What Racial/ethnic Group Do You Think Creates and Supports the Strongest Family Ties? Why?

Homo human relationship term; spider web of social relationships that grade an important part of the lives of nigh humans in most societies; course of social connection

In anthropology, kinship is the web of social relationships that form an important office of the lives of all humans in all societies, although its verbal meanings even within this discipline are often debated. Anthropologist Robin Pull a fast one on states that "the report of kinship is the study of what human being does with these bones facts of life – mating, gestation, parenthood, socialization, siblingship etc." Human society is unique, he argues, in that we are "working with the same raw material as exists in the animal globe, but [we] tin anticipate and categorize it to serve social ends."^[1] These social ends include the socialization of children and the formation of basic economical, political and religious groups.

Kinship can refer both to the patterns of social relationships themselves, or information technology can refer to the report of the patterns of social relationships in i or more than human cultures (i.eastward. kinship studies). Over its history, anthropology has developed a number of related concepts and terms in the study of kinship, such every bit descent, descent grouping, lineage, affinity/affine, consanguinity/cognate and fictive kinship. Further, even within these two broad usages of the term, in that location are different theoretical approaches.

Broadly, kinship patterns may be considered to include people related by both descent – i.e. social relations during evolution – and by union. Human kinship relations through marriage are usually called "affinity" in dissimilarity to the relationships that arise in i's group of origin, which may exist chosen i's descent group. In some cultures, kinship relationships may be considered to extend out to people an individual has economic or political relationships with, or other forms of social connections. Inside a civilization, some descent groups may exist considered to lead back to gods^[2] or fauna ancestors (totems). This may be conceived of on a more or less literal basis.

Kinship can as well refer to a principle by which individuals or groups of individuals are organized into social groups, roles, categories and genealogy by ways of kinship terminologies. Family relations tin exist represented concretely (mother, brother, gramps) or abstractly by degrees of relationship (kinship distance). A human relationship may be relative (e.g. a father in relation to a child) or reflect an absolute (due east.chiliad. the departure between a mother and a childless woman). Degrees of relationship are non identical to heirship or legal succession. Many codes of ethics consider the bond of kinship every bit creating obligations between the related persons stronger than those betwixt strangers, as in Confucian filial piety.

In a more general sense, kinship may refer to a similarity or affinity between entities on the basis of some or all of their characteristics that are nether focus. This may be due to a shared ontological origin, a shared historical or cultural connection, or another perceived shared features that connect the two entities. For instance, a person studying the ontological roots of human languages (etymology) might enquire whether in that location is kinship between the English language discussion seven and the German language give-and-take sieben. It can be used in a more diffuse sense as in, for instance, the news headline "Madonna feels kinship with vilified Wallis Simpson", to imply a felt similarity or empathy between ii or more entities.

In biology, "kinship" typically refers to the caste of genetic relatedness or the coefficient of relationship between individual members of a species (e.g. as in kin choice theory). It may likewise be used in this specific sense when applied to homo relationships, in which case its significant is closer to consanguinity or genealogy.

Basic concepts [edit]

Family unit types [edit]

Family unit is a group of people affiliated by consanguinity (by recognized nascency), affinity (by union), or co-residence/shared consumption (meet Nurture kinship). In almost societies, it is the chief institution for the socialization of children. As the basic unit of measurement for raising children, Anthropologists most generally allocate family organization as matrifocal (a mother and her children); bridal (a husband, his wife, and children; too chosen nuclear family unit); avuncular (a brother, his sister, and her children); or extended family in which parents and children co-reside with other members of one parent's family.

Nonetheless, producing children is not the simply function of the family; in societies with a sexual partition of labor, marriage, and the resulting relationship between 2 people, information technology is necessary for the formation of an economically productive household.^{[3] [4] [5]}

Terminology [edit]

A mention of "cȳnne" (kinsmen) in the Beowulf

Different societies classify kinship relations differently and therefore utilise different systems of kinship terminology – for example some languages distinguish between affinal and consanguine uncles, whereas others take only one word to refer to both a male parent and his brothers. Kinship terminologies include the terms of address used in dissimilar languages or communities for different relatives and the terms of reference used to identify the relationship of these relatives to ego or to each other.

Kin terminologies can be either descriptive or classificatory. When a descriptive terminology is used, a term refers to just ane specific blazon of relationship, while a classificatory terminology groups many different types of relationships nether one term. For example, the word brother in English language-speaking societies indicates a son of one's aforementioned parent; thus, English language-speaking societies use the word brother equally a descriptive term referring to this relationship only. In many other classificatory kinship terminologies, in contrast, a person's male offset cousin (whether mother'south brother's son, mother's sister's son, father's brother's son, begetter's sister'due south son) may as well be referred to as brothers.

The major patterns of kinship systems that are known which Lewis Henry Morgan identified through kinship terminology in his 1871 work Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family unit are:

• Iroquois kinship (also known as "bifurcate merging")
• Crow kinship (an expansion of bifurcate merging)
• Omaha kinship (also an expansion of bisect merging)
• Eskimo kinship (too referred to as "lineal kinship")
• Hawaiian kinship (also referred to as the "generational system")
• Sudanese kinship (also referred to as the "descriptive system")^{[ citation needed ]}

There is a 7th type of system only identified as distinct after:

• Dravidian kinship (the classical type of classificatory kinship, with bifurcate merging but totally distinct from Iroquois). Virtually Australian Aboriginal kinship is besides classificatory.

The six types (Crow, Eskimo, Hawaiian, Iroquois, Omaha, Sudanese) that are non fully classificatory (Dravidian, Australian) are those identified by Murdock (1949) prior to Lounsbury's (1964) rediscovery of the linguistic principles of classificatory kin terms.

Tri-relational Kin-terms [edit]

An illustration of the bi-relational and tri-relational senses of nakurrng in Bininj Gun-Wok.

While normal kin-terms discussed above denote a relationship between two entities (e.g. the word 'sis' denotes the relationship betwixt the speaker or another entity and another feminine entity who shares the parents of the former), trirelational kin-terms—also known as triangular, triadic, ternary, and shared kin-terms—denote a relationship between three singled-out entities. These occur commonly in Australian Aboriginal languages with the context of Australian Aboriginal kinship.

In Bininj Gun-Wok,^[6] for example, the bi-relational kin-term nakurrng is differentiated from its tri-relational counterpart past the position of the possessive pronoun ke. When nakurrng is anchored to the addressee with ke in the second position, it merely means 'brother' (which includes a broader set of relations than in English). When the ke is fronted, however, the term nakurrng now incorporates the male person speaker as a propositus (P i.e. point of reference for a kin-relation) and encapsulates the entire relationship as follows:

• The person (R eferent) who is your (P Leaseholder) maternal uncle and who is my (P Speaker) nephew by virtue of you being my grandchild.

Kin-based Group Terms and Pronouns [edit]

Many Australian languages besides have elaborate systems of referential terms for denoting groups of people based on their relationship to one another (not merely their human relationship to the speaker or an external propositus like 'grandparents'). For example, in Kuuk Thaayorre, a maternal grandfather and his sister are referred to as paanth ngan-ngethe and addressed with the vocative ngethin. ^[seven] In Bardi, a father and his sister are irrmoorrgooloo; a man's wife and his children are aalamalarr.

In Murrinh-patha, nonsingular pronouns are differentiated not only by the gender makeup of the group, but also past the members' interrelation. If the members are in a sibling-like relation, a third pronoun (SIB) volition be chosen distinct from the Masculine (MASC) and Feminine/Neuter (FEM).^[8]

Descent [edit]

Descent rules [edit]

In many societies where kinship connections are important, there are rules, though they may exist expressed or be taken for granted. There are 4 main headings that anthropologists use to categorize rules of descent. They are bilateral, unilineal, ambilineal and double descent.^[ix]

• Bilateral descent or ii-sided descent affiliates an private more or less equally with relatives on his male parent'south and mother'south sides. A good case is the Yakurr of the Crossriver country of Nigeria.
• Unilineal rules affiliates an private through the descent of i sex only, that is, either through males or through females. They are subdivided into two: patrilineal (male) and matrilineal (female). Almost societies are patrilineal. Examples of a matrilineal system of descent are the Nyakyusa of Tanzania and the Nair of Bharat. Many societies that exercise a matrilineal system oft have a matrilocal residence but men still exercise significant authority.
• Ambilineal (or Cognatic) rule affiliates an individual with kinsmen through the father's or mother's line. Some people in societies that exercise this system affiliate with a group of relatives through their fathers and others through their mothers. The individual can cull which side he wants to affiliate to. The Samoans of the South Pacific are an fantabulous instance of an ambilineal society. The core members of the Samoan descent grouping can alive together in the same compound.
• Double descent (or double unilineal descent) refers to societies in which both the patrilineal and matrilineal descent group are recognized. In these societies an individual affiliates for some purposes with a grouping of patrilineal kinsmen and for other purposes with a group of matrilineal kinsmen. Individuals in societies that practise this are recognized as a part of multiple descent groups, usually at least two. The well-nigh widely known case of double descent is the Afikpo of Imo state in Nigeria. Although patrilineage is considered an important method of arrangement, the Afikpo considers matrilineal ties to exist more important.

Descent groups [edit]

A descent group is a social grouping whose members talk nigh common ancestry. A unilineal society is one in which the descent of an individual is reckoned either from the mother'southward or the father's line of descent. Matrilineal descent is based on relationship to females of the family line. A child would non be recognized with their father'southward family in these societies, just would exist seen as a member of their mother'south family's line.^[10] Simply put, individuals vest to their mother's descent group. Matrilineal descent includes the mother's blood brother, who in some societies may pass along inheritance to the sister'southward children or succession to a sister'southward son. Conversely, with patrilineal descent, individuals belong to their father'due south descent group. Children are recognized as members of their father's family, and descent is based on relationship to males of the family line.^[10] Societies with the Iroquois kinship system, are typically unilineal, while the Iroquois proper are specifically matrilineal.

In a society which reckons descent bilaterally (bilineal), descent is reckoned through both father and mother, without unilineal descent groups. Societies with the Eskimo kinship system, like the Inuit, Yupik, and about Western societies, are typically bilateral. The egocentric kindred grouping is too typical of bilateral societies. Additionally, the Batek people of Malaysia recognize kinship ties through both parents' family lines, and kinship terms bespeak that neither parent nor their families are of more or less importance than the other.^[xi]

Some societies reckon descent patrilineally for some purposes, and matrilineally for others. This arrangement is sometimes called double descent. For instance, certain property and titles may be inherited through the male line, and others through the female line.

Societies tin can too consider descent to be ambilineal (such as Hawaiian kinship) where offspring determine their lineage through the matrilineal line or the patrilineal line.

Lineages, clans, phratries, moieties, and matrimonial sides [edit]

A lineage is a unilineal descent group that can demonstrate their mutual descent from a known apical ancestor. Unilineal lineages can exist matrilineal or patrilineal, depending on whether they are traced through mothers or fathers, respectively. Whether matrilineal or patrilineal descent is considered about meaning differs from culture to culture.

A association is by and large a descent group claiming common descent from an apical antecedent. Often, the details of parentage are not important elements of the clan tradition. Non-human apical ancestors are called totems. Examples of clans are institute in Chechen, Chinese, Irish, Japanese, Smoothen, Scottish, Tlingit, and Somali societies.

A phratry is a descent group composed of ii or more clans each of whose apical ancestors are descended from a farther common ancestor.

If a gild is divided into exactly two descent groups, each is called a moiety, after the French word for one-half. If the two halves are each obliged to marry out, and into the other, these are called matrimonial moieties. Houseman and White (1998b, bibliography) take discovered numerous societies where kinship network analysis shows that ii halves marry one another, similar to matrimonial moieties, except that the two halves—which they call matrimonial sides ^[12]—are neither named nor descent groups, although the egocentric kinship terms may be consistent with the design of sidedness, whereas the sidedness is culturally evident simply imperfect.^[13]

The give-and-take deme refers to an endogamous local population that does non have unilineal descent.^[14] Thus, a deme is a local endogamous community without internal segmentation into clans.

House societies [edit]

In some societies kinship and political relations are organized around membership in corporately organized dwellings rather than around descent groups or lineages, as in the "House of Windsor". The concept of a house club was originally proposed by Claude Lévi-Strauss who called them "sociétés à maison".^{[15] [16]} The concept has been applied to sympathize the organization of societies from Mesoamerica and the Moluccas to North Africa and medieval Europe.^{[17] [xviii]} Lévi-Strauss introduced the concept every bit an alternative to 'corporate kinship group' amid the cognatic kinship groups of the Pacific region. The socially significant groupings within these societies have variable membership because kinship is reckoned bilaterally (through both begetter's and mother's kin) and comes together for only brusk periods. Belongings, genealogy and residence are not the basis for the group's existence.^[19]

Marriage (affinity) [edit]

Spousal relationship is a socially or ritually recognized matrimony or legal contract between spouses that establishes rights and obligations betwixt them, betwixt them and their children, and between them and their in-laws.^[20] The definition of marriage varies according to different cultures, only it is principally an institution in which interpersonal relationships, usually intimate and sexual, are acknowledged. When divers broadly, union is considered a cultural universal. A wide definition of marriage includes those that are monogamous, polygamous, aforementioned-sex activity and temporary.

The deed of marriage usually creates normative or legal obligations between the individuals involved, and whatever offspring they may produce. Marriage may upshot, for instance, in "a union between a man and a woman such that children built-in to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."^[21] Edmund Leach argued that no one definition of spousal relationship applied to all cultures, just offered a list of ten rights frequently associated with spousal relationship, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children (with specific rights differing beyond cultures).^[22]

There is wide cross-cultural variation in the social rules governing the selection of a partner for matrimony. In many societies, the choice of partner is limited to suitable persons from specific social groups. In some societies the rule is that a partner is selected from an individual's own social group – endogamy, this is the case in many class and degree based societies. Only in other societies a partner must be called from a different group than one'south ain – exogamy, this is the case in many societies practicing totemic religion where social club is divided into several exogamous totemic clans, such as most Aboriginal Australian societies. Marriages between parents and children, or between full siblings, with few exceptions,^{[23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29]} accept been considered incest and forbidden. Nevertheless, marriages betwixt more afar relatives accept been much more common, with 1 estimate being that fourscore% of all marriages in history accept been between second cousins or closer.^[30]

Alliance (marital substitution systems) [edit]

Systemic forms of preferential marriage may have wider social implications in terms of economical and political arrangement. In a wide array of lineage-based societies with a classificatory kinship system, potential spouses are sought from a specific class of relatives as determined by a prescriptive wedlock dominion. Insofar as regular marriages following prescriptive rules occur, lineages are linked together in stock-still relationships; these ties betwixt lineages may form political alliances in kinship dominated societies.^[31] French structural anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss developed the brotherhood theory to account for the "elementary" kinship structures created by the express number of prescriptive marriage rules possible.^[32]

Claude Lévi-Strauss argued in The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), that the incest taboo necessitated the commutation of women between kinship groups. Levi-Strauss thus shifted the accent from descent groups to the stable structures or relations between groups that preferential and prescriptive wedlock rules created.^[33]

History [edit]

1 of the foundational works in the anthropological study of kinship was Morgan's Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family unit (1871). As is the example with other social sciences, Anthropology and kinship studies emerged at a fourth dimension when the understanding of the Homo species' comparative place in the earth was somewhat different from today's. Evidence that life in stable social groups is non just a feature of humans, merely as well of many other primates, was yet to emerge and lodge was considered to be a uniquely man affair. As a issue, early kinship theorists saw an credible need to explain non but the details of how man social groups are constructed, their patterns, meanings and obligations, but besides why they are constructed at all. The why explanations thus typically presented the fact of life in social groups (which appeared to exist unique to humans) every bit being largely a result of human ideas and values.

Morgan's early on influence [edit]

Morgan's caption for why humans live in groups was largely based on the notion that all humans have an inherent natural valuation of genealogical ties (an unexamined assumption that would remain at the heart of kinship studies for another century, see beneath), and therefore besides an inherent desire to construct social groups around these ties. Nevertheless, Morgan found that members of a order who are not close genealogical relatives may nevertheless use what he called kinship terms (which he considered to exist originally based on genealogical ties). This fact was already axiomatic in his use of the term analogousness within his concept of the system of kinship. The nearly lasting of Morgan's contributions was his discovery of the departure betwixt descriptive and classificatory kinship terms, which situated wide kinship classes on the footing of imputing abstract social patterns of relationships having little or no overall relation to genetic closeness merely instead noesis nearly kinship, social distinctions equally they touch linguistic usages in kinship terminology, and strongly relate, if only by approximation, to patterns of marriage.^[thirteen]

Kinship networks and social process^[34] [edit]

A more flexible view of kinship was formulated in British social anthropology. Among the attempts to interruption out of universalizing assumptions and theories about kinship, Radcliffe-Brownish (1922, The Andaman Islands; 1930, The social organization of Australian tribes) was the commencement to assert that kinship relations are all-time thought of as concrete networks of relationships among individuals. He then described these relationships, however, as typified by interlocking interpersonal roles. Malinowski (1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific) described patterns of events with concrete individuals as participants stressing the relative stability of institutions and communities, but without insisting on abstract systems or models of kinship. Gluckman (1955, The judicial process among the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia) balanced the emphasis on stability of institutions confronting processes of alter and conflict, inferred through detailed analysis of instances of social interaction to infer rules and assumptions. John Barnes, Victor Turner, and others, affiliated with Gluckman'due south Manchester school of anthropology, described patterns of actual network relations in communities and fluid situations in urban or migratory context, as with the piece of work of J. Clyde Mitchell (1965, Social Networks in Urban Situations). Notwithstanding, all these approaches clung to a view of stable functionalism, with kinship as i of the central stable institutions.

"Kinship organization" equally systemic blueprint [edit]

The concept of "organization of kinship" tended to dominate anthropological studies of kinship in the early on 20th century. Kinship systems as defined in anthropological texts and ethnographies were seen equally constituted by patterns of behavior and attitudes in relation to the differences in terminology, listed higher up, for referring to relationships as well as for addressing others. Many anthropologists went so far as to run into, in these patterns of kinship, strong relations between kinship categories and patterns of marriage, including forms of wedlock, restrictions on marriage, and cultural concepts of the boundaries of incest. A great deal of inference was necessarily involved in such constructions as to "systems" of kinship, and attempts to construct systemic patterns and reconstruct kinship evolutionary histories on these bases were largely invalidated in later on work. Nonetheless, anthropologist Dwight Read afterwards argued that the fashion in which kinship categories are defined by individual researchers are substantially inconsistent.^[35] This not only occurs when working within a systemic cultural model that tin be elicited in fieldwork, merely also when assuasive considerable private variability in details, such as when they are recorded through relative products.^[36]

Conflicting theories of the mid 20th century^[37] [edit]

In trying to resolve the problems of dubious inferences about kinship "systems", George P. Murdock (1949, Social Structure) compiled kinship data to test a theory about universals in human kinship in the way that terminologies were influenced by the behavioral similarities or social differences amid pairs of kin, proceeding on the view that the psychological ordering of kinship systems radiates out from ego and the nuclear family to different forms of extended family. Lévi-Strauss (1949, Les Structures Elementaires), on the other mitt, too looked for global patterns to kinship, simply viewed the "elementary" forms of kinship as lying in the ways that families were continued by marriage in different fundamental forms resembling those of modes of commutation: symmetric and direct, reciprocal filibuster, or generalized commutation.

Recognition of fluidity in kinship meanings and relations [edit]

Building on Lévi-Strauss's (1949) notions of kinship equally defenseless upward with the fluid languages of exchange, Edmund Leach (1961, Pul Eliya) argued that kinship was a flexible idiom that had something of the grammer of a linguistic communication, both in the uses of terms for kin but also in the fluidities of language, significant, and networks. His field studies criticized the ideas of structural-functional stability of kinship groups as corporations with charters that lasted long beyond the lifetimes of individuals, which had been the orthodoxy of British Social Anthropology. This sparked debates over whether kinship could be resolved into specific organized sets of rules and components of significant, or whether kinship meanings were more fluid, symbolic, and contained of grounding in supposedly determinate relations amidst individuals or groups, such every bit those of descent or prescriptions for union.

From the 1950s onwards, reports on kinship patterns in the New Guinea Highlands added some momentum to what had until then been only occasional fleeting suggestions that living together (co-residence) might underlie social bonding, and somewhen contributed to the general shift away from a genealogical arroyo (see below section). For example, on the basis of his observations, Barnes suggested:

[C]learly, genealogical connexion of some sort is one criterion for membership of many social groups. But it may not exist the just criterion; birth, or residence, or a parent'south former residence, or utilization of garden land, or participation in exchange and feasting activities or in house-building or raiding, may be other relevant criteria for group membership."(Barnes 1962,half dozen)^[38]

Similarly, Langness' ethnography of the Bena Bena as well emphasized the primacy of residence patterns in 'creating' kinship ties:

The sheer fact of residence in a Bena Bena group can and does determine kinship. People do non necessarily reside where they exercise because they are kinsmen: rather they become kinsmen because they reside at that place." (Langness 1964, 172 emphasis in original)^[39]

In 1972 David One thousand. Schneider raised^[40] deep problems with the notion that man social bonds and 'kinship' was a natural category built upon genealogical ties and fabricated a fuller argument in his 1984 book A critique of the study of Kinship ^[41] which had a major influence on the subsequent study of kinship.

Schneider's critique of genealogical concepts [edit]

Before the questions raised within anthropology about the study of 'kinship' past David K. Schneider^[41] and others from the 1960s onwards, anthropology itself had paid very little attending to the notion that kinship bonds were anything other than connected to consanguineal (or genealogical) relatedness (or its local cultural conceptions). Schneider's 1968 study^[42] of the symbolic meanings surrounding ideas of kinship in American Culture found that Americans ascribe a special significance to 'blood ties' as well as related symbols similar the naturalness of marriage and raising children within this civilisation. In later work (1972 and 1984) Schneider argued that unexamined genealogical notions of kinship had been embedded in anthropology since Morgan's early work^[43] considering American anthropologists (and anthropologists in western Europe) had made the mistake of assuming these particular cultural values of 'blood is thicker than water', common in their own societies, were 'natural' and universal for all human cultures (i.e. a course of ethnocentrism). He concluded that, due to these unexamined assumptions, the whole enterprise of 'kinship' in anthropology may have been built on faulty foundations. His 1984 book A Critique of The Written report of Kinship gave his fullest account of this critique.

Certainly for Morgan (1870:10) the actual bonds of blood relationship had a forcefulness and vitality of their own quite apart from any social overlay which they may also take acquired, and it is this biological relationship itself which accounts for what Radcliffe-Brown called "the source of social cohesion". (Schneider 1984, 49)

Schneider himself emphasised a distinction betwixt the notion of a social relationship as intrinsically given and inalienable (from birth), and a social relationship as created, constituted and maintained past a process of interaction, or doing (Schneider 1984, 165). Schneider used the example of the citamangen / fak human relationship in Yap order, that his own early on enquiry had previously glossed over every bit a father / son human relationship, to illustrate the problem;

The crucial indicate is this: in the relationship between citamangen and fak the stress in the definition of the relationship is more on doing than on being. That is, it is more than what the citamangen does for fak and what fak does for citamangen that makes or constitutes the relationship. This is demonstrated, get-go, in the power to end admittedly the relationship where at that place is a failure in the doing, when the fak fails to do what he is supposed to practise; and second, in the reversal of terms then that the old, dependent man becomes fak, to the young homo, tam. The European and the anthropological notion of consanguinity, of blood human relationship and descent, rest on precisely the contrary kind of value. It rests more on the state of being... on the biogenetic relationship which is represented by one or some other variant of the symbol of 'claret' (consanguinity), or on 'birth', on qualities rather than on performance. We have tried to impose this definition of a kind of relation on all peoples, insisting that kinship consists in relations of consanguinity and that kinship equally consanguinity is a universal condition.(Schneider 1984, 72)

Schneider preferred to focus on these often ignored processes of "performance, forms of doing, various codes for conduct, different roles" (p. 72) as the almost important constituents of kinship. His critique apace prompted a new generation of anthropologists to reconsider how they conceptualized, observed and described social relationships ('kinship') in the cultures they studied.

Mail-Schneider [edit]

Schneider's critique is widely acknowledged^{[44] [45] [46]} to have marked a turning point in anthropology's study of social relationships and interactions. Some anthropologists moved forward with kinship studies by teasing apart biological and social aspects, prompted by Schneider's question;

The question of whether kinship is a privileged system and if then, why, remains without a satisfactory reply. If it is privileged because of its relationship to the functional prerequisites imposed by the nature of concrete kinship, this remains to be spelled out in even the most simple detail. (Schneider 1984, 163)

Schneider also dismissed the sociobiological account of biological influences, maintaining that these did not fit the ethnographic bear witness (run into more below). Janet Carsten employed her studies with the Malays^[47] to reassess kinship. She uses the idea of relatedness to motion abroad from a pre-constructed analytic opposition betwixt the biological and the social. Carsten argued that relatedness should be described in terms of indigenous statements and practices, some of which fall outside what anthropologists have conventionally understood as kinship;

Ideas about relatedness in Langkawi show how culturally specific is the separation of the 'social' from the 'biological' and the latter to sexual reproduction. In Langkawi relatedness is derived both from acts of procreation and from living and eating together. It makes little sense in ethnic terms to characterization some of these activities as social and others as biological. (Carsten 1995, 236)

Philip Thomas' work with the Temanambondro of Madagascar highlights that nurturing processes are considered to be the 'basis' for kinship ties in this culture, nevertheless genealogical connections;

Even so merely as fathers are non simply made past birth, neither are mothers, and although mothers are not fabricated by "custom" they, like fathers, tin make themselves through another blazon of performatively constituted relation, the giving of "nurture". Relations of beginnings are particularly important in contexts of ritual, inheritance and the defining of marriageability and incest; they are in effect the "structuring structures" (Bourdieu 1977) of social reproduction and intergenerational continuity. Father, mother and children are, however, also performatively related through the giving and receiving of "nurture" (fitezana). Like ancestry, relations of "nurture" practise not e'er coincide with relations by birth; but unlike ancestry, "nurture" is a largely ungendered relation, constituted in contexts of everyday practical existence, in the intimate, familial and familiar world of the household, and in ongoing relations of work and consumption, of feeding and farming. (Thomas 1999, 37)^[48]

Similar ethnographic accounts have emerged from a variety of cultures since Schneider's intervention. The concept of nurture kinship highlights the extent to which kinship relationships may be brought into being through the functioning of various acts of nurture between individuals. Additionally the concept highlights ethnographic findings that, in a wide swath of homo societies, people understand, conceptualize and symbolize their relationships predominantly in terms of giving, receiving and sharing nurture. These approaches were somewhat forerun by Malinowski, in his ethnographic study of sexual behaviour on the Trobriand Islands which noted that the Trobrianders did not believe pregnancy to be the upshot of sexual intercourse between the human being and the woman, and they denied that there was whatever physiological relationship betwixt father and kid.^[49] Nevertheless, while paternity was unknown in the "total biological sense", for a adult female to have a kid without having a husband was considered socially undesirable. Fatherhood was therefore recognised as a social and nurturing part; the woman's husband is the "human whose role and duty it is to have the child in his arms and to help her in nursing and bringing it upwardly";^[50] "Thus, though the natives are ignorant of any physiological demand for a male in the constitution of the family, they regard him as indispensable socially".^[51]

Biology, psychology and kinship [edit]

Like Schneider, other anthropologists of kinship have largely rejected sociobiological accounts of human social patterns equally existence both reductionistic and also empirically incompatible with ethnographic information on human kinship. Notably, Marshall Sahlins strongly critiqued the sociobiological approach through reviews of ethnographies in his 1976 The Use and Abuse of Biology ^[52] noting that for humans "the categories of 'virtually' and 'distant' [kin] vary independently of consanguinal altitude and that these categories organize actual social exercise" (p. 112).

Independently from anthropology, biologists studying organisms' social behaviours and relationships have been interested to understand under what conditions meaning social behaviors can evolve to go a typical feature of a species (come across inclusive fitness theory). Considering complex social relationships and cohesive social groups are mutual not only to humans, just also to most primates, biologists maintain that these biological theories of sociality should in principle be generally applicable. The more challenging question arises as to how such ideas can be applied to the human species whilst fully taking business relationship of the all-encompassing ethnographic show that has emerged from anthropological research on kinship patterns.

Early on developments of biological inclusive fitness theory and the derivative field of Sociobiology, encouraged some sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists to approach human kinship with the assumption that inclusive fettle theory predicts that kinship relations in humans are indeed expected to depend on genetic relatedness, which they readily connected with the genealogy arroyo of early anthropologists such equally Morgan (meet above sections). However, this is the position that Schneider, Sahlins and other anthropologists explicitly refuse.

Nonreductive biology and nurture kinship [edit]

In agreement with Schneider, Holland argued^[53] that an accurate account of biological theory and evidence supports the view that social bonds (and kinship) are indeed mediated by a shared social environment and processes of frequent interaction, care and nurture, rather than past genealogical relationships per se (even if genealogical relationships often correlate with such processes). In his 2012 book Social bonding and nurture kinship Kingdom of the netherlands argues that sociobiologists and later evolutionary psychologists misrepresent biological theory, mistakenly believing that inclusive fitness theory predicts that genetic relatedness per se is the condition that mediates social bonding and social cooperation in organisms. Holland points out that the biological theory (see inclusive fettle) but specifies that a statistical relationship betwixt social behaviors and genealogical relatedness is a benchmark for the evolution of social behaviors. The theory'southward originator, W.D.Hamilton considered that organisms' social behaviours were likely to be mediated by general conditions that typically correlate with genetic relatedness, but are not probable to exist mediated by genetic relatedness per se ^[54] (see Human inclusive fitness and Kin recognition). Holland reviews fieldwork from social mammals and primates to show that social bonding and cooperation in these species is indeed mediated through processes of shared living context, familiarity and attachments, not by genetic relatedness per se. Holland thus argues that both the biological theory and the biological evidence is nondeterministic and nonreductive, and that biological science equally a theoretical and empirical endeavor (as opposed to 'biology' as a cultural-symbolic nexus as outlined in Schneider'southward 1968 volume) actually supports the nurture kinship perspective of cultural anthropologists working post-Schneider (come across above sections). Holland argues that, whilst at that place is nonreductive compatibility effectually human kinship between anthropology, biology and psychology, for a total business relationship of kinship in any particular human culture, ethnographic methods, including accounts of the people themselves, the analysis of historical contingencies, symbolic systems, economic and other cultural influences, remain centrally of import.

Holland'south position is widely supported by both cultural anthropologists and biologists every bit an approach which, according to Robin Fox, "gets to the eye of the matter concerning the contentious relationship between kinship categories, genetic relatedness and the prediction of behavior".^[55]

Evolutionary psychology [edit]

The other arroyo, that of Evolutionary psychology, continues to have the view that genetic relatedness (or genealogy) is key to understanding man kinship patterns. In contrast to Sahlin'due south position (to a higher place), Daly and Wilson argue that "the categories of 'near' and 'distant' practice not 'vary independently of consanguinal distance', non in any society on globe." (Daly et al. 1997,^[56] p282). A current view is that humans accept an inborn but culturally affected system for detecting certain forms of genetic relatedness. 1 of import cistron for sibling detection, especially relevant for older siblings, is that if an infant and 1'southward mother are seen to care for the infant, then the infant and oneself are assumed to be related. Another factor, especially important for younger siblings who cannot employ the first method, is that persons who grew up together see i another as related. Yet some other may be genetic detection based on the major histocompatibility complex (Meet Major Histocompatibility Complex and Sexual Pick). This kinship detection system in plow affects other genetic predispositions such as the incest taboo and a trend for altruism towards relatives.^[57]

One issue inside this approach is why many societies organize according to descent (see below) and not exclusively according to kinship. An caption is that kinship does non form clear boundaries and is centered differently for each individual. In contrast, descent groups usually exercise course clear boundaries and provide an easy style to create cooperative groups of various sizes.^[58]

According to an evolutionary psychology hypothesis that assumes that descent systems are optimized to assure loftier genetic probability of relatedness between lineage members, males should prefer a patrilineal system if paternal certainty is loftier; males should adopt a matrilineal system if paternal certainty is depression. Some research supports this clan with one written report finding no patrilineal society with low paternity confidence and no matrilineal society with high paternal certainty. Another clan is that pastoral societies are relatively more often patrilineal compared to horticultural societies. This may be because wealth in pastoral societies in the form of mobile cattle can hands be used to pay bride price which favor concentrating resources on sons and so they can ally.^[58]

The evolutionary psychology account of biology continues to exist rejected past most cultural anthropologists.

Extensions of the kinship metaphor [edit]

Fictive kinship [edit]

Detailed terms for parentage [edit]

As social and biological concepts of parenthood are not necessarily coterminous, the terms "pater" and "genitor" take been used in anthropology to distinguish betwixt the man who is socially recognised as begetter (pater) and the man who is believed to be the physiological parent (genitor); similarly the terms "mater" and "genitrix" have been used to distinguish betwixt the woman socially recognised as female parent (mater) and the woman believed to exist the physiological parent (genitrix).^[59] Such a distinction is useful when the private who is considered the legal parent of the kid is not the individual who is believed to be the kid's biological parent. For instance, in his ethnography of the Nuer, Evans-Pritchard notes that if a widow, following the expiry of her husband, chooses to live with a lover exterior of her deceased hubby's kin group, that lover is only considered genitor of any subsequent children the widow has, and her deceased hubby continues to be considered the pater. As a result, the lover has no legal control over the children, who may be taken away from him by the kin of the pater when they choose.^[60] The terms "pater" and "genitor" have likewise been used to help draw the relationship between children and their parents in the context of divorce in Britain. Following the divorce and remarriage of their parents, children find themselves using the term "mother" or "father" in relation to more than one private, and the pater or mater who is legally responsible for the child's care, and whose family proper name the child uses, may not be the genitor or genitrix of the kid, with whom a separate parent-kid human relationship may be maintained through arrangements such as visitation rights or joint custody.^[61]

It is important to note that the terms "genitor" or "genetrix" do not necessarily imply actual biological relationships based on consanguinity, but rather refer to the socially held belief that the individual is physically related to the child, derived from culturally held ideas virtually how biology works. And so, for instance, the Ifugao may believe that an illegitimate child might take more than ane physical father, and so nominate more than one genitor.^[62] J.A. Barnes therefore argued that it was necessary to make a further stardom between genitor and genitrix (the supposed biological mother and father of the child), and the actual genetic begetter and female parent of the child making them share their genes or genetics .

Limerick of relations [edit]

The study of kinship may be abstracted to binary relations between people. For example, if x is the parent of y, the relation may be symbolized as xPy. The converse relation, that y is the kid of x, is written yP ^T 10. Suppose that z is another child of ten: zP ^T ten. Then y is a sibling of z equally they share the parent ten: zP ^T xPy → zP ^T Py . Here the relation of siblings is expressed as the composition P ^T P of the parent relation with its inverse.

The relation of grandparent is the composition of the parent relation with itself: G = PP . The relation of uncle is the composition of parent with blood brother, while the relation of aunt composes parent with sister. Suppose 10 is the grandparent of y: xGy. Then y and z are cousins if yG ^T xGz.

The symbols applied here to express kinship are used more than more often than not in algebraic logic to develop a calculus of relations with sets other than human beings.

Appendix [edit]

Degrees [edit]

Kinship	Degree of human relationship	Genetic overlap
Inbred Strain	not applicable	99%
Identical twins	first-degree	100%[63]
Full sibling	offset-degree	50% (2−i)
Parent[64]	first-degree	l% (ii−one)
Child	offset-degree	50% (2−1)
Half-sibling	second-degree	25% (2−ii)
3/4 siblings or sibling-cousin	second-degree	37.5% (3⋅2−three)
Grandparent	second-degree	25% (2−2)
Grandchild	second-degree	25% (2−ii)
Aunt/uncle	second-degree	25% (2−ii)
Niece/nephew	second-degree	25% (2−two)
Half-aunt/one-half-uncle	third-caste	12.v% (2−3)
Half-niece/half-nephew	third-degree	12.5% (two−3)
Great grandparent	third-degree	12.5% (2−3)
Great grandchild	3rd-degree	12.v% (2−3)
Great aunt/great uncle	3rd-degree	12.5% (2−iii)
Not bad niece/slap-up nephew	tertiary-degree	12.5% (2−iii)
Starting time cousin	tertiary-caste	12.5% (2−3)
Double offset cousin	second-degree	25% (2−2)
Half-outset cousin	fourth-degree	vi.25% (ii−4)
First cousin once removed	quaternary-degree	half dozen.25% (two−four)
Second cousin	fifth-degree	3.125% (2−5)
Double 2d cousin	fourth-degree	six.25% (2−4)
Triple second cousin	fourth-degree	9.375% (3⋅two−5)
Quadruple second cousin	third-degree	12.5% (2−3)
Tertiary cousin	7th-degree	0.781% (2−7)
Fourth cousin	ninth-degree	0.twenty% (ii−9)[65]

Come across also [edit]

• Beginnings
• Kin selection
• Kinism
• Kinship analysis
• Kinship terminology
• Australian Aboriginal kinship
• Bride toll
• Bride service
• Chinese kinship
• Cinderella issue
• Clan
• Consanguinity
• Darwinian anthropology
• Dynasty
• Ethnicity
• Family unit
• Family history
• Fictive kinship
• Genealogy
• Genetic genealogy
• Godparent
• Heredity
• Inheritance
• Interpersonal relationships
• Irish Kinship
• Lineage (anthropology)
• Nurture kinship
• Serbo-Croation kinship
• Tribe
• House society

References [edit]

1. ^ Fox, Robin (1967). Kinship and Marriage. Harmondsworth, UK: Pelican Books. p. xxx.
2. ^ On Kinship and Gods in Ancient Egypt: An Interview with Marcelo Campagno Damqatum ii (2007)
3. ^ Wolf, Eric. 1982 Europe and the People Without History. Berkeley: University of California Press. 92
4. ^ Harner, Michael 1975 "Scarcity, the Factors of Production, and Social Development," in Population. Environmental, and Social Evolution, Steven Polgar, ed. Mouton Publishers: the Hague.
5. ^ Rivière, Peter 1987 "Of Women, Men, and Manioc", Etnologiska Studien (38).
6. ^ Pare, kin and association : the dynamics of social categories in Ethnic Commonwealth of australia. McConvell, Patrick,, Kelly, Piers,, Lacrampe, Sébastien,, Australian National University Press. Acton, A.C.T. April 2018. ISBN978-one-76046-164-v. OCLC 1031832109. {{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
7. ^ Gaby, Alice Rose. 2006. A Grammar of Kuuk Thaayorre. The University of Melbourne Ph.D.
8. ^ Walsh, Michael James. 1976. The Muɹinypata Language of Northern Australia. The Australian National University.
9. ^ Oke Wale, An Introduction to Social Anthropology 2d Edition, Role 2, Kinship.
10. ^ ^{a b} Monaghan, John; Just, Peter (2000). Social & Cultural Anthropology: A Very Brusque Introduction. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. pp. 86–88. ISBN978-0-19-285346-ii.
11. ^ Endicott, Kirk Yard.; Endicott, Karen L. (2008). The Headman Was a Woman: The Gender Egalitarian Batek of Malaysia. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, Inc. pp. 26–27. ISBN978-1-57766-526-seven.
12. ^ Houseman and White 1998b harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHouseman_and_White1998b (help)
13. ^ ^{a b} Houseman & White 1998a harvnb error: no target: CITEREFHousemanWhite1998a (help)
14. ^ Murphy, Michael Dean. "Kinship Glossary". Retrieved 2009-03-thirteen .
15. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1982). The Way of the Mask. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
16. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude. 1987. Anthropology and Myth: Lectures, 1951–1982. R. Willis, trans. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
17. ^ Joyce, Rosemary A. & Susan D. Gillespie (eds.). 2000. Beyond Kinship: Social and Material Reproduction in House Societies. University of Pennsylvania Press.
18. ^ Carsten, Janet & Stephen Hugh-Jones (eds.) About the House: Lévi-Strauss and Beyond. Cambridge Academy Press, May four, 1995
19. ^ Errington, Shelly (1989). Meaning and Ability in a Southeast Asian Realm. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press. p. 236.
20. ^ Haviland, William A.; Prins, Harald Due east. Fifty.; McBride, Bunny; Walrath, Dana (2011). Cultural Anthropology: The Human being Challenge (13th ed.). Cengage Learning. ISBN978-0-495-81178-seven.
21. ^ Notes and Queries on Anthropology. Royal Anthropological Found. 1951. p. 110.
22. ^ Leach, Edmund (Dec 1955). "Polyandry, Inheritance and the Definition of Union". Man. 55 (12): 182–186. doi:ten.2307/2795331. JSTOR 2795331.
23. ^ Strong, Anise (2006). "Incest Laws and Absent-minded Taboos in Roman Arab republic of egypt". Ancient History Message. 20.
24. ^ Lewis, N. (1983). Life in Egypt under Roman Rule . Clarendon Press. ISBN978-0-19-814848-7.
25. ^ Frier, Bruce W.; Bagnall, Roger South. (1994). The Demography of Roman Arab republic of egypt. Cambridge, Great britain: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-46123-8.
26. ^ Shaw, B. D. (1992). "Explaining Incest: Brother-Sister Marriage in Graeco-Roman Arab republic of egypt". Human being. New Serial. 27 (ii): 267–299. doi:ten.2307/2804054. JSTOR 2804054.
27. ^ Hopkins, Keith (1980). "Brother-Sister Marriage in Roman Egypt". Comparative Studies in Society and History. 22 (3): 303–354. doi:10.1017/S0010417500009385.
28. ^ remijsen, sofie. "Incest or Adoption? Brother-Sister Wedlock in Roman Egypt Revisited" (PDF).
29. ^ Scheidel, Due west (1997). "Blood brother-sis marriage in Roman Egypt" (PDF). Journal of Biosocial Science. 29 (3): 361–71. doi:10.1017/s0021932097003611. PMID 9881142.
30. ^ Conniff, Richard (1 Baronial 2003). "Richard Conniff. "Go Ahead, Kiss Your Cousin."". Discovermagazine.com.
31. ^ Radcliffe-Brown, A.R., Daryll Forde (1950). African Systems of Kinship and Wedlock. London: KPI Limited.
32. ^ Lévi-Strauss, Claude (1963). Structural Anthropology . New York: Basic Books.
33. ^ Kuper, Adam (2005). The Reinvention of Primitive Guild: Transformations of a myth. London: Routledge. pp. 179–90.
34. ^ White & Johansen 2005, Chapters 3 and 4
35. ^ Read 2001
36. ^ Wallace & Atkins 1960
37. ^ White & Johansen 2005, Chapter iv
38. ^ Barnes, J.A. (1962). "African models in the New Guinea Highlands". Man. 62: 5–nine. doi:10.2307/2795819. JSTOR 2795819.
39. ^ Langness, Fifty.50. (1964). "Some problems in the conceptualization of Highlands social structures". American Anthropologist. 66 (iv pt ii): 162–182. JSTOR 668436.
40. ^ Schneider, D. 1972. What is Kinship all Virtually. In Kinship Studies in the Morgan Centennial Year, edited by P. Reining. Washington: Anthropological Lodge of Washington.
41. ^ ^{a b} Schneider, D. 1984. A critique of the report of kinship. Ann Arbor: Academy of Michigan Printing.
42. ^ Schneider, D. 1968. American kinship: a cultural account, Anthropology of modern societies serial. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
43. ^ Morgan, Lewis Henry. 1870. Systems of consanguity and analogousness of the human being family. Vol. 17, Smithsonian Contributions to Knowledge. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Establishment.
44. ^ Collier, Jane Fishburne; Yanagisako, Sylvia Junko (1987). Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford Academy Printing.
45. ^ Carsten, Janet (2000). Cultures of relatedness: New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press.
46. ^ Strathern, Marilyn. After nature: English language kinship in the tardily twentieth century. Cambridge University Press.
47. ^ Carsten, Janet (1995). "The substance of kinship and the heart of the hearth". American Ethnologist. 22 (two): 223–241. doi:10.1525/ae.1995.22.2.02a00010. S2CID 145716250.
48. ^ Thomas, Philip. (1999) No substance, no kinship? Procreation, Performativity and Temanambondro parent/child relations. In Conceiving persons: ethnographies of procreation, fertility, and growth edited by P. Loizos and P. Heady. New Brunswick, NJ: Athlone Printing.
49. ^ Malinowski 1929, pp. 179–186
50. ^ Malinowski 1929, p. 195
51. ^ Malinowski 1929, p. 202
52. ^ Sahlins, Align (1976). The Use and Abuse of Biology .
53. ^ Holland, Maximilian. (2012) Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches. N Charleston: Createspace Press.
54. ^ Hamilton, W.D. 1987. Discriminating nepotism: expectable, common and overlooked. In Kin recognition in animals, edited past D. J. C. Fletcher and C. D. Michener. New York: Wiley.
55. ^ The netherlands, Maximilian (26 October 2012). Robin Fox comment (book cover). ISBN978-1480182004.
56. ^ Daly, Martin; Salmon, Catherine; Wilson, Margo (1997). Kinship: the conceptual hole in psychological studies of social cognition and shut relationships. Erlbaum.
57. ^ Lieberman, D.; Tooby, J.; Cosmides, Fifty. (2007). "The architecture of man kin detection". Nature. 445 (7129): 727–731. Bibcode:2007Natur.445..727L. doi:10.1038/nature05510. PMC3581061. PMID 17301784.
58. ^ ^{a b} The Oxford Handbook of Evolutionary Psychology, Edited past Robin Dunbar and Louise Barret, Oxford University Printing, 2007, Affiliate 31 Kinship and descent by Lee Conk and Drew Gerkey
59. ^ Fox 1977, p. 34
60. ^ Evans-Pritchard 1951, p. 116
61. ^ Simpson 1994, pp. 831–851
62. ^ Barnes 1961, pp. 296–299
63. ^ By replacement in the definition of the notion of "generation" by meiosis". Since identical twins are not separated by meiosis, there are no "generations" betwixt them, hence due north=0 and r=1. See genetic-genealogy.co.uk.
64. ^ "Kin Selection". Benjamin/Cummings. Retrieved 2007-11-25 .
65. ^ This degree of human relationship is commonly indistinguishable from the relationship to a random individual within the same population (tribe, country, ethnic grouping).

Bibliography [edit]

• Barnes, J. A. (1961). "Physical and Social Kinship". Philosophy of Scientific discipline. 28 (3): 296–299. doi:ten.1086/287811. S2CID 122178099.
• Boon, James A.; Schneider, David Grand. (Oct 1974). "Kinship vis-a-vis Myth Contrasts in Levi-Strauss' Approaches to Cross-Cultural Comparison". American Anthropologist. 76 (four): 799–817. doi:ten.1525/aa.1974.76.iv.02a00050.
• Bowlby, John (1982). Attachment. Vol. 1 (second ed.). London: Hogarth.
• Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1951). Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Fox, Robin (1977). Kinship and Union: An Anthropological Perspective. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
• Holland, Maximilian (2012). Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility Between Cultural and Biological Approaches. Createspace Printing.
• Houseman, Michael; White, Douglas R. (1998). "Network mediation of exchange structures: Ambilateral sidedness and property flows in Pul Eliya" (PDF). In Schweizer, Thomas; White, Douglas R. (eds.). Kinship, Networks and Exchange. Cambridge University Press. pp. 59–89. Archived from the original (PDF) on x June 2019.
• Houseman, Michael; White, Douglas R. (1998). "Taking Sides: Union Networks and Dravidian Kinship in Lowland S America" (PDF). In Godelier, Maurice; Trautmann, Thomas; F.Tjon Sie Fat. (eds.). Transformations of Kinship. Smithsonian Institution Printing. pp. 214–243. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 June 2019.
• Malinowski, Bronislaw (1929). The Sexual Life of Savages in North Western Melanesia. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Read, Dwight Westward. (2001). "Formal analysis of kinship terminologies and its human relationship to what constitutes kinship". Anthropological Theory. one (2): 239–267. CiteSeerXx.1.1.169.2462. doi:10.1177/14634990122228719. Archived from the original on 2013-01-11.
• Simpson, Bob (1994). "Bringing the 'Unclear' Family Into Focus: Divorce and Re-Marriage in Contemporary Britain". Homo. 29 (4): 831–851. doi:10.2307/3033971. JSTOR 3033971.
• Trautmann, Thomas R. (2008). Lewis Henry Morgan and the Invention of Kinship, New Edition. ISBN978-0-520-06457-7.
• Trautmann, Thomas R.; Whiteley, Peter G. (2012). Crow-Omaha : new light on a classic problem of kinship analysis. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. ISBN978-0-8165-0790-0.
• Wallace, Anthony F.; Atkins, John (1960). "The Pregnant of Kinship Terms". American Anthropologist. 62 (ane): 58–80. doi:x.1525/aa.1960.62.1.02a00040.
• White, Douglas R.; Johansen, Ulla C. (2005). Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Procedure Models of a Turkish Nomad Clan. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. ISBN978-0-7391-1892-4. Archived from the original on 2013-10-05. Retrieved 2008-02-09 .

External links [edit]

Look up kinship in Wiktionary, the gratuitous lexicon.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kinship.

• Introduction into the study of kinship AusAnthrop: enquiry, resource and documentation
• The Nature of Kinship: An Introduction to Descent Systems and Family Organisation Dennis O'Neil, Palomar Higher, San Marcos, CA.
• Kinship and Social Organization: An Interactive Tutorial Brian Schwimmer, University of Manitoba.
• Degrees of Kinship Co-ordinate to Anglo-Saxon Civil Law – Useful Chart (Kurt R. Nilson, Esq. : heirbase.com)
• Catholic Encyclopedia "Duties of Relatives"

stalcuplage1936.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinship

Share this post