Sahlins. This collection contains material from the period 1918 - 1994. Information on Use Access Series IX contains student evaluative material, which is restricted for 80 years, and financial and personnel files, which are restricted for fifty years from the date of creation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Malinowski Award Papers
    The Dynamics of Applied Anthropology in the Twentieth Century: The Malinowski Award Papers Thomas Weaver Editor and Contributor of Introductory Materials Society for Applied Anthropology Oklahoma City 2002 ii Series Editor: Patricia J. Higgins, Plattsburgh State University Production Designer: Neil Hann, Society for Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City Production Manager: J. Thomas May, Society for Applied Anthropology, Oklahoma City Copyright 2002 by the Society for Applied Anthropology All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reprinted in any form or in any means without permission except in the context of reviews. All inquiries should be addressed to the Society for Applied Anthropology, P.O. Box 24093, Oklahoma City, 73124. Essays in chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 were previously published in Human Organization. The essay in chapter 23 was previously published in The Future of Anthropology: Its Relevance to the Contemporary World, Akbar S. Ahmed and Cris N. Shore, eds. (London: Athlone, 1995). iii Contents vii Acknowledgements viii About the Editor 1 Chapter 1: The Malinowski Award and the History of Applied Anthropology Thomas Weaver 14 Chapter 2: Malinowski as Applied Anthropologist Thomas Weaver 34 Chapter 3: Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán: Applied Anthropology and Indigenous Policy Thomas Weaver 38 Applied Anthropology in Mexico Gonzalo Aguirre Beltrán (Tucson 1973) 45 Chapter 4: Everett C. Hughes: Urban Sociology, Social Problems, and Ethics Thomas Weaver 48 Who Studies Whom? Everett C. Hughes (Boston 1974) 59 Chapter 5: Gunnar Myrdal: Interdisciplinary Research, Policy Science, and Racism Thomas Weaver 62 The Unity of the Social Sciences Gunnar Myrdal (Amsterdam 1975) 69 Chapter 6: Edward H.
    [Show full text]
  • Toward a Convergence of Cognitive and Symbolic Anthropology
    toward a convergence of cognitive and symbolic anthropology BENJAMIN N. COLBY-University of California, lrvine JAMES W. FERNANDEZ-Princeton University DAVID B. KRONENFELD-University of California, Riverside There is a new fermentation in social anthropology that crosses the boundaries of what have usually been seen as distinct subfields. In particular, one can envision a convergence of cognitive and symbolic anthropology. We are concerned both with the signs of con- vergence that one can already see and with the directions along which this convergence might continue. The lack of developed theory in the two subfields makes both more responsive to changing conditions which include innovations in disciplines that neighbor anthropology. as well as in cognitive and symbolic anthropology themselves. This paper ex- amines the conditions that have brought about the emergence of the two subfields as distinct groupings of anthropologists, describes the recent changes that are bringing the two closer together, and suggests future directions that may lead to a convergence and even, possibly, to a single theoretical base which is more developed and interesting than the separate formulations of earlier writings. While no such theory is advanced here, we point to the directions from which such a theory might come. separate fields of Inquiry Cognitive anthropology grows out of an enduring anthropological commitment to the analysis of native thought processes and, more particularly, to formal analyses of systems of belief and world view. Subsequently, this approach has come to rely heavily on the analysis of native terminologies and entered into a highly focused phase in the 1960s with studies of taxonomic structures and semantic features within such domains as those of kin- This review describes the conditions that have established the subfields of cognitive anthropology and symbolic anthropology as major clusterings of anthropologists.
    [Show full text]
  • Focality and Extension in Kinship Essays in Memory of Harold W
    FOCALITY AND EXTENSION IN KINSHIP ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF HAROLD W. SCHEFFLER FOCALITY AND EXTENSION IN KINSHIP ESSAYS IN MEMORY OF HAROLD W. SCHEFFLER EDITED BY WARREN SHAPIRO Published by ANU Press The Australian National University Acton ACT 2601, Australia Email: [email protected] This title is also available online at press.anu.edu.au A catalogue record for this book is available from the National Library of Australia ISBN(s): 9781760461812 (print) 9781760461829 (eBook) This title is published under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0). The full licence terms are available at creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ legalcode Cover design and layout by ANU Press. Cover photograph of Hal Scheffler by Ray Kelly. This edition © 2018 ANU Press To the memory of Harold Walter Scheffler, a compassionate man of the highest scholarly standards Contents List of Figures and Tables . ix Acknowledgements . xiii Contributors . xv Part I. Introduction: Hal Scheffler’s Extensionism in Historical Perspective and its Relevance to Current Controversies . 3 Warren Shapiro and Dwight Read Part II. The Battle Joined 1 . Hal Scheffler Versus David Schneider and His Admirers, in the Light of What We Now Know About Trobriand Kinship . 31 Warren Shapiro 2 . Extension Problem: Resolution Through an Unexpected Source . 59 Dwight Read Part III. Ethnographic Explorations of Extensionist Theory 3 . Action, Metaphor and Extensions in Kinship . 119 Andrew Strathern and Pamela J. Stewart 4 . Should I Stay or Should I Go? Hunter-Gatherer Networking Through Bilateral Kin . 133 Russell D. Greaves and Karen L.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultural Anthropoloty : a Course Outline Gabriel D
    University of Richmond UR Scholarship Repository Honors Theses Student Research 1999 Leadership 'n' cultural anthropoloty : a course outline Gabriel D. Soll Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses Part of the Leadership Studies Commons Recommended Citation Soll, Gabriel D., "Leadership 'n' cultural anthropoloty : a course outline" (1999). Honors Theses. 1250. https://scholarship.richmond.edu/honors-theses/1250 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Research at UR Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of UR Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. UNIVERSITYOF RICHMOND LIBRARIES !IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 3 3082 00702 7625 Leadership 'n' Cultural Anthropoloty: A Course Outline By Gabriel D. Soll Senior Project Jepson School of Leadership Studies University of Richmond Richmond, Virginia May,1999 Leadership 'n' Cultural Anthropology: A Course Outline by Gabriel D. Soll Senior Project Jepson School of Leadership Studies University of Richmond Richmond, VA Spring 1999 CONTENTS: Introduction 3 Methodology 5 Review of Literature 8 A Note on the Evolution of this Course 14 Unit One: Culture 20 Unit Two: Power and Authority 36 Unit Three: Change 52 Conclusion 67 Bibliography 69 Acknowledgments 71 Appendices 72 Recommended Ethnographic Texts 73 Sample Syllabus 74 2 "There is 110such thi11gas a new idea. It is impossihle. \Ve simply take a lot of old ideas a11dput them into a sort of me11tal kaleidoscope. We give them a tum a11dthey make 11ewa11d curious combi11atio11s. We keep on tumi11g a11dmaking new combinations i11defi11itely;but they are the same old pieces of colored glass that have bee11i11 use through all the ages.
    [Show full text]
  • Together Through Life
    Together Through Life An Ethnographic Study of Hierarchy, Equality, and Togetherness on the Epoon Atoll, Marshall Islands Ola Gunhildrud Berta Master’s thesis, the Department of Social Anthropology UNIVERSITY OF OSLO 2015 ii Together Through Life An Ethnographic Study of Hierarchy, Equality, and Togetherness on the Epoon Atoll, Marshall Islands Ola Gunhildrud Berta University of Oslo 2015 iii © Ola Gunhildrud Berta 2015 Together Through Life: An Ethnographic Study of Hierarchy, Equality, and Togetherness on the Epoon Atoll, Marshall Islands http://www.duo.uio.no/ Trykk: Reprosentralen, Universitetet i Oslo iv Abstract This thesis deals with everyday manifestations of hierarchy, equality and togetherness on the Epoon [Ebon] Atoll on the Marshall Islands. More particularly, it investigates some of the ways in which people on Epoon evoke and invoke hierarchy and egalitarianism, depending on context. People on Epoon have a striking tendency to stress equality and togetherness among themselves, in public speeches as well as in their cooking hut conversations. This emphasis on egalitarian values is visible in most social dynamics on the atoll. Interestingly, these egalitarian ideals often stand in direct opposition to a hierarchical form of social structure. Anthropologists have typically described the Marshallese social structure as a class-based hierarchy, ranging from commoners to high chiefs, with hierarchical differences within each class. Having some forms of hierarchical organization, however, does not necessarily mean inequality regarding social life on Epoon. On the contrary, I argue that, even with the presence of hierarchy, equality stands out as an encompassing cultural value. Through four ethnographic chapters, I seek to illustrate some of the ways in which this plays out in daily life.
    [Show full text]
  • American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-19971
    Pacific Science, vol. 54, no. 3: 265-274 © 2000 by University of Hawai'i Press. AIl rights reserved American Anthropology in Micronesia, 1941-19971 ROBERT C. KISTE 2 AND MAC MARSHALL 3 ABSTRACT: Before the Second World War, relatively few American anthro­ pologists had worked in the Pacific, and Micronesia was virtually unknown. After the war, the U.S. Navy sponsored the Coordinated Investigation of Micronesian Anthropology, the largest research project in the history ofthe dis­ cipline. Several CIMA participants became major figures, and they inspired substantial further work in the region. In this paper research trends in Micro­ nesia during the past half century are discussed and suggestions for the future are offered. CEREMONIES AT PEARL HARBOR on 7 Decem­ that had composed the Japanese Mandate. ber 1991 marked the fiftieth anniversary of Of all the islands of Micronesia, only the Japan's attack on American military bases Gilberts and Nauru were not under Ameri­ on the Hawaiian island of O'ahu, the inci­ can control; at war's end, they reverted to the dent that catapulted America's entry into British sphere of authority. World War II. Of those assembled at Pearl Before the war, Micronesia was little Harbor in 1991, only a very few would have known in the English-speaking world, but it known that the following day was also the had a long legacy ofcolonialism under Spain, silver anniversary of another significant, al­ Germany, and Japan. However, in 1943 Mi­ beit unnoticed, event. cronesia began to emerge from behind the On Monday, 8 December 1941, and what "bamboo curtain" when the first of a half in retrospect appears as an act of incredible dozen handbooks on the islands appeared optimism, George Peter Murdock anticipated as products of the work at Yale.
    [Show full text]
  • Kinship in Mind: Three Approaches Doug Jones
    11 Kinship in Mind: Three Approaches Doug Jones Social anthropologists mostly study kinship as a principle of social organisation. But there is also a psychological and cognitive side to human kinship, involving questions like: How do people recognise others as kin of one sort or another? What do kin categories mean and how are they related to one another? What, if anything, distinguishes thinking about kinship from other varieties of social cognition? Different schools of anthropology offer very different answers to these questions. Here I review three approaches to the psychology of kinship. One has its roots in evolutionary theory and human/nonhuman comparisons. The second is concerned with symbolism, culture, and the natives’ explicit theories of procreation and kinship. These approaches are likely to be familiar to students of evolution and human behaviour, and cultural anthropology, respectively. The third approach stems from recent developments in cognitive science, especially in the study of specialised domains of cognition. This approach is newest, and probably least familiar to most anthropologists and even to most cognitive scientists, so it receives most attention here. I argue that human beings have a specialised cognitive system—which can be called ‘kinship core cognition’ or ‘kinship conceptual structure’—comprising a set of universal building blocks for organising knowledge of kin and kin categories in an abstract kinship space. Much of the success of formal methods in the study of kin 343 FOCALITy AND ExTENSION IN KINSHIP categorisation, as carried out by authors like Floyd Lounsbury (1964), Ward Goodenough (1965), Harold Scheffler (1978), Dwight Read (2010), Murray Leaf (Leaf and Read 2012) and others, depends on these building blocks.
    [Show full text]