'

: '
` A b1J3
AmERlCAN
KlNSHlP
A
CULTURAL
ACCOUNT
SECOND EDITION
The Universit
y
of Chicago Press
Chicago and London
O 0bY
The University of Chicago Press, Chicgo 7
The University ofChicago Press, Ltd., London
198, 1980 by Jhc University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 1968
Second edition 1980
Printed in the United States of America
VDV4 VJ VZ
.
M
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data
Schneider, David Murray, 1918-
Americn kinship.
1. Kinship-United States. 2. Family-United States.
l. Title.
HQ535.S33 1980 301.42' 1'0973 79-18185
ISBN 0-22673930-9 (paper)
Contents
r:-iae-
Acknowledgments, 1980
C !

*1

Introduction I
_ A B 3 O W I
THE DISTINCTIVE FEATURES WHICH DEFINE THE
PERSON AS A RELATIVE
L !
Relatives 21
L
The Family
A B 3 3 O
THE RELATIVE AS A PERSON
L I!
A Relative Is a Person 57
v
v IHfoHts
CA+ I3^
In-laws and Kinship Terms 76
CAB
Conclusion I07
CJY+J b^
TweIveYearsLater II8
+

Preface
American kinship is an examp!e o the kind o kinship system which is
ound in moden, westen societies. 1his kind o system is particu!ar!y
importantnot on!y because it is ound in an important kind o society,
but a!so because it is dierent rom the kinds okinship systems ound
e!sewhere in the wor!d.

1he kinship systems o modern,westensocieties arere!ative!yhigh!y

dierentiatedascomparedwiththekinshipsystemsoundimanyprimi-
tiveandpeasantsocieties. 8y''dierentiated I meansimp!ythatkinship
is c!ear!y andsharp!ydistinguishedroma!!otherkindsosocia!institu-
tions

and re!ationships. In many primitive and peasant societies a !arge

numberodierentkindsoinstitutionsareorganizedandbui!t as parts
o the kinship system itse!. 1hus the major socia! units o the society
may be kin groups-!ineage

perhaps. 1hese same kin groups may a!so

be theproperty-owning units, the po!itica!units, the re!igious units, and
soon.1hus,whateveramandoesinsuch asocietyhedoesasU kinsman
oonekindoranother. Ihebecomes chiehedoessoaccordingtosome
ru!eosuccession,perhapsinheritingtheomceromhisatherormother's
brother. Ihe marries a gir!itis

because she is amemberoa kin cate-

gory such as mother's brother's daughter. I he needs he!p with some
economic enterprise, !ike gardening or hunting, he ca!!s on his brother-
in-!awbecauseheistheproperpersontogiveassistanceinsuchendeavors.
8utin the United 8tates a!lothese institutions are quite c!ear!y di-
erentiatedromeachother.IntheUnited8tatesoneissupposedtoeam
po!itica!ocebyreee!ection,notbytherightosuccessiontotheoce
he!dbyone'satherorunc!e. One ownspropertyin one`sown rightand
enters into economicre!ationswhereone chooses andaccording to ru!es

NM
viii Preface
i.ci :e.ao.ee:ouea.:er:eer:o :ieeo:.::i::.ori.:.ii,re
l.,.o:, o: o|i:ic. t:e o:e ,oe. :o cia:ci or o:e. o: eioo..:,,
rollo.:, :ie eie::e. oro:e.co:.e.e:ee:e :o::ie e.e::e. oro:e.
ii:.ii,:oa,oli:.el::,,o::ie

co:o::.o:o:ei.elo,eeu,.
iie rc: :i: ii:.ii i. .o cle:l, e.ae:e::i:ee .: oeeu, e.:e-
.oeie:.e.i.ce::i:ev::,e.ro::ie.:ae,or:,eiae:e:::oule..
o:eor:ie.e,iicii.::.eal:l,.::e:e.:eeero:.oe:.e,..:ie
ae.:.o:or:ie:a:eori.:.i.i::ie.e:.eore.:ul..i.:,,a.:i:
:ie ei.:i:,ai.i.:, re:a:e. or ii:.ii co:...: or. i: ie. ::ieal:l,
,ooe.e:.e,i:.ee.:oe,:o.:ae,ii:.i.i:.clo.e:o.:.a:ero:
.o..iuleie:ei:te:ic,::ie::i:i:.oeo:ie:.oe.e:,ie:e.:..
iieee: ue:e:i l,e:. or eeo:oic, oli:icl, :el.,ioa., :e o:ie: ele

::..

iie:e .. :o:ie: :e.o: i, :ie .:ae, or ii:.i. .: te:ic .. e.

ee.ll,io:::::ote:.c:.:e:i:..:i:. te:.c:.,:ii...
.ocie:, :e eal:a:e iiei e i:o ell. ve .ei :ie l:,a,e
rae::l,,ei:o:ieea.:o.,:eeiveou.e:vee:ie::ive..::iei:

e.l,l.ve..i:eeee,edt8 :ie::.ve..He:cee:ei::e.eeill,,ooe
o.i:.o::oiee:iere:.:e:ie :ieo:, .::ie.:o.: :oee:ive:el
:.o:.i..ve e:o:i:o::iei::e:l,ue:ee:rc::e

:ieo:,=ie:e
te:ic:i.:.i...eo:ee::ee.:,.:i::e..l,io...ule.::ie
o:e.::, coa:.e or ::i:oolo,ielo:i. vie: e :ee uoa:ii:.ii
.: .oe .ocie:, ro:ei,: :o oa: o: e ive o:l, :ie re:. i.ci :ie
a:io: eioo.e. :o :e.e:: :o a., :e e a.all, ive :o .:eee:ee::
.oa:eeori:olee,e,i:.:i.eiec:cieeii..re:..i:..:ia.ve:,
i:e:oevla:-i..:ieo:,ro:o:ee:i:,:io.ere:..
s,:ie.e:oie:oreoa:.ee:eule:oeiieveee,:eeorco:::ol
ove: i:,e uoe, or e: i.ci :, ::i:oolo,.el rele o:ie:s
i:el, :oci, eve: r:e: o:e o: :o ,e:.

i: :ie rele. He:ee :ie

al.:,or:iee:eeo:::oli.co:..ee:ul,,:e:e:,:e:ie,:oa:e.
ro:evla:i:,:ier:ue:ee:re::e:ieo:,i.co::e.o:ei:,l,,:e:e:.
i r:.:a:ee::ooi .,.:e:.e o:i .:te:ic:i.:.i..: 1951, ie:,
.:eolluo::io:.:i ceo:,ec. Ho:., i eollee:ee .oe,e:elo,.cl
:e:.l.:e::.eal:l,:e:.lo:i.:.i.:e:.:olo,,r:o,:ea:e
.:aee::. :e rcal:, .::ie be::e::or soe.l sel:io:. :H.:v:e
u:.ve:.i:,. soeor:ie :e.ai:.or:i:.:ae,e:euii.ieei:1955.
i: 1958-1959, ie: r:ore..o: s,o:e ri::i or :ie Lo:eo: sciool
orcco:o.e..rello::iece::e:ro:tev:cees:ae,i::iese
iv.o:lse.e:ee.,e:oo.eeeo::ive.:ae,ori.:.i..:s:.:.:
:e:ieu:i:ees::e.:o:ien:io:lscie:ceroa:e:io:.tl:ioa,i:ie

See D. M. Schneider, "The Nature of Kinship," Man, No. 217 (1964); and
.. Kinship and Biology," in A. J. Coale et al., Aspects of the Analysis of Family Structure
( Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965 ).
Preface
X
.:e,.:oueeo::ive,eeioia..:ouei:ee:oiolloli:e.:e
e:ioe. oi oa: o: eioo.i:,. ve :ia. ee :o ::e: :o :elie:e
eei o:ie:.o:i:eei.el,,l:ioa,ieie:i:elo.e:oaei:i:oa,ioa:
:ie
eoa:.eoi:ieo:i.

iii.uooii.:ier:.:auli.iee:eo::o::iete:ie::o,ee:.t:eo:
:i:. :oeo::ive:e:il, ua:eel.o:l,i:ite:ie:ii:.ii. t

uooieo:i:,te:ie::es:i::.iii:.iii.uei:,l::ee:o.
iie ia:e. io: :ie rele o:i :e :ie :l,.i. oi :ie :e:il ee
:i:il,i:o :ien:io:lseie:eeroa:e:io:,io.e.ao::i.,::e
iall,ei:olee,eeie:e.i:eei:io:,.eeil.ee:.oi:ie:l,.i.,:ie
eollee:io:oi.-eiluoeie.oirele:e:il.,:eo-:io:oi:ie:i:ea
oi.oeoi:ie:e:ii..eeo..iuleu,,:::i:o:ien:io:l
t:.:i:a:e.oiHel:i.
x,:i:i.:eeae:ob:.co:.::eec:o:i:,x:xecai:eciu.o:,b:.
nel.o: c:uau, b: c.:ie: He:i:e, x:.. cli:ue:i xe::ee,, x:.
ci:l-.xeil, xi..n:x:iel,x:.. cle:o:xerie:.o:, x:..r:v:
cleve,xi..H::ie:vii:eiee,:ex:..ii:evoli,ioeie:ierele
o:ii:ciie,o:eiolleieve:,r:e;ouoii:a:ee:ei:ea.::ee.
:i:e:eoi:e:i:el,e.,.
b:. xilliee:: t,oau ee :, io:::: .a,,e.:io.. ea:i:, :e
i:e::iereleo:i.ii:i.:eeae:ob:.beliH,e.io:ii..:ial:i:,
le::e:..x:.clve::co:::eiiielee:o.ae:vi.e:ieeollee:io:oi:ie,e:e
lo,ie.:e.:i:il,:e.o:.iuleio::iea::i::ive:l,.i.oi:i:
:e:il. b:. c:, sei::: ieleei::,eiae:e::,. ea:i:,:ie
eoilee:io:oi:ierele:-:il.,:i:il,ieei:,elo.e:eio:el..
:e.::a.eo:.iee::io:.,:ei--i:,:ie -leo:ie:.le:::o:ie.
t oe .eeileeu: :o ral r:iee:iei, io:ooi:ie i:oii.o:
releo:i:o:ee:e:l,e:i:oi.oe::.oi:i..uooi. ile::ee
,ooe eel i:o ii uoa:li:.ii :e li:,ai.:ie. i: :, ei.ea..io:.
ea:i:,:ieeoa:.eoi:i:.o:i. se:es.coi:,r:ee c,,:,s,o:e
ri::i,s,o:ero,el.o:,:e:et::io:,ro:,e,cliao:ecee:::,ca
,e:et.Hel, bvie ol.:ee,io seueoi, x::i: siive::, xel
io:esi:o,:es,o:ei.si:ill:ee::.o:l|oi:ie:a.e:i:
:o:eo::o:ie:.:,eoii:.:i:i:,,:et ei:ol-e,ei-:e:ie:,
a.eial .a,,e.:io:. iiei :ie, ee. t: ee|:io:, ii :ie reie o:ie..
ioi eoaleeo::e:e::ove::ie:a.e:i:i:o:ieoi::oivie
oi:io.eioie,:ie:ee:i-l:,e.:.i.:eoi:iee:o:iieii:.
u.ee.iiei:ieli.,:e:l,:eei:ee.
ri:ll,,i ::ieal:l,,::eial:o b:.sli i,lo:, :ieei:ee:o:oi
:iece::e:io:tev:eees:ae,i::ieseivio:lseie:ee.,:e:or:e.:o:
ca:le:,:exiei.ie:,:e:ie:e.:oi:ie.:aoi:iece::e:,ie:e:ie
r:le:i:oi:ii.uooi.:i::e:.
e....
Acknowledgments, I980
1 am grateful to Marshall Sahlins for his helpful comments on the frst draft
of chapter 7, c"Twelve Years Later," written for this edition) and for the use
of his most apt phrasing of the distinction "culture-as-constituted'' and ''cul
ture-as-lived" or culture-in-action" from his unpublished paper ccindividual
Experience and Cultural Order." also appreciate the comments of Virginia
Dominguez m her letter which reached me as 1 was preparing to write this
epilog1e& And 1 would like to thank Michael Silverstein for his helpful reading.
am also indebted to the many commentators on American Kinship who took
the trouble to tell me not only what was wrong with the book but also what
was right with it. There are just too many of them to name individually.
7
1JT
Introduction
+
This book is concernedwithAmericankinship as a cuIturaI system; that
is, asa system osymboIs. By symboII mean somethingwhichstands for
scmething eIse, or some things eIse where there is no necessary or in-
trinsicreIationship between the symboI and that which it symboIizes.
AparticuIarcuIture,AmericancuItureforinstance,consistsoa system
o units (or parts} which are dehned in certain ways and which are
dierentiated according to certain criteria. These units dehne the worId
orthe universe, the way the things in it reIate to each other, and what
these things shouIdbe anddo.
follow Talcott Parsons, Clyde Kluckhohn, and Alfred L. Kroeber in this defni
tion of culture and in this defnion of the problem. Specifcally, T. Parsons and
L. Shils, Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1961); A. L. Kroeber and T. Parsons, "Te Concepts of Cultural and of Social Sys
tem," American Sociological Review ( 1958), pp. 582-83; and A. L. Kroeber and
C. Kluckhohn, "Culture: A Critical Beview of the Concepts and Defnitions/' Papers
of the Peabody Museum (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1952), Vol. 47, No. 1.
The work of Cliford Geertz is an excellent example of this tradition, and his paper,
'(Religion as a Cultural System," is particularly useful for his defnition of the term
''symbol," which 1 have followed in this book. See especially pp. 5-8 of his paper,
in Conference I New Approaches 1D Social Anthropology, Anthropological Ap
proaches to the Study of Religion, ed. Michael Banton (London: Tavistock Publica
tions, 1965). 1 have, however, departed from this tradition in one important respect.
1 have here attempted to deal with culture as a symbolic system purely in its own
terms rather than by systematically relating the symbols to the social and psycho
logical systems, and to the problems of articulating them within the framework of
the problem of social .action. My debt to Claude Levi-Strauss is obvious; my debt
to Ruth Benedict's uChrysanthemum and the Sword', (Boston: Houghton Mifin
Company, 1946)> less obvious but quite as great. The work of Louis Dumont has
been an especially valuable stimulus.
1
2 frnd0f\nn
I have used the ter "unit'; as the widest, most general, all-purpose
word possible in this context. A unit in a particular culture is simply any
thing that is culturally defned and distinguished as an entity. It may

be
a person, place, thing, feeling, sate of afairs, sense of foreboding, fantasy,
hallucination, hope, or idea. In American culture such units as _uncle;
town, blue (depressed), a mess, a hunch, the idea of progress, hope, and
art are cultural units.
But the more usual sense in which the term tunit," or "culturai unit,"
can be understood is as part of some relatively distinct, self-contained
system. American government is a good example. There is national as
against local goverment and they stand in a special relationship to each
other. National goverment consists of an executive branch, a legisla
tive branch, and a judicial branch-again, units defined and placed in
relationship to each other. One could go on along the line noting and
naming and marking each distinct, cultural entity or unit-its defnition,
the conception of its nature and existence, its place in some more or less
systematic scheme.
It is important to make a simple distinction between the culturally
defned and diferentiated unit as a cultural object itself, and any other
object elsewhere in the real world which it may (or may not) represent,
stand for, or correspond to.
A ghost and a dead man may be helpful examples. The ghost of a
dead man and the dead man are two cultural constructs or cultural units.
Both exist in the real world as cultural constructs, culturally defned and
diferentiated entities. B1t a good deal of empirical testing has shown
that at a quite diferent level of reality the ghost does not exist at all,
though there may or may not be U dead man at a given time and place
and undeJ given conditions. Yet at the level of their cultural defnition
there is no question a bout their existence, nor is either one any more
or less real than the other.
In one sense, of course, both ghost and dead man are ideas. They are
the creations of man's imagination or intellect, which sorts certain ele
ments out and keeps others in, formulating from these elements a con
struct that can be communicated from one person to another, understood
by both. Yet at that level of reality the question of whether one can
actually go out and capture eitl.ler a ghost or a dead man is quite irrele
vant.
It would be an error and oversimplifcation to say that the objective
existence of the ghost is lacking, but the objective existence of a dead
man can sometimes be established; in that way at least the dead man can
exist but the ghost cannot. It ould develop this error even further to
say that ghosts cannot exist but dead men cn. Even though such a state-
nfrodvcfon

ment iscertainIytrue atoneleveI o discourse, itmisses thewhoIe point

and
thewhoIe signihcance oculturaI constructs, cuIturaI units, and cuI-
ture
in
general.
Both ''ghost'' and `'dead man are words, o course, and it is certainIy
impo
rtant to note that words stand or'

things. As mere disturbances

in the atmospherewhich are heard, or as mere distortions o the other-
wise pIacid surace o a page which are seen, they nevertheless remain
wordswhich standor something.
But the question is not whot th:og they stand or in the outside, ob-
jective,reaIworld, althoughwith awordsuchas''dog,"c can take that

conerete animaI, stand him on the ground, point to him, and say, ''That
isadog."The question israther whot dt]e:eotth:ogs does such a word
stand Ior. The word ''dog'' certainIy is a cuIturaI construct-in one o its
meanings-anditis dehnedincertainways asa cuIturaIunit. Itsreerent
in that context, then

is not the objective'' animaI itseI, but rather the

set
o cuIturaI elements or units or ideas which constitute that cuIturaI
construct.
Insoar as U word is the name or something, and insoar as the word
names~amongmanyother things-a cuIturaIunit or construct,onemight
conclude that cuIture consists o the Ianguage, that is, the vocabuIary,
grammar, and syntax, or the words and their dehnitions and their reIa-
tionships to each other.
There isnoquestionbutthat language is a major part o cuIture. It is
ertainIy a system o symbolsandn:eanings and, thereore, in that sense
aIone it conorms to the dehnition o cuIture which I have oFered We
know immediateIy that ghost" is a cuIturaI construct or unit o some
kind becausethere isawordorit,ithasaname, thewordhas meaning,
andthriendlyn

ti

escanex
[
Iainth

t meaningand dehne

theword.
Butilanguage:s,in oneoitsmeantngs, cuIture,cuItureis not whoIIy
orexcIusiveIy or entirely Ianguage. Culture incIudes more than Ianguage
because Ianguage is not theoo/ possibIe system o symboIs and mean-
ings. This means that there canbe and oten are cuIturaI units without
simpIe, singIe words or names or them. It means that there are units
which can be described in words and identihed as cuItural units, but
which do not have names in the speciaI sense o the singIe Iexeme, as
the nameorthe dogis'dog''or thename orthe chie executive omcer
othegovernmentotheUnited Statesis Fresident.''
I am less concened in this book with the question o whether a cuI-
tural unit has a single name or a two-word name, or cn on!ybe desig-
nated by a series o

sentences, than I am with the dehnition and

dier-
entiationothe cuIturaIunits themseIves. ItisvitaIto know that cuIturaI
categories or units very otenhave singIeIexeme names and that oneo
4 Introduction
the most important ways of getting started on a description of those units
is to get a collection of such single.lexeme names and try to fnd out what
they mean.
It is equally vital to know that cultural categories and units often do
not have single-1exeme names, and that the description of the cltural
units is by no means exhausted when a complete list of names with their
meanings has been assembled. ^

It is useful to restate this in another way. The seoot:c analysis of a

system of lexeines is not isomorphic with the description of the system
of cultural units or categories, even if it remains an open question whether
the semantic analysis of a single lexeme within a system of lexemes is
isomorphic with the analysis or description of that single cultural unit of
which that Iexeme may be a part.
'his same point can be put very simply. The meanings of the names
alone are not exactly the same as the meanings of the cultural units. This
is necessarily so because some cultural units do not have names. Since
this book is about the cultural units, and since the names are very impor
tant parts of the cultural units, this book uses them and deals with them;
but the names are only one among many parts of the subject of the
description, they are not the object of the description.
Words

as names for cultural units, are one of the best ways to begin
to discovr what the cultural units are. But they have one fundamental
characteristic which must be taken into account. A word never has a
single meaning except in one, limiting set of circumstances. When a word
is being used within the very narrow confnes of a rigidly controlled
scientifc utterance where the meaning is explicitly defned in unitary
terms for that particular occasion or that particular usage, any other
meanings that word might have are suppressed and the defned meaning
is its only meaning. But since words are seldom used in this way, and
rarely if ever in unaturar culture, this limitation can safely be ignored
while the polysemic nature of words is kept frmly in mind.
Simply knowing that a word can have many meanings, and simply
knowing which are the many meanings a word can have, are not enough.
What is necessary to know is which of the many meanings applies when,
and which of the many meanings does not apply or is not relevant under
what circumstances; and fnally, how the diferent meanings of the word
relate to each other. This point, too, becomes rather important in the
material which follows, so I have stated it in its most general terms here.
+
I started with the point that a cultural unit or cultural construct must
be distinguished from any other object elsewhere in the
.
real world, and
lntrcdurt|cn 5
thatthecuIturaI unitorconstructhasa reaIityo itsown. 1heghostand
the dead as cuIturaI constructs are quite reaI, demonstrabIe eIements
even though, at quite another IeveI, ghosts do not exist but dead men
do. 1his subject soon Ied into the probIem o the reIationship between
cuIturaI units and the words which name them and to the point that a
semantic account overIaps, but is not identicaI with, a cuIturaI account
since
signicantcuIturaIcategoriesdonotaIwayshavenames.
Now I must retun to the starting point once more to make expIicit
certain other impIications o the basic point that cuIture must be dis-
tinguishedrom otherobjectsinthe reaIworId.
CertainIycuIture is in one sense a reguIarity ohuman behavior, and
as
suchit is quite objective and quite reaI. But this does notmean that
any observabIe, denabIe, demonstrabIe reguIarity ohuman behavior is
cuIture. Neither does it mean that cuIture canbedirectIy inerred rom
any reguIarpatten o human behavior.
Amongthe dierentorms in which symbols can be cast, oneconsists
othe
denition and diderentiation opersons in interaction. 1his is the
setoruIeswhichspeciywhoshouIddowhatunderwhatcircumstances.
Itis the question which proceeds rom the act that the members o a
given cuIture have chies and counseIorswhom they can ask what their
rights and duties are, what their roIes are, what ruIes are supposed to
guide and govern what they do. 1hese are the standards, the guides,
the nons or how action shouId proceed, or how peopIe o diderent
cuIturaIdenitions shouIdbehave.
ButthecuIturaIconstructs,thecuIturaIsymboIs,areJijevct rom any
systematic, reguIar, veriabIe pattern oactuaI, observedbehavior. 1hat
is,thepattenoobservedbehaviorisdiderent ron: cuIture. 1hisis not
because cuIture is not behavior. CuIture actuaI, observabIe behavior,
butoonIyone speciaIIy resttictedkind.
AnexampIe maybeheIpuIhere. InAmerican cuIture there is a cuI-
turaIIy dened unit caIIed poIiceman. 1he policeman's roIe is dehned
as that o enorcing the Iaw. One set o Iaws consists o traHc Iaws o
tbesortwithwhichweareaIIamiIiar. 1hedriveroa vehicIe (another
cuIturaIIydenedunit ) is supposedtostopata redtraHc signaI, and go
when the signaI is green. 1hese are aII units in a cuIturaI domain.
Ithe driver stops when the signaIis red and goes when the signaI is
green, theobservingpoIicemandoesnotact.Buti thedtiver goes when
thesignaIisredandstopswhen thesignaIisgreen, thepoIicemanshouId
give the driver a ticket or a summons or breaking the Iaw.
NowitiscIearthatthedenitionothe units andthestatementothe
ruIesis quite diderent rom ourgoingouton a street cornerandwatch
ing the behavior o drivers and poIicemen. Ater some systematic ob-
servation we may nnd that most drivers, but not quite aII, do not go
6 Introduction
:i:oa,i:eeli,i:., :i::ie,eo:e:e:o ,e::iei:veiiele.ov.:,ie:
:ie li,i: :a. ,:ee:, :e :i: :ie:e i. .oe .eeirule ::e : iiei
::+e.eo:.e.:e i..eee :o :io.ee:ive:. io eo e:ive :i:oe,i :ee
li,i:.eioril:oove:i:o,i,:ee:li,i:..
iieei.:i:e:io:ue:ee::ieeer:i:io:or:iea:i:.:e:ie:ele.o::ie

o:e i:e (eel:e:e, :e :ie ::e::. or e:al ueivio: ee:ivee r:o

ou.e:v:io:or::+eli,i:ueivio:e::ieo:ie:

i:ei.ra:ee::l:o
:ii.uooi Ih:s book :s cQ:oed w:th the defo:t:oos o] the uo:ts ood
rules, the cuttu:e o]Ame::ceo k:osh:, :t :s oot cooce:oed ctt| the ot
te:oso]behoc:o: os]o-r:u/oted]:om systemet:c obse:cet:oos o] eech o]
:ts ectuo/occu::eoces.
vi: i. eell, io::::i. :i: :ie.e:o :e :o ue e:ee:.:ooe .
:odeeodeotoreei o:ie::e:o:.uei:,i::a:olo,oa.:el:io:.ii.
ii:i.,:ieeer:i:io:or:iee:i:.:e:ie:ale.i.oot u.eeo:,eer:ee
u,, e::r:o, eo:.::ee:ee i: eeo:e i:i, o: eeveloee i: :e:. or
:ieou.e:v:io:.orueivio:i::,ei:ee:,.ile.e:.e.

ie:e.,ouei:o:ie::+eli,i::e:ie.::ee:eo::e:o:ee,i:.Ho
eo ei:o:i: :ie:e i. :ele ,i:.: e:ivi:, :i:oa,i :ie :ee li,i:
esee:u,ou.e:vi:,i:ie:.c:.,e:e:ll,eo:o:,o:i:oa,i:ee
li,i:..Hoeoe:o:i::ie:ei..eei:ii:,.oliee:esee:
u, ou.e:vi:, ii ::e.: e:ive:. :e ,ive :ie .eo:.e. ie: :ie,
..:ie:eeli,i:Hoeoei:o :i: :ieoliee:i.:o:,a.::
o:ie:e:ive:i:eiae:e::eio:ii:,esee:u,ou.e:vi:,ii,iv.:,ue::o:
:eeeivi, .eo:.e.

vie: e ou.e:ve :e,el:i:, i: ueivio:, iiei :ie. lee i:

,ive:.i:a:io:ove:e:ioeor:ie,:eie::i::e,el:i:,eo:.i.:.or
vi.elou.e:v:io:. o:.::ee::.u,:iee:o:. :ie.elves :i::ie:e i.
.aei:e,l:i:,eolei::ii.:o:

.:op ro::eeli,i:.:ie: i:eeee

:ie:ei.:e.o::o.e.ee:,o:e,ro:el:e:iei,o:ie.i., :i::ie:e
:eeel:e:le:i:.:eeal:e:l:ele.e::ileei::i::e,el:i:,.
sa:o:ee,i:,:ie:e,el:i:,eole e:all, .:oro: :eeli,i:.i.
eiee:e::i:re:ee::l:eio::::,r:o:ie:e,el:i:,eo
le:eu,l.ao.ee:o.:oro::eeli,i:..iier:.:,o:,:o:
il, :ie.eeo:e. :e .i:ee i: i. :ie eel:e:l e:i:. :e :ele. :i::ii.
uooi .eei. :o loe:e, :ie :e.e:ee or ou.e:vule :e,al:i:ie. i. o:l,
.a,,e.:io:uoe:ie:e:olooiro::ie.iie:oe::ea.:ueie:
.e::e, :ie eviee:eero::ie esi.:e:ee or eal:e:l e:i: o: eel:e:l
:ole e::o: :e.:o: :, ou.e:vee :e,al:i:, or e:al i:.::ee. or :ie
ueivio: i:.elr.
iii. i. ra:ee::ll, :ie .e :oule, eve: i: :ii. ,ei.e, . :ie
:oule .::ee e:lie: ie:e ,io.:. e:e :ie esle. :e :ie oi::
:ei:.:i::ieeel:a:l:eleo::ieeal:e:le:i:esi.:.:eai:a:llevei
orou.e:v:io: :ei:ioe::e,:e :o :ielevelor .eeirei:.::ee.:e

nfrodutfon ?
eo:e:e:eoeea::e:ee..nooa::oiei:ee:ou.-:v:io:oi:leuelvio:oi
,lo.:.:le.elv-.ill,iele:,i:io::io:uoa:lo:l-eal:a:leo:
.::a
e:oi:le,lo.:i.io:al:ee. bi:-e:vi.alou.e:v:io:e:ee::i:l,
,ielehypotheses, ua: o:l, l,o:le.e., uoa: :le a:i:. :e :le:ale. oi
::+eli,l:..eal:a:leo:.::ae:.,ua: eve:i:.ael e.ei:i.oo:
ae.:io: le:le: :li. ::e: oi :oeaei: l,o:le.e. uoa: :le eal-
:a:l eo:.::ae:.i.ve:,a.eial.
si:eei:i.e:i-e:l,o..iule:oio:al:e,:oeoa:ie:e,:oee.c:iue,
:e :o a:ee:.::e :le eal:a:l eo:.::ae: oi ,lo.:. i:loa: e:all,
i.all, i:.-c:i:, eve: .i:,le .eeie:, :li. .loale ue ::ae e:o..
:leuo:e:ei:loa::ei-:e:ee:o:leou.e:vuili:,o::o:ou.e:vuili:,
oi:leou,ee:.:l:,ue:e.aee:oue:le:eie:-::.oi:le eal:a:l
co:.::ae:..
sa:co:.ie-:,:o,:oul-oi:le.eo:ee:ua:o.eei:.oe
l: eiae:-::,. sao.e :l:ei:o :l::le:e :e eal:a:l a:i:.
}, x,:eZ. t:e.ao.e:l::l-:al-i.:l:a:i:.
}
:e:eve:e:
:o,e:le:, ua: 7 l,. e:. ..oei:ee i:l Z. no eou.e:ve
l: e:all, le:. i: e:-iall, .elee:ee .le oi e.e.. bi:-e:
ou.e:v:io: .lo. :l: i: OZ.1 e: ee:: oi :le e.e.
}
:e x e:
:o,e:le: (eo::::,:o:le:ale:, :e :l: i::oi:.::ee. liel :eou
.e:veeeoe.Z eve:oeea:le:7 i.:e.e:: ( eo::::,:o:le:alei:J
e:ee::oi:l-e.e.. , .
boe i:i-::l: :le :ale i. ei le:e OZ.1 e: ee:: oi:le e.e.
eevi:ei:oi::e:l::le:ei.:o:alele:e -:ee::oi:lee.e.
iil:oeo:io::oi:veeo:o::ll.ileae.:io:oile:le::l-:ei.
:ale io:al:ee . eal:a:l :ale e::o:ue eeeieee o: :leu.i. oi
.aelevie-:ee.ioa:i:.il,,sael-viee:eei.ai:ei::elev:::o:le
ae.:io:oile:le::le:ei.o:i.:o:eal:a:la:i:,eal:a:l eo:ee:,
eal:a:l:ale,eal:a:le:t:,.
ili.:oulel.o:eo:le:ei:ee:io:liel.loaleueeo:.iee:ee.ile
:,ae:: i,l: ue eeveloee i: :li. ,. cal:a:l a:i:., eo:.::ae:.,
:ale.,:e.oo::-:o:,a.:,ive:.ile,:e:o:,eo::::,:o,:lolo,,,
l:eee eo: i:o :le .i, :o :ei: i: :le .e .::e a::il :le, :e
:ie:ueiu,:le,oe.loi:ve::ee:le.ile,:i.e,:le,,:o,:le,
cl:,e.ile,, o:,:o: ue:e.o:.ive:o:lee:aleo:ei:io:. oi
liie, :o eiae:e:: oal:io: :e..a:e., :o eiae:e:: eeolo,iel eo:ei:io:.,
:o:le.e:ei:,oiiooeo::le:evle:eeoi ei.-.e, :o:le,o,.:e:le
.o::o.oiliie o:-e..e::il:oul-, :le:, i.:oel:::le:el:io:.li
u-:ee: :le e:al .::e. oi ai:. :e :le eal:a:l eo:.::ae:. .o :l:
e e: ei.eove: lo :le eal:a:l eo:.::ae:. :e ,e:e::-e, :l- l.
,ovei:, :lei: el:,e, :e i:,a.: l: ,. :le, :e .,.:e:iell,
:el:ee:o:lee:al.::e.oiai:.oiliie.
ile:ei.:oae.:io:ua::l::li.i.o:eo:,:aue:oil-,i:i:e
8 nfroU0cfuH
and interesting problems. But it is not the one I have chosen. I have
stated the others in order to clearly distinguish my problem from other,
apparently similar problems, and in order to make clear certain assump
tions which are fundamental to the one I have chosen.
This problem assumes that the cultural level of observation can be
distinguished from all others; that cultural units and constructs can be
described independently of all othet levels of observation; and that the
culture so isolated can be examined to see what its core symbols are (if
there are core symbols); how meaning is systematically elaborated (if it
is systematically elaborated) throughout its diferentiated parts; and
how the parts are diferentiated and articulated as cultural units (if they
are so articulated).
In the most general terms, then, the problem have posed is that of
describing and treating
.culture as an independent system and of analyz
ing it in its own terms; that is, as a coherent system of symbols and
meanings.
The specifc objective of this book .s to describe the system of symbols
and meanings of American kinship. It tries to show the cultural defni
tion of the units of American kinship as they occur in American culture.
It also tries to show the rules, formulated as a part of the cultural system,
that show how such units relate and do
.
not relate to each other, the
symbolic forms in which the units and their relations are cast, and the
meanings attached to those symbols. It is u this sense that the subtitle
of the book, <'A Cultural Account," is to be understood.
MI-
Given this objective, how are the cultural units located, described, and
defned? By what methods are the observations made \vhich yield cultural
rules, constructs, units, symbols, and meanings?' What data should be
collected for this purpose and by what methods?
A psychologist may use subjects in his experiments, a sociologist may
count
_
his respondents in a survey of opinion or attitude, a psychiatrist
may describe his patients. But an anthropologist, where culture is the
object of his study, uses informants.
Moreover, where a sociologist may draw a sampl of respondents, or a
critic may attack the general applicability of a psychologist's results by
impugning his sample, the best that can be said for an anthropologist
is that he -has a good bunch of informants. And it should be noted that
a sociologist draws a sample or selcts his sample, while the anthropolo
gist is often selected by his informants. Some of the very best informants
are self-selected.
W

+
`
Introduction 9
These diferent words have diferent meanings and it is no accident
that the anthropologist often uses informants rather than subjects, re
spondents, or patients, and that informants come in bunches, not samples,
and that they are often self-selected.
The informant is distinguished by what it is that is sought from him
and by the relationship which the anthropologist has with him. It is pre
cisely because the anthropologist does not understand the native culture,
does not know what the units of that culture are, and has only the
vaguest idea as to the ways in which those units might be put together
that he goes to an informant.
In a very fundamental sense the anthropologist is like a child who must
b
e socialized. He has to be taught right from wrong according to the
standards of the culture he is studying. He has to lear what to do and
what not to do, how to do it and how not to do it, what is worth doing
and what is not. He has to lear the names for things and what their
properties are, what their values are and what dangers lurk beneath
them or behind them or within them or around them. And just like a
child, one of the most important things he has to lear is the language;
only when he has leared to speak the language well enough does he
really begin to perceive the subtleties and the full texture of the fabric
of the culture he is studying.
When an anthropologist goes into the feld to study a culture he gen
erally starts by learing the language. Thus his language teachers tend
to become his :rst and sometimes his most important infornants. He
works with them for long periods of time picking up vocabulary, lear
ing the names for things, learing to say simple things, distinguishing
one grammatical form from another, getting the syntax. In such a situa
tion there is a long-term relationship in which the informant becomes
responsible for maintaining e standards-he has to teach his pupil to
speak correctly-and the anthropologist searches, seeks, tries, experi
ments, plays, explores, and fddles with everything. He keeps asking the
broadest and silliest questions the simplest and the wildest questions.
"Why?', is the paradigm for them all. Why the diferent ending? Why this
word order and not that? Why not that word? Why not say it this way?
Why should it sound like that?
Some informants have some ideas about the structure of the language
they themselves use. They have some rough and ready notions of the
grammar, some generalizations about syntax, some rules of thumb at
least about the sounds. The native's model of his own language is not,
of course, the same as his language, and neither is it the same model
that the anthropologist would construct. But good informants are sepa
rated from bad informants by the fact that the forn1er are able to ofer
10 Introduction
useful insights and generalizations, are able to volunteer ideas hich are
always of some value. A bad informant is only able to say yes or no,
right or wrong, and to provide an endless series of don't know, an
swers. But both the good informant nd the bad informant speak their
language correctly.
The fnal stages of learing a language in the 6eld are those where
the language is actively used as the
research tool, where it is the medium
through which a wider and wider series of questions can be asked of a
wider and wider array of diferent informants, where facts can be checked
quickly and easily, and guesses and hypotheses can be played out against
a variety of diferent natives. Here the vocabulary is expanded from a
good working base to fuency, and the feld worker can perceive the
nuances, allusions, metaphors, the sense of poetry and rhythm
,
that
the frst stumbling lessons can never convey.
Although language is one part of culture, and is the key to culture,
there is more to any particular culture than just its language; however,
language is always the major medium through which communication
takes place.
Learning a culture, then, takes place by learning its language, but
learing the culture consists of more than just learing the language. Yet
learing the culture is just like learing the language.
The relationship with the informant, therefore, is one of the crucial ele
ments in learing the culture. The message has to be conveyed to the
informant that the anthropologist wants to know what the informant
.
thinks about the subject, how he sees it, l1ov he understands it, what it
means to him, what it is like. In the beginning it is vital that the anthro
pologist take the position that he knows so little about the subject that
he is not. even able to frame an intelligent question. The situation is, in
fact, just that, whether it is grammatical categories or kinship categories
that are being leared. The fundamental position of the anthropologist
is that he knows nothing whatever but that he is capable of learning and
anxious to lear.
This is the fundamental condition of work with an informant which
seeks to locate, defne, and describe cultural units or categories, or con
structs. The more rigid the frame hich the feld worker presents to the
native, the more likely it is that the informant will behave like a human
being and fll justthotframe for him. The more positive the feld worker
is that he knows exactly what he wants and just what to look for, the
more likely it is that the informant will behave like a decent human being
and help him fnd just exactly that and nothing else. The more clearly
the feld worker has in mind what he is after, the less likely it is that he
will discover what the natives' cultural categories are; how the natives
.
,
=:
,
,
:
,
,

^M
W
Introduction 11
defne them, construct them, and manipulate them; or what they mean
to
the natives.
By the very same token, the fundamental rule of feld work is that the
infor
mant is seldom if ever wrong, never provides irrelevant data, and is
incapable of jut8 fabrication. Short of simple errors of hearing, tc., the
integrity of the informant and the integrity of the data are inviolate, and
I
cannot think of any exceptions to this rule.
It follows that no particular feld method is necessarily good or neces
sarily
bad or is to be avoided on principle except, of course, for that which
is unethical. Take as an example the loaded question or the leading
qu
estion. If a survey is to ask one small set of questions of a sample of
respondents on a single occasion, the loaded question must be avoided,
because it will tend to pull for a particular kind of answer. Since these
answers will constitute the entire universe of the data-or very nearly
the entire universe of the relevant data-the conclusions will be biased
by the way in which the question was asked.
In work with informants where the objective of that work is the loca
tion, description, and analysis of cultural units and constructs, a mass of
data is collected, consisting of a large number of diferent kinds and col
lected over diferent periods of time. From these data trial hypotheses
are formulated, which are then referred back to the data from which they
presumably emerged to make them consistent with those data. The hy
potheses are then checked against new data as they come in, and partic
ularly against new data that are elicited in such a way as to allow for
the disproof of the hypothetical construct. In this situation, then, what
is a loaded question in a survey is a perfectly good trial hypothesis . .. You
people believe in witches, don't you?'' is a loaded question. And it is
certainly not confrmed or denied by a tally of ('yeas,. and "nays" from a
cross section of the village. tere are well-known circumstances where,
although in fact it can be demonstrated that the natives believe in witches,
not a single native will give an afrmative answer to such a question put
m that way.
But then, why ask the question in that way? The answer must be,
('Why not?" For any kind of question, put in any way, must be assumed
to yield some kind of data of some importance to the task of locating the
cultural units and their defnitions and meanings, and distinguishing
these from regularities of all sorts which are not in themselves the cul
turally formulated rules.
Yet there is another answer to the "Why not?'' that depends on the
state of knowledge which the anthropologist has at the time. At frst,
when there are no data but only an enormous range of hypotheses, al
most any data are of direct relevance. Later, as data pile up, many be-
12 Introduction
eo- :-ea:e::, +-i:, :e :-+:i:, :i- .- oi:: i: i. : :ii.
:i- :i: i,o:i-.-. uoa: i: :- :e i: :- :o: eai:a:l a:i:.,
:i-i: e-r:i:io:., :e :i- ,. |: iiei :i-, :- ::|eal:-e u-eo-
e:aeil.t:ei:i.::ii.:i-:i::i-.-:-,iea-.:io::i:ei.e:ii::-.
,ooei,o:i-.i.r:oueo:-,:-:ul-ro:al:io:r:oo:-iiei
eo-.:o:o:i,u-eo-.:-ee..:,.vi-:i-::i-a-.:io:i.loe-eo::o:
i. or l-.. .i,:ire:e- :i: i-:i-: :i- a-.:io: e: -l|e|: :i- e:aeil
e:ro:ei.e:ii::i:,ri.-i,o:i-.i.r:o,ooeo:-.
no:o:l,eo-.:i-r-ieo:i-:o:ii:v:i-:,or..:a:io:.i:i:
i:ro:::,.ii:,v:i-:,ore.a-:-::a-.:io:.|:v:i-:,oreia-:-::
w,., -sio:i:,,ro:al:i:,,i,i:,,::,i:,e.-:-::eo:.::ae:.,ua:ii.
:-l:io:.ii i:i :i- i:ro:::u-eo-. e:aeil e:a i: i:.-ir. ii-
i:ro::: i. .i-e :o:-a-e:, :o eo:.ie-:, :o .,i,i-eie o:eie:o:
eoe-::i: :ii:,.,:o:--u-:i:o:i-:.iv- .ieo:iv-:o: .ie.
H-:-:e.:ou-eo-ie:.-l,i::-:-.:-ei::i-..u,-e: ii.-lr,:ei:
v-:, io::::.-:.-i- u-eo-. :i- ::i:oolo,i.: H-::i-. :or:e
:.-:.,a:e-:.::ei:,.,i:.i,i:,:o:o:l,:oi-lii.::i:oolo,i.:,ua:
l.ou-ea.-i- ii.-lri.ei.eov-:-e : i::-ll-e:all, o: -o:io:ll,
i:::i,ai:,a-.:io:.
i:i.o::i,oi:, .:- ra::i-::e li.:i:, :i- i|:e. :e vola- or
e:eoil-e:-ei:ciie,o:e-l.-i-:-o:iiei:ii.uooii.u.-e.
ii-l:,-.:.i:,l-uioeiore: coe. r:o i::-:vi-i:,i:ciie,o
u-:--::i-rllor1 :e:i--:eor:i-sa-:or :eeo:.i.:.
i: ov-:.is :ioa.:e ,-. or :,-e eeoa::. or i::-:v|-. (:o: :-e
:::.e:i:.,ua:.elo.-:ov-:u:i:-ell.o..iul-, i:i1X -ol-,
orio -:- ia.u:e :eir- (a.all, i::e:vi--e .-::-l,,,

:e :i- :-i:e-: -:- iv-. lo:- ( -se-: ro: o:- o: :e i-:

eal:.o:, . i:ee|:io:,9O -se-il-::,-:-lo,i-.-:-:i-:r:o:i-O
rili-. (:i-r:.::-:,-:-lo,i-.-:-:o:v-:,,ooe .i:e-i::ooi.o-
:i-:ol-io:o:i-,-:-lo,,,,-eei:,i:vi::io:li.:.,-eei:,
,.r:li.:.,ci:i.:.e:eli.:.,c--:-:,lo: i..:i:,.,ra:-:luooi., :e
U i-o,:i-e ril, :-. uall-:.: eol-:-e :i- e: r:o :i-.-
O ril.-..

i:, r:-:iiea:e-::i-:.o-:-lii::,:l,.i.or:i::-
:il, x:.. Li:e volreo:eae:-e i::-:v.-. i:i ei|le:-: r:o :i-
,-.or.is:o J8 :e:i-i:o:i-:.,o::i-ei.le:-:.i:ol-e,-or:i-i:
:-l:iv-., :i-i:vi- or:i--:i:,. :ea.,-. orii:.ii :-:., :e
:i-i: e-:i:io:. or ii: :e ii:.ii ::-:.. H-:- ciile:-: -:- i::-:
" For a full account of the feld work, feld methods, and special problems of
feld work of this sort, see L. Wolf, Anthropological Inter1iewing in Chicago. Mimeo
graphed. American Kinship Projects Monograph #1 (Chicago I94).

.
..

:.
..

.
-.
.+

"
.
`:
.

.-

-
.
.
+

`
.
`

..
.

*+

HfrU0cf 13
viewed either once or twice, seldom oftener. These children did not come
fro
m families in the frst group interviewed.
The Chicago adult informants were middle-class whites, some of whom
wer
e Catholic, sone Protestant, some Jews; of old Anglo-Saxon, German,
Polish, Bohemian, Irish, Greek, Italian, and Jewish ethnic identity.3
But this book does not depend on these data alone. It has taken into
acco
unt materals collected in an earlier study done among the graduate
students and faculty of the Department of Social Relations at Harvard
University,4 materials collected informally from friends; neighbors; col
leagues; acquaintances; newspaper accounts; newspaper columns; the
literature in professional sociology, psychiatry, psychology, and anthro
pology journals; students' reports; and similarly authentic but unsys-
.
teratic sources.
The fnal source of information is, of course, my own personal experi
ence, since I was bor and reared in America, am a native speaker of
the language, and have lived in America almost all of my life. ( I should
add
that in my own view, I BM not a bad informant, although I have
worked with better.)
Such a diverse artay of sources can, of course, be regarded as a sample
u the technical sense that every major segment of the population of the
United 'tates is represented in some way. They may be represented di-
4 A series of volumes is now in active preparation which will make much of the
Chicago data available in the near future. First, the genealogies of more than 4U
families have been coded and put on computer tapes. This material includes name,
age, sex, religion, occupation, residence, and the different kinds and frequency of
contact with all others on the genealogy for each person listed. Much of the analysis
of this material is completed and is being written up for publication at the time of
writing. Second, a volume on the feld methods used is currently available only in
mimeographed draft form. This will be revised for publication. Third, a systematic
comparison of the genealogies of,parents and their chidren taken independently of
each other will provide the basis for a study of what I have called <<peeling." That
is, what part of the kin universe of the parents is passed along to the child, what
are the losses, what are the processes of this transmission, and so forth. The analysis
of this material is nearly complete at this writing. Fourth, a shott analysis of the
kin knowledge of children is planned. This includes the children's defnitions of kin
categories, their view of the family and kin universe, and :a ,special analysis of the
discrepancies between the child's and his mother's inventory of kin and definitions
of the categories. Fifth, a special study of afnal relations, starting with ego" s own
wedding and subsequent relations based primarily on the interview materials. This
should make available the considerable data on wedding invitation lists, gift lists,
and subsequent in-law relations now contained in the fles. Sixth, a study of funeral
and kin behavior at funerals is planned, but analysis of this material has not yet
begun. Seventh, a volume on class and kinship is begun but not yet far along. Further
studies will be undertaken when

these are well along or already published. In the

meanwhile, it goes without saying that the .6les and all of the feld materials are
available to qualifed, interested scholars in Chicago .
See D. M. Schneider and G. C. Homans, "Kinship Terminology and the Amer
ican Kinship System/' Amcrcan AnthropologIst, ? { 19) , 114-12Uo.

14 Introduction
rectly by informants, or indirectly by my reading of the anthropological,
sociological, psychological, and. psychiatric literature, plus biographies,
autobiographies, novels, and discussions with social scientists who have
direct knowledge of some subgroup. By major segment" I mean whites,
Negroes, Chinese, Japanese, Greeks, Cermans, Bohemians, Irish, Spanish-
:
Americans, Italians, English, Scotch, Poles, Protestants, Catholics, Jews,

northeasterners, midwesterners, southerners, far-westerners, upper class, (
middle class, and lower class. There ar certainly many small groups

about which I have little direct or indirect infonnation. For instance, al-
though I have read much of the available literature on the Ozark and ;:
Appalachian regions, I feel confdent ony of the most general features

of kinship and family life in those regions. But nothing which I say i n _:;
this book is inconsistent with what I know.

If this is a sample in the sense that data from every major segment !!
of the population of the United States have had a chance to be taken into
account, it is a sample udesignedn with reference to the aims of the
study. For the aims of the study have to do with cultural constructs, not ::;
with frequency distributions. For example
,
the study aims to show that
udad" is a kinship term, what it means, how it is articulated in a system
of kinship terms; it does not aim to show what percentage of persons from !!
which subgroups say that they use the term. Neither does the study aim .:;
simply to show that something is or is not present, quite apart from the \

question of its rate of occurrence. For the question is not whether certain ,
events do or do not occur, but rather that of locating and understanding
;
:
the cultural units. ::
The reason for incJuding data from every major segment of the nopu-
lation of the United States is to deal with the question of whether

there !
are as many diferent kinship systems as there are diferent subgroups i n;
the United States, or whether there is a single system or some combina- :;
tion of dominant and variant systems. The only way to fnd out, of course:>

is to consider the data.

There has never been any doubt that there is variation from group to :
:
group in American kinship and family practices. The problem has been

;
to establish its kind and meaning. The sociological, psychological, and -
psychiatric literature contains many discussions of diferences between
class, race, ethnic, and religious groups. But these diferences are often : :
reported as diferences in rates. For instance, the high rate of fatherless :
and husbandless households among lower-class Negroes as compared
with middle-class whites is the subject of considerable discussion today, :
trU0WH
much of which centers on whether this dierence in rate can be ac-
cunted for in terms of the survivaI of practices which hrst took form
during the period of American sIavery, oras a direct resuIt of economic
and
sociaI disadvantage.
UnIess a dierence in rate reects a dierence in cuIturaI form, how-
ever, itisnot directIy reIevant to my probIem. That is, ifthe prevaIence
of matrifocaI famiIies in the Iower cIass foIIows from the fact (for ex-
ampIe) that they do not share the same dehnition of the famiIy which
the middIe cIass hoIds, this is of major importance for this study. Butif
the prevaIence of matrifocaI fa:niIies in the Iower cIass is a direct con-
sequence of economic deprivation, then it is not adierent cuIturaI fon
and it is not a ground for assuning that more than one kind ofkinship
system occurs in the United States.
AnotherexampIe,however, putsthismatterinto a dierent Iight. Dur-
ing the heId work in Chicago, infonants often insisted that their par-
ticuIar ethnic group had distinctive or typicaI famiIy characteristics
which were unIike anything eIse in America. Since this was a question
in which I was interested from the very start of this study, such cIues
were pursued reIentIessIy, but tactfuIIy. Over a Iong period of visits,
we asked each informant, 'What distinguishes the famiIy of your par-
ticuIar ethnic group?' The answers were iIIuminating. For the ItaIians
he matter was quite simpIe, it is not possibIe to fuIIy understand the
ItaIian famiIy in America untiI one has understood the ItaIian mother.
For the Irish the matter was equaIIy cIear, it is not reaIIy possibIe to
understand the Irish famiIy untiI one has understood the speciaI pIace
ofthe Irish mother. For the ]ews the matter was beyond dispute, it s
impossibIe to fuIIy comprehend the compIexities and speciaI quaIities of
]ewish famiIyIifewithoutunderstandingthe]ewishmother. ItshouId be
unnecessary to add that th

hrst step in understanding mothers is in

understanding the speciaI pIace which food has in the famiIy, and this
Ieads straight to the probIem of cuIturaI units, symboIs, the meanings
of such uni+s and symboIs, and how they articuIate.
ThesituationisinfactmuchmorecompIexthanthesesimpIeexampIes
suggest. AImost every conceivabIe kind of variation seems to be present
in American kinship and famiIy practices. Indeed, this statement is no
more than the obverse of the often-cited exibiIity, adaptabiIity, and
uidity of the system. And this is no more than to reiterate the weII-
estabIishedpointthatthekinshipandfamiIypracticesofAmericans have
not stood in the way of economic deveIopment as they have in other
countries, nor have they impeded the operation of a free Iabor market
or the deveIopment of a poIiticaI bureaucracy based on merit and com-
petence ratherthan on hereditary and nepotic rights. A systemwhich is
16 Introduction
so fuid and fexible must be one in which a high degree of variance
obtains.
Quite apart from such considerations, direct observation suggests al
most mmediately that the system is characterized by a very high degree

of variance and a corresponding absence of areas of rigidity, and this

: :
impression can make the feld worker wonder if there is any structure to
the system at alH
The question of whether there is a single kinship system or a variety
of diferent kinship systems cannot be studied directly in those terms,
for the whole problem is to locate and analyze precisely what kinds of
variance occur and at what points they occur. If one kind of variance is
.
a matter of rate and another kind is a matter of basic diference in cul
tural defnition, then each variation itself must be examined to see what
kind it is.
Since this is a fundamental point for this book, I must restate it once
more. The problem of variance in the American kinship system is one of ,
the major problems of its description and analysis. It is ultimately soluble
by distinguishing variance of a cultural order from other kinds, but this .
solution cannot be imposed on the data prematurely or arbitrarily. The .
very frst task is to locate and establish what kind of variance is involyed
.
.

at every point.

.
.
There are four readily discernible kinds of variance in American kin-
-.
ship and family practices. The frst and most obvious is that of rate.
Here, whatever the cultural defnitions, rules, and concepts, a variety `

of forces comes to bear on a given population so that at two diferent

:-

times, or for two diferent parts of the population, there are diferences
i
.
n the frequency with which a particular item occurs. The word <'daddy,''.
for instat)ce, has distinctly feminine connotations in the northeastern part ::
of the United States, not because it is defned as being the proper and . .
appropriate term for women to use, but rather because there is a con-
:
siderably greater incidence of its use by women than by men. The use
:

of daddy'' by adult men in the south and southwest is at a much higher

:
rate than in the northeast
,
and as a consequence udaddy" does not have
the childish or efeminate connotations in the south and southwest that
it does in the northeast. Another example is in the use of "aunt" and
uuncle'' for the friends of parents. I have the impression that this usage ::
is fading no"v and was more frequent X to years ago. Yet there is no
. .
evidence that the defnition or meanings of those terms has changed. ..
*
Certainly there has been change, but it is not at all clear that the change
has occurred at the cultural level in the defnition of those terms.
^.
A second kind of variance consists in alternate norm or alternate forr.
.
Here any given person is free to choose which form he uses, and he may
.
frU04fH 7
use aII o tbe aItenatives at one time or anotber or in one situation or
anotber. 1bus 'atber and dad are aItenate terms wbicb Americans
can and do use. 1be same person may use atber and dad.

' Wbicb
term becbooses,andwben,dependson a varietyoconsiderations, none
owbicb aects tbeacttbattbeyare equaIIyIegitimateaIternateorms.
AIteate orms need not be o tbe either }or variety, tbey aIso can be
o
a some do, some don't" variety. 1bus, or instance, wbetber tbe
cousin's spouse is considered to bc a cousin and is caIIed cousin,`` and
wbetber tbe surviving spouse o a motber's brotber is or is not consid-
ered to be a member o tbe amiIy can be aIternate orms. Botb ways
are'correct``orcanbe cbosenbydierentpeopIe,orbytbesame peopIe
at
dierent times.
Atbirdkindovarianceconsistsin variant form or norm. Heretbere
is a primary com:itment to a particuIar orm by a particuIar group or
segmentotbepopuIationwbiIeotbergroups useotberorms. AII agree,
however, tbat no particuIar orm is rigbt" and tbe otbers wrong.'
1breetermsormarginaI,distantkinareexampIes.1betermwakes-and-
weddingsreIatives issaidtobeusedprimariIybyCatboIics,kissin`kin'`
or ''kissin' cousins primariIy by soutberners, and sbirt-taiI reIations'
.
predominantIy by midwesterners. Midwesterners wbo are not CatboIic
understandwbat''wakes-and-weddingsreIativesare,butdonotnormaIIy
use tbe term since i tis identined as CatboIic. 1bey oten do not under-
stand wbatkissin`cousins`'are, unIess tbeybave a soutbernbackground
or bave Iooked into tbe question, and tbey identiy it as being o tbe
8outb. 8outbenersotenIookpuzzIedwben'sbirt-taiIreIations``aremen-
tioned or tbe pbrase is oreign to tbem. 1bey understand it immedi-
ateIy wben it is expIained, but see it as a mark o nortben Iie witb
wbicb tbey are not identie.
A ourtb kind o variance,wbicb is reaIIy a speciaI case o rate, be-
comes evident wben a qnestion is asked wbicb somebow crosscuts two
or more areas o cuIturaI denition or normative reguIation and ocuses
insteadontbeoutcome ostrategy decisions wbicb individuaIs make.
A good exampIe o tbisis tbe question otbe degreeto wbicbkinsbip
reIations sbouId be instrumentaI in aim or content. I inormants are
asked wbetber it is better to borrow money rom a reIative or rom a
bank tbe responses range rom A reIative! 1bats wbat reIatives are
or! to ''A bank! 1bats wbat banks are or!' I tbe question uses tbe
exampIe o doctors, dentists, or Iawyers instead o banks, tbe answers
divide :n mucb tbe same way. 1be discussion witb inormants wbicb
oIIows tbeir presentation o tbese views dweIIs on tbe same considera
" bcse terms are expaned on Q. 7U .
1 d Introduction

tions, but the outcome for any particular person may be one way or the

other depending on how the values are calculated. It is precisely be
cause there is no normative stipulation that is culturally defned to con-
:,
trast instrumental activities against others that the question is open to
:
strategic evaluations. If the question, cShould you help your mother
.

: :
she is ill?, is asked, there is no diyision among the answers, no qualify:
:
ing conditions; the normative prescription is quite clear : "Yes, in any
way possible."

The empirical proble is, then, to locate the diferent areas in which

variance occurs, and to identify the type of variance. I do not ofer this
::
sinple four-part classifcation of variance as either exhaustive or defni-
tive, but only to indicate that there is an important diference between
::
variation in rate and variation at a cultural level, and that whether one

.
can usefully distinguish diferent kinship systems within the United

,_

States, or whether there is a single system, depends on how the problem

`

of variance is posed and how it is solved. As the second part of this

book will nake clear, I believe that it is possible, at one distinct level of
`
cultural analysis, to discuss and describe a single kinship system, and at

another to defne and describe both alterate and variant forms.

`:

a ..
'+
,.
,
I have tried to state as clearly as possible in this Introduction the prob-

Iem I have chosen and the way in which I have chosen to work with :.::
it. This book is intended to be an account of the American kinship sys-
ter as a cultural system, as a system of symbols, and rt as a 'descrip-

tion' at any other level.

'+
:
This book is not to be understood as an account of what Americans
say when they talk about kinship and family, although it is based on
what Americans say. It is nt about what Americans think: as a rational>

':
conscious> cognitive process, about kinship and family, although it is
based in no small part on what Americans say they think about kinship

an
d
d fam
1
iy. T
h
his bo
h
ok
h
should not be con
b
strue
b
d as a
d
descip
ll
tion of r
d
oles

an re ahons ips w ic Americans can e o serve actua y to un er-

:
..
,
take in their day-to-day behavior in situations of family life, although it is
`
^
based on what Americans say they do and on what they have ben ob-

served to do.
)
.,
This book is about symbols7 the symbols which are American kinship.

.
L W 1
M MM UM M M
MM tMM MLM

`.

+
:
~

^
-

`:
,,
..
..

+
:

..

.
LIAII L
Relatives
=
Wbat tbe antbropoIogistcaIIs kinsmenarecaIIed reIatives,'oIks, ''kin-
oIk," peopIe,' or amiIy by Americans; tbe possessive pronoun may
precede tbeseterms. Indierentregions anddiaIects variouswordsmay
Ieused,butpeopIerom dierentparts otbecountry generaIIy under-
stand eacb otberandsbaretbe sameundan.entaI dennitions even wben
tey do not use tbe same names or tbe same cuIturaI categories. I wiII
use tbe American term 'reIat.ve`` as tbe very rougb equivaIent or tbe
antbropoIogist's term ''kinsman,`` buttbis is a very rougb transIation in-
deed.
1be expIicit dehnition wbicb AmericansreadiIyprovide istbat a reIa-
tive is a person wbo is reIated by bIood or by marriage. 1bose reIated
by marriage may be caIIed ''in-Iaws.'' But tbe word reIative can aIso
be used by Americans in a
-
more restricted sense or bIood reIatives
aIone and usedindirectoppositionto reIativeby marriage. 1bus itmay
be said, No, sbe is not a reIative, my wie is an in-Iaw." Lt it may
equaIIyproperIy besaid,'Yes, sbeisareIative,sbeismywie.
0ne can begin to discover wbat a reIative is in American cuIture by
cousideringtbose terms wbicb are tbe names or tbekinds o reIatives-
among otber tbings-andwbicb mark tbe scbeme or tbeircIassication.
American kinsbip terms can be divided into two groups. 1be nrst
groupcanbecaIIedtbebaic terms,tbesecond,de::cot:reterms.Deriva-
tive terms aren.ade up o a basicterm pIus amodier.' Cousin'
,
is an
take this distinction between basic and derivative terms from W. H. Goodenough,
"Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Componential Analysis," in E. A. Ham
mel ( ed. ) "Formal Semantic Analysis/' Amercou Autho;olog:st, 6?. , Part 2
!90) 2o7.
2)

22 Relatives
:.

CXamQlC Ol a Da8C tCrm, 8CCOnd a QartCular mOdhCr. OCCOnd COu8n

8 an CXamQlC Ol a dCrvatvC tCrm. `athCr 8 anOthCr CXamQlC Ol a
Da8C tCrm, ``-n-law a mOdhCr. ``athCr-n-law 8 an CXamQlC Ol a dC-

rvatvC tCrm.
hC Da8C tCrm8 arC lathCr, mOthCr, `DrOthCr,` `88tCr, `8On,
`daughtCr, `unClC, `aunt, `nCQhCw,` ``nCCC, COu8n, `Ju8Dand, and
h d`h `
$ 44
``l t ` t ` d w: C. C mO 1 Cr8 arC 8tCQ-
:n- aw, O8 Cr, grCa

gran ,
`h t `` d
7 44 77 44

7
`
d

`h
_
d ``

r8 , 8CCOn , CtC., OnCC, tw:CC, C!C., rCmOvC , a , an CX-.

hC `rCmOvCd mOdhCr 8 rC8CrvCd tO `COu8n. hC Jall mOdhCr 8

rC8CrVCd tO DrOthCr and ``88tCr. hC CX- mOd\hCr 8 rC8CrvCd tO rCl8-
tvC8 Dy marragC. ``LrCat` Only mOdhC8 lathCr, `mOthCr, `8On,` and
``daughtCr whCn thCy havC hr8t DCCn mOdhCd Dy `grand, a8 n ``grCat _
.
grandlathCr. `LrCa!` anO `grand dO nOt mOdly `COu8n, ``DrOthCr,
`88tCr, `Ju8Dand Or wlC. LthCrw8C mOdhCr8 Can DC u8Cd wth any
Da8C tCrm.

hC mOdhCr8 n th8 8y8tCm lOrm twO ddCrCnt 8Ct8 wth twO ddCrCnt
lunCtOn8. LnC 8Ct Ol mOdhCr8 d8tngu8hC8 truC Or DlOOd rClatvC8 lrOm
thO8C whO arC nOt. hC8C arC thC `8tCQ-, -n-law, and ``lO8tCr mOdhCr8

alOngwththC``hal!`mOdhCrwhCh 8QCChC8 lC88 thana lull DlOOd 8Dlng.

.
hu8 `lathCr 8 a DOOd rClatvC ``lO8tCr DrOthCr 8 nOt. `1aughtCr 8 a
.
DlOOd rClatvC,
.

8tCQ-daughtCr 8 nOt.
`
hC OthCr 8Ct Ol mOdhCr8 dChnC thC rangC Ol thC tCrm8 a8 nhntC.
h
t
..

d
.
d
.

._
t
7
t

A4 7
d

C8C arC C grCat, gran , rCmOvC , r , C C., an CX- mO 1 ,

DCr8. hat 8, thC rangC Or CXtCnt Ol thC tCrm8 8 wthOut lmt.

hCrC arC

thCrClOrC, twO ddCrCnt knd8 Ol mOdhCr8. LnC knd, thC

restr:ct:ce,8harQly dvdC8 DlOOd rClatvC8 lrOm thO8C n COmQaraDlC QO8-

tOn8 whO arC nOt DlOOd rClatvC8. hC OthCr knd Ol mOdhCr, thC uore-

:
str:ct:ce,

8mQly 8tatC8 thC unrtrCtCd Or unlmtCd rangC Ol CCrtan

`.:
rClatvC8.

.
LnC mOrC mQOrtant QOnt 8hOuld DC nOtCd aDOut thC mOdbCr8. hC
unrC8trCtvC mOdBCr8 mark d8tanCC, and thCy mark tn twO way8. hC ;
Compare. H. Coodenough, op. cit. For the di0erence hetween his view and
mine, see footnote, p. 00 , helow. It should also he noted that I do not oer this
as a denitive or exhaustive list of American kinship terms. ''Farent," "child,''

'sihIing,""ancestor,'' "ancestress,"''descendant," ''pa,""pappy," ''pop,'' papa,'' ma,"

mammy,'' mom," mama," and so forth could all he consdered as candidates for
such a list, along with terms like "old man," ''old woman," ''old lady," govenor."

,
and so forth. It is really not possihle to assume that there is a nite lexicon or vo-
cahulary of kinship terms without rst providing a clear denition of just what
kinship term is and whether this denition is imposed on the data for analytic pur- .
poses or whether it is a denition inherent in the culture itself. 8ince I am not un-

dertaking an analysis of either kinship terms or of terms for kinsmen here. I w!l

reserve these questions for another time. My aim here is simply to use some terms
which have kioship meanings as these are dened in American culture. as a way
to heg:n to discover what the American cultural de6nition of a relative is.

Relatives 23
br8t 8 Dy degree8 Ol d8tanCe. hu8 hr8t COu8n 8 CO8er than ``8eCOnd
COu8n,`unCle ClO8er than ``great unCle `great unCle ClO8er than `great
grea
t unCle, and 8O On. he 8eCOnd way Ol markng d8tanCe 8 On a
8mQ
le `nJOut Da88. 1u8Dand 8 ``n, ex-hu8Dand 8 ``Out. [u nOte
thaI `ur8t, `8eCOnd, etC., a8 mOdher8 Ol `hu8Dand and ``wle dO nOt
mark ClO8ene88 Dut Only 8uCCe88On n tme. )
h8 8truCture 8tate8 a 8uD8tantal Qart Ol the dehn!On Ol what 8 and
what 8 nOt a re!atve. he hr8t CrterOn, DlOOd Or marrage, 8 Central.
1he twO knd8 Ol mOdher8 are unted n ther lunCtOn8 One QrOteCt8 the
nt0grty Ol the ClO8e8t DlOOd relatve8. he Other QlaCe8 reatve8 n Cal-
Drated degree8 Ol d8tanCe l they are DlOOd relatve8, Dut ether `n Or
`Out l they are relatve8 Dy marrage.
1+
l a relatve 8 a Qer8On related `Dy DlOOd, what dOe8 th8 mean n
AmerCan Culturer
he DlOOd relatOn8hQ, a8 t 8 dehned n AmerCan kn8hQ, 8 lOrmu
lated n COnCrete, DOgenetC

term8. LOnCeQtOn lOllOw8 a 8ngle aCt Ol

8eXual nterCOur8e Detween a man, a8 gentOr, and a wOman, a8 genetrx.
At COnCeQtOn, One-hall Ol the DOgenetC 8uD8tanCe Ol whCh the Chld 8
made 8 COntrDuted Dy the genetrx, and One-hall Dy the gentOr. hu8
eaCh Qer8On ha8 100 QerCent Olth8 materal, Dut 50 Qer Cent COme8 lrOm
h8 mOther and 50 Qer Cent lrOm h8 lather at the tme Ol h8 COnCeQtOn,
and thereDy 8 h8 ``Dy Drth.
AlthOugh a Ch!d take8 Qart Ol the mOther8 makeuQ and Qart Ol the
lather8, nether mOther nOr lather 8hare8 that makeuQ wth eaCh Other.
5nCe a wOman 8 nOt ``made uQ O DOgenetC materal lrOm her hu8-
Dand

8he 8 nOt h8 DlOOd latve. ut 8he 8 the DlOOd relatve Ol her

Chld QreC8ely DeCau8e the mOther and Chld are DOth `made uQ Ol,

n
Qart, the very 8ame materal. bO, tOO, are the lather and Chd.
t 8 Deleved, n AmerCan

kn8hQ, that DOth mOther and lather gve

8uD8tantally the 8ame knd8 and amOunt8 Ol materal tO the Chld, and
!hat the Chld8 whOle DOgenetC dentty Or any Qart Ol t COme8 hall
lrOm the mOther, hall lrOm the lather. t 8 nOt Deleved that the l8ther
QrOvde8 the DOne, the mO!her the he8h, lOr n8tanCe, Or that the lather
QrOvde8 the ntellgenCe, the n:Other the aQQearanCe.
n AmerCan Cultural COnCeQtOn, kn8hQ 8 deDned a8 DOgenetC. h8
dehntOn 8ay8 that kn8hQ 8 whatever the DOgenetC relatOn8hQ 8.
l 8CenCe d8COver8 new laCt8 aDOut DOgenetC relatOn8hQ, then that 8
what kn8hQ 8 and wa8 all alOng, althOugh t may nOt have Deen knOwn
at the tme.
24 ReofV08
Hence the real, true, verifable facts of nature are what the cultural
formulation is. And the real, tru.
e, objective facts of science (these are
'
the facts of nature too, of course) are that each parent provides one
half of his child's biogenetic c<nstitution.3
The relationship which is 'real'' or 'true, or "blood'' or "by birthH can ,
never be severed, whatever its legal position. Legal rights ra y be lost,
but the blood relationship cann<t b lost. It is culturally defned as being
an objective fact of nature, of fundamenal signifcance and capable of
having profound efects, and its nature cannot be te1minated or changed.
It follows that it is never possible to have an ex-father or an ex-mother,
.
,
an exsister or an exbrother, an ex-son or an ex-daughter. An ex-husband
or ex-wife is possible, and so is an ex-mother-in-law. But an ex-mother
is not.

It is signifcant that one may diso\vn a son or a daughter, or one may

try to disinherit a child (within the limits set by the laws of the various

states). The relationship between parent and child, or between siblings,

::
.
may be such that the two never see each other, never mention each
other's name, never communicate in any way, each acting as if unaware

of the other's existence. But to those directly concered, as to all others

who know the facts, the two remain parent and child or sibling to eac4
other. Nothing can really terminate or change the biological relationship ::
`
!

-
which exists between them, and so they remain blood relatives. It is this
`'

which makes them parent and child or sibling to each other in Atnerican
::

cure.

Two blood relatives are related'' by the fact that they share in some )
:
degree the stuf of a particular heredity. Each has a portion of the nat-

ural, genetic substance. Their kinship consists in this common posses-

sion. If they need to prove their kinship, or to explain it to someone, they

may name the intervening blood relatives and locate the ascendent whose
+
blood they have in common. It is said that they can trace their blood
th:ough certain relatives, that they have 'Smith blood in their veins.'' :;
But their kinship to each other does not depend on intervening relatives,
.
.
.
but only on the fact that each has some of the heredity that the other

has and both got theirs fron1 a single source.

.
.
.

The cultural premise is that the real, true objective facts of nature about bio-
genetic relationships are what kinship "is." But it does not follow that every fact of
nature as established by science will automatically and unquestioningly be accepted
or assimilated as part of the nature of nature. People may simply deny that a fnd
ing of science is true and therefore not accept it as part of what kinship "is." By
the same token, sbme items in some people's inventories of the real, true, objective
facts of nature may be those which scientifc authority has long ago shown to be
false and untrue but which these Americans nevertheless insist are true. But this
should not obscure my point here, which is simply that the cultural defnition is
that kinship is the biogenetic facts of nature.


'.
.
.
+
`&
Relatives 25
Because blood is a "thing" and because it is subdivided with each re
prod
uctive step away from a given ancestor, the precise degree to which
two
persons share common heredity can be calculated, and 'distance,
can thus be stated in specifc quantitative terms.
The unalterable nature of the blood relationship has one more aspect
of signifcance. A blood relationship is a relationship of identity. People
who are blood relatives share a common identity, they believe. This is
expre
ssed as "being of the same fesh and blood." It is a belief in com
mon
biological constitution, and aspects like temperan1ent, build, physiog
nomy, and habits are noted as signs of this shared biological makeup,
this
special identity of relatives with each other. Children are said to
look like their parents, or to take after, one or another parent or grand
parent; these are confrming signs of the common biological identity. A
parent, particularly a mother, may speak of a child as a part of me.>'
In sum, the defnition of a relative as someone related by blood or
marriage is quite explicit in American culture. People speak of it in just
those terms, and do so readily hen asked. The conception of a child
occurs during an act of sexual intercourse, at which time. one-half of the
biogenetic substance of which the child is formed is contributed by the
father, its genitor, and one-half by the mother, its genetrix. The blood
relationship is thus a relationship of substance, of shared biogenetic
material. The degree to which such material is shared can be measured
and is called distooce. The fact that the relationship of blood cannot be
ended or altered and that it is a state of almost mystical commonality and
identity is also quite explicit in American culture.
111.

"Relative by marriage" is defned with reference to "relative by blood,

m American kinship. The fundamental element which defnes a relative
by blood is, of course, blood, a substance, a material thing. Its constitu
tion is whatever it is that really is in nature. It is a natural entity. It en
dures; it cannot be terminated.
Marriage is not a material thing in the same sense as biogenetic
heredity is. It is not a "natural thing" in the sense of a material object
found in nature. As a state of afairs it is, of course, natural; it has natural
concomitants or aspects, but it is not in itself a natural object. It is
terminable by death or divorce.
Therefore
,
where blood is both material and natural, marriage is neither.
'here blood endures, 1narriage is terminable. And since there is no such
'thing, as blood of which marriage consists, and since there is no such
material which exists free in nature, persons related by marriage are not
related Hin nature."
26 Relatives
1l relatves `Jy murrage are nOt related `n nature, hOw are they re-
latedr

!Onsder the steQ-, -n-la, and lOster relatves. he lundamental laCt

aDOut these relatves s that they have the rOle Ol ClOse relatves wthOut
as nlOrmants Qut t, Deng `real Or DlOOd relatves. A steQ-mOther s a
mOther whO s nOt a real mOther, Dut the QersOn whO s nO\ the
lathers wle. A lather-n-law sa lather whO s nOt LgOs Own lather, Dut
hs sQOuses lather. And a lOster sOn s nOt One`s Own Or real sOn, Dut
sOmeOne whOm One s Carng lOr as a sOn.
t s QOssDle tO desCrDe a lOster-Chlds :e/ot:oosh:j tO hs lOster Qar-

ents
,
Or a steQ-Chlds :e/ot:oosh:j [ and ths s the wOrd whCh nlOrmants
themselves use) tO hs steQ-Qarent. hs s, n ts man Outlne, a Qaret-
.
Chld relatOnshQ n the sense that t s a QatteD lOr hOw nterQersOnal
relatOns shOuld QrOCeed.

he natural and materal Dass lOr the relatOnshQ s aDsent, Dut rela-
tves Ol ths knd have a relatOnshQ n the sense Ol lOllOwng a QatteO

lOr DehavOr, a COde lOr COnduCt. .

he ClassC tragedy Ol a steQ-Chld n Yestern LurOQean lOlklOre,

!nderella lOr nstanCe, states eXaCtly the nature and alsO the QrODlem '
Ol ths zelatOnshQ. A wOman`s relatOnshQ tO her Own Chld s One n

whCh she has an aDdng lOve and lOyalty lOr t her relatOnshQ tO her _
husDands Chld Dy hs earler marrage sOne u whCh that Chld s sOme-
One elses Chld, nOt hers. Yhat she dOes lOr her steQChld she dOes De-
CauseOlherhusDands Clam On her. 11en0e, l her husDand dOes nOt QrO-

te0t hs Chld, she may De Cruel tO t and lavOr her Own Chld. hs s
seen as tragC DeCause a Chld shOuld have a mOther whO wll mOther :t,
and the Qarent-Chld relatOnshQ s Qute dstnCt lrOm the DlOOd-te
whCh underles t. he Cruel stcQ-UOther Ol lOlklOre shOuld rse DOve

the lteral dehntOn Ol her relatOnshQ tO her steQ-Chld, and have the
knd Ol Te/t:onshi-adeCtOn, COnCern, Care, and sO lOrIh-whCh a
mOther has lOr a Chld.

Yhen a QersOn s related tO a DlOOd relatve he s related hrst Dy COm-

mOn
DOgenetC heredty, a ontu:o/substooce, and seCOnd, Dy a :e/ot:on
sh:j, a Qattern lOr DehavOr Or a COde lOr COnduCt. he sQOuse, On One
hand, and the steQ-, -n-law, and lOster- relatves, On the Other hand, are
related Dy a :e/t:oosh: alOne there s nO natural suDstanCe asQeCt tO
the relatOnshQ.
,

he dstnCtve leature whCh dehnes the Order Ol DlOOd relatves, then,

sDlOOd, a naturalsuDstanCe DlOOd relatves are thus `related Dy nature.
hs, suggest, s a sQeCal nstanCe Ol the ooturo/ o:de: Ol thngs n
AmerCan Culture. he natural Order s the way thngs are n nature. 1t ,

COnssts n ODjeCts lOund lree n nature. t s `the laCts Ol lle as they

really eXst.

Roufvos 27
The feature which alone distinguishes relatives by marriage is their
relationship, their pattern for behavior, the code for their conduct. I
suggest, this is a special instance of the other general order in American
culture, the o:de:o]lw. The order of law is imposed by man and con
sists of rules and regulations, customs and traditions. It is law in its
special sense, where a foster-parent who fails to care properly for a child
can be brought to court
,
and it is law in its most general sense: law and
order, custom, the rule of order, the government of action by morality
and the self-restraint of human reason. It is a relationship in the sense of
being a code or patter for how action should proceed.
All of the step-, -in-law, and foster relatives fall under the order of law.
It is in this sense that a mother-in-law is not a real" or utrue
,
. mother
not a genetrix, that is-but is in the relationship of mother-child to her
child's spouse. It is in this sense that a step-mother is not a ureal" mother,
not the genetrix, but is in a mother-child relationship to her husband's
child. The crux of the Cinderella story is precisely that where the treal
mother" is related to her child both by law and by nature, the step
mother lacks the "natural" basis for the relationship, and lacking this
natural substance she "feels'' no love except toward her "own" child and
is thus able to cruelly exploit the child related to her :o hu alone.
If there is a relationship in law without a relationship in nature, as in
the case of the spouse, step-, -in-law, and foster relatives, can there be
a relationship in nature without a relationship in law? Indeed there can
and there is. What is called a "natural child" is an example. He is a
child bor out of wedlock, a child, that is, whose mother and father are
not married. He is a tnatural child" because in his case his relationship
to his parents is by nature alone and not by law as well; he is an "illegiti
mate'

child. Similarly, the "real mother" of a child adopted in infancy,
%
whether legitimate or not, is a relative in nature alone and not in Ia w,
and so is the genitor of such a child. Although the child is adopted and
has every right and every duty of the blood child, in American belief it
remains related to its "true" mother and father, its genitor and genetrix,
m nature though not in law.
1+
In sum, the c!}ltural universe of r<l_

pve_JtLAI1' 1.!Lki..hip

..i.
s

__

r
u
_t}.Qf_J ..
.
4
j
r
,
_
cultural orders, the :dc_ f

.. . =~v~ =

,..

.,
=* *
`
-- .. .. _ ,_q P
yr
.

.
ll d
_
f

_o;;

oj

. +!tives in ootu:c share hereaity. Relatives

fR lw are bound only by law or custom, by the code for conduct, by the
pattern for behavior. They are relatives by virtue of their e|ot:oo|:,
not their biogenetic attributes.
Three classes of relatives are constructed from these two elements.
28 Relatives
First there is the special class o reIatives in nature aIone. 1his cIass
contains the naturaI or ilIegitimate chid, the genitoror genetrix who is
notthe adoptive ather or mother, and so on. 1he second cIass consists
oreIativesinIawaIone. 1hiscIassmaybecaIIed''bymarriage`'oritm y
.
be caIIed 'in Iaw. It contains the husband and wie, the step-, -in-Iaw,
oster-, and other such relatives. The third cIass consists in reIatives i n
nature oodinlaw. 1his cIass o relatives is caIIed bIood reIatives'` and
contains the ather . . . daughter, uncIe . . . grandaughter,'` cousin,`

sets, andso on.

1hesecondandthird cIassesoreIativescan eachbedivided into two

subcIasses. 1he second cIass, reIatives in Iaw aIone, consistso the sub-
cIass o husbandandwie and the remainder, a subcIass which contains
.
the step-, -in-Iaw, andoster- reIatives,andthose or which there are no

special Iexemes. Husband and wie take basic kinship terms, the others
take derivative terms. Husband and wie are the onIy reIatives in Iaw
on a par with the cIosest bIood reIatives ( the ather . . . daughter'`

Toble ,
Relatives
() ) In Matute
( A) Natuta chId, egtimate chid, natuta mothet,
natuta athet, etc.
( 2) 1n Law
( A) Husband, Vie.
( B) 5tep-, -in-aw, lostet, etc.
( 3) By Blood
( A) athet, mothet, btothet, sistet, son, daughtet.
( B) \ncIe, aunt, nephew, niece, gtandathet, grand-
mothet, gtandson, gtanddaughter, cousin, htst
cousin, etc., gteat gtandathet, etc., great grand-
son, etc.
Nature Law

+ +
3his categoty incudes te!atives ot whom thete ate no kinship tetms
:-

-
:
'

.
-:

.
-
.

in the usua sense but who can nevettheess ptopety be counted as,
ot consideted to be, teatives by marriage or in-aw. his categoty o
kin, theteote, contains kin without kinship tcrms. As wI! be cear tom ,
Lhapter ve beow, the cousins spouse, the spouse o the nephew ot
niece o Lgos own spouse, as weI! as othets can occut in ths categoty
in Ametican kinship. his oows rom the dhetent appication o atet-

nate notms within the tamewotk set by these categoties, and may ( ot
may not) entai the use o atetnate kinshp tetms as we. hese points
w be dcveoped in Lhapter ve.
.
`
:
^
`

.-

-
Relatives 29
set ) . Father and mother are properly also husband and wi(e. FinalIy,
husband andwie arethe only true relatives by marriage in one sense
o
marriage,na:nely,thatsexualrelationshipbetweenamanandawoman.
1he
thirdclassalso consistsotwosubclasses. 1hehrst consistso the
ather . . .
daughter"setorelatives,the secondo those relatives who
take
the uncle . . . granddaughter and ''cousin`' terms. 1he modiher
unctions symbolize the diderence between these subclasses. the hrst
sabclass is marked by the restrictive modihers, the second by the unre-
strictivemodihers. 1hatis, theather . . . daughter'`subclass is sharply
restricted and distinguished rom other kinds or degrees o ather,"
mother," etc., while the 'uncle . . . granddaughter and cousin sets
are
inhnitely expandable, but each expansion adds a degree o distance.
1able I representsthissummary.
Ihave putthis summaryinterms othe diderent classes orcategories
o
relativesinAmericankinship. Yetthese categories are builtouto two
elements. e/ot:oosh:j os ootu:o/substooce and :e/ttoosh:j os code ]o:
cooduct. Each o these elements derives rom or is a special instance o
thetwonajororderswhichAmericanculturepositstheworldtobemade
upo, the o:de: o]ooture, and the o:der o] /w.
LIAII III
`

The Famil
e
`8my C8n mC8n 8 Ol OnCs rCatvCs, Dut my l8my Or `thC l8my
mC8ns 8 unt whCh COnt8ns 8 husD8nd 8nd wlC 8nd thCr Chd Or Ch-
drCn, 8 Ol whOm 8rC knds Ol rC8tvCs. `hC mmCd8tC l8my` s 8n-
OthCr w8y Ol rCstrCtng thC 8-nCusvC sCOQC Ol `l8my lrOm 8 rC8-
tvCs tO CCrt8n vCry CO8C OnCs.
8my 8nd rC8tvCs 8rC thus COOrdn8tC C8tCgOrCs n AmCrC8n kn-
shQ n th8t thCy 8h8rC OnC Ol thCr mC8nngs, thOugh CCrt8n Ol thCr
OthCr mC8nngs dvCrgC. LvCry mCmDCr Ol thC l8my s 8t thC s8mC tmC
8 rC8tvC, 8nd CvCry rC8tvC s, n ths sCnsC, 8 mCmDCr Ol thC l8my.
hC Cutur8 dChntOn Ol 8 rC8tvC thus 8QQCs tO mCmDCrs Ol thC l8my
nsOl8r 8s thCy 8rC rC8tvCs.
ut thC wOrd `l8my s sngu8r, `nOt Qur8. n ts sngu8r lOrm 1t
nCudCs 8t C8st thrCC dCrCnt knds Ol l8my mCmDCrs. hC wOrd
`rC8tvC n thC sngu8r lOrm C8n mC8n Ony OnC QCrsOn Or OnC knd
Ol rCatvC. hC tCrm `l8my thus assCmDCs CCrt8n dCrCnt knds Ol
rC8tvCs ntO 8 sngC Cutur8 unt ths mC8nng s QutC dCrCnt lrOm
thC smQC Quraty Ol rC8tvCs wthOut rCg8rd tO thCr knd Or tO thCr
rC!8tOnshQ tO C8Ch OthCr.
hs 8st QOnt s lund8mCnt8. POt Ony 8rC thCrC dCrCnt knds Ol
rC8tvCs 8ssCmDCd ntO 8 sngC Cutur8 unt, Dut thCsC thrCC 8rC n 8
vCry sQCC8 rC8tOnshQ tO C8Ch OthCr, lOr thCy 8rC husD8nd, wlC, 8nd
Chd Or l8ther, mOthCr, 8nd Chd tO C8Ch OthCr.

bnCC mCmDCrs Ol thC lamy 8rC knds Ol rC8tvCs OnC m8y 8sk l thC
dstnCtvC lC8turCs n tCrms Ol whCh rC8tvCs 8rC dChnCd 8nd dCr-
3U

_
_
:

.
.

--
_

--
-
-
_
-
.
..
-

..
,

:

`
:-
-.

^
_~~
:
-.,
.
.,

^
.

,.

.
-:
.
!

::
.
---
'-

`'

---

The f=mg 4
entiated are not the same as those which de8ne and diderentiate the
mem
bers otheamiIyononehand,andtheamiIyas a cuIturaI unit on
the
other.

And indeed, this proves to be the case. 8exual intercourse ( the act o

pro
creation) is the symIol which provides the distinctive eatures in
term
s o which Ioth the mcrnIers o the amiIy as reIatives and the
amiI
yasacuIturaIunitaredehnedanddiderentiated.
I must pause in this account to make certain points quite expItcit and
to
warn thereaderocertainprobIems whichhemayencounterinread-
ing
this exposition.
Firt, I am introducing at this point the hypothesis that sexuaI inter-
course is the symboI in terms o which members o the amiIy as reIa-
tives and the amiIy as a cuIturaI unit are de8ned and diderentiated in
American kinship.
I have aIready indicated that Iy a symIoI I mean something which
stands or or represents something eIse to which it is not intrinsicaIIy
ornecessariIyreIated. 1he reIationship Ietween

symboI and object sym-

boIized is, instead, arIitrary.

I, then, there is an:ot:os:c or oecessory reIationship Ietween sexuaI

intercourse, or any aspect o it, and some cuIturaI aspct o American
kinship,then sexuaIintercourse cannotbe regarded as syIoIicor that
articuIaraspectothekinshipsystem.
1his is an important probIem or this book, but it is best cousidered
ater aIIothemateraIhasIeen presented, notIeore. I wiII, thereore,
discuss it in theconcIudingchapter,but must ask the readerto suspend
judgment here with the promise that the time or judgment wilI come

ItisaIsoimportanttonotethat thisispresented as ahypothesis about

American kinship. Whetherh is a act ornot can beestabIished byur-
ther research.
1he second point which the reader is asked to keep in mind is that
u presenting and deveIopingthis hypothesis I have been careuI that
each omystatements isethnographicaIIytrue
1he third point is that I am describing the cuIture o American kin-
ship in very much the same way that I have aIready described the cuI-
tare oYap kinshp
andthat this is verymuch the same way in which
IwouIddescribethekinshipsystemoanysociety, anywhere.1heAmer-
icanreadermayndthisparticuIarIy disconcerting, orattimes what he
maytakeasa seI-evidentactoIie I takeasa tenetohis cuIture.
See the Introduction.
See D. M. Schneider, "Double Descent on Yap," Journal of the Polynesian So"
ciety, J {1962), for example.

32 The Family
`

~-

TaIe the pureIy ctionaI society, Bongo Bongo. If I wrote of them,

The Bongo Bongo 5eIieve that an act of sexuaI intercourse is impeIIed
5yinnerforces whose nature cannot 5e controIIed and cannot 5e under-
stood, forces which compeI 5edience and cann

ot 5e fought,'` the Amer-

ican reader, fortihed 5y his 6ne sense oftoIerance lor the ways and 5e
Iiefs of others, might taIe this as an interesting fact and consider its
impIications for the rest of the Iinship system of the Bongo Bongo.

Butwhen I write ( as I have written 5eIow) , SexuaI intercourse is an

act which is undertaIen and does not ]ust happen, even the most rea-
sona5Ie American reader may wonder whether I am joIing or 5eing
serious, or trying to inate a simpIe and seIf-evident fact of Iife into
some ponderous anthropoIogicaI principIe.

Whether this is or is not a fact of Iife at one IeveI~whether in fact

human 5eings can controI their sexuaI impuIses as Americans say they
can, 5ut the Bongo Bongo say they cannot-is not a reIevant question
for this 5ooI at this point in the description. The question of centraI
reIevance is whether this be/:e]orthis cu/tuo/jcm:se a5out the nature
of Iife is a fact which can 5e o5served for Americans. That is, the ques-
tionvvhichthereadermustasIiswhetherthisis orisnot ancthnographic

facta5out American uIture.

WhatI amdoinginthis5ooIandinthischapterisstatingwhatI have

found to 5e ethnographic facts. I am reporting these facts as accurateIy
as I can and I state them in those pIaces where they are reIevant to an
understanding of American Iinship. If the reader wiII remem5er that

aII of the statements he reads in the foIIowing pages are oEered as

ethnographic facts, or hypotheses a5out them, there shouId 5e no mis-

understanding.

IinaI

Iy, the concept of distinctive features is one of thefundamentaI

concepts ofthis 5ooI. I have used it 5oth in the titIe to this Part of the
5ooI ( ''The Oistinctive Ieatures Which Oehne the Person as a BeIa
tive'') and as a major anaIytic device in this chapter. I have taIen this

concept directIy from Iinguistics, and aIthough I have tried to use it as

preciseIy here as it is used there, this has not aIways 5een easy. aIo5
son and HaIIe say ''Each distinctive feature invoIves a choice 5etween

two terms of an opposition that dispIays a specIhc diEerentiaI property,

diverging from the properties of aII other oppositions." But the reader
may prefer to foIIow my discussion rather than attempt to fathom this

highIy condensed dehnition. Or he shouId go to aIo5son and IlaIIe for

a fuII and cIear discussion in a Iinguistic context.

I now resume the ethnographic account of the cuIturaI unit, the

:
R. |akobson and M. HaIe, Fundamentals of Language ( he Hague Mouton

Lo., :06) , _, 4.
.

.
The Fomily 33
fa
miIy,"
inAmerican kinship. FirstI viII shov that the famiIy is dened
5y
A
merican cuIture as a "naturaI unit vhich is 5ased on the facts of
nature. I then viII order certain ethnographic facts vhich Iead U the
hypo
thesis vhichI have]ust stated, that is,that the factofnature vhich
serv
es as the sym5oI in terms of vhich mem5ers of the famiIy are de-
6ned and diEerentiated and in terms ofvhich each mem5erof the fam-
iIy'spropermode ofconduct is de6ned is that of sexuaI intercourse.
If.
"ThefamiIy" is a cuIturaI unitvhichcontains ahus5andandvife vho
are
the motherandfather of their chiId or chiIdren.
One may say, `` have no famiIy,` and mean that perhaps one is not
married, and has no spouse or chiId
.
or that one's parents are no Ionger
aIive. Or, one may point to certain persons and say ofthem
.
'This is my
famiIy
.
'` or I vouId Iike you to meet my famiIy. One may aIso say,
" have no faj;Jy, meaning that one is separatedfrom one's spouse and
7
therefoIivingRha-spoue

and ch:Idn:. ---=

A

married coupIe vithout chiIu:en does not quite make a famiIy.

ither do a married voman and her chiIdren vithout a hus5and nor a
/
;;arried man and his chiIdren vithout a vife. For the married coupIe
,vithout chiIdren, one may say, They have no famiIy, or
.
Their famIy

has not arrived yet, if they are very young. FamiIy" here means that
theadditionofchiIdrentothe :narried coupIeviIIcompIetethe unit an
5ringa5out thatstate.A

of courseone

maysayof

nI,e
.
'
'T
_
.
miI_has 1~up and is married, eaths a amiIy of his
own nov.
This Iast exampIe makes cIear another condition vhich is part of the
deBnitionofthefamiIy in
_
e:icankinship. The famiIy, to 5e a fa:niIy
.
mustIivetogether. Soforparents vhose chiIdren are g:ovn up and mar-
ried, the saying is that those chiIdren ''have famiIies of their ovn, im-
pIying that one'

famiIy is vhere one Iives and that itis not possi5Ie to

5eamem5eroftwo famiIies ( in this sense ) atone time. A famiIy vhere
the chiIdren have grovn up and aII have famiIies of their ovn is one
vhich has 5roken up and dispersed, its mem5ers have gone their inde-
pendent vays
.
asthey shouId, ofcourse. Yet thisremains a famiIy in the
6rst sense of the term vhich means parents and chiIdren, quite apart
frcm hov grovn-up they are or vhere they may 5e Iiving. It is the
second sense that concens me nov, vhich is that the famiIy is a unit
vhich Ivcs together, if it does not, it is not a famiIy in this particuIar
meaningofthe term.
I said that a voman and herchiIdren, or a man and his chiIdren
.
do
34 The family

nOt QutC COn8ttutC a amly. hC aml] 8 nCOmQlCtC, Or t laCk8 a

mCmDCr. h8 mght DC DCCau8C thC m88ng mCmDCr 8 dCad Or 8CQa-

ratCd Or dvOrCCd. hC rCmanng mCmDCr8 dO nOt COn8ttutC a whOlC

amly. Ut nOtC that whCthCr t 8 a 8QOu8C whO 8 m88ng DCCau8C O
dCath,
8CQaratOn, Or dvOrCC, Or whCthCr t 8 thC ChldrCn whO arC
m88ng DCCau8C thCy havC grOwn uQ and `JavC amlC8 O thCr Own
dOC8 nOt rCally mattCr. hC amly 8 `DrOkCn uQ n CaCh Ca8C DCCau8C
thCy arC nOt lvng tOgCthCr.

a man lCave8 h8 wC, t 8 8OmCtmC8 8ad, 1C walkCd Out On hCr

and lCt hCr alOnC wth the ChldrCn. Lr a wOman may dC8Crt hCr Du8-
Dand, `lCavng hm alOnC wth thC ChldrCn. OnC8 ChldrCn grOw u

and marry, t 8 al8O 8ad that `thCy arC alOnC nOw that thCr ChldrCn

arC grOwn-uQ and Od On thCr Own.

n CaCh Ca8C DCng `alOnC mCan8

that thC whOlC unt 8 nOt lvng tOgCthCr, and t 8 thC nOtOn O lvng
tOgCthCr whCh 8 dCC8VC tO !h8 mCanng O thC amly.

YYhCn a COuQlC havC a Chld and arC thCn dVOrCCd, and CaCh rCmar

rC8 anO C8taDl8hC8 a nCw amly, thC Cu8tOdy O thC Chld may DC d-

vdCd DCtwCCn thCm. 1CrhaQ8 thC Chld lvC8 Or hal1 O thC tmC wth
OnC QarCnt and thC OthCr hal O thC tmC wth thC OthCr. n a 8tuatOn
O th8 8Ort thC Chld may havC twO amlC8, OnC thrOugh h8 mOthCr and

.
8tCQ-athCr OnC thrOugh h8 athCr and 8tCQ-mOthCr. 1C 8 lvng tOgCthCr

wth thCm hC lvC8 wth CaCh OnC a Qart O thC tmC, Or CvCn hC

8 n aCt away at 8ChOOl mO8t O thC tmC. 1COQlC may 8ay that thC Chld
rCallyha8nO amly atall,OrthC twO hal1-tmC arrangCmCnt8 arC thOught
tO DC muCh lC88 than OnC ull-tmC arrangCmCnt. YhCthCr hC lvC8 wth

h8 mOthCr and 8tCQ-athCr hal O thC tmC, Or whCthCr hC lvC8 at a

DOardng 8ChOOl mO8t O thC tmC, t 8 rCally thC QuC8tOn O Cu8tOdy and
rC8QOn8Dlty that 8 mQOrtant. ut QCrhaQ8, n a tCChnCal 8Cn8C, thC
Ch!d O dvOrCCd QarCnt8 ha8 twO amlC8 and nOt ju8t OnC, CaCh Qar

Cnt ha8 C8taDl8hCd a nCw amly whCh 8 lvng tOgCthCr, and Cu8tOdy
8a.
hC 8tatC O a amly8 wCll-DCng 8 dC8CrDCd n tCrm8 O lvng tO
gCthCr, tOO. hu8Dand and wC havC DCCn havng martal dmCultC8,

thC CrtCal QuC8tOn may DC whCthCr Or nOt thCy arC 8tll lvng tOgCthCr.

thCy arC, thC OutlOOk may nOt DC COn8dCrCd 8O gravC a8 thCy arC nO

lOngCr lvng tOgCthCr. |vng tOgCthCr Can al8O DC u8Cd a8 a CuQhCm8m

Or 8CXual ntCrCOur8C, Or t mQlC8 an ntmaCy DCtwCCn a man and

wOman that QrCCludC8 any OthCr ntCrQrCtatOn.

nOrmant8 dC8CrDC thC amly a8 COn88tng O hu8Dand, wC, and

thCr ChdrCn whO lvC tOgCthCr a8 a natural unt. hC amly 8 OrmCd

aCCOrdng tO thC law8 O naturC and t lvC8 Dy rulC8 whCh arC rCgardCd
Dy AmCrCan8 a8 8C-CvdCntly natural.

`-

Tho Family 35
So Americans are not reaIIy surprised vhen they hear that this same
sort of arrangement is found among some animaIs and 5irds and even
hsh.
It
seems quitenaturaIfor a pair to Iive together, to mate, tohavea
pIac
e
of their ovn vith their oEspring, to protect that pIace and their
oEspr
ing, and to share the tasIs of Ieeping the pIace and rearing the
oEspr
ing.
It
is
onIy naturaI, inthe American viev, that the various tasIs of pro-
tecting the home, of providing the necessities of Iife, of giving care and
instruction to the young, and so forth, 5e divided according to the nat-
uraI taIents, aptitudes, and endovments of those invoIved. Certain of
these tasIs naturaIIyfaIItomen, certain tovomen, and certain vays are
naturaI
to chiIdren 5ecause oftheirage.
Women 5earchiIdren, nurse them, and care for them. This, according
to the de6nitionofAmericancuIture,is partofvomen
,
s nature. Theycan
do
these things 5y virtue of their naturaI endovment, though there is a
great
deaIthattheymust IearnasveII. TheymayIean thesethIngsfrom
their
mothers, doctors, 5ooIs, or eIsevhere 5ut these sources expIain the
thIngs thatneed to 5e done and hov 5est to do them naturaIIy.
Men do not 5ear chiIdren, nor can they nurse them from their ovn
5odies. The cuIturaI premise is that they are not naturaIIy endoved
vith vays of sensing infants' needs. But there are many things vhich
U man can do if hecares to Iean. What a voman can do naturaIIy, itis
soetimessaidinAmerica,amancan Iean-aI5eitsIovIy and not aIvays
vith the smooth sIiII vhich a voman vouId exhi5It.
The AmericancuIturaIpremiseis that the nev5onchiId is quIte heIp-
Iess and requires a great deaI of care and protection for its survivaI.
Except for some instincts andreexes vhich Ieep it 5reathing, sucIing,
crying, Ieaing, and so on, things have to 5edone for and to the chiId.
AduIts, the chiId's parents, aroId enough andInov enough a5out vhat
to do. This is the 5asis Ior the authority of the parents over the chiId,
and for the fact that the reIationship 5etveen chiId and parent is not
equaI. ItisoneInvhich the aduIthas authority5ased onInovIedgeand
experience-age, in a vord~one in vhich the authority of the aduIt is
supported,ifnecessary,5yforce,vhichaIsorestsonseIf-evidentphysicaI
dIEerences 5etveenparentandchIId.
InoneofitsfundamentaIsenses,then, nature aIonedoes constitutethe
famIIy, and the naturaIroIes of hus5and, vife, father, mother, and chiId
denne the mem5ers of the famiIy. This is the sense in vhich Americans
see a famiIy vhen animaIs mate and rear their young in a pIace vhich
they occupy andprotect-their nest, their cave, their home. It is in this
sense that the distinctive features or the dehning eIements of the famiIy
positthematedpairvho reartheiryoungin a pIaceof theirovn.
*****+ + +
36 Tho Family
Yet once this issaid, there is a marIed shift in infomants

statements.
Atone IeveI of contrast itis the famiIy as a naturaI unit and the natura!
roIes ofthe mem5ers ofthe famiIy that is stressed. Atthe very next Ieve!

thereissomethingmoreto

throIesofhus5and, wife, father, mother, an

chiId than mereIy thosepartsrequired 5y their naturaI endowments an
the naturaI diEerences 5etween them. This something more'` is de6ned

as odd:t:oosto the naturaI endowments, as occet:oosto the naturaI dif- !

ferences, as :mj/emeotot:ooofueinnate tendencies.

`
Informntsoften phrase this as 5eing ''5ased on`' The authority of th
father, for instance, is said 5y informants to 5e '1ased on`' the fact that
he is maIe, that he is oIder, that his experience is wider, that 5yvirtue
* .
ofhis size and his sex he has the right to set the proper courseofactiop

for the mem5ers of his famiIy and to expect compIiance with it.

Based on'' means that something is added to the naturaI facts of age
and sex. ''OIder" means that added to chronoIogicaI age is the measur
of wisdom which experience supposedIy 5rings. "Being a man mea
that added to the specihc matter of having certain genitaI organs, there
is the possession of quaIities which women are presumed to IacI. To
speaI of 'the man of the house" or the man of the famiIy" or wh
wears thepants" is to speaI of one who is naturaIIy 5est a5Ie to taIe au
thority and responsi5iIity for the famiIy, not ]u>t someone with maI
genitaIia and a stipuIated num5er of years on earth.

This increment, what is'1ased on the naturaI eIements, is said to L-

the outcome of the addition of human reason to the naturaI state oj
a0airs.

Human reason does two things. Iirst, though it 5uiIds on a naturaI

5ase, it creates something additionaI, something more than what nature
aIone produces.

Second, human reason scIects onIy part of nature on which to 5uiId

This is 5ecause nature itseIf is composed of two distinct parts. One
good, the other 5ad, oneishuman, the other animaI. Human reason

se
!ects the good part of nature to 5uiId on, it can set goaIs and seIec
paths, |udge right from wrong, and teII good from 5ad.
The famiIy, in American Iinship, is dehned as a naturaI unit 5ased on
the facts of nature. In American cuIture, this means that onIy certai,
of the facts of nature are seIected, that they are aItered, and that the
are 5uiIt upon or added to. This seIection, aIteration, and addition aI
comc a5out through the appIication of human reason to the state of
nare.
The cuIturaI construct of the fainiIy in Anerican Iinship thus derives
from the two orders of the worId. the order of nature on the one hand
.
The Family 37
and theorderof Iaw, the ruIe of reason, the human as distinctfrom the
anim
aI, on the other hand.
What is human is, of course, a part of nature yet it is a very spciaI
_art. That roIe which is so naturaI as to have nothing in the way of
reas
on, nothing in the way of human vaIue, nothing of cuIture, is onIy
naturaI in the sense of being very cIose to animaI. So a man or woman
who s interested in copuIation aIone cannot be regarded as a good hus-
band or wife. But by the very same toIen, the roIe which is so far re-
moved from nature, so highIy reasoned, and so far cuItivated as to IacI
any
naturaIeIement is saidto be unnaturaI. And by this measure, a man
or
woman whoIIy unnterested in copuIation cannot be regarded as a
gccd
husband or wife.
ThefamiIy,asaconstructofAmericancuIture,thusresoIvesthe radicaI
opposition between nature and human reason, bringingthese two to-
gether into a worIa5Ie

IivabIe, human arrangement.

The fact of nature on which the cuIturaI construct of the famiIy Ib
based is, as I have aIready suggested, that of sexuaI intrcourse. This
ngure provides aII of the centraIsymboIs of AmericanIinship.
ItwiIIbe convenient to th:s discussion to begin with the dehnition of
areIative, for each memberofthefamiIyisareIative and I have aIready
presented much ofthat ethnographicmateriaI.
(AreIativeisa person who isreIatedby bIoodor marriage. BeIatives by
bIood re IinIed by material substance,husband andwife are IinIed by
Lw. BeIatives by bIood are reIated in an entireIy objective way, hus-
band and wife are IinIed subectively. BIood is a permnent tie, mar-
riage can 5e terminated. AII of the statements which open the opposi-
ticnsderivefrom theorderofnature, thosewhichcIosethemderivefrom
theorderof Iaw. ]
_A reIatinship ybIood is invoIuntaryintwo distinctIy diEerent

ays.
The hrst isthata bIood reIationshipis nota matterofhumanvoIiu\t. It
is part of the naturaI order and therefore foIIows the Iaws of nature and
notthe Iawsofman. Mrriage, onthc otherhand,is dehned and created
by the Iaws of man, which are of human invention and therefore, in
.

.
that speciaI sense, are a mtter of voIition.
In B second sense, 5Iood reIationships are invoIuntary because a man
cannotchoosewho his bIood reIatives wiIIbe. IIe isbonwiththem and
they 5ecome his by birth. Since they are permanent, there is nothing
that he can do about it. But marriage is not onIy an institution invented

B Tho Family

l

by man, it is an active step which a particular person must take. Itis
a step which is tokeoand does not just happen;

Bloodis a matter o birth, birth a matter o p

,
ocreation, and procrea-
.
tion a matterosexual intercourse. Sexual intercourse is an act which is

undertakenand doesnot justhappen. Yet as an act, it isnatural. Its out-

come is conception, which is ollowe by birth, and these are natural,

too.
-
Sexual intercourse as an act o procreation creates the blood relation-
ship oparent and childand makes genitor and genetrix out ohusband

a::d wie. But it is an act which is exclusive to and distinctive o the

husband-wie relationship. sexual intercourse is legitimate and proper
only between husband and wie and each has the exclusive right to th
sexualactivity othe other. These arethe tenetsoiAmerican culture.
'
Sexual intercourse is an act in which and through which love is ex-

pressed, it is oten called ''making love,' and love is an explicit cultural

symbol in American kinship.

This was expressed by one oour inormants-an elderly lady~as ol- j

lows We askedherto listalloherrelativesandatershehad been list- *
ingthem or a timeshe slowed downand stopped. Shewas then asked
`

I notice that you did not mention yourhusband. Do you consider him
a relative? To which she gave the thoughtul reply: My husband? A '
lover, Yesl A relative, No|''
`

(There are two kindsolove in Americankinship, which, although not

explicitly named, are clearly dehned and distinguished. One I will call
coojugo/ !ove. Itis erotic, having the sexual act as its concrete embodi-
ment.Thisistherelationshipbetweenhusbandandwie.Theotherkind
o

love I will call cogwt:c. The blood relationship, the identity o nat

ural substance

and eredity which obtains or parent and child is its

symboIic expression.
`
.
.

Cognatic love ha nothing erotic about it. In act, it is believed tha

inants and children do not have sexual or erotic eelings and that such

eelings only mature late among human beings, at around the time of
adolescence. An inant's relationship to its mother's breast is thereore
woll

nonerotic. Whatever graiB

ation a mother ma
)
eel nursig her

childI dehnedaspurelycognaticin character. So an:nantor childcan

behuggedandkissed andondled inwaysthatmight be eroticwerethe
5exua intercourse between persons who are not married s lornIcaton and m-
proper between persons who are married but not to eah other s adutery and
wrong, between bood reatves is ncest and prohibited, between persons ol
`

same sex s homosexuaty and wrong with animas s sodomy and prohibited, with
one
,
s sel is masturbation and wrong, and wth parts ol the body other than tho
gontalia themseves is wrong. A ol these are dehned as `unnatural sex acts and
are morally, and m some cases, egay, wrong in Amercan cuture.

!
The Family 39
object other than an infant. A child is innocent of caral knowledge both
because it is said to be unable physically to experience erotic love, but
also because it does not know the meaning of erotic love. The frequncy
with which a child is appropriately designated as <it/' without reference
to its sex, is a facet of this. Since the essence of erotic love is genital
contact) and since it is believed that the child is too young to have or
feel erotic impulses or sensations, its genitals are defned as organs of
excretion.
The kiss is an expression of love. The direct kiss on the lips is erotic,
and this can be a euphemism for sexual intercourse in certain contexts.
But the kiss on the brow or cheek is a cognatic statement. Where lovers
or husband and wife may kiss on the lips, parents and children kiss on
the brow or cheek The ceremonial kiss of a visiting relative bestowed
on a child is not often mistaken for an erotic act. It afrs cognatic love,
and for the child to reject such a kiss is no trivial matter.
The conjugal love of husband and wife is the opposite of the cognatic
love of parent, child, and sibling. One is the union of opposites, the
other is the unity which identities have) the sharing of biogenetic sub
stance. The mother's identity with her child is further reiterated by the
fact that tlie child is bor of her body and that it is nurtured and nour
ished there before it is bor, a\s well as being nourished from it after the
child is bor. This restates again and again that the two are of a common
substance.
It is the symbol of love which links conjugal and cognatic love to
gether and relates them both to and through the symbol of sexual inter
course. Love in the sense of sexual intercourse is a natural act with nat
ural consequences according to its cultural defnition. And love in the
sense of sexual intercourse at the same time stands for unity.
As a symbol of unity, or dheness, love is the union of the fesh, of
opposites, male and female, man and woman. The unity of opposites is
not only afrmed in the embrace, but also in the outcome of that union,
the unity of blood, the child. For the child brings together and unifes
in one person the diferent biogenetic substances of both parents. The
child thus afrms the oneness or unity of blood with each of his parents;
this is a substantive afrmation. of the unity of the child with each of his
parents and with his siblings by those parents. At the same time, that
unity or identity of fesh and blood, that oneness of material, stands for
the unity of cognatic love.
Both love and sexual intercourse turn on two distinct elements. One is
the unifcation of opposites. The other is the separation of unities.
Male and female, the opposites, are united in sexual intercourse as hus
band and wife. Their dif erent biogenetic substances are united U te

q Tho family

chiId conceived of that union and their reIationship to ech other is re-

amrmed not onIy as hus5and and vife to each other, 5ut as parents of
their chiId, father and mother to the same oEspring.

But hat was one must 5ecome two. The chiId is 5orn of its parents
and is separated from

them physicaIIy through its 5inh. Itis this vhich

diEerentiates parent from chiId, father and mother from son and daugh-
ter.Theseparationwhich5eginsvith the act of 5irth continues untiIthe

chiId grows up and Ieaves itsfamiIyto marry and foundits own famiIy. j
Incest, vhich is the gravest wrong, consists in unifyig what is one
to 5egin vith 5y the device for unifying opposites, and of faiIing to '

separatewhat vas one into two, there5y directIy inverting in one stroIe
5oth sides of the formuIa, that onIy diEerent things can 5e united 5y
sexuaI intercourseand onI

unitedthingsmae diEerent.

The sym5oI of Iove 5r:dges these two diEerent eIements. It is Iove

vhich unitesthe opposites of maIe and

femaIe, and it is Iove vhich pr-

serves the unity of the diEerentiated and further diEerentiating parents
and their chiIdren, as weII as the chiId from his si5Iings. The one is

con]ugaIIove,marIed5yaneroticcomponent, theotheriscognaticIove,
whoIIy vithout erotic aspect, 5ut 5oth are Iove, which is unifying. And
Iove is vhatAmerican Iinship is aII a5out.

Oneofourinformants, a tweIve-year-oId girI, vas asIed,What's your

who's Iindto you, and vho in some way is reIated to you 5y 5Iood IiIe

a daughter or something." There is reaIIy nothing more that can 5e

` addedto herstatement. !t sums the matter up perfectIy.

AII of the signihcant sym5oIs of American Iinship are contained

_
within the hgure of sexuaI intercourse, itseIf a sym5oI, of course. The
hgureisformuIated inAmerican cuIture as a 5ioIogicaIentity and a nat-
uraI act. Yet throughout, each eIement which is cuIturaIIy dehned as

naturaI is at the same time augmented and eIa5orated, 5uiIt upon and

infoned 5ytheruIeofhuman reason, em5odiedinIav andinmoraIity

:
-

IV
-

What a5out those other facts of nature vhich seem to have a very

,
importantpIace in thedennition of the famiIy and in the diEerentiatio
of its mem5ers, facs such as the diEerences 5etween the sexes Is thi
not a factofnature on vhich the famiIy is5asedF

T!e answer to this very generaI question is 5oth Yes and No. Two

diEerent domains of sex are distinguished in American cuIture. One is

thatofsexuaIattri5utes,andtheotheristhatofsexuaIintercourse. exua

intercourse is the sym5oI which provides the distinctive features or the

The fomy 41
eIementsin termsofvhichthefamiIyis deI\ned. SexuaI attri5utes
.
on the
other hand, constitute facts of nature of great importance to the FamiIy
5ut
on a quite diEerent cuIturaI IeveI than that of the distinctive fca-
tures.
In American cuIture, the de6nition of vhat makes a person maIe or
femaIeisthekind ofsexuaIorganshehas. AIthough a chiId isnot a man
or
a voman untiI it is sexuaIIy mature
.
its identity as a maIe or femaIe
isesIa5Iished at 5irth 5yits genitaIs.
There are, in addition, certain characteristics vhich are indicators oF
sex
identity. Men have faciaI hair and are said to have hair on their
chests
.
5ut vomen do not. TemperamentaI diEerences are heId to cor-
reIate vith the diEerences in sexuaI organs. Menhave an active, vomen
a
passive quaIity, it is said. Men have greater physicaI strength and
stamina than vomen.

Men are said to have mechanicaI aptitudes that

vomen Iack.Women have nurturantquaIitiesvhich menIacI Men tend
tovard an aggressive dispositionsaid to 5e a5sent in vomen.
The diEerent quaIities oF maIeness and femaIeness are said 5y in-
formants to 6t men and vomen for diEerent kinds of activities and
occupations. Men`sactive,aggressivequaIities.theirstrength andstamina,
are said to make them particuIary good hunters and sodiers and to 6t
them for positions of authority, especiaIIy
vhere vomen and chiIdren
areconcened.Womenarepresumedto 5enurturantandpassive invays
that make them particuIarIy good at teaching schooI, nursing
.
food prep-
aration
`
and homemaking. Men's mechanicaI aptitudes are said to make
them goodatvorkingvithmachines~at designing
.
5uiIding, and repair-
ing them~in vays vhich vomen cannot match.
InAmericancuIture, sex-roIe occurs ina context vhich further seIccts,
modi6es, or emphasizes som
\
of its speciaI aspects. A man is a poIice-
man, a repairman, a cIerk, or a soIdier. A voman may 5e a nurse, a
schooIteacher, a cook, or a cham5ermaid. The attri5utes of the sex-roIe
have diEerent vaIues in each o these cases. Not onIy is the poIiceman
aman,5utheisa man reIyingon his strength and fortitudei na context
of maintaining Iav and order and preventing crime. The same quaIities
cf maIeness in a soIdier are not matters of Iav and order at aII, 5ut are
de6ned 5y the nature of var. And the repairman using the quaIities of
his mascuIinity to tend machines 6nds his sex-roIe speIIed out in a con-
text ofmachinery andmechanicaI aptitudes vhich may or maynothave
anythingtodovithIavandorderorvar,5utvhichfocus insteadonthe
eHcient operation ofthe machinery.
Thesameis trueforthefamiIy. Wife,mother, daughter, and sister are
femaIe; hus5and, father, son, and 5rother are maIe. It is oFten said that
wives and mothers are the proper mem5ers of the famiIy to cook, keep
42 Tho f=mg
|
house, and care for
.
chiIdren, and hus5ands and fates are te proper

mem5ers of the famiIy to go out to vork, earn the hving, 5e :n charge

of the famiIy, and have authority.

But a very fundamentaI and important piece of evidence comes up at

this point if such statements are discussed vith good informants. They

say~sometimes in so many vords, sometimes in the course of the dis-

cussion 5ut vithout putting it in }ust these vordathat if vives and

mothers are the proper mem5ers of the famiIy to cook and keep house,

this is not 5ecause they are vives and mothers, 5ut 5ecause they are
women. Andifhus5ands andfathers arethe mem5ers of the famiIy vho
shouIdgooutandeanthe Iiving,vho shouId5e incharge of the famiIy,
this is 5ecause they are u:en and nt 5ecause they are hus5ands and

fathers.
Informants sometimes use phrases Iike "the man of the house'

vhen
speaking of the hus5and~fatheras the person vho has authority; or the

Iady of the house vhen speaking of the vife-mother as the person vho

tends tothe meaIs andthe comfort ofthehome. Phrases Iike "a voman's
vork is never done'
.
are used to descri5e the voxk a vife and mother

does. Not5ecausethevork isvife

.
s vork ormother's vork, 5ut5ecause
that is voman's vorI. Sometimes Americans speak of hxing the furnace
l
orcontroIIing the famiIy hnances as a man's ]o5,' not 5ecause hxing the
funace orhnances are distinctively paternaI or hus5andIy activities 5ut

5ecausefathers andhus5ands aremen.

This means that there are tvo distinct cuIturaI units that are easiIy
confused 5ut must 5e kept separate. A person's action as a man is de-

hned in vays vhich are diEerent from the de5nition of his action as a
father or hus5and. The same person can 5e 5oth a voman and a vife;
vork" in a voman

s
.
vork is never done'
`
is part of her de5nition as a
vomanandnotasavife.

Yet the fact remains that 5y cuIturaI dehnition ''father'' is a maIe and
cannot 5e femaIe, "mother" is a femaIe and cannot 5e maIe, ''hus5and"

is maIe, andvife'' is femaIe. Hov, then, areve to understand this fact
What defnes the cuIturaI units of hus5and and vife or father and

mother It s demonstra5Iy not their sex. For informants and direct o5-
servation con6rm that 5eing a man is the necessary 5ut not sucient

condition for 5eing a hus5and ad father. Though aII hus5ands and

fathers are men, many men are neither hus5ands nor fathers.

SimiIarIy, the de5ningeIement orthe distinctive feature ofthe cuIturaI

categories of vife and mother is not that of 5eing femaIe. There are
manykindsoffemaIesvhoareneithervivesnormothers, though no vife

ormotherisnot aIso femaIe.

The Family 43
The distinction am draving
here 5etveen
p dehning eIement or dis-
tinctive feature and aII other features is niceIy iIIustrated 5y the area
ofsex-:oIe dehnition vhich Ihave5een descri5ing. As I have said,there
are tvo cuIturaIIyde6nedcategories,maIeandfemaIe. MaIehasonek

ind
of genitaIia,femaIe another. MaIe has faciaI hair, femaIe does not. MaIe
is active and aggressive
.
femaIe passive.
Consider, nov, these three features-genitaIs, faciaI hair, and activity.
Which is the distinctive feature From the fact that the 5earded Iady of
the circus is counted as a Iady it foIIovs that faciaI hair is not the dis-
tinctive feature. From the fact that an aggressive vornan can 5e criti-
cized for5eing "too mascuIine

5utremains an aggressive wooo it foI-

Iovs thatactivityisnotthedistinctivefeatureofsex-roIe. Butifa person

dresses in femaIe cIothing, IacJs faciaI hair, is passive, 5ut has maIe
genitaIs, that person is cIassed as maIe. CenitaIs, therefore
.
are the dis-
tinctive feature in terms ofvhich sex-roIe is dehned.
The distinctive features vhich dehne the mem5ers of the famiIy and
dIEerentiate them from each other and vhich at the same time dehne
the famiIy as a unit and distinguish it from aII other cuIturaI units are
those vhich are contained in the sym5oI sexuaI Intercourse. Father is
the genitor
.
mother the genetrix of the chiId vhich is their oEspring.
Hus5and and vife are in sexuaI reIationship and theirs is the onIy Iegiti-
mate and proper sexuaI reIationship. Hus5and and vife are Iovers and
the chiId is the product of their Iove as veII as the o5ject of theirIove,
it is in this sense that there are tvo kinds of Iove vhich dehne famiIy
reIations!:ips, one con}ugaI and the other cognatic, and it is in this sense
that Iove is a synonym for sexuaI intercourse.
Yet at another IeveI entireIy
.
certain ethnographic facts remain and
constitute a fundamentaI part of the American kinship system. WIfe,
mother, sister, and daughter re femaIe, hus5and, father, 5rother
.
and
son are maIe. UnIess one of them is a step-reIative, vife, mother, hus-
5and, and father are aII oIder than sister, daughter, 5rother, and son.
AIso, the norms vhich dehne vhat is right and proper for a Iover-cIass
father are diEerent from those for a middIe-cIass father.
Quite apart from the distinctive features that dehne the famiIy and
its mem5ers,eachmem5eriso/so a person andasa person is constructd
outof not one, 5utmany diEerent eIements, each dravn from many dif-
ferent sources.
Wife and mother are the same person inAmerIcan kinship, vhatever
otherdiEerences there are5etveen the tvo
.
and hus5and andfather are
aIso the same person. But vife and daughter must 5e diEerent persons,
as must hus5and and son A man may 5e 5oth a son and a 5rother, U

44 The Family
`.

`
o: uo:l ee,l:e::e .i.:-:. se: :le ie-:l: :le ii-i::le

`
iil,eoeleu-o:e-:.o:, :l- o:l-:ei:-:o:le: i. e::li:iule i:
e:ie:ii:.li.

:
i e.: .:o :l-e-.e:i:io: oi :l- :-i.:ive . -::o: : :li. oi::.

ili.co:e-: i. ,o:::oi:lee:.c: i.:.li .,.:e, ue:r::

o:eoi:li.uooii.escle.ivel,co:e-::eei:l:leei.:i:e:iveie:e:-.oi

:leeue:. oi:l-iil, . :el:ive.

:ei:l :l- iil, . e:i:.

H-:ei:i.ie:e-::l:oei.:i:,ei.lue:ee::lei:le:.i:l-::e
.:,:leo:le:.o:le::e. o:,e:c. r::io i.:e

.e:vee io: :le ee.e:i:io:oi:l- :el:ive . e:.o: :e oi:l-iil,

.,:oeoie:.o:..i:i..::l:oi:::l::leie::l::lei:le:i.:
:le.e:ie:, -:l. oiieel-cl.., o..iil,r:o:-.:::, :e

.oo:ueeo-. :el-v::.
`'
`

,
: `
iler,e:eoi.eseli::e:coe:.eco::i:.:lece:::l.,uol.oi-:

ie:ii:.li,eclelee::i:i:.e: i: :-l:io: :o:l-o:l-:.:e:o :le

lole. ile i,e oi :leiil, :-lie:-. :l.: r,e:e, ue: ee. :o i:.

-:i:,.i,:irc::l,.
^
sexeli::e:eoe:.e.::e. :ee-r:-.:l-elee::. oiii:.li :e:le
:-l:io:.oi:lo.eel--::.:o-clo:le:.ileiil,l.o.::-.:le ele
e::. :e :l-i: :el:io: :o -el o:l-:, ue: i: i. : :le .- :i-

:ei,io:loiil,o:ii:.li:el:io:..loeleueco:eec:-e, :e
:ol:-:e.xe::le::e:eci:leeo:.:i:ee::el-e::.,:l-i:eer:i:io:,
:lei: o.:el:io: . ::e:l :e cel:e:l e::i:ie. ( :l: i., .elec:ee u,
le::e.o::eio:eeu,:.li:o :leic:.oi::e:e, , :e
:lei::-l:io:.:o-clo:le:..::-ei::l-r,e:eoi.exli::-:coe:.e
:e : :l-.e :ie .,uol.i::le::e io::l-:oe:eo:eee: oi
ii:.li.i:i..::eei::le:ei,oi:leiil,.
l:loe,l:l-::-::.::i:,loii:.li.loeleu-eo:eec:eelie.
:o:leiil,.lole,i:l.oi:io:.lli.:e.oiiil,:el:io:.:e

ll::. oi:le iil,. xeue:. oi:le iil, :- ei.:.:,ei.l-e i:o

eclo:le:within :leiil,.ile,:e:o:ei.:i:,ei.leefrom :l-iil,

o:against :leiil,.vl:-ve:o:le:-:i:,.le.u:e,iie,o:le:,
i:le:,.o:, ee,l:e:,u:o:le:, :e .i.:e:,lve,:le, .l:e :l: .e:
oi-:i:,.e-r:-eio::l-iil,u-ce.-:le,:-:le.-lv-. eer:-c

.-ue:.oi:l-iil,,:e:l-iil,i.eer:ee.e-eoi:le

ileiil,,:le:eio:e,.::e.io:loii:.li.loeleueco:eec:ee:(,

u-ce.e:le,:eeue:. oi:leiil,,i:.::e.::le.e:i-io:
lo:lele.u:e:eiie:e:lei:clile:e:.loeleco:eee::le.elve.. _
ro: esle, -:ic:. oi:e: lole :le iil, :e.o:.iule io: :le

.
.

1
The family 45
::oaule.iiclciilc:e: ,e:i::o,,eve:.le celi:ee:c,,:ieii,l civo:ce
::e, :i:l i:rceli:,, lcoioli., c:ie, ove::,, c:a, ccic:io:, :c
coa::le..o:le:ci.:e:ui:,eve::.. i:i. l.o .oe:ie. .ic,:ioa,le:
i. le.. oi:e:, :i: :le i:.il, i. :e.o:.iule io: .oe coe:cule
.::e oi .ai:. .aci . :ie lo :.:e oi ,ave:ile celi:ee:c, oi .oe
e:i:ico::eli,ioa.,:oa.
: r:.:.il: i: .ee. u.e:c ei:ie: :oule o:c:eci: :ie iil,,
uece.e :ie :leo:, lici :le.e .e te:.c:. lolc .. :i: clilc.
celi:ae:c, i. cae:o :le :e,l.,e:ce o: i::e.o:.iu.li:, oi :ie :e::.,
:c :i: ii :ie :e::. cic :iei: ,ou :oe:l,, :ie.e :ii:,. oelc :o:
ie:.i:i.:le:e::.,:le:eio:e,lo::oue,:c:o::iei
il, : ll i: :ie .e,, .i civo:ceocca:. o: coe. :o: occa:le:
i:.ioalcocca:,i:.e-.i:c:oa:ce:.::ci,:ieiil,.lole
.loalcuelelcccoa::ulele::e.eul,i:i.:leia.u:c:ciie
lo:e:e.o:.iule:c:o::leclilc:e:.
vl,,:ie:,.ioalc:ieiil,
,,
uelelcccoa::ulei:l:.e:.ei.
:ieo:ca.eci:.ecl.::ee::.
ile iil, .::c. io: eci eue: :c io: ll eue:. oi :le
iil,,io:ioecleue:oi:ieiil,.ioalcueive, :cio:io
iil, :el:io:. .loalc ue co:cec:ec u, ioeve: .. co:cec:i:,:ie.
ii:leiil,e:e:i,i:, :le::ieclilcoalc:o:ueceli:ae::,:le
::i,eoalcue.:ule,:c.oo:.iii.e:.:i:iieve:,o:ei::ie
i.l, uelvec cco:c.:, :o :le :oe: .::c:c. io: iil, liie, ii
oalcueell.
ileiil,. .,uol i. ::e io:ioii:.li :el:io:. .ioalc
ueco:cac:ec, :ieoo.i:io:ue:ee:+oe:co:icer:e. :le.e
e:i:,. ei:e cle:l, :c .::e. :ie i: :e:-. oi:le ie:a:e. iicl
:eci.:i:c:.ve:oecl:co.ec:o:leo:ie:.
iive.ic:l:iil,live.:o,e:ie:,:cie:e.:live.i. +oe.
ilec|ae:e:ceue:ee:ioa.e:cioei.celeu::eci:.o:,,.:o:,,
:c:ove:u. tioa.e..le:e

iil,l.ve. :le, i:i.ci.:live.

:ie:ec:iei:i::oloe.ioieel:ioe..oo.ec:ollo:ie:
.::e.,iiclil,.e:.eoiuei:,lie:. o:ec:ii:eioa.eieee:,
B e:.o:lo:,e.:leciae:e:::.i.oiieei:,loa.e,ua:ioe

ie:ie.loe.ei::oioe:c:o oe::oio:e, (i:u .ic,

c:ue,:li..
o:eoi:leo.:ia:ce::l :c,e:.ecirc,..:iicl ii:.ii
..c..:i:,ai.ieci:ollo:le:i.:c.oi:el:.o:.i.i::iel,.icl.e:
:io:oio:i:cloe.ili..e::io:i..ee:o.:vivicl,i::lo.e.e
cil c.e. le:e, io: .oe :e.o:, o:i :c ioe :e i: ve:, clo.e
i,.icl:osi.:,.vle:e.ioi.:e:u,iil,i:iliv.:,e::e:.
*
*` -.
-&

46 Tho Fomily

In therear, orupstaIrs,orwhere a doctor or Iawyerhas consuItIng rooms

In hIs house or apartment, the Iine 5etween the two Is very sharpIy

drawn. It
.
may 5e nothIng 5ut a curtaIn or a door, 5ut the 5oundary Is
treated w:th the utmost respect.

The segregatIon of cuIturaIIy dIstInct domaIns 5y physIcaI IocatIon Is

expIIcIt In such phrases as. ''A pIace for everythIng and everythIng In Its
pIace'' and There Is a tIo.e and pIace for everythIng.`` More specihcaIIy
reIevant here Is the staternent: A man's home Is hIs castIe, not onIy as
an amrmatIon of the prIvacy of the home, 5ut aIso as a sIgn that there
shouId5enoIntrusIonofeitherdomaIn5ytheother.ThephysIcaIsepara-

tIon of the pIacesmarIs the sharp separatIon of the domaIns themseIves.

WorI, IIIe home, Is5oth a pIace and anactIvity. OtherwIse, worI and
home are dI0erent In every sIgnIhcant way. OIEerent thIngs are done
at home and at worI, toward dIEerent ends and In dI0erent ways 5y

dI0erent peopIe.

WorI IsproductIve, Its outcome a productofsome IInd. WhetherthIs

Is ano5JectIIIe apaIrofshoes, a servIce IIIe IegaI counseI, orentertaIn
mentIIIea theaterdoesnotmatter. WorI hasan o5jectIve orgoaIwhIch
Is cIear, expIIcIt, and unItary. One can asI of any pIace of worI: Wha
Is done thereF' and the answer gIven Is the o5jectIve of that form of

worI. Perhaps It Is a factory '`They maIe shoes." Perhaps It Is a par

tIcuIar person In the factory: ''He stItches soIes.'
,

Home has no such specIhc, expIIcIt, unItary o5jectIve or goaI. 6

outcomeofhomeIsnota sIngIeproduct, aspecIhcfonn ofentertaInment,

or a specIaI servIce.

Home Is not Iept for tnoneyand,of those thIngs reIated to home an

famIIy, It Is saId that there are some thIngs that money can`t 5uy| Th6
formuIa in

regard to worI Is exactIy reversed athome What Is done 3

done for Iove, not for moneyl And t Is Iove, of course, that money can

y.

Americans say that you can pIcI your frIends 5ut not your reIatIves

you are 5on
.
wIth tem. You ca

aIso pIcI the person who

.
does a jo

for you and if he faiIs to do the jo5 properIy you can hre h:m and g
someone eIse to do It. Ex-friends and ex-jo5 hoIders are part of the cast

of characters In AmerIcan Ife.
.

But there are no ex-fathers, ex-mothers, ex-5rothers or ex-ststers, ex

sonsorex-daughters. NeIthercanthey5epIcIedfor thejo5. OneU 5o.

wIth them. One ma y 5e IucIy or not so IucIy, 5ut there are norefund

orexchangesorsecondchanceswhere5Iood reIatIves areconcened.On
taIes what one gets.

The standards whIch appIy to an empIoyee are di0erent from thos

whIch appIytoreIatIves. On a ]o5, thequestIon Is whetherthere Is tech

.
_

The Famly 47
nicaIcompetence andthe perIormance standards are set oy the technicaI
nature oI the ]oo. It may oe output measured oy the numoer oI items
manuIactured or how much mateviaI is moved in a given time. The na
ture oI the work itseII states what is to oe done, standards are set and
perIormance can then oe matched against those standards. But aII oI
this is within the Iramework oI some setoI mechanicaI, impersonaI con
sider
ations.
Vith reIatives, it is who one is and not how he does or what he does
that
counts. Vith empIoyees, at work, it is what one does and how he
does it that counts. Vho he is is not supposed to reaIIy matter. Vith
reIatIves, at home, with the IamiIy, it is a question oI how the other

person is reIated that matters. At work, on the ]oo, it does not matter
how theperson gotthe]oo, outhowhe does the]oo.
do not mean that a mother who does a oad ]oo oI it is aoove re-
proach or oeyond criticism. I mean that she cannot Iose her position as
mother no matter how oadIy she does it. She may Iose custody oI the
chiId, out she remains its mother.
Husoand and wiIe are not oIood reIatives to each other. But neither
are they empIoyees. One does not bre a spouse, out a marriage can b
ended oy divorce or annuIment under certain conditions. An ex-wiIe or
an ex-husoand can oe a good Iriend and Iater, perhaps, even an ex-
IrIend as weII.
But the standards which appIy to empIoyees simpIy do not appIy to
a spouse. There is no technicaI ]oo description Ior a husoand or a wiIe
in which an output oI some product Iike cIean diapers or an earning
capacityoIso muchperweek can oe set Iora spouse oI a given age, sex,
or standard oIquaIity. One cancertainIy comparespouses, and one does,
m terms oIwhetherthey are

od cooks ornot, heIpIuI husoands, handy

around the house, or good oreadwinners. One spouse may oe kind, an-
other mean. A wiIe may oe Iazy or hardworking, out even iI a spouse

rates Iow on every measure oI

competence or productivity which can

oe appIied, Irom the output oI cIean shirts per week to the numoer oI

Iond endearments issued each month, this :o:tse/]is not proper or suI-

5cient grounds Ior terminating amarriage. An empIoyee is bred Ior poor

penormance according to technicaI standards. A spouse is not divorced

Ior poor perIormance as measured oy technicaI standards appIied to a

]oo. Neither can a spouse oe divorce or a marriage annuIIed Ior IaiIure

to do a specibc ]oo oso job.
Marriage is in sickness and in heaIth, Ior oetter or Ior worse, untiI

death do us part.'` It is Ior keeps, Iorever, ]ust as the stories aoout the

rince and the Irincess have it, where they get married and Iive happiIy

eer aIter,

.``

48 The Family

`
x::i,ei.:o:,ou,:e.oe.ec::o:uer:eeliie:i:coe:e:t

eci:ie o: : i:eeie:: .e.::e... ii: .oe.e c: ue eivo:eee

::i,e ::ellee, eee:e. o: :ie ic: :i: t|e re/t:oo|: c: ue

:e:i::ee,:e:ii.eee:e.o::ieie::i:i:i.:el:io:.iii:l

ue::o:o:eoi.eu.::ee.

nec:e:io:.::e.ie,ue:-:ioe:eo:i :eeoui:e.:i-
,o:.,uolieie:e:e. oiuo:. Liie eve:,:ii:, -l.e i:te:ic: eel
:e:e,i:i.i:.o:.ecillee,io:o:e:ie.ve:io:u,,oi:,,
:o leeiiei i. :ei:ie:o:i:o:io-. wie:e vo:i i. io:o:e,

:eioei.io:love,:ee:e:io:i.io:,::ire:io:,:o:e.:o:e,:o:ec:e:e

o:eeoe.i:o:eliie. :o eoo:vc:io:. iio:eiiie. :o r.io:ie

o:,o:o:ie.e.io:eo:j.:lieuo.::e:els,:ie::i:i.:ie.o::o

tii:,:oeoo:vc:io:.

t vc:io: i. :oeee:ive~oi:, r.i, o::il. iillee,o:ic:e:e.

i::ee, o: uooi. :ee:o: ueee.e :ie.e :ii:,. :e :oeee:ive io,
o:e,,ue:ueee.e:i:i.i:o:eliie.:oeo.

re:i.o:ec:,o:o:e.o::o:io:el:e:i,i:iieleeio:U ve
:io:.iie:eo:ere.ll:iecoio::.oiioeue::o:eoii:.:e.::ic:io:..
(
:ooi.:iv:e,:ieueei.:iv:e,:ieu:i i.:iv:e,ue::iee,

,ue:ie:i:ei:i:,:oooi.oe.i:e.t:o:e.o::ulece::i:l,,
i:i o:e. iil, o:ioeve:i. .i:i:, :ie :ec:e:io: se::ie e:.o,
o: vc:io: eoe. :o: :e:e :ie el. o: :e:e :o :ie ioe.eieei:_
cio:e.o:e,.io:.eci .e:ice.,:e.oeeoie:ei::ieue.i:e.:
( :o:i,oi:oviei:,vc:io:.o::ec:e:io:io:o:ie:..iie.ecce....
:ievac:io:i.e.e:ee:o:u,i:.co.:, ue:u,:ie::iooi,::irc:io

:oco.:.w.i:o::ii:bie,oeive,ooe:ie:e:ieee.:io:: j
.iee.

iie.e:oiie:e:e.iiciei.:i:,ei.ie.ioe:eo:ii.o:ee:e.

.io: oi:ie ,e:e:l:ei,io:io ii:.ii:el:io:. .ioeleue eo

eec:ee :e :o i: e:e. iie.e ie:e:e. io: elo.el, i::-:co::ec:e

ele.:e:

iieco:::.:ue:-e:love:eo:e,i:te:ic:eel:e:e.e:i:

:ii.cle.:e:oiei.:i:c:iveie:e:e.. xo:e, i. :e:il, i:i. oe:, i:i

ie:.o:l:e e:el.ree u, co:.iee::io:. oi .e::ie:: o: o:li:

nel:io:. oi o:i, ce::e:i:, o:o:e,, :e oi :eo::,, :::.i:o:)

.o::.iie,:eco::i:,e::,eee:ei:,e::i:el,o::ie.ecire,ol~o:e
xo:e,,ive.ae:.o:oe:,:i:i.,ev::,eove:o:ie:eole.ii
i:l.ocoe.ue:ee:eolei.:ie.eu,ee:oi v.: li:e::e:e. xo:
e.e:e.ie:ie:o::o::ieoe:eoe oio:i, :oeec: o:.e:vice
.oeii:e,i.vlee:eiii:i.,ioeci.

Lovei.:o::e:il.i:i.ii,il,e:.o:l:e i.ue.c:i:ieirc
:io:.:eco:.iee::io:.oi.e::ie:::eo:li:,.Loveu:i:,.eie:-t
.

The fomly 49
:ii:,. :o,e:ie::ce:ire.:ie.iieoe:coeo: love i. :o: :e:il
:ocec::o:..le,.:c:ie:el:io:.o:loveive:e:ce:i:,eli:,iici
i. co::::,:o :ie co::i:,e:: eli:,oio:i. i:ceeci:. ,olo:vlee
lie.
i:i:.e:ce:i:,eli:ie.,o:,o:ie:..
se::ieoo.i:io:ue:ee:o:e,:clovei.:o:.il,:i:o:e,
i.
:e:il:clovei.:o:.xo:e,i. :e:ii,

ue:lovei.spiritual. iie
.i:i:
eleli:,o:love i. clo.el,li:ieci:i :ie:c: :i: i:love i:i.

-:.o:l co:.ice::io:.iici :e :ie c:ecil o:e.. re:.o:l co:.ice:

:io:.
:eee.:io:o:ioi:i.,:o:o:ioell:ie,e::o::iei::.i
o:ioe+cie:::ie,:e.Lovei..:-l.:io:.iiue:ee:e:.o:..xo:li:,

:c.e::ie::i::en:e:iee..e:ceo::ie.i:i:eleli:,o:love,:o:

:ie, :::.ce:c.ll:ce::,co:.ice::io:.o::iv:e ,i:o:cv:

:,e
o:e:e,::irc:io:.t:c..o:e,i.:e:il,i:.eli:,..o::ie

oe::. i: i. ce.::ec:iule :c i:. :::.i:o:, ::e:e i. :oe::. se:

lovei..i:i:e.l,e:ce:i:,,:ci:ce.::ec:iule.t:c.o:el:io:.o:o:e,

ive:::o, .ecirce:c. :c :ie:el:io:. :e :o: o:l, :::.ie::, ue:

.l.oce.::ec:iveo:.i:i:elvlee..
=
*

:
N1.
iie.,uol.o:te:ic:ii:.ii:e:,:cv:iec:c:e:ice
,.e:. se: :ie, :e ll e..e::ill, :ece:c.:: i: o:e o: :iei: .ec:.,

iileo:ie:.ec:.v.:,i:iciae:e::co::es:..:ccoi:..
iie .,uol. o: te:ic: ii:.ii co:.i.:o: :ie e:i:, o: ae.i :c
ilooc, i: :ie :c::i: :ie ciilc looi. liie :ie :e::. o::ie. ::e:

,::c:e::, :c i: :ie (::io: :i: ulooc i. :iicie: :i.: :e:~

e:e e:i:, o: :ii. i. :ei:e:.:ec i: :ie s::ee:: t ioe.e i. :o:

le-.iie.,uol.o:te:ic:ii:.iia::i::ie.:io:o: ie.
- i:c:ci:ei..i:i:ele:o:.i:i.e:io:o::ie:e.i,:i:i:i.
-:.o:le:io:,:c:i:oe:o::i:e:io::e-:.o:i.:o:ec. iie

o:c :o: .eci .i:i:e.le:io: i. love. Loveu:i:,. oo.i:e. :o,e:ie:

.-:..i:,lee:i:,iilei:iolc.o,e:ie::io.e:ii:,.iici :eovi:,
.::~:ieciilc:ci:.:e::.,o:u:o:ie:..:c.i.:e:.,:oi:,e,r:c
i-,:e.o::iei:o:,:c:oe:ci:,:iei:o::ilie..iie.,uol.o:
ae:ic: ii:.ii co:.i.:o: o:ie:l, love :c u:o:ie:l, love :c co:
(a,.l love :c :e::l love, :c rlil :eeli:,. o: lo,l:, :c :e.ec:.
,M::i,e i. :o:love, :c :o:eve:, :i:oe,i :iici o: :ii:, :o:ue::e: o:
o:.e,:iilce:icoe..::.i:,be:e:ue:i:i.:o:]o:e:.
-
se: i:, :ie:, co llo: :ie.e v:iec .:c ciae:e:: .,uol. e:
wi: co :ie, :ell eole :o co no .ioelc :ie, c: vi: i. :ie
:ci, :o: io ii:.ii o: :il, :el:io:. :e :o ue co:cec:ec io

: e:cr

-
.

50 The family
,
,

Certain specifc actions are either required or explicitly prohibited.
Sexual intercourse should be genital to genital and in no other way. It
should be between husband and wife and between no other persons. In _
any othe way or between any other persons it is wrong and prohibited.
A family is a mated pair raising its ofspring in a home of its own. A
family without a home, a husband, a wife, or a child is not complete. It :
.
::-
is broken. A son or daughter by defnition shares its parents' biogenetic
substance. Exceptions to this may be provided for on legal grounds, by
adoption, and fctions may be acceptable under special conditions. But
insofar as it is possible, a son or daughter should be the biological of-
spring of both its parents.

Bu

sexual intercourse also is, a

d st

ds for, love. Th

defniti

ns of
Amencan culture state that love 1s sp1ntual and endunng and 1 not
aimed at specifc narrow material ends. Love is a relation between per-
sons, not between things. It means unity, not diference. It means who
you are, not how well you perform. It means trust, faith, afection, sup
-

port, loyalty, help when if is needed, and the kind of help that is needed .
Love means that one is never forsaken, betrayed, or abandoned. Love

is freely and unselfshly given, or it is not really love in American culture .

The family, then, as a paradigm for how kinship relations are to be
conducted and to what end, specifes that relations between members of
the family are those of love. One can speak of the family as (<the loved

ones.'
,
Love can be translated freely as eodur:og d:]use so|:dor:ty The
end to which family relations are conducted is the well-being of the

family as a whole and of e:ch of its members.

Yet certain specifc acts which are part of the cluster of symbols that.
.

ih
defne kinship and family also have the value of signs for other symbols ::: :
of that defning cluster. Sexual intercourse between husband and wife is-
)
(:
not only an act which specifcally defnes the conjugal relationship, but
it is also an act which is a sign of love. Not only is adultery wrong be.
:
::\}
cause by defnition sexual intercourse is the distinctive feature of the
conjugal relationship, but it is also a sign that the love which is em-: .
J
i;
bodied in sexual intercourse is directed at someone other than the person
who has a right to it. The act of adultery is thus more than simply a
wrong. It is an act which is both wrong in itself and at the same time a
sign that something more is wrong as well, that love is no longer where

,
it should be. For adultery is treated as an act of disloyalty and betrayal
:

in a way that can be understood only if the act is something much more

<=
than merely an event of sexual intercourse. It means that the spouse is not-

):;
loved; it means that the love which should be exclusive to the married

couple has been given to someone who has no right to it; it means that
the very essence of the spiritual relationship between a man and wife

~~ -

:
-

.^

__

l
-

-
&

_

. _

The Family 51
has
oeen treated as H mereIorm oIgratihcation animaI, not human, inits
meaning. In aduItery, it is Iove which is at stake, as weII as sexuaI inter-

course.
nduring, diuse soIidarity, orIove, in itsmost general sensc inAmer-
ican
cuIture is doing what is good Iororright Iorthe other person, With-
out
regardIoritseect on the doer. Indeed, itseect on the doeris good
andoenebciaIoy virtueoIthe good itdoes.Vhatthismayconsist oIas a
specibc act is not given in the symooI oI Iove or oI enduring, diuse
soIidarity, outis instead Iocated in aII oI the other context-dehning sym-
ooIs oI American cuIture. The right thing to do Ior a middIe-aged man
may oe the wrong thing Ior a chiId. Vhat is good Ior an upper-cIass
womanmayoeoadIor a woman oI IowercIass. Vhatis kind to a Iarmer
mayoeanoensetoanartist.
One oI the most important things aoout Iove, or enduring, diuse
soIidarity, is the Iact that such a wide variety oI dierent kinds oI spe-
cibc acts can express or amrm it. In one context a kiss amrms Iove. In
another context paying the rent does this, so does hoIding the ]oo that
eams the money to pay the rent. HoIding a hand may express diuse
soIidarity. Having thehouse cIeanandneat may oe a sign oIIove. Cook-
ingIood maydemonstrate Iove, andso can eatingwhathas oeen cooked.
For a manto tenda oaoy may express his Iove not onIyIor the oaoy out
Ior his wiIe, the oaoys mother, as weII. And Ior the wiIe to tend the
oaoy may express her Iove not onIy Ior the oaoy out aIso Ior her hus-
oand, the oaoys Iather. To teII the truth may oe the essence oI diuse
soIidarity in one context, and to teII a Iie may oe its highest expression
in another.
But oy the very same token, the sign oI Iove in the wrong context or
the wrong way may oe the s_gn that there is no Iove. Having the house
soneatandcIean that it cannotoe Iived inmaynot express soIidarity at
aII, out onIy that the other person does not reaIIy oeIong in the house,
thatitisnothis home. To work

sohard to get the moneyto pay therent

that there is no time Ior anything except work may oe the simpIest way
oI saying that there isno Iove. This is hardIy an act oI soIidarity, diuse
or otherwise.
In summary, then, the IamiIy in American kinship as a paradigm Ior
how memoers oI the IamiIy shouId conduct themseIves is essentiaIIy a
very simpIe one. A system oI H smaIInumoer oI symooIs debnes and diI-
Ierentiates the memoers oI the IamiIy. These same symooIs aIso debne
and dierentiate the kinds oI reIationshipsthat is, the codes Ior con-
duct~which memoers oI the IamiIy shouId have with each other.
The memoers oIthe IamiIy are debned in terms oI sexuaI intercourse
as a reproductive act, stressing the sexuaI reIatonship oetween husoand
52 The Family

_
`
`

+
_

and wiIe and the oioIogicaI identity oetween parent and chiId, and oe-
tween sioIings. There are two opposite kinds oI reIations here. One is

oetween opposites, husoand and wiIe. Out oI their union their chiId is

created. The chiId is oI the same oiogenetic suostonce as its parents,

this unity oI materiaI suostance maintains the unity oI parent and chiId
and sioIing when the chiId is hrst diherentiated oy its oirth, and then
when he continues to grow apartoy growing up, marrying, and Iounding

his own IamiIy. The IundamentaI contrast is oetween the unibcation oI

oppositeshusoand and wiIe in sexuaI intercourse~and the maintenance

oI the unity oI those who are dierentiatingchiId Irom parents and
sioIing Irom sioIing.

The symooI oI Iove oridges the two cuIturaIIy distinguished domains,
brst, thedomainoIkinship asa reIationship oI suostance, an
_
second,the

domain oI kinship as a code Ior conduct, Ior the kind oI interpersonaI

reIationship oetween and among them.

SexuaI intercourse is Iove and stands as a sign oI Iove, and Iove stands
.
Ior sexuaI intercourse and is a sign oI it. The two dierent kinds oI Iove, ,

con]ugaI and cognatic, theoneerotic, the othernot, are nevertheIess ooth

_

symooIs Ior unity, identity, oneness, togethemess, oeIonging. !ove sym ,

ooIizes IoyaIty, Iaith, support, heIp, and so Iorth.

However the memoers oI the IamiIy are dierentiated Irom one an-

_
other, then, theirreIationship to each othershouId oe identicaI. It shouId

oeone oI Iove. ach shouId act toward the others with Iove as the guid-

ing principIe. Or, as it is said more accurateIy, with Iove in his heart.
As a kind oI reIationship, Iove can oe transIated as endu::ng, d:use

so/:do::ty. 8o/:do::ty oecause the reIationship is supportive, heIpIuI, and

cooperative, it rests on trust and the other can oe trusted. D:use oe

cause it is not narrowIy conbned to a specibc goaI or a specihc kind oI
oehavior. Two athIetes may cooperate and support each other Ior the .
duration oI the game and Ior the purpose oI winning the game, out oe

indierentto eachother otherwise. TwomemoersoItheIamiIycannot oe

indierent to one another, and since their cooperation does not have a,
specibc goaI or a specihc Iimited time in mInd, it is endu::og.

The oioIogicaI eIements inthe dehnition oI kinship havethe quaIity oI

symooIs. That oIood reIatives share oiogenetic suostance is H symooI oI
unity, oI oneness, and this is symooIicaIIy interchangeaoIe with the sym-

ooIoIIove. TheoioIogicaIIystatedsymooIs oIunity arevariousIy restated

inAmerican kinship, the chiIds oeing oI the oody oI its :uother, created
]ointIy oy the oodies oI ooth mother and Iather, its taking nourIshment
Irom its mother's oreast, the notion oI the miIk oI human kindness and
the uItimateIy unquaIihed unreserved saIety and trust which the oreast
stands Ior, the chiId's taking aIter or Iooking Iike and acting Iike its

''
..
The Family
parents andits parents parentsaII these are speciaI appIications oI the
generaIstatement thatoIoIogIcal unity Is the symooI IoraIIotherkIndsoI
unItyIncIudIng, mostImportantIy, thatoIreIatIonshipsoIenduringdIuse
soIIdarIty.
KinshIp In AmerIcan cuIture, then, is a reIatIonshp oI enduring dihuse
solidarIty. Yet thIs Is not quite enough to dIstinguIsh It Irom a!I other
kIndsoIreIatIonshIps. Iriends, in America, can oeIoyaI, IaithIuI, heIpIuI,
and everythIng whIch a reIative can oe. It is even said, IacetiousIy, no
douot, that a ooys oest Iriend Is his mother, though It is aIso said that
a
man`s oest Iriend Is his dog. However incompatIoIe such statements
seem
to oe, they are nevertheIess oI the same order and directIy to the
poInt.
IriendshIp and kInshIp in AmerIcan cuIture are ooth reIationshIps oI
dIuse soIidarity. Vhat dIstInguIshesIrIends Irom reIatives, asInIormants
teII us so cIearIy, Is that you are oorn wIth your reIatIves out you can
pick your IrIends. II you can pIck them, oy the same token they can oe
dropped at wIII and without ooIIgatIon. OI course, IoyaIty to a Iriend is
vitaI andto Iet a!riend downwhenheis in dIre need isinexusaoIe. But
ItIs aIso true, as onestatement has it, that wIth such Iriends,who needs
an enemyr
The contrast oetween IrIends and enemies is that where Iriends act
out oI Iove, enemIes act out oI hate. Vhere Iriends have ones oest In-
tcrests at heart, the others careIuIIy xeIect the worst Interests to ampIiIy.
BeIatives arereIated oyoIood or oy marrIage, Iriends and enemies are
Iound orchosen or are seII-seIected, out they are certainIy not gIven to
one at oirth, as are reIatives.
Ve have no dImcuIty distInguishing IrIends Irom reIatives. In thIs re-
gard, IrIends and enemIes are aIIke In oeIng chosen. In regard to how
they shouId act, Iriends anreIatIves are aIIke in that they are ooth
guIded oy the nonns oI dIuse soIIdarIty.
Here, perhaps, is the key to the matter.
In the contrast oetween home and work, there is that interstitiaI area,
that pecuIiardomaInthat comoInes theoestparts oI each,outIs

neither,
caIIed the vacatIon, a commerciaI undertakIng whIch provides a home
awayIromhome.IrIendshIp,IIkeavacatIon,providestheoestpartsoIthe
two dIstInct domains and is oIthIssame interstitIaIquaIIty.
Vhere one Is oorn with ones reIatIves, and ones dIuse soIidarIty Is
wIth them Ior IIIe, one can pick and choose ones Iriends at wIII and
with certaIn cIear purposes in mind. So it Is said, oI course, that as one
rIses In the sociaI Iadder, the character-the socIaI character, that isoI
ones Iriends changes to reect that rise. AIthough one may choose a
spouse,

Ior one is certaInIy not oom wIth one, there Is nevertheIess a

54 The Family
ra:ee::leiae:e:ceue:ee::le:o..oa.ei.ro:ue::e:o:o:.e,

ro::lelo:,:a:,:e:leali:,or:lelo,l:, ( o:love , i.e:ea:i:,:e

i:loa:alirc:|o: or:ie o:lceo:co::es:. io ici .oa.e :e

.lee .oa.e ro:a:el, a:il|::i- a:o.e. i. :o: co:.iee:ee :oe:,

:loa,li:ce::i:l,i.eo:e.

.
vle:e:elo,eei.lele:o:i,o:oa..::e:e.ore:ro::cei:li:
.ecirceoi:or:elev::c:io:,

soa.ei.:o:,ua:.:.:eei.lele

:o .::e:e. or eiaa.e .ol.e:i:,. .oa.e i ei:le: lo,l o: ei.lo,l,

ri:lral o: a:ri:lral. ile:e i. :o e.a:e oi e+cie:c, i: .oa.e.

reeli:,. ile:e i. :o e.a:e or .iillee ccoli.le:: i: .oa.e.

lo,l:,.o:eloe.ro::leue.:ua::ie.l:o:e,e:..
sa:r:ie:ei.e:oeeir:ler:ie:eril.:oi::i:ee.i:ule.::e
:e.orlo,l:,,o:.olie:i:,,o:reeli:,.re:ron.:cei:r:ie:ei.eve:,
:li:,,ro::le:e i. :o:l.:, el.e. ,ooe r:ie:e i. o:e lo eseca:e. :le

:.i.orlo,l:,i:l.ii|l:ecoa:,e:eei.:cl.,ooer:ie:ei.:le:e

i::ie or :eee, :e eoe. :o: uaule :le ,ou. :e ,ooe r:ie:e i.

e:oeero:rili:,:oee::le:oe:.::e:e.oreuo::ce i::le

:ole oreiaa.e .olie:i:,.

r:ie:e.licoui:e.:leev::,e.orr:eeeo:o evla:e e:ro:

:ce:e:e:i::e:le:el:io:.lii:l:le:eai:ee::.ore|aa.e.oli
c:i:,,licleo:o:.ecir,esc:l,l:r:.e:el.:oeor:.e:e.:e

:el:ive.loc:ueei:clee.r:ece..:,, :e:el:ive.:er:ie:e.lo

:e i:l ,oa :l:oa,l :lici :e :li: le:le: ,oa liie i: o::o: :e

le:le::le,eo:lei:,ou:oe:,o::o:.xoac::ell,coa::o:,oa:

:el:ive..
i:i.:li.,orcoa:.e,liclie..e:.eor:lel:.e:l:uo,.ue.:

r:.e:e i. li. o:le::e : . ue.:r:ie:e .. li. eo,. o:le:ilt

:e.oe:ie.c.:eo:li:,.ro:.o:liclee::leli,le.:e:ro:
:ce .::e:e. or r:ie:e.li. He: e:ro::ce , ue o:e :l: i.

e:el,:eai:eeu,:lee:ea:i:,:el:io:.lioro:le::e.o:.:eU
eo,, ,a.:ueca.e ,oa c: ee:e :leli,le.: .::e:e. or lo,l:,, o ,

eiaa.e.olie:i:,,r:oli,i. ii:eorr:ie:e, i:i.:o:U l.:eli:,o:

ie,e::,ueca.e:leeiaa.e.olie:i:,occa:.i:co::es:le:e,oa

c:,e::ieor:le eo,ir,oa:::o.He:e,orcoa:.e,:leco:::.:i:l

o:e. o: clile:e: i. :le cle:e.:. o:e esec:. eiaa.e .oi.e:i:, :e

lo,l:, r:o o:e. o: clile:e:. sa: ir :le, :a e:, :le, c::ot

ue:ie::o:leloclla:e.ocie:,:ouea:,.ile,:e,oa:.
:e ,oa .:,itltle. :le, .:,i:l,oa.
-
`
.
-
.
.
-

-
-
_

-
_
+

-
-.
-
-~
-
-

- .

:.
.

~&
.
*
& -
`
:
.
I A 1 L
M MM tMW

.
-
8-

'

'

. .
.
`: .
*

'

.
.
-
LAII 1L1
A Relative Is a
P.erson
1

The decisionastowho isand who isnot a reative ismadeoyand aoout

a
jersoo.

Theperson is a ma]or unit oIAmerican cuIture, ]ustastheIamiIy, the

company,the city, andthecountry thenation) are cuIturaIunits.

These units are dierent Irom other kinds in that they are debned oy
American cuIture as oeing aoIe to do something or to oct. It is an ex
pIicit IegaI 'hction'` that the corporation is a person, capaoIe oI acting

Ior good or Ior iII, and oI oeing responsioIe Ior its actions. So, too, the
country can act. It can go to war, spend money, have a Ioreign poIicy.
]ustas

itcanoesaidthat

a person does something, so,too, itcanoe said

,

thata cityortownorcompanyorcountrydoessomething.

Theperson, as acuIturaIuqtcapaoIe oI acton, has a r:mory:deot:ty

This dehnes what kind oI person he is, that is, it dehnes the reIevant
cuIturaI domain in terms oI which he acts. A person na y oe a Iather, a

poIiceman, a ]udge, a priest, a piIot. The Iather is a person in a IamiIy.

The poIiceman is a person in the poIice department, which is part oI

govemment. A ]udgeisa memoer oI the court,

which is part oI govem-

ent and the Iaw, whiIe the priest is a memoer oI a church, which is

the domain oI reIigion.

Oierent eIements are oIended together to make up the de5nition oI

he person, out such eIements must make up a unit debned as doing

omething, pIaying a roIe in reaI IIe. The poIiceman is a man. He acts

maintain Iaw and order. Hemustknow the Iawto do his ]oo, though

poIiceman is certainIy not a Iawyer, nor is the Iawyer a poIiceman.

Ue must know how to read and write and oe aoIe to issue a IegaI sum-

57

`

58 A Relative Is a Person

`
`

^
,
`

`
,

o:.io:i:i:e:io:.oi:i-li-:-:ii.i.:o:i:-,:ioe,ii:o
_,__
i:,io:o:-e:e:i:-i:el,i-.:oliee:.H-e.:ue

ule:oeeie:eii.eli,i:.:i,.iel::ei:e e.eio:e-ie:e:ee
`

e..:, :o :ei-:e e:ii:l., :ioe,i ,e.:u-i:,i,.iell, .::o:, :e

,ooer,i:e:eo-.:o:ie:olie-:.
8
ii- eiae:e::el--::. iiei :- eoui:-ei::o :ie e-r:i:io: oi :ie
e:.o:-olie-:, i:i-:, ,ee,-, e:i:-v-:coc i:o ei-:-:: .,.
:e.oieo:ee:.:e .,uol.,-ei i:o i: o: eoi:, iiei i. ee
r:-e :: i:o-:.o:. o:o:i-:.eei elire:io:.. i: t-:ie: eei j
:e:-,l-:e..:ei-l-:-..iv-e-::i:e-r:i:io:.,e-::i::::iue:-.,`
iiei :e eer:-e ei:- :: i:o :, -:.o:, :, .i:e:io:, o: :,
.-eil :-.::ie:io: oi eo::es:. t,-, :oo, i. e-r:ee i: te:ie: ee:e:-
"
::i:o :, ::ieel:.i:e:io: o: :, ::ieel: -:.o:, :ioe,i i:
l,. ::i::ie e-r:i:io:ei v:i-:, oieia-:-:: ii:e. oi e:.o:..
"
t:e.o:oo,ii:.iiio:.i:.o:.-lieo::i:-e,ei.:i:e:.e:oieo:e-:.

,
:e.,uol.e-r:-e::i:o-:.o:,le-,o::i-.

i::iel.:ei:-:i -si:ee:ieeei:e:ll,esliei:e:i:,. oi:ie
iil,, :io.e iiei ei:ee: ou.e:v:io: :e i:io:::. :eeil, :oviee .

i::io.- e:i:,., :ie iil, i. ::iee eoel- i:i :i-i: eiile:-:

livi:,:o,-:i-:i: io- oi:i-i:o:, o:i:i.:ie::iee eoel- :e
:i-i:eiile:-: i:ioe::e,:e :oi-:- :i-, :elivi:,, o:i: i. eei
iee:e:i:iieii:elee-. i:i..ie:ou-ll,o::-:l, ll, oi:io.e
-:.o:. io :-eoe::-e. :-luve..

i::ie.e.e:.-.:ieiil,e:e:x:.:ex:..o:-.:e:ie:i:ee
li::l-o:e.-.,o:i:e:-::ieie:e:eeo:.o-:.o:. io ::-:e:ie
::el o:-.iil, ie:ie :e :ee:io:. t:e i: :ii. -:i:, :oo, ue:

oi::i:,i:o.::o:e.-::i:.:-eoi,e.::o:i-:-.-::lo:e, i.:ie
e.,eiiei.,.:i::i-o:e.iil,i. ve:,oleiil,i:e--e,iv

i:,ue-:i::ii.:o:.i:eei:.r:.:.-::l-e,o:-:i: J50 ,-:.,o.

iio.ee:i:,.:-,iv-:i::-:.oi-:.o:.,:e:i-:.ioi:iel.:
ei:-:.:o:ie:i:.-:oie:i:,.oi:i-iil,:e:o:ei:e:oe
i:.v:ioe.eo:ee:el:e.,uolieeoo:-::..o:i::ieii:.ii:t
eoeleu-i.ol:eei: i:.e:eio:,.o :o .-i,i:eo:::.: :o lloi :ie

o:ie:eoo:e::. oe:oiiiei :io.- e:.o:u.-e eer:i:io:. :e eo:
.::ee:ee.
ro:i:.::e-, i:io:::. ., :i: ii- eooi. :e ie-. ioe.e, :e
ou.-:v:io:oi:-:co:r.:ii..se:eo-.:ieii-eo:ii.u-ee.-.iei.
w:]e o:ueee.e.iei.wOoii-:.e:i.el-:i:oi:io:::
. -ll . ou.e:v:io:, .ie eooi. :e iee. ioe.e ueee.- .i- i. j
womo. voe:io:-:o:iv-.eooi:ei--ioe.-, iv-. eo:o
:-ee..:il,eooi :e ie-ioe.e. cooii:, :e i--i:,ioe.e eo-. :o:"
i- o: iie. ii- ei.:i:e:iv- i-:e:-iiei e-r:e. iie i.

_,

ReJctive Is c Person 59

that she is the Iegitimate sexuaIpartner oI her husoand. SimiIarly, a hus-

oand, some inIormants say, shouId go to work and eam a Iiving to sup-

port his IamiIy. But does a husoand go to work and eam a Iiving oe-
cause he is a husboodThe answer Irom informants is that it is a man's

]oo towork. Buta manisnot necessariIy a husoand, and a husoand does

not necessariIy work. Vhat makes a man

a husoand is not that he works

or
does not work, out that he is the Iegitimate sexuaI partnerthe
mate,

it is sometimes caIIed~oI his wiIe. nthe same way, inIormants are cIear

thatitisproperIoraIather to have authorityoverhischiIdren. But again

the question can oe put. Ooes the Iather have authority oecause he is
t
the Iatherr The answer is that he does not. A Iather has authority oe-

cause heis maIe and oecausehe is oIder, not oocause he is a Iather. The
authority oI theIather over his chiIdren wanes with their coming oI age,

thereIore,theiragehasmuchtodo withhisdegree and kind oI authority.

The distinctive Ieature oIoeing a Iather ora husoand has nothing to do

with authority at aII. A Iather is a genitor, and as our inIormanI put it,

a husoand is a Iover.

So we Iound that in AmerIcan kinship the IamiIy is a paradigm Ior

what each reIative is and how they shouId oehave toward each other.

And this means, as I have shown, that the Iather is the genitor, the

mother the genetrix, husoand and wiIe in sexuaI reIationship, son and

dughter the ospring oI that union, orother and sister the chiIdren

oI the married coupIe, and the reIationship oI aII oI these to each other

one oIIove,eithercon]ugaI ( husoand andwiIe ) orcognatic ( the others ) ,

outin either case, Iove is a reIationship oI enduring, diuse soIidarity.

The IamiIy in th:s sense consists oI the seII-contained set oI symooIs

dierentiated out oI the centraI symooI oI sexuaI intercourseJ Iove. It de-

5nes what a reIative is in the aostract. t states what the reIationship

|
oetween reIatives is oy dehnion. It consists oI a set oI conceptuaI eIe-

ments and their interreIationships.

Tis, inorieI, is what American kinship consists oI, and these, in tum,

are eIements which inIorm any

particuIar person, insoIar as he is a reIa-

tive or undertakes a reIationship oI kinship.

But kinship, as a seII-contaIned system oI symooIs and concepts de-
5ned and dm erentiated without reIerence to person, pIace, or time, is

distinct, in American cuIture, Irom reIatives as je:sooe and the IamiIy

as a g:ou o]e:son. Thetwo must not oe conIused orconIounded, Ior
they are quite dierent. 1he :e|ot:ce os o je:soo :s qu:te d:]e:eot ]:om

thed:st:oct:ce ]eotu:eswh:ch de]oe the e:soo oso :e/t:ce.

. .
A person as a cuIturaI unitisa composite, a compound oI a variety oI

dm erent eIements Irom dierent symooIic suosystems or domains. The

,

p
rson has either maIe or IemaIe sex as dehned oy the sex-roIe system.

.
0 Refative Is a Person
The person has age attributes as defned by the age-roIe system. The
personhascIass characteristics asdehnedbythe cIasssystem.Theperson
mayhaveoccupationaI,reIigious,poIiticaI,oravariety ootherattributes,
each dehned by reerence to its own seI-contained set o symboIs rom
its domain.
It is the construct o the person wich articuIates the various con
ceptuaI and symboIic domains o American cuIture and transIates them
intoactabIeorm, thatis,intoa set onormative standards,or guidesor
action,towhichanyconcret,actuaIperson canorientthis acton.
'

InAmerican cuIture theperson is conceptuaIized as concrete as weII

as abstract, both as a set o normative standards ond as a reaI, Iiving

` `
individuaI who shouId try to behave in accordance with those norms.

There is not onIy the person who is wie and mother in a amiIy, as a

cuIturaIIydefnedconstruct,butthereisaIso aparticuIarpersontowhom

one can point and say, This is my wie, ]ohn's mother.' The amiIy is
*.
conceived o as a concrete group o persons, but the amiIy aIso has its
concrete counterpart, as weII as its abstract conceptuaIization. ''This,`'

one can say to a visitor,is my amiIy. this is my wie

Mary, this is my
.
`
son, ]ohn, this is my daughter, ]ane, and we aII Iive together,in this
house,whichisourhome.''But one can aIso speak about the amiIy as a
group opersons, consistingo thehusband and wie and their chiIdren

Iiving together in U home o their own, without having any particuIar

person in mind.
The amiIy in this sense, as a group o persons, is the same order o
`
cuIturaIconstructasthechurchasabodyoworshippers,abasebaIIteam

as a group o pIayers, a university as a community o schoIars, or, in

some other societies, a Iineage as a corporate IocaI descent group.

This brings me to the hnaIpoint which must be made here about the .
reIative asa person.
I have said that the person is a cuIturaI construct so dehned as to be
W
abIe to act,topIay a roIe in reaI Iie. The construct o the person s, in
th1s sense, a normative guide or how such a person shouId behave or

how such a person shouId act.

Love has two kinds o impIications or how reIatives shouId behave ,
towardeachother. Thefrstis,o course, with reorence to the very spe-

cihc set o symboIs in terms o which the kinship system as a whoIe is

defnedanddierentiated,nameIy,sexuaIintercourse. Heretheparadigm
is quite expIicit. There shouId be no sexuaI intercourse between bIood .
reIatives,ortheirIove is cognatic, butthere shouIdbe

as asignoIove,
` .
oodasIoveitseI, sexuaIintercoursebetweenhusbandand wie,ortheiz
Iove is conjugal

But the second set o impIications which Iove has or how reIatives
,

|

Relative 8 a Por
.ioeie ueiveto:e eci o:ie:c:o:i,ue.eee e i: :ie
,e::ioiii,eiee.:o ctio:. e:ee:.:,,eiae.e.oiie:i:,.
no it i. o..iuie, i: :ei iiie, :o e:,,e i:.esi i::e:coe:.e o::o
voiei:.se:i:i.ei+ceiti::eiiiie:o,ouoeti:U .:teoiiove,:i-
ie.:i:,e:ee:i:,,eiae.e.oiie:i:,.
Love,i::ii.e.:i:,,e.:uees:e..eeo::e:e.e::eeu,.oe.e
circ c:iicii. i:. .i,:,uet i. :ot i:.iie c:.iici c::e:e.e::
e:ee:i:,, eiae.e.oiie:i:,:e io.: i:r:itei::iei: v:ie:,, ove: :e
uove:ie.ecirc.,uoiu,iiciiti.eer:ee~.eseii::e:coe:.e. t:e
.o iove c:ue es:e..ee, i: te:ic: cei:e:e, u, o:ii:, i:e o:u,
o:o:ii:,tooi:e,u,ieii:,i:i:ieei.ie.o:u,:o:ieii:,i:i
:ie, u, ieii:,iti :ieuu, o: u, ie::i:, :ieotie::ie c:e oi
i:,u,oi:,tiei:o:u,:o:oi:,i:.
iie:ei.:o:ii:,i:ie:e::,:o:i.:ie:e:,:ii:,.ecircii, eer:eei:
te:ic: cei:e:e

uoet iove iici ie. :, ::icei: .i,: :ece.

.:ii,o:eoiioveo::o:iove.
iie:e i., :ie:, ve:, ioo.e, i:ee:e:i:.:e co::ectio: ue:ee: :ie
,e:e:i.::eoie:ee:i:,,eiae.e.oiie:it,:e:ie::icei:o:.ecitc
.i,:.iici:e:ie::o:ii:.iie.i,:.tie.:ece..:ii,tiece:ti:
oi:iei:e:i:,.i:o :e.::i:o:eue,o:e:ie uoe:e.oiii:
.iio:iii,,:euei:,eer:ee.,ooeo:ue,.ue:erciio:i:iei,
.ee.i:uie o:e:ee.i:uiei:i:eie:e:ce to:iei:o:eoi:.o:.,.
:e. oi .,uoi., :iei: viee i:ii: :ie co:tes: oi :ie :ii, i. e.:u
ii.iee.se::i:c:,i:i:i:vaieei:o:i:eoi:,i.ue:o:eeiee::
i:tieuie:eiicii.:ieeer:i:.o:oi:ie:ei:ive.e:.o::eiici
eer:e.:ie:o:.e:ie.oiii.ueivio:.e:.o:.
i:.e,:ie:ei:ive. e:.o: i. ei:eeiae:e::i:otieei.:i:c:ive
ie:e:e.iici eer:e :iee:so: . :eitive. xo:eove:,:ie:e :e :o

eiae:-:tii:e.oie:.o:.i:te:ic:cei:e:e.iie:ei.:ieu.::c:e:
.o:, iici i. :o:tive co:.t:ec:, a:e :ie co:c:e:e i:eivieei. iie
.eiico:ti:ee .e: oi .,uoi. oi iici te:ic: ii:.ii i. coo.ee
co:.:ite:e.:ie ei.:i:c:iveie:e:e.iici eer:e:iee:.o:. :eitive.
se::iee:.o:.:ei:ivei.eeeoiei.:i:c:iveie:e:e.o:ie:ti:
,e.::io.eoiii:.ii.re:e:e.i:o:ie.es:oie,,e:oie.:::irc:io::e
o:ie:.,.te.:eiii:cieeeei::ieco:.::ec:io:oi:iee:.o:.:ei
tive.iieei.:i:c:iveiete:eoitie,i:iici:ei:ive..ioeieueive
:o:eecio:ie:i..ecireeu,tie.,uoioiiove,iicic:uee:ee:
.:ooe:oe: eiae.e,e:ee:i:,.oiie:it,. se:iove, o:eiae.e,e:ee:i:,
.oiie:i:,i.:ieo.teesiuieoi.,uoi.,io:i:c:uees:e..eei:iee
v:ie:,eioiae:e::,.,eiae:e::i,io: oe::i:io:e:,io:eei:
eue:. oi :ie iii, :i: io: ciiie:e: i: :ie iii,, :e .o o:.
ri:ii,,i:.ioeieuee-ei:ecie::i:i .eiie:eoi:iee:.o:
62 A Relative Is a P6rson

.:i:oi te:ic:ci:-e:e.
:.i,:ic co:.::c:.
ei::ie.:e,o:,,:e:o: .:
^M
:

i:i.:o:e:o,i,ioeve::oi:o :i.: :ie:ei:ive . e:.o: i.

coo:eoieiee::.i:oeiae:e::.,.:e.oi.,uoi.,iii:oi:i.:

te:ic.:ci:e:e. o:eo:e:ii:,.:uei:o:, :e:i: i. :ie:ie

ceo:ei:,:oiici :ei:ivei. coo:eee ( io:ee) .
~

TLei-:s

ve-, siT

e:.o:Jrc1fie! i.:ei:eeu,uiooe

o:::i,e:e:ovieeeiei.eio.ei,e:o,i:ei:ee ( o:i.:o::ooei. |

!
: : ,
` 1
: .
.

iiie:,:ie,i:.iic:io:eee:e.o::iee:i:,oi:ie:e:.i:

iiei i:i. e.:. ii:ie e:i:,oi:ie :e:. uiooe, ::i,e, ei.

:.:ee,:e:ei:ive ( o::ei:ee, i.cie:

:ie::ie

c:o:oi:ie

:eie .ioie ue eie:. i ive i:ee, ee.cuee :ie e:.:,. oi :ie.e

:e:.i:te:ic:ii:.ii,:ei:o:i,:ei:.:o.ioio:ie,oe:.:e

i: :ie coo:ei:, o: io:.:io: oi :ei:ive uo:i . :o::ive .

co:.::ec::e.H eecisio:uo:co:e:e:ei:eiviei.

i:i.i:ee::i:ei.eoi:iete:ic:ii:.ii.,.:e:i:uiooe

i..u.::ce:e:i::ii.i.i:eei.:i:c:i:o:ieii:eoi:ei:io:.ii,

:iecoeeio:eo:eec:,:ie::e-io:uei.vio:,:ieoeeiio:ieeii:,..:e
.e::ie::., o::ie io:i:io: oi :i,i:. :e e:ie. iici e:.o:. io
.i:e:i:.eu.::ce,uiooe:e.o.ee:oive.iii.ei.:iuc:io:i.:ie
.e . :i: ue:ee: :ei.:io:sii . .eu.::ee :e :ei:io:.ii ..
eoeeio:co:ee:,:e:ii.,i::o:ie:io:, i.io:ei::ieei..irc:io:
oi:ei:ive.i::::e,:ei:ive.i:i,.:e:ie:ioee

:ei:ive.io:e
:ei:ie.i:uo:ii:e:::e.

si:ee :ie.e:o eiee::. :e i:e ei.:i:c:, eci c: oee: io:e o:

There is a considerable body of literature on the person, individual, actor, self,
and so on as a useful analytic tool in understanding social behavior. None of this is
immediately relevant here since my objective is to describe the cultural categories
and not to analyse how they actually work. Martin Silverman used' the person as a
cultural category in his thesis on Rambi. I know of only two others whose work is
directly relevant to my usage here. One is Cliford Geertz' "Person, Time and Conduct
in Bali: An Essay in Cultural Analysis," Cultural Report Series No. J4 Southeast Asia
Studies, Yale University, 1966. The other is the work of Louis Dumont who treats
the individual (or person ) as a category of Western culture in general. See his
"The Modern Conceptjon of the Individual: Notes On Its Genesis/' and "The Func
tional Equivalents of the Individual in Caste Society," both of which appear M
Volume VIII of Contributions to Indian Sociology, Mouton, 1965. See also his im
portant book Homo H ierarchicus ( Paris: Gallimard, 1966) .

``
`
`
:..
`

..
--
A Relative Is Fer5n 63
:l-,
c:occe:u coui::io:,.i.eiee::::o:lecl..irc:io:o::-l
:i-..
t:e.i:ce:le:oeiee::.:eei:eei.:i:c::eeclc:occe:io:e
..
eil.i:coui::io: e:.o: c: u.eli. e-ci.io: . :olo :o
.oe:: :elo:o::o coe. :ei:ie o:ei:l-:o:e o:o: :l-o:le:
.::l-.eeiee::.,o:o:uo:li::le,:e:-.-::i:eei:io:,:le:o:
:iv-co:.::ec:o::-l:iveo:o:.::icel:ii-eo:c:e,o:,o::ei:ive
,

i.ouecooe:eeeo:ei:le:o:-o::l-o:le:el-e::,o:o:uo:l.
le.eelee::. o: .eu.::ce:ecoee:o:co:eec:, loe-:, :e :o:
o:eellee:e:lei:eiae:e::lee.io:e:ei:coui::io:,lo:,
i:l ei.::ce,ccoe:::o:ecl o: :le:i:ce i: :le .,.:e.: : :le
l-.elo::lee:.o:,u :l .eeci.io:. uoe:co:c:e:e i:eiieei.:e .
:o::ieco:.::ec:..

.
eu.::cel.:le i,le.:lee, coee :o:co:eec:l-.. vle-,ue::le
:o:o,-:le:( :l:i.,:l-ulooe:el:ive.,le:l-li,le.:vleeo:li.
ili.e:.:l:l-:eei:le:elee::occe:.lo:e,:-l:ie.o:,:-:e:
ei.::ce'iiluecoe::ee.ii:o:.:el:ive.i::le:ei.o:l,U .eu.::
:ive ele-:: :e:: :l: i: :le:e i. o:l, :le :ei:io:.li o: coe-:o:
,o:eec:elee::.
t:o:le:, or e::i:, :li.licl iii ue :oe:e e.e:el i. :l: u
e:.o:l,.ii:.li:oi-o:e:ee::.i-.H ii:.li:el:io:.li( .coee
::co:eec:, lcii:,:,.eu.:::iveei-e::, o:ice-:., l-, o:
,:o:u-coe::ee.:el:i-,ue:lei.o:-lii-i,:ouecoe::ees
:el:iei:o:l,.eu.::cei.:e.e:: :l: i:coee:o:co:eec: io:ei.
:e.e::,i:luo:lel--::.:e.e::lei.o.:liiei, :ouecoe::-e.
:-l:ie.

il-:ei.co::el:ie.e:o:e:i:,.le:elicl:e::icel:l,i
o::::.t:,,ive:ii:.li:-

~::le:,o:le:,e:cl-,e::, coe.i:,-:c.
c:uee.-e:oe:ei:le::le.eu.::ceel--::o::l-coee:o:co:
eec:elee::,o:uo:l:o,e:l-:i:i.:o:l,.o..iule,:le:-:o:e,:oi::e:
::o,iv-:e.,ele:le:i:i.:le.eu.::ce,:lecoee, o:uo:llicl
i. uei:, ee:o:ee i: ::icel: i:.:.:ce. i: ,oe. i:loe: .,i:, :l:
:le.e :oelee::.l:el, esle.::l- .e:i:,. o:ii:.li :e:., :le,
l.o,uee.-e:oe::li:,.i:eei:io::o,o:o:le::l:,:l-.e:o
e:i:,.
iill:oci:-:l-.::--::.o::oeiae:e::i::o:::.liclille.
:::e,i:v-:,uu:-vi:ee:o:,:o:o:l,:le.e:uili:,o:.eu.::ce:e
coee:o:co:eec:( o:,.i::o:::..o-:ie.e:i:,o:ulooe::o:el
:io:.li, , ue:i.o:le,i:licl:li..e:uili:,occe:.:ei:.:ole
i::le eeci.io::ocoe:t e:.o: . :el:ive o::o:. ( i: uo:lo::le
:olloi:,, I .::e. :o: i::o:::, A :o: t::l:oolo,i.:. ,
64 A Relative Is W Person

. .

I)

t \oawa::liiey.o:i:lw.:e::.no,i :eve:.eeo:ie:oi
:ie.iiey:e:o::el:ec:oe.
boyoaive:oueelo.e:o.oeo:e:oive:ie:el.:ec:oyoa

: \e..\oaa.e:ie:ela:io:.ii.wie:i:c:i::.awyyoa.:e:oo:e
:el:ec.\oa.eeiwe:::oo:eoiyiasu:c. coasi:.u:icl.iowe:.,

_
i:wa. io: r:.: eoa.i:. u:ice:o ue. \oa o:ly ee: ll :ie.e eole'
:ie:e. \oa ee: :ie liie a: vecci:,. o:.iowe:., o:ua:i:.vi. o:

ia:e:l.. ro: :ie.e :ii:,. :iey cll o: yoa a:c i :.we: :ie :oll call.
,si:a,.ie:.ioalce:. .ii:o.ay,\i: eoa|cueo:e .ile' \oa
wlii::cyoaee::iella:cil:o::ic:e:e,:a::,.oyoa.y
How:ice:ia:yoa:e,oi:,:oiveauuy,co:,::al:io:.o:ueeo
i:,a :ew o:ie:,:c:iey.ay, sa: i ,o::wo :ioel:eacy. so
yoa.eeiowi::..

. soa:e:ie.eeole:ela:ec:oyoa

iieya:ewie:yoaee::ieliie:i:,ua:wie:yoaleave:ie,
:ie,:e:o::yo:e.

. iiey:e:o::el:ecue:wee:wecci:,.:cia:e:l.,ua::ieya:
ca:i:,:ie

: \eai.

. Hve:ieyeve:u-e::el.:ec:oyoaesee:a::ii:,.liiewecci:,:
:cia:e:al.:cu:i::vi.

Oi,.a:e,ua::ie,:e:::ow\oa.ee:ii.ua.i:e..oiuei:,:el:ec
:o.oeo:ei.:ocowi:i.ociauili:y.iie:ea:e.oeileoa.i:..

. ca:yoa,ive e .:y ii:coi:aleio::iee:so: wio i. :ela:ec

:o yoa

: vell,:iey,o::oue.ociulewi:iyoa o::ie,:e:o::el:ec.

. ll:i,i:, ua:.oeoi:ie eole yoa:aec a:e :el:ec :oyo

uyulooc,:i,i:

- \ei,yoa,e::ieuyccice::.\oae::coa:y:ii:,uoa::ie
:c ,:a:cciilc:e: :e:ieuloocie.:|

. iie:yoaive:el:ive.uyccice::.\oa:ia:ie:..i.:e:iaceil
c:e:,:.,i:

\ei

+ .
`

. so:iey :e:ela:ec:oyoauyulooc.

t no,:iey:e:o::el:ec.iieycive:oue.ocil.iieywe:e:o:-
:ie,:ieya:e:::ow.

. bo:yoiyoa:iealer:.:coa.i:.iveia.u:c.

\es

A Are they your cousinsr

I: I never see them.

Are their chi!dren re!ated to your

1 No,oecauseI neversawthem.
A Your Iather's sisterswere they marriedr
: Yeah.
A Vere their husoands considered unc!esr
t No, I never saw them.
Relative ls a Person 65
l2l

A Now. Your mother's aunt you mentioned, XXXX. Oo you know

how to speII thatr

: Nope . . . . [Is wiIe then spe!!s it correct!y.|

A Oid she have a Iami!yr

1 Yes. Iknow herhusoandisdead,outshe hassomechi!dren.

A Oo you consider them reIatedr

t I wou!d iI I !new them. I can`t even think oI their names now.

We were not c!ose to aunt XXXX.

ff
t I see. You Iee! you have to know someone, or at !east know their
name, Ior you to think oIthem as a relativer
1 Yes. There has to oe some persona!ity there. Otherwise iI you go

oack Iaryou and I arereIated, and that's aoout as weak as you can getl

A: Your mother's aunt XXXX~do you know exactIy how she is re-

Iatedr

1 I thinkshe's mymothersmother's sister,out that's my idea! I know

( my mother is very so!icitous oI her when shes here. There's a IamiIy

get-together . . . it's an occasion.

"Oistance is simp!y the st.tement oI kinship in quantitative terms.
That is,onthe one hand itis a measure oIthe degree to which two per

sons share common oiogenetic suostance, and on the other hand it is a

statement oI the magnitude oI the c!aim on diuse, enduring soIidarity.
II diuse, enduring soIidarIty ootains, distance is the statement oI '']ust

how much." A reIationship which is "cIose'' is one where the c!aim is

high, one which is ''distant' or Iar away is one where the cIaim is

sma!!er. 'How much'' can mean ooth the magnitude and that magnim
hich is expressed oy dierences oI kind. One kind may oe "too much

or 'too !itt!e Ior a given reIative. Kind, thus, is one Iorm oI statement
oImagnitude within the context oI distance as a measure oI diuse, en-

uring soIidarity.

-_

`
66 A Relative Is a Person
The diEerent vaIue attached to su5stance as against code for conduct
hoIds in the measurement of distance too. Insofar as the persons con-
cened are 5Iood reIatives
.
the degree to vhich they share a common
heredity is the Frst measure of distance vhich is appIied to them, it is

this measure vhich is modi6ed 5y other aspects o distance and not the

othervay around. If, hovever, there is nosu5stantive eIement, Ihen dis-

tance depends entireIy on the code-for-conduct or reIationship eIement

'
Marriage'` is the reIationship 5etveen hus5and and vife, entered into

,
voIuntariIy and maintained 5y mutuaI consent. A person is reIated to
another person 5y marriage` vhen that other person is his spouse. Buf
"5y marriage`` is aIso the term for that cIass of reIatives reIated in Iav
as opposed to 5y 5Iood, andit thereforestands forthosevho are reIatd

5ythat code for conduct as veII as for thecode for conduct itseIf quite`
apart from the persons Marriage'` and''in Iav thus overIap inparts of
theirmeanings, vhere theydosotheymay5eusedinterchangea5Iy. The
overIap or shared meaningconsists in the reIationship as a code for con-

. .
duct; that is, diEuse, enduring soIidarity undertaken voIuntariIy and
maintained5ymutuaIconsent. A reIationshipof''marriage'` or a reIation-
ship 'in Iav'
`
o5tains vhen it is one of enduring, diEuse soIidarity. This

is statedinthemarriagevovs5ythephrase" untiIdeath do us part."

A reIationship of enduring, diEuse soIidarity vith sexuaI intercourse as
the Iegitimate and proper form of its expression isthat5etveenhus5and
and vife. This is the sense in vhich marriage' diEers from aII other ,
reIations ''in Iav.
This,then, is the ruIe accordingtovhich concrete persons name other
concrete persons as their eIatives or as non-reIatives, and according to
vhich normative constructs are formed for reIatives as distinct from per-
son

s vho ae not reIatives. For pa:+icuIar cIasses of reIatives, normative

constructs mereIy add the speci6c distinctive feature for that particuIar
kind ofreIative
.
so that, for instance, the father and mother.as reIatives
are distinguished 5y the fact that one is genitor, the other genetrix. To
formthenormfora hus5and, thenormfor a reIative istaken and aItered
to excIude 5ioIogicaI su5stance shared in some degree Iess than some
speci6ed proportion ( the distance eIement ) , andthe code for conduct is

speci6ed as 'the Iegitimate sexuaI partner of the other spouse." Then,

from the sex-roIe-diEerentiation system, the de6nition of maIc sex is

added,vhichdistinguishes the hus5andfrom the vife. Furfher speci6ca-

tion of the normative construct can 5e dravn from other systems of

sym5oIs, so that the strati6cation system may add the speci6cations of

,
middIe-cIassstatusincertain vays,vhiIethestandardsofur5ansouthem
residence may contri5ute sym5oIs from that domain.

-:
^

*-.
+

Reltive ls Person 67
1.
iie:a:::e:e.eeei:iei,e:e:ii::ie:.e:: ei:ee:i,i:e
:le
seie :e:ii.,:le ee::ie: ei :le:aie i:i:.v:iea. ie:ai:ie:.
e: ue.ee: eie:i,. ile:e:iil.:e:ee: :::.i:eei::e ie:
ee:.e:::i:l:leese.i:ie:ei:le:eviea..ee:ie:. s:le:,i::ei:.
.r:.:e:ee:,e:e:ii.:ie:., :le ie: e.: :eeii, :eee,:i:uie u, :
eu.e:ve:.
ile:e:ii.i::li. .ee:ie:ee::e:e::le eeei.ie: :e eea::ee:e:e:e
e:.e:. . :ei:ive. i: :le :e: el:e:, a..:,:e:iie: i:i. :e
ii:.li:e:.,:leieea.iiiuee::lee:.e: . :e::iveee:.::ae:.
o:e ei :le r:.: :li:,. :l: :,e:e lc e:i. i:l te:ie: ,e:e
ie,ie.:e:iee.i. :l::le.,.:ei.ai:eeie:.ie:,. e:e:ies z,e
. :leei::ei:eie:e:ee :e eee. :e: ve::a:ei: i:e :le:e. e:e
,ee. ea:i:e z,e~i: :,ei:ee:ie:~:li:,. ,e: e:e:e e:e ia::,.
ili.uea:e:,ia::i:e..,e:ieeea:,i..ee:i::aue:eieiae:e::,..
xe.: ia:ee::i, eieea:.e, u :leie: :l: :le:e i. :e ie:i, eie:,
e:e,e:iei iii::e:le ::,eeiii:.e: o:,:ea:i: i: :e:le:,,
:leeeei.ie:.:ele:le:::ieai.:e:.e:i.e:i.:e::eueeea::ee
.

:ei:ivei.:e:,ive:i::,.iiee:-,e:iei.e:.eo:ee::e:.,
:l: ii.eee:e eea.i:. :e :ei:ive., ua: ii :li:e eea.i:. :e :e: t:
te:ie: e:, iilei.le., eea:: :li:e eeai: . ii:.: liie
.eee:e eea.i: i. e:aii,iiveua:a:i:e:, e:i:e::e ueiiveua:
:eve::leie..:e:eea::ee.:ei:ive.
ilereeea:i.i.e.ee:i::lei:e:e.i:,a:ee::i::,eve::e.,,e.,
eeea:ie:.,:eiee.ei:e.iee:ee:lei::le:ea::le:ei:ive.:ei:e
.
z,e.
ile:ei.e:e::ieai:i,i::e:e.:i:,,i:lieluea:e:,ia::i:e..
i.es:e..ee, :li.i.:l:ea,l :le rea. nei:ive. ba:i:,:leeea:.eei
:lereiee:ie:e:i:i:eae::i,e:eea::e:ee:le.::ee:::l:se:e
se, iea.e:.e:,e,. :ei:ive. see:ie. :le :ei:.e:.li .
::eeuie,.ee:ie.:e:wle:i:.::eeuie,i:eeaieeie:i,ue.ee:
:l::li..uee:i,:ei:iveei.aelei.::eee::le,e:eie,,,le:e.
eie.e::ei:ive.e:ea:i:e::ea:le:eei
:e: :e:le: eu.e:v:ie: :l: i. :: ei :li. ie:a:e i. l: i lve
eiiee :l- cl:i.:.

::ee eaee:. te:ie: ,e:eie,ie. :e ei:e: :e:

e:e:l::l:eee:iea:,e:e::ie:.eee,:le,:ie:leie:ei .a:
Compare M. Young and H. Geertz, "Old Age in London and San Francisco:
Some Families Compared/' Brilish )ournal o) 5ocio|ogp, XlI (1961 ), 124-41.
B Rerative Is a Person
Christmas treeorpyramid. Atthetop,there is oten theAncestor, some
timesintheormoacoup!e,!ikethestar onaChristmastree.As genera
.
tions get c!oser to Fgo, each sib-set somehow gets !arger, so that

who!e thingseems to standon a very rm, broad base. 8uti one !ook

c!ose!ybe!owthebaseonecanseethetrunkotheChristmas tree, Fgo

!ine, his chi!dren and grandchi!dren, who continue to move away rom
Fgo generation by generation. 1he Ancestor may or may not have had.
sib!ings, but he did, they are either not mentioned or they are o,
gotten. 8ib-sets o the Ancestor`s chi!dren are !arger, whi!e the sib-sets
andtheco!!atera!!ines ocousinsgivethezero generation a considerab!;
co!!atera! spreadoboth cousins and sib!ings.

1hesquatChristmastreeconsistsinanetworkob!ood re!atives. 1hi

consanguinea!networkisadomed withspouses,!ikethedecorations ona

Christmas tree. 8uttheadoming spouses on!y occasiona!!yhavesib!ings
or

parents, andthe occasiona!spouses'parents on!yrare!yhave sib!ings,

Onecantakeagenea!ogyinawho!!ynondirectivewaybysimp!yask
v
ingor a !ist ore!atives and then asking ithere are any more. Orone
can take a very systematic genea!ogy using probes o the utmost spec

icity such as. And hasheany brothers? sisters? mother? ather? sons

daughters? wie? ( or husband) Intherst instance, the tree is rather,

skimpy. Inthesecond, thetreeisquitebushy andabout one-thirdmore

_
persons are usua!!y added to the genea!ogy. However the basic shape
remains very much the same, because inormants don`t re:nember i
great-grandatherhad anybrothers or sisters, ihe had, who they mar-
ried, and itheymarried,how many chi!dren theyhad. As ar as great
grandather`s wie is concemed, i she is remembered at a!!, inormant

imagine that she must have had a ather and mother, but they do not j
know their

names, or i she had any brothers or sisters, or what their.

names might have been.
`

1herearetwoimportantpointstonote about theChristmas-tree eeet

in American genea!ogies. 1he rst is that they are pyramids o greater f

or !esser range, but theyinc!ude ar ewer kinsmen than the denition
oa re!ativeasanyone re!ated by b!ood or marriage wou!d !ead one to

expect.

.
1he second point is that they are undamenta!!y consanguinea! net
workstowhichspousesareadded
In-!awsarenotcommon, inact, they
are notab!e by their absence. In genea!ogies, inormants norma!!y !ist

their own spouse and the spouses o their b!ood re!atives, but they do ,
nototenspontaneous!y !isttheparents orsib!ingso any othe spouses

they!ist,andotennoteventheparentsandsib!ingsotheirownspouse.
1herewereanumberoexceptions.Inoneextremecase,aman!isted hi
`
mother's sister

s husband
,
s brother and sisters and their husbands and '
&

Relative Is a Person 69

wiv
es
and chiIdren. These were the onIy orothers and sisters oI the

spous
es oIoIood reIativesthat he Iisted spontaneousIy, aIthough itturned

out
that he knew others and coud easiIy name them. Asked iI he con-

sid
cred these to oe reIatives, he amrmed that he did.

CIoseIy reIated to this point is another oI some reIevance. OI the two

the
oreticaIIy possioIe ways oI increasing the numoer oI kinsmen activeIy

engagedina particuIar network, it is those who are reIated oy marriage

who constitute a ma]or source oI additionaI numoers rather than the

widerspread which wouIdoeootained oy tracing oack Iurther and then

out to more wideIy pIaced coIIateraI Iines. It is oy the addition o! the

consanguineaIs oI spouses rather than oy the increase in the numoer oI

more distant coIIateraI Ines oI cosanguineaI kinsmen that the size oI

networks tends tooeaugmented in America.

NevertheIess

when the situation warrants, the net can oe spread

very wideIy indeed, as the cousins cIuos and IamiIy circIes reported oy
MitcheII

show. Vhen the net is spread this wideIy, there is again a

choice among kinds oI Iinks, so some organizations require oIood con-

ncction through a Iounding ancestor whiIe others peunit the addtion oI

mcmoers th:oughspouses as

weIIas

to spouses.
The decison as to who is a reIative is made oy and aoout a person.

5ometimes the decision which a person makes aoout another person is

con:mon and usuaI, and inIormants agree that it is the "right decision.

But sometimes, aIthough the decison "makes sense

` to nIormants, some
may regard it as eccentric or even as "wrong`
' Such decisions, right or

wrong, are nevertheIess iIIuminating oecause they reveaI the cruciaI

eIements which are invoIved.

The dead are a case in point.

The onIy standardized question asked oI inIormants in Chicago was

the brst questlon oIthe very hhtinterview. This vas, "List IormeaIIthe

peopIe whom you considerto oe yourreIatives.''

+ AII inIormants wouId start Iisting peopIe, out some oI them wouId
suddenIy interrupt the recitatIon with the question, Oo you want the

dead ones toor Or they wouId say, 'Vhat aoout those who are deadr

Or, ''That`s aII, except Ior the dead ones, oI course. . . .' It sometimes

tooktheIorm. andUncIe|imouthe's dead. . . . ' Butwith aImost

?:
every inIormanttherewas aIways something speciaIaooutthe deadones,

ome remark, some comment, and aImost invariaoIy, iI the person oeing
Iistedwasdead,thisIactwasspontaneousIystated.Iurther, there seemed

to oe a cIear tendency Ior the dead to oe omitted entireIy in the very

-.

V. L. Mitchell, "Descent Groups Among te New York City Jews," Jewis ]our-

tlal of Sociology, 3 ( )I ), )2)-28.

`
.

70 A Relative Is a Person

ear!yphasesotheco!!ectionothegenea!ogy, and on!ytocometo !ight

during !ater enquiry, oten in another connection.

Another examp!eisin the categories used todescribe theuzzy, aded

areacontiningdistantre!atives. Oneotheseisthe term '' shirt-tai!re!a

tions,anotheriswakes-and-weddingsre!atives,`and thethird iskissin'

kinorkissin'cousinsWakes-and-weddings re!atives are easi!ydened
-they are, quite expectab!y, re!ativesho are on!y seen at wakes and
weddings Usua!!y there is no direct contact, or even indrect contact

andsomeinormantsdescribethemasre!ativesore!atives. normants

sometimes associate the term with Catho!ics, since in their view wakes
are primari!y a Catho!ic practice. 8hirt-tai! re!ations are very much the

same, except that instead ospeciying where certain re!atives are seen
( wakesandweddings ), thesearedescribedasbeing'broughtinonsome-

bodys shirt-taiI`, thatis, they areseen asre!atedthrough intermediaries

andtheirmainsignicance isthattheyarere!atives' re!atives. 1heterms

''kissin'kinor'kissin'cousnsaresaidtobeprimari!y southern, though

many Chicago inormantsknew the term even when they didnot uset
themselves. Here the kiss is the sign that no matter how distant, such

persons are neverthe!ess re!atives andthereore are entit!ed to that sig

obengre!ative, thekiss.

Yet another examp!e is one I have a!ready mentioned, that o the

Famous Re!ative. ( 8ee page67 . )

1wo examp!es o the understandab!e, but perhaps eccentric decisions

on who is counted as a re!ative are the o!!owing: One woman rm!y
asserted that her sister was not a re!ative becauseshe had not seen her

_ _ _
orspoken to herorsome yearsnow. I didnothave great con8dence in

thisinormantandinotherwayssheproveddi0cu!ttoworkwith. 8ince

thisstatementseemed inp!ainconuictwth theactthata b!oodre!ative

a!ways remains a b!ood re!ative, at rst dismissed her statement as

absurd. I was wrongto do this, o course.

A young !ady attending co!!ege raised the opposite prob!em, she a

rmed,andcou!dnotbedissuadedromtheposition, thatherroommate
was a re!ative even though she c!aimed no connection o b!ood ormar-
riagebetweenthem.

Whyshou!dthe deadconstitute aprob!em?Indiscussingthequestion

owhetheritis possib!e to terminate a b!ood re!ationship, some inorm

ants said that it is, in act, possib!e to do. 8ome ]ewish inormants de

3 bome ntormant8 8ay tDat lDe lerm 8 aso useU n anotDer anU oDvousy cose

reated 8ense. t a Qetson 8 8een wtD a slranger n a comQrom8ng jo8lonQer

DaQ8 lDey are 8een k88ng~one may oher tDe exQanalon tDat tDe olDer 8 a k88n
cou8n Dal s, tDougD De 8 nol tecognzeU a8 Deng a 1eatve Dy tDe oD8erver, tD
k8s s exQaneU a8 Deng One o KD8DQ anU not to b otDerwse nterQreleU.

Relative Is a Person
scribed a modied mouning ceremony wbicb cou!d be per|ormed, ac-
cordi
ng to certain re!igious and ritua! prescriptions, by a parent to
terminatethere!ationsbiptoachi!d.1his rtua!cou!dbeper|ormedon!y

by aparent,notbya cbi!d

AItertbisrtua!thechi!dwasas i|dead,

and
did
not exist |or theparent. 8o, these in|ormants said, itwasrea!!y pos-
sib!e,
a|ter a!!, |or tbere to be an excbi!d just as there can be an ex-
spouse1be|acttbatthisritua!isveryrarely per|ormedmakesno der-
ence. For in|ormants wbo were not ]ewisb, the same situation cou!d
obain,
but it bad neitber ritua! nor re!igious setting. A parent might
simp!yterminatebisre!ationshiptothechi!d,andactasi|tbechi!dwere
dead by never seeing it again, and never speaking o| it or with it. In
this case the intiative cou!d be taken by tbe chi!d-since there is no
|orma!rite-andtbechi!dcou!d!eavebomeandneverspeaktotheparent
again,actingasi|theparentweredead.
Wbena]ewisbparentbo!dsamouningceremony |or a !ivecbi!d ( or
adead cbi!d) , what is te:minated is tbe :e/ot:oosh:j between tbem, but
the cbi!d, as a cbi!d, isnot''taken back

' ormadeneverto have existed.

lhe]ewishparent,somovedastohavetobo!damourningceremony|or

chi!d,istbeobJecto|specia!sympathyandpity,|ortbegreatesttragedy

o|a!!basbe|a!!en him-his cbi!d

wbo neednot have died,mustnow be

treated as dead| 1bis parent bas !ost a cbi!d. 8ut be hod a chi!d, and
thecbi!distbere'`andremainsthere.
It is perhaps obvious now wby in|ormants !isting re!atives stop and
give tbe dead a specia! p!ace. Do you want me to !ist tbe dead ones
too?-|or deatb terminates a re!ationsbip but does not undo or erase
wbat is and was a |act. A dead person remains person enougb to be
!ocated on a genea!ogy, person enough to be counted as an ascendant
or descendant, person enough toberemembered i|tbereis some reason

to doso.Marriageis. . . untdeatbdouspart."1beesoowasandis,

the :e/ot:ooeh: isno !onger. Hence the ha!|-statuswbicb is imp!ied by

thequestion,Doyouwanttbedeadonestoo?'`Ananthropo!ogistasking
po!ite!y, We!!, wbat do you think? Do you count tbem as re!atives?''
wou!dbeanswered various!y,Oh,yes,o|course,
,
or'We!!,yes,I guess
so.8utit'sbcenso!ongnow # . ,or'No,notrea!!y.
1he !ady wbo said tbat hersister was not a re!ative because sbe bad
notseenher|orso!ongwasmakingtbesamepoint.8heno!ongerbada
re!ationsbipwithbersister,and intbissensetbesiste:|ai!edtomeetone
o|the denning criteria o|a re!ative. For thiswoman tbemostimportant
criterionwasexact!ytbesameasinthecaseo|tbeotheryoung!ady,wbo

va!uedare!ationsbipabove a!!tbingsandso bestowedakinsman'sstatus

onberroommate,even thougb tberoommate!ackedanyotherqualica-

tions.
72
A Relative Is o Person
ileroe.nel:ivei.io::::uec..ele.::e.oe:cie:l,,i:.:
:ei:,,:oe:eo:io:ei.e:i:,ii:.e:.ileulooeco::ec:io:c: _
ue::cee :o li,o:i. :e.eee :o ou:i: se::o:el:io:.li c: ue
i::i:ee. si:ce :o :el:io:.li i. ::i:ee i:l :el:ive. o: eve:

clo.e:,e:elo,iclei.::ce, :le,:e i:,el,o:loll, :o:,o::e:. ilei:

:e.:e:o:,o::e:,:le:e.o::lei:.oe.e.,le:e:le, ,ueliv
-

i:,, l: :lei:occe:io:. :e. ile, :e, .il,, :o: :eeue:ee ue _

ce.e:le:ei.:o,ooe:e.o::o:eeue::le.se::leroe.nel
:ive i. :eeue:ee~:o:uece.ele i. :el:ive,ue: uece.e li. :e

ie.li.uei:,:el:iveo:.oe.ilvlee.

sli:::il:el:io:.,ie.:eeeei:,.:el:ive.,:eii..i:ii::e.e
:: oe: :l: :le, :e :ei:le: le:e :o: :le:e. i: o:e .,. :l: :,o:e
:el:eeu,ulooeo:::i,ei.:el:ive,:le::le,:e:el:ive..se:ir
o:e .,. :l: :el:ive i. .oeo:e i:l lo :el:io:.li ou:i:.,

:le: i: i. l:e :o coe:: :le, .i:ce :le, :e .ee: .o ::el,, :e :le:,

i:l,o: :o:l, ce:eo:il, o: .ecil occ.io:., :e .i:ce :le :est
occ.io:,o:,:o:eve:::ive.

ile:e i., i: .e, :e:ee:c, :o :o:,e: ei.::: coll:e:l. :e ei.::t

.ce:e::.,ue::le uoe:e:, i:ei:le::le .:o::le :e.e:: i.:e:-,

:e :le:e:ei::e:.:i:il:e.licl :e .o:eee::, ,ive:oe:t

.:oueu:el,vi.iule.ileei.:::.ce:e::.:eeee:e:o:el:io:-
.li ou:i:.i:l:le vi:loe: :el:io:.li, :le:e c:ue:o:e.o:

:o :e:i: :le . . . e:le.., o: coe:.e, :le, :e :oe., i: licl c.e

:le,,ue:eeue:ee:loe,l:lei:ee.ce:e::.lo:,coll:e:ll.:e.,
lcii:, :e, ill :o: ue i:o:. ile ei.::: coll:e:l. :e :oo ::

,. ile, uecoe .li:::i| :el:io:., ie.:eeeci:,. :el:ive., ,

:eii..i:ii:i::le,:ei:o::ll,o::le,,ueo:eo::leclie:
co:.:i:e-::.

o::lel:,e.ee::.l,ic:ico::ee:io:.

te:ic:..,eslici:l,:l::el:ive.:ee:.o:.:el:eeu,ulooeo:
::i,e.xe:le:i:coe.:o:i:,:eee.c:iui:,co:c:e:ee:.o:.,
:lec:ecilee.:io: i.le:le:o::o: :el:io:.li ou:i:.
,

vl:,:le:,ee:e:i:e.le:le::el:io:.liillesi.:o::o:vl,
i.:le:e:el:io:.lii:lo:ee:.o:ue::o:i:l :o:le:o: ,ive:
! ,

,e:eo,,.
.
(ile:e.o:te:ic:.,ivei.:l:o:ei.clo.e:e:leo:le:i.:oo
:
o.e:le:,i..ie:ouc:leeeciei:, :c:o:,,ive::l::el:io:

.li o:ulooe o: ::i,e c: ue::cee ue:ee: z,o :e .oe o:le:

pe:.o:.

se: la:i.ei.::ce

bi.::ce e:. :l:ee :li:,. i: te:ic: i.:.li. o:e e:i:, i

t` `

&

.
,..

Relatve Is a Person 7
smp!e pbysica! distance, tbat s, t means !iving in tbe same bouse, or
tbe
numberom!esbetweenbouses, ortbebours ttakestotrave! rom
one placeto anotber. 8o onebears t sad. Weneversee tbem. 1bey're
too ar away.' 1oo ar away? Yes, t takes a!most an bour to get
tbere.
}
(A second meanngo dstance s a comp!ex composte o wbat mgbt
be
ca!!edsoco-emotona!distance.1bisintumcanmeananytbingroma
mystcaleeling o identity orderence, a ee!ing o emotiona! warmtb
and understanding-or tbe lack o t-to tbe act tbat certain important
restigesymbolsareeitbersimlar bence c!ose) ordierent (bence dis-
tant ) . 1bus itmay be sad, We never see tbem. 1beyre pretty ar o.
1bat part o town bas gone way downbi!!ntbe !astew years andwe
don`t bave mucb n common witb tbem any more. Anot

ber inormant
putittbsway. noonebasbadmucb todowtbtbemeitIer. Itsa
matterotbe kindo!eandeducaton-bard!yanyotbepeo

!einber
orHarry'san.ilybavebeentocol!ege andtbatsortotbing.
j1betbirdmeaningodistancecanbe!Iedgenea!ogica!dstance.1bis
may be rougblymeasured by bow many ntervenng categories o re!a-
tives tbere are, or bow many generatons back one must go beore a
common ancestor s ound. Itmaybe sad, or nstance, 1bey`re pretty
distant re!atves. my great-grandatber`s brotber bada son, and be bad
ason-tbat's a pretty dstant re!ationsbp, isn'tit?` ,
(1bese tbree dierent meanngs o distance need not all apply in tbe
samewayorattbesametime. Apersonwbo isgenea!ogca!ly closeay
be pbysically dstant and neutra! on tb socio-emotonaldimension. Ora

&
person may be c!ose socioemotona!!y and pbyscal!y but distant genea-
!ogical!y.,
I Fgo is tbe point o reerence, and we pose tbe direct queston o
wbetber, in rea! !ie, tbis pe:son or tbatone isors not a re!atve, tben
motber,atber,brotber,sster,son,anddaugbter,a!ongwtbbusbandand
wie,are allgenea!ogca!!yc!ose re!ativesandaresocio-emotiona!!yclose
even wben tbey may be pbysica!ly dstant. Unc!e, aunt, nepbew, niece,
grandatber,grandmotber,grandson,granddaugbter, and cousn are a!so
genea!ogca!!y c!ose relatives and ar counted as re!atves

tbey are
a!ive,evenitbere!ationsbipissotbinastobebare!yperceptb!e.
8ut we go out rom Fgo to bis second ortbird cousins, many pos-
sbilties present tbemselves. Fgo may say tbat be counts tbese persons
asre!atves smplybecausetbeyarere!atedbyb!ood.Orbemaysaywitb
equa!proprety tbat
tbey are too dstant, so distant n act tbatbe does
notevenknowbow to count tbem

He maytbenask,Wbat is a second
cousn, anyway? And wbat does 'removed' mean?

' Or be may arm

74 A Relative Is a Person

;
_
-
tbat anyonepastrstcousinisnore!ativeobis since be doesnotcount

|
past rst cousins. Fven be c!aims tbem as re!atives ontbe score o ,
beingre!atedbyb!ood, besti!! maynot maintain iterpersona!tieswith

tbem anu tbereore be may say tbat be does not rea!ly count tbem as

_
re!atives. Or, unwi!!ing to go so ar as nt to count tbem as re!atives

and so perbaps burt peop!e

see!ngs, bemayassign tbem totbat !imbo

ca!led wakes-andweddings re!atives, sbirt-tai! re!ations, orkissin' kin.
8yone de8nition tbere is no option. tbose re!ated by b!ood or mar

riage are re!atives. 8ut in act, tbe decision as to wbo is a re!ative 18

made on grounds tbat are by no means pure!y matters o kinsbip. 1be

number omi!esbetween bouses ortbe numberobours ittakes to go
rom one p!ace to anotber are not in tbemse!ves matters o

kinsbip.

Neitber do tbey stand or kinsbip in tbe sense tbat pbysica! distance

migbt be used to express genea!ogca! distance. Pbysica! distance cou

H

stand or genea!ogica! distance but it does not inAmerican cu!ture.

standsorsocioemotiona!distance. Itis notpo!iteorpeop!etosaytbat

otbers are beneatb tbem socia!!y, so uey say tbat tbey !ve ar away
ortbey are stampedwitb tbe rank otbe neigbborbood tbey !ive in. 8y
tbe same token, it is not a!ways easy to exp!ain tbat one`s re!atives

socia!!y superior and so one may tactu!!y say tbat it`s a terrib!e trip
acrosstown,a!!tbatdistance,justto seetbem.8uttbisu notgenea!ogica!

distance.

One oourinormants explained tbatsbe knew tbatber grandatber's
brotberbadtbree sons. 1wo otbem wereaners in Nebraska andsbe ,
did not know tbeir names, i tbey were married ornot, or itbey bad

any cbi!dren. 8uttbe tbird son, sbe said, became a !awyer and went to
Wasbington,1. !. wberebemarried andbadtwoboys anda girl 1be
gir!,sbesaid,wasaboutberownage. 1betwo boyswerenamedobert

and ]obn

tbe gir! named mary. Yes, sbe does consider tbem ber r!a

tives. 1bey are re!atedbyb!ood, aren`t tbey? sbe asked. Wby, tben, did
sbe know a!! about one brotber but not about tbe otber two? 8be was
unab!e to answer tbat question.

Anotberinormantputiteven more simp!y, saying:

taDKy QtCtet DOt to De teateU tO UCm. He S t1VCt tat aDU SDe S W._,"_
DD1y, aDU tDCy DaVC DVe K1U8 tO _tOVC 1t. WOt tDat 1m SayDg ODC Da8 to

SucccsSu aDU We o to D CDD8UetCU a teatVe, Dut gOOUDC88. . . M

he:o 8:e thtee way8 o countng cou8n8. he ht8t 8 not to count tDem. '
8econU cODOne8 Uegtee8 o co8tet8 U8tance wth genet8ton temov8, 8o tD8t m

8thet8 8thet8 Otothe18 8on 8 my ht8t cou8n oDce removeU. he thrU 8UU8 Uegtee3

o co8tet8 U8t8nce 8nU genet8ton8! temov8 together, 8o th8t my 8thet8 8thet3.

btothet8 8on 8 my 8econU cou8:n 8nU tDe wotU oVeU 8 not u8eU. I UU no
hnU 8ny w8y8 o countng cou8D8 othet tDan the8e thtee.
.

,
`

A Relative Is a Person 75
Insum, theuzzy boundary, theFamous Re!ative, the ambiguous no-
tion
odistance, andsoonarea!!phenomenaoAmericankinshipwhich
deriveinpartrom theactthatatone!eve!there!ativeis aperson and
the
person o the re!ative is compounded o e!ements rom a variety o
derent domains, on!y one o which is kinship. Hence whether a par-
ticu!arpersonis counted asare!ativeornotdependsonhowthegenera!
ru!e-a person is a re!ative i he is re!ated by b!ood or by marriage~is
app!ied. 8ecause the decision as to who is and who is not a re!ative is
made by and about a person, and because the ru!e goveming who is
and who is not a re!ative is so precise!y ambiguous, the app!ication o
theru!e!eadstojustsuchempirica!regu!aritiesas haveherereviewed~
a very uzzy boundary to genea!ogies, what seem to be !ogica! incon-
sistencies, such as themarve!ous manipu!ation o the dierent meanings
owords !ike

re!ationship and''distance, and that pecu!iar ambiguity

whichmarks the dead-those re!atives without re!ationships.
L AI I I 1 I N I
e

'

,
,

''

. .

.
, _

= -
*_
_
..

.
:

.,

..

In the last chapter I tried to show that in American culture the relative
has two distinct yet articulated meanings. First, there are the distinctive
features which defne the person as a relative. Second, the relative as a
person is constructed of more than just the distinctive features drawn
from the symbol system of kinship, and includes elements from the age-

"

'
role system, the sex-role system, the stratifcation sysem, and so forth.
:'
But the relative as a person hs, in tum, two distinct yet articulated

meanings. On the one hand, the relative as a person is a concrete con-

struct in that it refers to the person as a living human being, a real indi-

'
vidual. On the other hand, the relative as a person is a normative con-
.
.
struct, a construct consisting of normative guides and standards in terms
of which behavior

hould proceed. In the last chapter I showed how the

rule for constructing a relative works when it operates at the level of

decisions about concrete individuals. That is, I showed how it worked

..,P
to include certain concrete individuals and exclude others and how in

its various formulations, Ego has choices which he can make and which
are essentially at his option, about which particular people to count as
relatives.
.
,

In this chapter i tum to the description of how the rule works at the


level of the relative as a normative construct. Here, for example, it is not

so much the question of whether Uncle Bill is, or is not, counted by

'
'

informant John Jones as a relative. Instead it is the question of the norma "

tive standard which John Jones and other Americans

use as a guide in

reaching decisions about Uncle Bill and all of the other persons who may

'
7

..`
)

.'
,

+.
~LOW5 HU KH8g orms 77
.:

be
considered re!atvcs. Itis, therefore, the question. Vhat is an unc!e?

(an a mother`s sister's hus5and 5e an unc!e and if so, vhat kind, and

'
if
not,vhynot?
I haveconned the discussion to re!atives H !av for tvo reasons. The

;st is that it vi!! 5efarmore usefu! to the reader to have one category

cf
re!atives carefu!!y ana!ysed in some depth and vith some care than to
have a fev faci!e examp!es taken from here and there.

The second reason for se!ecting re!atives in !av for this particu!ar ex-
position is that th:s category presents so many diEerent yet fundamenta!
pro5!ems.
I vi!! once again proceed, therefore, 5y reporting rst-order empirica!
genera!izations from materia! co!!ected in the 6e!d. Itis in this form that
any student ofAmerican kinship rst encounters it and it presents itse!f
as pro5!ematic precise!y 5ecause it does not make immediate and seIf-

evide
ntsense.Apparentcontradictions,am5iguity,andincons:stencymark
this materia!.
Sections I and II of this chapter present these 6rst-order empirica!
materia!s. SectionsIII throughVIIconstitutenoton!yanana!ysisofthose

materia!s, 5ut inc!ude the introduction vhere it is re!evant of further

empirica!materia!s. SectionsIIIthrough YII shouId not,therefore, 5ere-

garded as simp!y ana!ytic, for crucia! steps in the ana!ysis are on!y pos-
si5!e in the !ight of the empirica! materia!s vhich must, therefore, 5e
presented atthattime.
`

`*.

The contrast 5etveen re!atives 5y 5!ood and re!atives 5y marriage is

very sharp!y put in American kinship. A!though re!ative' is used to in-

c!ude 5oth re!atives 5y 5!ood and 5y marriage it is a!so used in a more

ited, speci6c, or marked sense to mean re!atives 5y 5!ood a!one, as
cpposed to re!atives in !av. Vhen`sked, Americans may proper!y say
u:at their hus5and or vife is not a re!ative, 5ut an in-!av

or someone
e!ated 5y marriage.
To 5egin vith, the matter seems c!ear enough. There are tvo distinct

c!sses of re!atives 5y marriage, each is re!ated in a diEerent vay. The

st, of course, is Ego's ovn hus5nd or vife. These re!atives are dis-
tinguished 5y 5asic kinship terms. The second c!ass consists of the
, tnother, father, 5rother, and sister of Ego's ovn spouse, a!ong vith the
sp
ouse ofEgo's5rother, sister, son,or daughter. A!!ofthese take deriva-
Iiv tenns and the in-!av modier. ( See Ta5!e I. )
Some informants say that, strict!y speaking, ones in-!avs are one's
:ouse'sc!osest5!ood re!atives, that is,one's mother-in-!av, father-in-!av,

other-in-!av, and sister-in-!av. These informants say that a!though

an in-!av to my son ' s vife or my daughter's hus5and, they are not

_:;;
'

'
78 In-laws and Kinship Terms

::
-

`-

'-'

**

^^

Qrecse!y n!aws tO me, though they are, Ot course, daughter-n-!aw and
sOn-n-!aw.

ut ``n-!aw s a!sO used tOr anyOne re!ated n any way by any mar-
rage. hus, athOugh a mans wtes brOther s hs brOther-n-!aw, hs

+ ':.
wtes sis tet s husband s nOt, and hs wites brOthers wte s nOt his

sster-n-!aw. 1et intOrmants say that they thnk ot a wtes ssters hus

band Or a wtes brOthers wite

as beng re!ated `y marrage and as

beng an in-!aw ot some kind. And the Qhrase ``by marrage can be
cOmbined wth any ot the basic xinshiQ terms, sO that One may hear Ot

a ``neQhew by marrage Or a cOusin by marrage, etc.

here s st!! anOther use Ot `'in-!aws that s as a kind Ot co!!ectve

desgnatOn tOr anyOne n any way connected thrOugh Ones Own sQouse.
eoQe may have what they descrbe as ``n-!aw trOub!es and so may
desgnate ther ``n-!aws as Out!aws, Or they may hnd themse!ves
Ob!ged tO sQend Lhrstmas Or hanksgvng wth ther ``n-!aws. An-_
nventOry OtwhO s nc!uded n that cO!!ectve desgnatOn might lnc!ude
QersOns wth whOm On!y the Vaguest t any re!atOnshQ can be traced.,
Jet the desgnatOn makes a certain amOunt Ot sense since LgOs Own
!nk tO them s thrOugh hs sQouse and sO s n aw, whatever the Qre-
cse nature Ot ther !inkage may be to Lgos Own sQOuse.

1na!!y, n-!aw Or by marrage s a!sO used by sOme ntOrmants Io

anyone whO is re!ated tO a sQOuse Ot one Ot Lgos Own b!Ood re!atves

hus, a mans tathers sslers husbands mOther, tather, brOther, sister

,
a!Ong with the brOthers wte, and ssters husband can a!! be descrbed

( t d b
+ J 44 _ 7
. `
as re a e y marrage Or :n a\v.

here areat!eastthetO!!owingdstingushab!ec!asseswhchcan ban

sOmetmes are desgnated as in-!aws and ``re!ated by marrage, b
sOme ntOrmants. [ bee ab!e II. ) 1irst, there s Lgos Own sQOuse, to
whOm there s a basc knshQ term, husband and wte. becOnd, tDer ar
the c!Osest b!Ood re!atves Ot LgOs own sQOuse and the sQouse Ot LgO

c!Osest b!OOd re!atves name!y, mOther-n-!aw, tather-in-!aw, brother-
!aw, sister-n-!aw, sOn-n-!aw, and daughter-in-!aw. hese a!!haVe derva

tVe kn terms. hrd, there are those whO are re!atves Ot ones O
sQOuse, however they may be re!ated tO Ones sQOuse, whO are nOt

wse nOted abOve. hese wOu!d be, tOr nstance, a sQOuses mOthe
brOther and hs wte. LxceQt tor sQOuses sb!ngs son and daugh
``neQhew and ``niece, ntOrmants dO nOt agree On the QroQer
terms, t any, tor these. 1ourth, there are thOse who are the sQouses
any Ot the remander Ot LgOs b!OOd re!atVes, that s, a!! those 7 F
daughter's husband and sOns wte. Jhs wOu!d nc!ude, tOr nstance,
cOusns wte Or a neces husbanq. Lt these, ntOrmants are agreed
on aunts husband and unc!es wte, kinshQ terms tOr whom are 'c

i,;,

Class
1.
Own spouse
2.
( a) Own spouses cosest
bood reatves
( b) 5pouse ol Lgos own
cosest bood reatves
3.
( a) Own spouses other
reatives ( except
those n .a)
( b) 5pouses sibngs
chidren
4.
( a) 5pouses ol any ot
Lgos own blood
reatves ( excep!
2. b and 4. b)
( b) \nces and aunts
spouse
.
( a ) ( b) Beatves ol!he
spouses ol Lgos bood
reatives
lnLaws and Kinship Terms 79
Toble I.
''ln Lows'' or keIotives by morroQe
Examples
Hu, V
5pMo, 5pa,
5pUr, 5p5i
5o5p, La5p, Ur5p,
5i5p, aV, MoHu
5pMoUr, 5pMoUrVi,
5paMo, 5paUr5o,
5paUr5o Vi, etc.
5p5i5o, 5p5La,
5pUr5o, 5pUrLa
Lonsanguines
spouse. aUr5oVi,
a5LaHu, 5o5oVi,
5oLaHu, etc.
MoUrVi, aUrVi,
Mo5Hu, a5Hu
MoUrViUr & 5,
Mo5HuUr 5i,
aaUrV5 & Ur
Kin Terms .
Husband, Vle
Mo!her-in-aw,
ather-in-aw,
Urother-in-aw,
etc.
Laughter-in-
aw, son-n-
aw, sster-n-
aw, etc.
5tep-mother,
5tep-a!her
r
Mephew, Nece
V

\nce, Aunt

nd"auntrespectiveIy. Thesearethe recIprocaIsoInephew andnIece H

me third cIass aoove. The 5Ith cIass consists oI the reIatIves oI the

ousesofgo'soIood reIatives: ason'sordaughter's spouse`smotherand

Ither, Ior instance, ora mother' s orother's wiIe's orother and sIster and
eir husoand and wiIe. nIormants oer no specibc kInshIp terms Ior

t
0
ese, orwhen they do, do not agree onthe correct orproper terms.

The amoiguities oI the phrases ''in-Iaws" and ''oy marriage'' oegIn to

ppear whenwe consider the Iact that dierent ways

oI tracIng connec-

..
:

;.
_ _

80 In-Laws and kinship Terms

__ _
_

tions'by marriage`

arepossib!e and tbattbe pbrase itse!does notseem

torequiretbatonewaybecbosenoveranotber. moreover,kinsbipterms

are app!ied to certain persons inways wbicb seem to suggest tbat tbey

are examp!esotbe meaning otbatpbrase and tbattbeytbereore can

be taken as guides to its proper use

Dicu!ties start rom tbe act tbat a son`s wie and daugbter`s bus-

band are ''daugbter-in-!awand son-ir.-!aw,but unc!e's wie and aunts

busband do not take tbe i::-!avv modier at a!!. 1bey are, inormants

.
.

say, ''auntand unc!e,`

,
and tbey are not distinguisbedrom b!ood re!a-

tivesbytbosekinsbipterms.Aunt"canbeatber'ssister,atber'sbrotber's

wie, motbers sister, or motbers brotber's wie. ''Unc!e`` can be atber`s ___
brotbcr, atber's sister`s busband, motber`s brotber, or motber`s sister`s
busband.
Iason'swieis a''daugbter-:n-!aw,and an unc!e's wieis an`'aunt,

wbattbenisacousin`swie?8ytbe'

daugbter-in-!aw`

examp!esbemigbt

'

_
be a cousin-in-!aw, but sbe isnotca!!ed tbis very oten. 8y tbe aunt

examp!esbemigbtbe a'cousin,``andsomepeop!edo ca!!them'cousin,

butmanypeop!esay tbat tbereis no kinsbip term or a cousin`s spouse.

Otbose wbo saytbere is no proper kinsbip term or a cousin's spouse, _

some saytbattbesearenotre!atives, wbi!eotbers say tbattbey are re!a-

___

tivesbymarriagebut witboutspecia!names.
.

Wbat,tben,bappenstonepbew`'andniece?On tbeoneband, since
`
nepbew and ''niece are tbe reciproca!s o ''unc!e'` and 'aunt, tbese _
tensinc!udebotbasib!ing`scbi!dandaspouse`s siL!ing's cbi!d,tbereby

c!assing b!ood re!atives witb tbose by marriage just as in tbe case o
uncle and aunt. On tbe otber band, as in tbe case ocousin, :t is

oten said tbat tbe spouse oa nepbew or a niece does not bave a kin-

sbip term. 8ometimes one bears tbe pbrase ''nepbew ( niece) by mar-
riage,or some ora!!otbese. Here it is even more prob!ematic

since
tbe nepbew or niece may be ( a ) a sib!ing's cbi!d or ( h) a spouses
:
sib!ing`s cbi!d. 1be spouse o a sib!ing`s cbi!d is !ike tbe spouse o a

cousin, some inormants say tbat tbey are nepbew'` and niece, and

somesaytbattbereisnotermortbem.1bespouseoaspouse`ssib!ing`s

cbi!disconsideredtobeanin-!awby some inormants butnotbyotbers

and o| tbose wbo consider tbem re!atives by marriage, on!y some bo!d

nepbewandnieceto betbeproperkinsbip term.

Deatb,divorce,andremarriagea!!raisespecia!prob!emswb:cburtber

comp!icatematters. Hereagaintbeprob!emotbeunc!e orauntmarried

to a b!ood re!ativecan bea sourceo some uncertainty.

Itseems reasonab!y c!ear to many inormants tbattbebusband o an`

aunt or tbe wie o an unc!e are unc!e and aunt

respective!y, on!y as

!ongastbey aremarried.1bis o!!owsrom tbeact tbat tbey are unc!e

,

:

`
,

'
'
,,

.'~

''
,
,
.

'
..

'
.

, , ,
`

:'
,
'
' '

'
'

,
,

lnLaws and Kinship Terms

d1
:ee::,e.:ueee.-:le,:-:lele.u:eo::e::o::l-i:-o::
e:eie. vl-: :l-, :- :o io:,e::ei:-e u,.:.,-,:l: i.,l-: :le
::i,- i. ov-:u-ee.e o: e-:l o: eivo:ee, :le: :le, :e :o io:,-:
:ei:ee:e:l-:-:o:e:-:oio:,-:e:ei-o:e::.
n-ve::l-i-.., .o- i::o:::. .., :l: i: -:.o: l. e-veio-e
.e:ii:-i:io:.l. i:l .: e::. le.u:eo: .: e:ei-. :e, o: i.i-.
:lev-:,.neel,:l-: -v-:i::l-::i,-u:-i..,i:eo-. :o:e:
:l::le,:e:oio:,e:e:eie:ee::.il-,:ei:e:ei-:ee::u-
ee.-o:c,o. :ei:io:.liei:-e:i,:o:l-. so,:l-.-i::o:::..,, i:
:lee:::e::i-.,l-::e:le.u.:ei. :o::l-i:e:ei-u-e.e.-:le,i
:ee,lv-:e:ei-.il-.e.i:e:io:oeieloie::e-i::l-e:ei-ei-e
:e:lee:::-::i-ero:.o-i::o:.::.:e:ei-i. :e:ei-le:
.eeii:-i:io:.liou:i:.ei:-e:i,i:ll.,:e.o:oo:e::.
i:ei.ee..i:,:li.:oui-.:leliie:-:,eiae:-::vi-oee..o:ii,
--:,e..t:eeliie:e:.,:l:i::e::.le.u:eo:.:e:ei-.i:e
ei-. o:i. eivo:eee, :l-, :-ve::l-ie.. :ei: e:ei- :e e::, :-.-e
:i-i,,:e :l-i: .eee-..o:. eo :o:u-eo- e:eie :e .e::. ile :-.o:
,iv-: i.:l:-v-::loe,l:lee:ei-:e .e::-:-:-i:-er:.:u,:
:i,-, :l-, :-i: e:eie :e e:: u-ee.- :l-, :e:l- eliie. eoe.i:.

o:le: :e ::le: t. :le.e eliie:e: e: i:, He i. , e:ei- :,,

u-ee.-l-i. ,eoe.i:. ::le:.

He:-, i: i,l:.e-, e:eie :e .e::

ueeo-uiooe:ei:ive..s-ee.-:le,:-uiooe:-i:.v-.,:-i:l-:eivo:ee
:o::-::i,-i:-:.:l-i:o..:io:.
t .-eo:e:ouielieli.:i.-eu,e-:lo:eivo:e- i. :l-:oui-
o::l-.:-:-i:iv-..il-:ouieeo:...:.i::l-:e::l:i:loe,l.o-
t-:ie:. ..-::, :, o:l-: t-:ie:. ee:, :l: :le.e :e :ei:iv-.
u, ::i,- i: :le .- , .. ::l-::i, e:l-:.:i, -:e.,
:-.

.
vl-:ee-:lo:eivo:e-ieve. -:.o:i:leliie:e:, :e:-:e:
rie., :le::le:- .oe.ei. .:-:-:: :o:lo.e eliie:e:. i:,e.::n-
.e,,i:o:-o:,.:-::.i.:oio:,-:::i-e:o:l-o:l-:u-ee.-
o:ee:l o:eivo:e-,:e, :ei:i:, :-:: :-::i-., :l-::le:e
` See W. H. Goodenough, 'Yankee Kinship Terminology: A Problem in Com
ponential Analysis," in "Formal Semantic Analysis," ed. E. A. Hammel, American
Anthropologist, 61:5, Part 2 (Iu6s) , z61. '"A PaSi's or PaPaDa's second Hu is iess
assuredly my uncle than the frst Hu if Ego has already established a relationship
with the frst Hu as my uncle," and he says the, same thing for my aunt." It is in
teresting that Goodenough did nothing with this very crucial piece of data. He
neither resolved the question of what .. less assuredly, means nor attempted to raise
the important question of the signifcance of the phrase "a relationship." I noted this
point i n my critique of his paper, D. M. Schneider, "American Kin Terms and

Terms for Kinsmen: A Critique of Goodenough's Componential Analysis of Yankee

Kinship Terminology/' in "Formal Semantic Analysis;' ed. E. A. Hammel, Ame1ican

Anthropologist, 61:5, Part 2 (1965) , footnote 4, p. 30o.

~
,,
B7 lnLaws and Kinship Terms

``
spouse o myparent Becomes my step-parent, and his chiIdren my step
sihIings. But are they aII my ''reIatives By marrage?

Some Americans amrm that a mother-in-Iaw and a step-mother hav

very IittIe in common. One is a spouse's mother, the other is one's ow

mother, and these are very derent.

Some inormants say that an uncIe's wie is an aunt and that she is
a
reIativeBymarriage. Someinormants

saythatan uncIe'swieisan aunt,

But that she is not reaIIy a reIative at aII, just an uncIe`s wie. Some in

ormants say that an uncIe's wie is an aunt and that she is a reIative

orso Iongas she is marricd to thc uncIe, But isheis divorcedor ithe

uncIe dies, she is no Ionger a roIative. 1hese inormants add that it i

poIite to continue to caII her ''aunt SaIIy just as Beore, i thc uncI

,
dies. But i the uncIe and aunt were divorccd it depcnds. the uncIe
died, she may continue to see the amiIy }ustas she used to. Some chd.,
dren say that she istheiraunt no matter whether she is divorced or th
uncIe is dead, Bccause she is their cousin's mother. And somc say she is
theiraunt i they Iike her, But not i they dont.

1his situation is suBstantiaIIythe same or the aunts husBand, orthe

grandather`s second wie who is not the parent's mother ( or his third

wie, or thatmatter) or the grandmother's second husBand who is not

the parent's ather ( or herthird husBand) . It is aIso approximateIy the
same, But with certain signicant dierences, or the spouse`s siBIing's

chiId, nephew, and niece, the reciprocaI o the uncIe` s wie (aunt ) an

aunts husBand ( uncIe) . 1hat is, or my ather's sister`s husBand, I am

his wie`s Brother's chiId
1here is one important asymmetricaIBias to aII o this. 1he inormant

who is rm aBout countinghis uncIe's wic as an aunt and as a reIative

ismuch Iess nn aBout his spouse's siBIing's chiId. He does not address

that chiId as ''

nephew'' or 'niece,''and he may say thathc does not eeI

ascIose tohisspouse'ssiBIing`schiId as he eeIsto hisuncIe'swie or his

aunts husBand. Vhen inormants arc asked to comparc their spouse's

siBIing's chiId with their uncIe's or aunts spouse there is much Iess as-
surance aBout the spouse`s sBIing`s chiId Being a niece or ncphew than

there is aBout the uncIe's or aunt s spouse Being an aunt or uncIc, ot_
even Being a reIative. Further, inormants oten resort to a rather odd,'
orm oIogic,which reads: 'Imyaunt's husBand is myuncIe,then I am,
his wiJe's siBIng's chiId, and i he is my uncIe then must Bc his
nephew.'` 1he opposite avenue o argument, that becaue am i
nephew he must Be my uncIe, is notonIy seIdom oered spontaneousIy

Butwhen inormants are aske to try it thcy saythat thc whoIe ormuIa
sounds vcry odd orawkward to them, though they may not Be aBIc t
putinto words just what is wrong with it. .

fn.Laws and Kinship Terms 83

This asymmetry is especially marked when the spouse's sibling's child
happ
ens to be the child of the sibling of an ex-spouse. After the divorce,
whatever the child may say, the informant may be quite frm about the
fact that his ex-wife's or ex-husband's sibling's child is not really a
nephew or niece at all. But, indeed here again it is important to note
that
informants volunteer that this often depends on the relationship
with the child, the ex-spouse, the sibling of the ex-spouse, the parents of
the
ex-spouse, how long they were married, how well they got on with
their in-laws, and so forth.
A second asymmetry which should be noted is in the way in which
the
kinship terms are applied. Though I address my aunt's husband as
<<uncle Bill," he does not call me nephew.'' For him not to use a kinship
term is correct and proper usage; for me to fail to use a kinship term
ray be considered to be disrespectful. In the same way, in the context
of identifcation, one may say o- an aunt's husband, <He is my uncle,"
and leave it at that. Children tend to identify uncles and aunts quickly
and easily in just that way and without qualifcation unless specifcally
pressed with such questions as : And just how is he related to you?''
But informants do not hesitate to identify a person as umy nephew by
marriage" or "niece by marriage.'' <She is my wife's niece'" or 'ne is my
husband's nephew'' are common usages.
If.
But this is only to raise the question of the meaning and uses of kin
ship terms in American kinship. Why should children tend to identify
their aunfs husband and uncle's wife as my uncle'' and my aunt,''
while adults reciprocate by saying, uShe is my -vife's niece'' or ne is my
husband's nephew'?
"
Any discussion of kinship terms with informants tends to move im
mediately into the frame of Who Is Called What and Py Whom. No
matter how one asks the questions, they all seem to lead right back to
the frm ground of specifying who calls whom what. Yes, informants say,
I have heard the word <pop'' used. But then they go on to talk about
how much diference it makes who calls whom "pop."
Who, then, is called what and by whom in American kinship?
The frst point which must be made is that there is a wide variety of
alternate terms and usages applicable to any particular kind of person
as a relative. To put it another way, there are far more kinship terms
and terms for kinsmen than there are kinds of kinsmen, or categories of
kinsmen.
Mother may be called <'mother," mom,:' "'ra,'' "mummy," ''mama/
B4 In-laws and Kinship Terms

'o!d woman,''orbyherrst name, nckname, a dmnutve, ora variety

_
o other desgnatons, nc!uding unque or diosyncratc appe!!atons,
sometimes re!ated to baby-ta!k Father may be ca!!ed ''ather, pop,'

d d'
' d dd

'
cc
1d
''
7?
b h

pa, a , a y, o man, ooss, or y :s rt name, n:c name,

a dimnut|ve,ora variety o!ess common!y used desgnatons, inc!uding

unque or diosyncratic appe!!ations, sometimes re!ated to baby-ta!k.
Unc!esmaybeaddressedorreerredto asunc!e-p!us-rst-name,rstname

a!one, or unc!e a!one. And so, too, aunts. Orandparents may be ca!!ed

.
d
.

d
7 4

''

1 b

gran ma

gran pa, gramma, grapa, nana , ast names may -

added to dstingush Oramma ]ones'' rom Oramma 8mith. Cousins

are addressed by ther rst name

nckname, a dminutve, orother per-

sona! orm o designaton, or as cousn-p!us-rst-name ( ''Cousn ]!!) . .
8 b 11 d ''

'

dd

:,
.
b h b t

on may e ca e son, sonny, : , y, ooy, or y :s rs

name, nickname, a dmnutve, or other orms o persona! designation.

Anddaughtermaybeca!!ed''gr!,

sster,daughter,`byherrstname,

nckname,

a dimnutve, or sisterp!usrst-name ( '8ster ]ane) , as we!!

as diosyncratic and persona! orms. Kd as a o: or chi!d does not

distngush son rom daughter 8rother may be

1rother,

,
brother-p!us-

rst-name, rst name a!one, nickname, dminutves, or persona! ons.
8ster may be '' sister, sister-p!us-rst-name, rst name a!one, nckname,

dminutves, or persona! orms.

.
1heuseopersona!pronounsandvaratonsinspecyingtowhomthe

re!ationshp s urther ncreases the number o a!ternatives. mother, or

.,
nstance,maybemymotherorjust'mother.`'One mayreerto athrd
person by his re!atonshp to the speaker (my mother) , to the person

spokento ( yourmother) , or,asnteknonymytosomeonee!se ( om

mother) as we!!as by some attrbute or qua!ity ( the great mother).

8ome inomants ca!! therspouse'sparents by parenta!terms, that is,
spouse's mother is 'mother,``

'ma, mom, etc., wh!e ather s ather,''

pa, ''pop,'' dad,'

etc. 8ome use a parenta!-p!us-name orm such

as

mother8mth ( Father8mith), mother]ane ( Father]im) , or maPerkns

( Pa Perkns ) . First-naming is a!so used here, but inomants are oten

quck to statethatrst-namng is not a!ways therstname used Ithey
met as strangers theresatendencytoward mr. and mrs-p!us-!astname

orms,andon!y!aterwhenthe spouse'sparentpermtsornvites tisthe

rst

-nameorm used. Inormantsarea!soqucktonotethepreva!enceo

no-namng here.Oneno:antnhsmid-ftes,marredormorethan

twentyyears, c!amed thathehad neveraddressed hs we`s motherby

any orm whatever! I twas abso!ute!y necessary to get her attenton

This is the zero form of address. It may sometimes be articulated as throat '
clearing or "uh hum" sort of noise. Erving Cofman frst suggested the term "no-

nammg to me some years ago.

` `:

`'

.:

+
.:
:.
_

_
`.
`

.
'.

`
_

'

__

`
`
'

+
_ _

'

'

`
- :

In-Laws and Kinship Terms 85

hemadecoughing orthroat-c!earingnoises,towhich shehad!earned to
respond
Where a parent-in-!aw is rst-named with his permission oron his in-

vitation

asib!ing-in-!awmayormaynotstandonsuch ceremony. Forms

or sib!ings-in-!aw are the same as those avai!ab!e to sib!ings.
Usage varies with who is being spoken to and who is being spoken
obout. One inormant reers to his mother as mother'` when speaking
to his ather

as ma'` or mom when speaking to his brother, and as

'my mothervhen speaking tohis uncie ( his mother`s brother ) orwith
a stranger. Another inormant, who says heusua!!y cai!s his mother-in-
!aw mom when speaking with his wie about her, studious!y avoids
ca!!ing her anything when his own mothcr is present ( no-naming) . An-
otherinormantca!!shisather'sbrotherUncie8i!!whenspeakingwith
hisather,''8i!lwhen speaking to his ather'sbrotherdirect!y, provided
no one e!se is present, andmy unc!ewhen te!!ingstories about his ex-
p!oits tosome riendwho doesnotknowhim.
8on:e inormants say that they rare!y iever conIne themse!ves to a
s:ngietermoranygivenkinsman8omeotheseinormantssaythatthey
use aprincipa!orm anda!ternateorms,butotherinormantsdonot
nd iteasyto saywhich isaprincipa!

andwhichan a!ternate orm.

Where a!! inormants are wi!!ing to !ist ''dad and ''daddy'` as orms
which they cou!d use with any other ather term

some inormants say

that ''ather

` and pop'' are incompatib!e. 1hat is, i Fgo uses ''ather

he is un!ikely, and unwi!!ing

to use pop or ''pa. Converse!y, i Fgo

uses pop or pa, he is un!ike!y to use ''ather with any regu!arity .
Ontheotherhand,dad iscompatib!ewithany anda!!othea!temate

terms.

Inormants who useathe_` expiainedthat theywou!d se!dom i ever

use''poporpabecauseitwas entire!y too ami!iar and somehow did

notimp!ythemeasureorespectthatwasrequired.1hosewhouse''pop
..
or pa take the same position, but rom the other side. Ihey wou!d

se!domuse''ather,`'theysay,becauseitimp!iesauthorityandrespect in

greatermeasurethaneithertheyortheiratherdeemedappropriate, and
`:

`
_
:noreorma!ityand impersona!distancethanwasdesirab!e.1his isnotto
saythatpoporpaor'dad`'impiyany!ackorespect oranyabsence
o authority Quite the contrary. Itisjustthatthesequa!itiesarenotthe
`

sa!ient ones in thoseterms.

ca',

s
u-
o
.e
i
h.
h
...- .,
c
`.
n
.'
saidthat'maand''momwere !ess !ike!y tobeusedby daughters than
by sons, and that mother

was more acceptab!e to daughters than to

sons.
86 lnLaws and Kinship Terms
1heorma! term ''ather isnot the precise ana!og othe orma! teo
mother.' `

''Father`` has orma!ity and authority and respect imp!ications

which ''mother'` does not share. For instance, some ma!e inormants re-

ported that when they argued withtheir athers they wou!d avoid any

orm o address ( no-naming again) , and one inormant reported that .

i, during an argumentwith his ather, he used the term, he wou!d ee! '
orcedtoabandontheargument . 'Youshou!dn`targuewith yourather| _
8yavoidingtheuseo theterm,hewasnotorced toace the transgres-

sion that was imp!ied.

On the other hand, ma!e inormants who reported that they wou!d

avoid any ormoaddresswhi!e arguingwith theirather readilystated

thatanargumentwiththeirmotherinc!uded such exc!amations as, Oh,

motherland, ''8ut,mom,howcanyousaysuch a thing?1hatis

there

was no such inhibition on the useothe term ''mother' `

as there was on

'

the use o the term ather.

,


Iinonerespectinormantssaythattheyuseatherterms dierent!y

rom ''motherterms, in another respect they usethem in the sameway.
As sma!! chi!dron it is appropriate or both males and ema!es to use

''daddy,'` ''mommy,' or''mummy'`-thatis, inorma! or diminutive tes.

8utmen rom the North say that as they grow upthey drop '

daddy,

ee!ing it to be chi!dish or eeminate, whi!e women may keep dadd`

orshittoather.'`
Inormants sometimes report the use o rst names a!one or bu

`
unc!esandauntsInworkingoverparticu!argenea!ogieswith normants

itisobviousthat someinormants donotapp!yany particu!arterm con

'
sistent!y or a!! aunts or ora!! unc!es. 1hat is, one inormant ca!!ed his

mother s e!der brother ''Unc!e ]im and his mother`s younger brother
'

8i!!.'' Another reported that he ca!led his mother`s sister ''Aunt ]ane`
andhis mother's sister`shusband'(ohn.''
.
When is the ''aunt' oruncle term p!us nrst name proper, as against
rst name a!one?

8ome inormants saythatthey preerto use rst namea!oneor aunts

on the mother`s side rather than on the ather`s side and preer to 1se

therstnamea!oneorma!esratherthanorema!es.

8ome inormants saythat they dropped aunt' and ''unc!e terms and
used rst names a!one ater they started going to co!!ege or ater the
e!t grown-up enough. 8ome inormants reported that where there was

strong aect, either positive or negative, the unc!e term wou!d b

droppedinavoro therstnamea!one. Forinstance, an inormant wit

three unc!es ca!!ed one '']ohn, one `'Unc!e 8i!!, and the other ]iM*

He exp!ained this by saying that the rst person was a dirty soands

andthathewou!dnotdigniyhimbyca!!inghimunc!e.Askedwhyh

.
.-
.

In-Laws and Kinship Terms 87

didnotcaIIJim UncIe|im,' he expIained, |im is a wondcruI guy! He
andIhaveaIwaysbeenthebestriends!'` And UncIe BiII UncIe BiIIw as
neutraI, ''a nice guy.``
ItheaIternate termsoruncIes and aunts consisto uncIe" or aunt
aIone, 8rst namepIusuncIe`or'aunt,'` and nrst name aIone, one might
say that there were onIy three alternate orms, and that three is not a
very Iarge number.
Butthere can be no such compIaint about thc terms orhusband and
wie. Here the eIaboration o aIternate terms goes much urther than it
does anywhere eIse inthe American kinship system.
1crms orhusband and wie aII into three rough categories . kinship
terms,variationsonone ` sgivenname ( 8rstnamc,nicknamc, diminutives,
etc. ) , and a group that might be givcn speciaI dignity and ormaIity by
being IabeIed terms oendearment.``Kinshipterms are made upotwo
subcategories hrst, tcrms used to indicate the order o kin, i.c., terms
o identi8cation that expIain who he orshe is, such as my wie. my
h b d x ?
,
x ? d t t
. ..
th `` us an , rs. , or r. ; secon , paren erms, t.e., mo er,
''mom,` or my oId woman, '` or the wie. ather," dad,` ' or my oId
manorthe husband. 1erms oendearment aIIintoa series ocIasses
saccharine terms ( honey, sugar, sweet. cookie, etc.), aection terms
( Iove,beIoved, Iover,etc. )
.
animaIandvegetabIe terms ( kitten, bearcat,
pumpkin, cabbage, etc. ) , and a Iarge and varied coIIection o misceI-
Ianeous and idiosyncratic terms, some othem nonsense syIIabIes ( baby,
pookums, etc.). We arc aII amiIiar with at Ieast some o these terms.
1hcre is probabIy a greater variety o terms or wie than there is or
husband.
1wo other sets o aIternatc terms shouId be noted. 1he 8rst is the
grandparent, parent, spouse
.
sibIing

chiId, and grandchiId set. Here

ather andmotherare ''parent,` usband and wie are 'spouse, brother
andsisteraresibIing,` and son and daughtcr are 'chiId.'

1his set treats

thesexothe reIative as without signi8cance, but speci8es generationaI
discrepancies. Inthe setcontainingtheanccs

tor,ancestress. and descend-

ant, the sex o the reIative is distinguished in the ascending generations
.
butignored in the descending generations, andthcparticuIar generaion
,

is ignored here as itis speci8edin the 8rst o thesetwo sets. 1he treat-
-

m
h
cntose

xin
d
this setisve

rymuch

Ii
th
kcth

e tr
(
catment
(
osex i
h
n the

tr
h
iad
w ich is o ere as the de nition o e amiy; namey, mot er, at er,

andchiId, orhusband and wieand theirchiIdren.

A particuIarIy interesting set o usages is that in which a man uses

mother,`''mom.'' ''my oIdwoman,`

`orother parentaI tenns or both his

wie and his mothcr, and a woman uses ''ather," dad, ' my oId man,'`

i. or other parentaI terms or both her husband and ather.

.-

.
88 In-Laws and Kits hip Terms
`
`
`

Onecontext inwhich this occurs iswhen an adult speaks to his ci

about the child`s otherparent, and uses the childs term orthat are

A man will say to his son, ''1here is mother, or he may say, Oo t.
mother, Oive this to mother,' or Ask .other.`` A woman

o course

says the samethings to her child, using the iather terms or her hu
b d

an .

Americans sometimes say that :n

dealing with children, particulatly

young children, they use the term the child would use, they add tha

thishelpsthechildtolearn. 8o,although Imay bethechilds mother
ather,I wouldsay tothechild,Ihere is ( your) ather ( ormother) .`'
Ihis point may have some merit but its two parts should b
- kep

separate.1hereisatimeinachild`sl:1ewhenallgrown-upsaremother
or ''ather``, this time is ollowed by a time when all grown-ups ar,
mother and ''ather,` but not necessarily the:r own

I encountered

child o about our, struggling with a knotted shoelace, who appeale

tome. 8omebody'sdaddy!Pleasexmyshoelace On anotheroccasio

I was told by a child to 'Oo ask your mother iyou can come out n
playwithus,`' bywhich I understoodh:m tomean that I should tell
wie, I knewthatshewasnotmymotherevenihedidnot. 8uch usage

bychildren are not uncommon. 1hey seem to berelated to the acttha

adults do use the child`sterms or otheradults, saying that they do ti
inorder to helpthe child learn the proper usages.

In many cases o this sort, however, the children are not involved
children, or they are not involved at all. I I speak to my cousin .
his mother I maysay 'yourmother or ''Aunt 8ally. When I say yor

mother,`

Ican dosowhetherheis asmaIlchildora grownman. 8ur

a grown mandoesnotneed to learn thatthe lady ishis mother, orw

kinship term he should useorher.

Ihesameistrueorone`sownchild Onemaysaytoone'sown ci
very small or ully grown, ''Oive this to mother. When I speak to

very small childortomyullyadultone about grandather or gran

mother``ratherthan about''myatherormymother,'` I make a speci

pointwhichisnotinitseIconnectedwithmychild's age. Awomanw

addressesherhusband'smoherasgrandma may do this longaterI

child has grown up. But I can also speak to a child o any age abo

''mymotherand'myather,speakingothesepersons in terms oI

relationships to meandnot to him. Ihe manipulation opossessivep
nouns aIso

does not have much to do w:th the age o a child orev

whether children are present. Io say, ''Oive this to mother," is not

O
.
h
.
h
.._.
h
h

.
sameasto say, :vet :s to yourmot er or :vet is to my mot

Undercertain circumstances, when a man says to a child, Oive this

lnLaws and Kinship Terms

89
mother,itisnotamatteroyourn.other
somuchasitis'themothe
r

`
in
the amily.
Ihere is one nal point which must be made in this
connectio
n, and
that is about reciprocals. When a man addresses his wie
by some
'
mother" tenn, she does not call him son e,cept to make that
point
And when a woman calls herhusband''dad`` or talksabouthim as ''my
old
man,''hedoesnotreciprocatewithdaughter'' terms. Ihe
reciprocal
o''mother isather'' whenthe speakers arehusband andwie, though
o
course itdoes nothave tobe. Iaman calls his mothermother,
the
reciprocalmaywellbea''son"term likehisrst name,though ocourse
it
doesnot havetobe.

Ihe pedagogic point is simply inadequate as an explanation, and so

too is the ''rule that one uses the child's term or the adult. Ihe act
o the matteris that weobserved many cases where husbands who call

their
wives by mother`' terms, and wives who call their husbands by
ather`' terms, do not have any children, never have had any children,
and have no prospecto ever having any children| Ihey are usingpar-

ental terms or each other in a way which cannot have anything to do

with actualchildren, since therearenoactual children involved.
MI-
Iheuncertainties,inconsistencies,andambiguitieswhich seemtochar-
acterize the relatives by marriage and kinship terms are not in the sys-

tem itsel. Neither are they in the minds o the natives who act within

its jurisdiction. Instead, they are inthe mind o the observer who does

not understand the

cultural categories, how they are dened and dier-

eutiated, andhowtheyarticulateintoameaningulwhole.

]ust what is problematic abot in-laws or relatives by marriage and

inship tens?
Ihe problematic materials consisto the variance atmanypoints and
tle apparently ineplicable absence o variance at others. Ihe variance

onsists, or example,o the act that uncle` s vie and aunt's husband,
.

e inormants say, ( a ) are relatives, ( b) arekinds orelatives called

-

aunt`' and 'uncle respectively, along with parents` siblings, ( c ) these

aretheproperkinshiptermsorthem,and ( d) aremembersotheclass

, .
.
_
. relativescalled''relativesbymarriageorin-law."Butsomeinormants
|

y either one ormore o the items ( a ) through ( d) above. Another

exampleovariancethatseemsproblematicisthe cousin`s spouse 8ome
g;

ormants saythatacousin'shusbandor wieis a relative, thatcousin

the
proper kinship term or such a relative, and that such relatives
Y0 lnLaws and Kinship Terms

are members o the category reIative by marriage or in-Iaw. Other

inormants say that a cousin's husband or wie is a cousins husband or

wie and nota reIative atalI
, and that there is nokinship term or such

a person. Yet other inormants say that a cousin's husband or wie is a

reIative o, marriage or an :n-Ia

_
, but that no sp

ciaI kinship term

isproper to such a reIative.

Itisimportanttonote,however,tliatthe dierencesamonginormants

'e
e
o
a
.'
e
a
t
o...
e
"i',....
a
-
i
.
t
a`
t
..

instance,thatitwouIdbewrongorthem to count acousin's husbandas

a cousin, but they know that some peopIe do, and that it is perectIy

proper or them to do so. Another example is the act that three modes
of address or uncIes and aunts are prevaIent, each is regarded as per

ectIy proper, andthe grounds onwhich one or anotherorm is rejected

by anyparticuIar speaker are considered to bematters o ree personaI

choice, or matters connected with our kind o peopIe.''

This kind o variance isin sharp contrast with the situation in regard
to the distinctive eatures which dcne the person as a reIative, which

were presented in thehrst part o this book.

I the totaIresponse-that

is, aII o the interviews and data coIIected rom a given inormant over

a period o six to twenty-our months-o dierent inormants is com-

pared on such questions as, ''What kin reIationship, i any, is your

genitor to you?'' and What kinreIationship, i any, is your uncIe's wie
( or aunt's husband) to your" there is not onIy a very high degree o

agreement on responses to the 8rst question, but variant responses or

variantinstancesaretreatedaswrongimproper,andilIegitimate,aserrors
o act or judgment. The situation is just the reverse with the totaI re-

sponses to the second question, and variant responses are treated as

Iegitimate aIt
_
rnatives.

But one urther and most important act must be emphasized. I in-

ormantsare askedthesecond question, nameIy, Whatkin reIationship,

any,isyouruncIe'swie ( or aunt'shusband) to you?'' they are aImost

unanimousintheirimmediate response.1heyaImostaIwaysanswer,''8he
is my aunt'' or ''He is my uncIe.' `

! a survey were taken o U random

sampIeoAmericans I have no doubt that an overwheImingmajority oI

respondents wouId answer that question in just that way, and i the

inquiry stopped there, that is aIl that wouIdbe Iearned.

1hevarianceinthedataonIyemergesateravarietyodierentques
tions havebeen ramed and oered, ater a variety o dierent observa

tions have b

en eIicited and discussed, and ater the heIdworker has

substantiaIbodyo knowIedge about the inormant rom his geneaIogy

-.
+

,
,

,
.`

.::

, ,
_

, ,

tnLaws and Kinship Terms 91
bisbistory,bisexeriences,andbisinteractionwitbmembersobiswbo!e
ami!y.
One rob!em, tben, is to account or tbe resence o a!ternate norms
at tbis !eve! and tbe absence o a!ternate norms at tbe !evel oi tbe dis-
tinctive eatures tbemse!ves.
A second roblem is to defne and account or tbe knds o a!ternate
norms. Wbat do tbe dierent de8nitions o uncle`s wie and aunt's bus-
band mean? Wbat do tbey im!y not on!y about tbe total system, but
about tbe system attbe !eve!otbe re!ative asa erson?
A sim!e, and erbas useu!waytouttbeserob!emsistoaskwby
tbere aearto be somany logical contradictions. Wby sbou!d tbere be
tbree or even our dierent names or a given kind o relative? Wby
sbould tbe atber be atber,` o,' ''dad,' my o!d man,`' etc, wben
sure!y tbe word ''atber would seem sumcient or most uroses Are
tbe merely synonyms, dierent words witb recise!y tbe same mean-
ing? Wbysbou!d someeo!e say tbat wben an aunt divorces ber bus-
band or dies

be is no !onger an unc!e, wbi!e otbers say tbat be may or

may not remain an unc!e, deending on bis relationsbi to Fgo or tbe
amily? Wby is tbere disagreement on sucb a sim!e matter as tbis? Is
tberenoru!e?Aretbesenotlogica!!ycontradictory altematives? Wbatis
tberu!e,orwbat aretberu!es?
1oanswer sucbquestions itis necessary togo backonceagainto tbe
rst rinci!es o American kinsbi Itis H undamenta! remise o tbe
An.ericankinsbi system tbatb!ood is a substanceandtbat tbis is quite
distinctrom tbekindore!ationsbi orcodeorconduct wbicbersons
wbo sbaretbatsubstance, b!ood, aresuosedtobave. It is recise!y on
tbis distinction between relationsbi as substance and relationsbi as
code fot conduct tbat tbe classincation o relatives in nature, re!atives
in !aw, and tbose wbo are re!atedbotb in nature andin!aw, tbe b!ood
relatives, rests.
Once again itisnecessary to go to tbe next ste, tbesetwo elements,
substanceandcodeorconduct,are quitedistinct Facb canoccura!one
ortbeycan occurin combination. Henceanyarticu!arerson can base
bis decision.astowboto count as a relative on eitber otbese e!ements,
or on botb i tbey are resent.
8ubstance orblood in its biogenetic sense is a state o aairs a act
o!ietbatnotbingcan cbange. Fitber itis tbere or it is not, and i:tis
tbere it cannot be altered orterminated. It is involuntary, tben

in two
senses a erson cannot cboose to enter or not to enter into tbat state,
and i be is in tbat state be bas no contro! over it and cannot alteror
tenninateit .
92 In-laws and Kinship Terms

'

-
-

.
Ihe codeorconduct orrelatonshp elements qute the opposte. it

s co/uotor n the sense that tmust Le voluntarly undertaken-a per-

son chooses to enter or not to enter nto such a relatonshp-and the .

,
;;

person hassomecontrolLothoverthepartcular orm ttakes and over

whetherornotts to Le te:mnated. Ihewordconsent` s oten asso-

cated wth ths element, and s most closely assocated wth one par
``
tcular o:m o t,marrage.

Ihs, then, s the stuatonothe dvorced or wdowed spouse o an

auntoruncle.As normantssadsoclearly, italldependsontherela
tonshp.'` Frst,tdependson therelatonshpLecauset cannot depend
on anythng lke suLstance~there s no suLstance on whch to Lase a
relatonshp.second,therelatonshp,thecodeorconduct,thepatte
or Lehavor, s such that the amly wants to mantan a relatonshp,
then tdoesso andthe relatonshp contnues. ut Lymutual consent

they would heartly lke to see the last o each other, then they have

amplegroundsordongso.itsthe suLstantveLase,the common Lo-
genetcsuLstancethatmarkstheoLlgatorycondton, thecondtonthat

,
sLndngandthatcannot Letermnated. A relatonshpthat lacks such

a substantve Lase lacks the Lndng permanency whch suLstance en-

tals.

8utthsstrueorthespouseoanauntoruncleregardlessowhether

they are dvorced or not, and regardless o whether the aunt or uncle

sdeadornot,theyarerelatves,theyarerelatves,onlyLecausether
sa re/ot:oos/:j o knshp, that s, only Lecause they nvoke that code

or conduct whch s one o knshp. it s not Lecause there s soe

suLstantve Lass whch entals a relatonshp o knshp. Irecsely Le

cause there s no suLstantve Lass or t, thers s a voluntary and op

tonal relatonshp o knshp, one whch depends on mutual consent

Voluntarly undertaken, tcanLe voluntarlyLroken.Ihese arerelatve

Lecause they c/oose to ollow that code or conduct rather than som
other code, not Lecause they are bouod to ollow it.

Ihe same s true or the whole area orelatves Lymarrage orrela

tvesn law, ncludngthemajormemLerothat category, the husLan

orwe.Ihese are relatvesonlynsoaras acodeorconduct s nvoke

orthemwhchsoneoknshp.Iherdenttyaspersonswhoarerel

tves depends on ths element alone. 8ecause Ly normatve dernton

soptatve and voluntary, derent normants are ree to act derent!

accordng to ts very exLle rules, and are ree to gve very deren
answers tothesmple queston, Oo youconsderhm toLe arelatve'
IhscanLeputonceaganLutnsomewhatderenttermsLysay
3 ^Dd as LOOdCDOugD8 iDtOrm8nl lOd D1m sO QaDy. bCC tOOlnOtC 1, Q8gC

In Laws and Kinship Terms
93
that the word ''reIative'' means three dierent things in American kin-
ship. First

it means a person who is identied by another person as

.
having some relationship o substanee, as sharing biogenetie material.

8ueh a person would be a reIative in nature, and or convenienee we

might labeI him U ''reIative.8eeond, it means a person who is identi-

ed byanotherashavingsome reIationship in thatheoIIows a codeor

+
eonductwhiehisone okinship. Ihis wouId bea reIationship oendur-

ing, diuse solidarity, but the orms in whieh this was expressed and

precisely how m and deep and abiding it was would depend on a

variety o aetors. 8ueh a person would be a relative in Iaw, and or

|
eonvenienee eouId beIabeIed a ''relative

.` Ihird, a reIative is a person

who is identied by another person as having some relationship both

in nature and in Iaw and sois eaIled a bloodrelative. 8inee J + 2 O,

.
it\S entirely appropriate to labelhim a ''reIative

.

When an American identies another person asa relativehe does not

draw asharp distinction between these three dierent kinds oreIatives

or these three dieren meanings o that word. Hence it is not always

easytotelljustwhatismeantwhenaninormantsaysOh,yes.Myaunts

husband is a relative aIIright. He is a reIative by marriage. One omy

in-Iaws, I suppose. I callhim 'uneIe' you know|
.

An aunt's husband and an unele`s wie

then, are relatives insoar as

they voluntarily enter into and maintain the roIe o kinsmen, that is,
.

insoar as they are relatives by mutuaI eonsent. It is just as legitimate

and just as proper to amrm that sueh persons are relatives as it is to
_

aHrm that such persons are nct reIatives, sinee these are two aIternate
norms, eaeh owhieh can beolIowed bydierent persons atthe same

timeorby thesamepersonatdierenttimes.Ihatis,itis attheoption

o thepersons themselves whether theywilIorwiIInot maintain a rela-

tionship ( as eode or eonduc?) okinship. Aunt's husband and uncle's
g wie ean be taken as examples whichstand or the whole eategory o
-.
relatives in Iav or relatives bymarriage in this respeet.

But i all this is true, how ean it betrue othe step- and the oster
relatives, or i these are indeed relatives in Iaw the very rst question
'

whieh must be answered is the question o consent. One may welI and
reasonabIy ask i a child really has much choice about whether he will
voluntariIyundertakeandmaintainarelationshipokinshipvitha step-
'

orostermoterora step- orosterather. For ianyonepicks his step-

motheritis his atherwho does sobypiekinganewwie, and i anyone

pieks his step-ather it ishis n.otherwho does so when shepicksa new

hasband,andianyoneehoosesaosteramiIyorachiIditismostIikeIy

some
eourtorsocialageneysupervised bya courtwhiehhas jurisdietion
overthe chiId. Ihe childhimsel hardly makes the choiee.

94 Jn-Lows ond Kinship Terms

According to the dehnitIon oI a chiId oy American cuIture, a chiId

has not yet reached what is caIIed the age oI consent, and thereIore
,
his consent is given Ior him and on his oehaII oy someone who is
0t

who stands Ior his parent. This hoIds utiI the chiId is competent to

give it himseII. And indeed, whenhe reaches the age oI consenthemay

very weII voIuntarIIy terminate that reIationship despIte the many diI

Ierent pressures to maintain it. In the case oI an aduIt whose mother or

Iather remarries, the matter oI consent is much more cIearIy evident Ior

here the aduIt may easiIy and simpIy enter into or decIine to enter into

.
a reIationship oI kinship with his parent's new spouse.

+
One hnaIpoint shouId oe made here. I have spokenprimariIy with re- ,._. g
gard to specibc kinds oI reIatives~aunt's husoand, uncIe's wiIe, step-

mother,IosterIather,andsoon. But in each instancethe exampIe canoe

~
taken Ior the whoIe category. Yet it is important to note expIicitIy one
Iurther point, since it may not oe cIear Irom a consideration oI speci5c

exampIes aIone. This is that the category oI reIatives oy marriage or In

Iaw in American kinship is rt equaI to or dehned oy the sum oI its

,

memoers,IortheIormaI cuIturaI dehnitionoIthecategorystipuIateswho

may oe incIuded tut not who mus oeIncIuded. AIternate norms govem

which kind oI memoer wiII oe IncIuded oy which kind oI go at any`

given time. This IoIIows Irom the Iact that the category debnition stipu

Iates that the reIationship is a matter oI consent, that is, that it is voI-

untariIy undertaken and voIuntariIy maintained.

.
It is this Iact, then, which accounts Iormuch, though oynomeans aII
,,
oIthe apparentamoiguity and contradirtionswhichthe hrst two sections

oI this chapter descrIoed (pp. 1D - 89) . It is this Iact which accounts

Ior some inIormants saying that a cousin's spouse is a reIative oy mar-
riagewhiIeotherInIormants saytnatacousin'sspouseis acousins spouse
andnotare!ativeataII.It isthisIactwhichaccountsIorsome

saying thatwhen their aunt's husoand got divorced he ceased Irom that

moment ( iInotactuaIIyoeIore| ) to oetheiruncIe,whiIeother

saythateveniIheis divorced heis stiIItheiruncIeoecause hehas estao-

Iished the reIationship oI uncIe-nephew or -niece with them, a reIa

+

ship not aected oy the divorce. Itis this Iact which accounts Ior so

inIormants saying that a spouse's uncIe is their uncIe, whiIe other +
Iormants say that a spouse's uncIe is a spouse's uncIe and that he is ' _
even an in-Iaw to theml And it is this Iact which accounts Ior the i-
Iormant who says that whiIe his Aunt |ane's husoand is his uncIe, h

AuntAIice'shusoandis aoumandnouncIetohim| These are aIIequa44

_.

,_
Iegitimate aItemate Iorms since they IoIIow Irom the category dehnition
which stipuIates that a reIative oy)narriage orin Iawis one with w

a reIationship oI kinship is undertaken oy mutuaI consent and

In-Laws and Kinship Terms V
tained5ymutuaI consent, andthat vhere consent is Iacking there is no
reIationship in Iav .

Te next pro5Iem vhich must 5e deaIt vith is the question of the

phrases''5ymarriage" and"in Iav.``Are these tvo phrases simpIy synon-

ymous It is not immediateIy seIf-evident vhy certain reIatives are ex-
pIicitIy named 5y kinship terms vhich incIude the phrase or modiher

"-in-Iav

` ( 'mother-in-Iav," father-in-Iav,'` etc. ) vhiIe others vho seem

to faIIin the same generaI category are not ( cousin's spouse nephev or

niece`s spouse, si5Iing's spouse`s si5Iing, grandfather`s second or third

vifevho is notparents reaImother, etc. ) . Neither is it seIf-evident vhy
reIatives for exampIe) . And even vhen some rationaIe can 5e presented

shoving that they are indeed reIated 5y marriage ( as can for the step-

reIatives,forexampIe) many informants are acuteIy uncomforta5Ie vith

:...
this anddenyitsvaIidityevenvhen theyarestumped5yits Iogic. Some
informantstryto expIain '1ymarriage'` to mean ''5y the marriage of any

of my 5Iood reIatives," and thus to account for the uncIe`s vi!e and the

aunt's hus5and as aunt and uncIe respectiveIy. But they are then hard-
pressed to expIainvhy they do not count theircousin's spouse as cousin

-aIthough other informants do-and the spouse of their nephev and

nieceasnieceandnephev-aIthoughsomeotherinformants do.'Bymar

riage" therefore is not a simpIe a55reviation for "5y themarriage oI any

5Iood reIative, aIthough this is a tempting expIanatory step for many

informants totake.
To understand ''by marriae" and in Iav as the names for this cate-
goryvemust go 5ackonceagaintothe 6rst principIes of American kin-
ship. The American kinship system, as a system of sym5oIs, is a speciaI

deveIopmentfrom thema]ordivision of theuniverse into tvo parts, that

ofnatureandthatofIav.Lav,inthesenseofan ordervhich is created,

invented, imposed, is thus opposed to nature, vhich is "given. Yet the

reguIar processes of nature are regarded as conforming to ''the Iavs of

nature,'' andtherefore Iav in itsvidest sense seems to mean order, regu-

Iarity, and o5edience to ruIes.

AIthough Iav is the category of videst scope, it is vithin the order

of Iav at its videst that the particuIar opposition of nature and Iav
occurs, formuIated as anopposition 5etveen the tvo sources of order-

the one vhich is ''given`

.
and the other vhich is ''made. In the domain
ofkinship,then,Iav isthatordervhich has 5eenmadefor and imposed

96 In-Laws and Kinship Terms

upon mankind and man's nature. Lav at this IeveI of contrast is thus
specihcaIIy restricted to custom, tradition, the mores, and the vays of
man as against any othervay.
.
The fundamentaI sym5oI out of vhich the system of sym5oIs of the
Americankinshipsystem is diEerentiatedis, asI have said,that ofcoitus.
In the vhoIe universe, vhich is divided into an order of nature and an
order of Iav, itis the sym5oI of c
o
itus vhich reIates the kinship system

to the universaIsystem. The tvo parts ofthesym5oI of coitus vhich are

diEerentiated are, hrst, that of the su5stantiv outcome~the chiId vhich

shares the 5iogenetic materiaI of its parents-and, second, the reIation-

ship ( conduct ) of thetvoparents to each other. The vord for this Iatter
aspect is marriage"; it stands for the unity of the hus5and and vife
,

their unity in a sexuaI reIationship, and a unity vhich is opposed to th
unityoftheparentand chiId.

Marriage, then, stands as the reIationship in Iav vhich is specihcaIIy

restricted to mean a sexuaI reIationship, vhiIe aII other reIationships in

Iav are not so restricted in their meaning.

Yet marriage and Iav stand in another reIationship to each other .

Lav is the very 5roadest of terms, covering any kind of order in any
domainofthevorId. But, even in its restricted sense asthe orderof Iav

asagainsttheorderofnature,meaning thereguIarityimposed5y huma

_

reason,thisorderofIavfartranscendsthe domain ofkinship. That order,

_
of human reason vhicI is vithin the domain of kinship is onIy one par
ofthevhoIeorderofIav.Tospeaka5outareIationship inIav, therefore
,

does notspecify vhich su5orderor vhich specihc domain is intended.

Hence the term ''marriage is the exempIar of those reIations in av

within the domain of kinship. !t is the very essence of the reIationshi

in Iav of aII of the diEerent kinds of reIationships in Iav vithin th

domain of kinship. Itis the exampIe of a reIationship in Iav vithin kin-

shippar excellence. That is,aIthough itis onIy onespeciaI andrestricted

kind of reIationship in Iav, it is nevertheIess its cIearest and most vi vid

expression. Itisin this sense that the formuIa. a reIative is a person re
Iated5y5Ioodor5y marriageisto5e understood. Marriageisspecihed

in the formuIa as iftosay: not ap reIationship of any domain vhich is

the reIationship in Iav

5ut that order of reIationship vhich is in Iav _

and aIso in the reaIm of kinship, as exempIihed 5y the particuIar reIa-

tionship of marriage.

,
Marriage is thus a term vhich serves to stipuIate the specihc domain

vithinthe Iarger orderofIav.

The nonnative construct of the reIative "5y marriage`` orin Iav" asa

J. H. Greenberg, Language Universals ( The Hague: Mouton & Co., I0uu) . p.
'

,
.

.
lnlaws and Kinship Terms V7
person, thereore, has the stipulation that, lacking a natura! or suLstan-
tive component, it consists o a particular code or conduct alone As
such, itisvoluntary in that :t is up to each party toenter into it, main
tain it, oroptoutoit it is thus notoLligatory inthesame way as the
LloodrelationshipisoLligatory,althoughithasitsowncanons ooLliga-
tion which are essentially those o diuse, enduring solidarity. such a
relationship thus depends, as inormants put it, on the relationship.
it is called a relationship Ly marriage not Lecause each o the two
parties to it ismarriedto eachother,ortheyoten arenot,LutLecause
Lymarriageis thetermorthat specic kind orelationship which is,
within the domain o kinship, the relationship in law'` ar excellence;
thereore, this is marked as akinship relationship andnot just any rela
tionshipwhich isorderlyand lawul.
,
LetusretumoncemoretoIaLle Ii. Ipresentedthis taLle as asimple
way o summarizing some o the apparent contradictions and incon-
sistencieswhich8rststriketheoLserverwhe

nhe reviews the 8eldmate

rials on the categoryorelativesinlaw. itis thusan artircial8rst-order
aLrication which is quite inaccurate. For instance, the 8gure is incom
pleteanddoesnotlistallothoserelativeswhomayLe consideredrela
tivesinlaw.Cnlystep-motherandstepatherarelistedamongthemany
kinds ostep-relatives who mayLe relatives inlaw. so too there are no
oster relatives listed when oster relatives may well Le relatives in law
or relatives Ly marriage. Ihe taLle is, thereore, quite incomplete even
as alistopossiLlerelativesinlaw.
utIaLleIihasstillonemore purposetoserveLeore itis discarded
completely,or we have not`yetconsidered tLe lastcolumn on itcalled
kin terms.``
inthekintermscolumnoIaLleiIthere are someLasicterms ('hus
Land, ''wie, uncle,'' etc. ) , some der:vative terms (motherinlaw,
step-mother, etc. ) , and some question marks.
i placedquestion marks in tne kin term column o IaLle iiwhen in
ormantsseemedtodisagreeon}ustwhattheproperkintermsshouldLe.
whereinormantsdidnotseemtoLeinanyLasicdisagreementiinserted
the termwhich theygenerallyagreedon. Ihus, orexample, inormar.ts
weregenerallyinotuniversallyagreedonthepropertermoraspouses
mother, which they gave as ''mother-in-law, and that term appears in
the

kin term column. ut inormants were not agreed on the k:nship

term ora cousin's spouse some said that a cousin`s spouse is a cousn
andshouldLe calledcousin.'` utsome said that a cousins spouse isa
98 In-Laws and Kinship Terms
eoa.i:. .oa.e :e :o:li:, el.e :e :l: :le, .loale :o: ue e:llee

eoa.i: .i:ee :le, :e :o: eoa.i:. o: eve: :el:ive. : ll sa: o:le:

i:io:::..ie:l:lloa,leoa.i:..oa.ei.:el:iveu,::i,e,

:le:ei.:o:oe:ii:.li:e:io::le:e:le,:eo.::.:|.:el,

elleeu,:lei::.::eo:l:eve:, ueo|i:e .:ee::leei:ea

.::ee..

vee.::o .ee:l:eel oi:le.ei:io:::. i. eo::ee:,eel i:l:.

o:,.teoa.i:..oa.e,o:,:o:ueeo:.iee:ee:el:ive,io:
:le.e:el:e:eio:..iilei.eo:.iee:ee:el:ive:le:le e:o:l,
ue.:el:ivei:loieoa:.eiilei. :el:ivei: l,:le: ii:.li
:e:,o:,:o:ue eo:.iee:ee:o ue:oe:l, a.ee ili.,:oo, ee
e:e.o:: l:e:e .e: oi:o:.liel :e,al:e:le eer:i:io:oi:le
:el:ive.e:.o: o:e .e: oil:e:::e:o:..eeie.:l::el:ive
u,::i,e,ueee.i,::eeu,:le.eii:.li:e:..i.a.eeio:

li..oa.e ( :ii:,:le.eoi:le:el:ivei::oeeoa::le:e:eee.:,, .

ila. u o:le:. u:o:le: i. a:ele, li. iie , ue :e:ee a::

eeo:ei:, :o :li. .e: oi :o:., ii o:le:. u:o:le:. .o: i. :e:ee

eoa.i:,li. iie , ue :e:ee eoa.i:, ii .iuli:,. elile i. ei:le:

:eleo::ieee,:le.oa.eoio:eoi:le.e, ue :e:ee:ieee
o::ele.sa::leo:le:.e: oi:o:. .,.:l:i:i.:o::eee..:,o:
eve::oe::ol,ii:.li:e:o:el:ive.u,::i,e.u:ee::li.
:o: eoa.i:. .oa.e lo i. eoa::ee . B :ei:ive u, ::i,e ,
.:illai:e:oe:l,not ue:e:eeeoa.i:u,i:io:::.loiollo:li.

:o:t:eio:.oe,ua:u,:oe:.ll,oi:le.el::e:i:io:::.,i:i.

o..iule:oe:e :le .a+s u, ::i,eo:i:l:o :, ii:.li

:e:,.o:l::leeo:.::ae:io:., io: esle, eoa.i:i:l o: eoa.i

u,::i,e,a::i:lo:a::u,::i,e:elele:oue:oe:
.li .

o:eo:le:.e:oil:e:e.i:li::lee:e,o:,oi:el:ivei:l.loale

ue .eeirell, e::io:ee. ile.e :e :le .:e :e :le io.:e: :el:ive..

ro: .oe i:io:::. :le:e e: ue o:l, .:eo:le:, .:ei:le:, .:e
t:o:le:, .:e.i.:e:, .:e.o:, :e .:eea,l:e:, :e eo::e.o:ei:,l,
:le.e :e :le o:l, ee:iv:ive ii:.li :e:. liel e: ue eo:.::ae:ee

i:o :le oeie:.:e liel :le.e i:io:::. :e,:e . :oe:. il

.ee:ue.ieio:io.:e:.ro:.aeli:io:::..:ea::o:io.:e:

a::,uea:ee:.::euleeo:.::ae:.,ua::le,:e:o::oe:ii:.l.
:e:.,:o:oale:le.ei:io:::.:e,:e:lei:a.e.:oe:io::le.
sa:io:o:le:i:io:::.:le .i:a:io:i.ai:eeiae:e::. ro::le.ei:

io:::.:,:el:iveoiio.:e: o:.:e:el:ive i. :el:ive oi:lei

o:. ro::le.e i:io:::. i: i. o..iule:o lve .:e,::eo:le:

io.:e:,::ei:le:, .:ea:ele o: io.:e: a:ele, .:eeoa.i: o: 8

io.:e:eoa.i:,e:e.,.il,ueea.e:le.e:e:el:ive.oi:leie, ,a:e.,

'.`
g_

--
-
;

'
,
''

`.
,

-'

!
+
^
`

'
,
'

.
,,
,

:
'
,
~
-

-`
.
~
M
1:
*+_

I:
\

'

``

, _
,
,

:
-
.

..`

,
'

. :
-`
-

+`
.``
_

...
"+,
__

,
`'

`
:
^ _ _

.`.
,
.:
_
^

In-Law$ and Kinship Terms

99
the step- or Ioster reIative through whom they are reIated. Correspond-
ingIy, and this point is important, such reIatives take derivative kinship
terms constructed Irom the modibers step- and Ioster, so that the step-
uncIe, Iornstance

is given the proper kinship term 'step-uncIe,' andthe

cousin oIa !oster mother may properIy oe giventhe kinship term Ioster
cotisin, or the nephew oI a step-mother may oe properIy a "step-
nephew.''
1-
The discussion oI the precedIng sectIon has aImost unconsciousIy IoI-
Ioweda coursewhich hides rather than reveaIs avery IundamentaIpoint #
I have presented the dIsussion inthis Iorm: A person may or may not
oe considered a reIative in Iaw, iI he is considered a reIative in Iaw,
then he may or may not oe desIgnated oy a particuIar kinship term.
This IormuIation suppresses thepossIoilIty that even though it is correct
and properto designate a person oya kinship term, that person mayoot
oecountedas areIativeoIanykindwhatever. To putthis in a somewhat
dierent way, does it IoIIow that an uncIe's wiIe or an aunts husoand
are counted as reIatIves becouse it is proper to caII them "aunt' and
'uncIe respectiveIyr Are kinship terms necessariIy terms Ior kinsmen in
American cuIturer
!et us tum to kinship tetms once more. American kinship terms are
used as veros and ad]ectives as weII as nouns, and these ways oI using
them may oe independent oI each other even when they occur in the

same utterance. I have heard a ooy compIain that his Iather 'mothers

him,'

and AmerIcans who read the titIe to dith CIarks oook, Hy

Hothe:who Fothe:ed He, qo not oIten mistake it Ior a monograph on
parthenogenesis.

!'

` +

+_
_

`--`-
++

,

;
'

_
,

This is no more than to say that the IundamentaI distinction oetween

reIationship as suostance and reIationship as code Ior conduct in the
American kinship system is such that any given kinship term can mean
either the suostance eIement aIone, the code Ior conduct orroIe eIement
aIone, or it can mean ooth at once.
W. H. LOOUcnOuD, 1b, O. cit., gvc8 an accOunl n wDicD lDc mOUhcr8 ` slQ-,
_
U l h U lD D t D
J 4
D
? .
D lD
J
aw, an O8 cr arc cOn nc lO c a8:C letm8 al cr, mOt cr, rO cr,
`88tcr, `8On, anU `UaugDlcr. 1l 8 8gnhcanl lDal LOOUcnOugD, al lDc Ou!8cl O! Ds
tcl !DOugD nOl n l8 ll!c Ot cOur8c, cxQan8 lDal Dc 8 Ucang wlD lDc kn8DQ
lcrmnOOgy Ot Ony Onc Qc:8On, wDcD Dc knOw8 8 nOl 8DarcU n a rc8Qccl8 Dy a
NOrlD Amcrcan8 Or a nalve 8Qcakcr8 O Lng8D. A8 Davc arcaUy nUcalcU, lD8
allcrn 8 nUccU Onc Ot lDc cglmalc a!lcrnalc Qallcrn8 O! lcrmnOOgca tO=D8 n
^mcrcan kn8DQ, Dul lDctc arc OlDcr8 wDcD Davc rcQOrlcU aDOvc.
T00 In-Laws and Kinship Terms
Further, the kinship term may 5e used in such vays that either the
su5stance meaning, the conduct meaning, or 5oth may 5e impIied at
once, and the Iistener neednot5e toId5y the term itseIf vhich of these

three meanings is indicated 5y any particuIar usage Or, on the other
hand, specihc modihcations may 5e ma
o
e vhich do teII the Iistener

vhich ofthe threemeanings is intendedorvhich is excIuded.

And since kinship terms are appIIed to persons, one more com5ination

occurs. Kinship terms may 5e appIied to persons vho are not kinsmen

orreIatives. When this occurs, the kinship term marks the roIe or code
for conduct element. Sometimes, vhen this happens, the term is spe-
cihcaIIymodihedso as to make this quitecIeartotheIistener. Butsome-
times there is no such modihcation, noristhere any ruIevhich requires
any. Itis therefore not possi5Ie to inferfrom the use ofthe Iinship ten _

aIone thatpersons to vhom they are appIied are necessariIy considered

v
to 5e reIatives.

ConsiderthefoIIoving exampIes ofthesepoints. Ifa voman is

a step-

mother, mother-in-Iav, or foster mother she is cIearIy not the chiId
`
s
genetrixand thus notreIatedtohim5y su5stance, though she does pIay
one oranother variant of the matenaI roIe. But this is equaIIy true for
thdenmotherofacu5scout troop,thehousemotherof a schooldormi-

tory,and themothersuperiorofaconvent.Notehrstthatineach ofthese

cases the vay in vhich the term "mother is modihed dehnes the kind
ofpersonvhopIays thatroIe, and each modihcation shovs that theterm

'mothermeanstheroIeorconduct, andnot the su5stance eIement. Note

second that persons vho are not kinsmen can 5e assigned kinship roIes.

Thus the personto vhom the kinshipterm is appIied may ormay not5e
.
dehnedasareIative.ThisfoIIovsfromthefactthatapersonistheo5ject
vhich takes kinship term, the kinship term is not the o5]ect itseIf. And
:

note third that the set of derivative te:s is 5y no means exhausted 5y

the "step-, ''-in-Iav,` and foster' modihers 5ut must 5e considered \C

incIude den," '1ouse," and superior,' so that "step-mother," mother-
" "f t th
. ..
d h

..
h
.
" t

:n- av, oser mo er, en mot er, mot er supenor, ec. are a

mem5ers of the same set.
,

But if a voman is 5oth genetrix and pIays a matenaI roIe she is the

chiId's other," and so too if she is not the genetrix 5ut pIays tho

maternaI roIe after having IegaIIy adopted the chiId. Here there is no

modihcation vhich specihes that one or the other eIement, or 5oth, are

impIied. This is aIso trueforthe termfather.'' Father`` can 5e used for

genitor and for priest; the hrst is a kinsman, the second is not. "UncIe"

and''auntcan 5e used fora parent`s si5Iing or fora parent's friend, the

hrst are kinsmen, the second are not. ''Sister" can 5e used for a femal

"`.

`.

`~"

~ ~
_

:
:!!

-`

..

'

_

`

In-laws and Kinship Terms

101
si5Iing and for a femaIe of sIightIy Iover status, the 5rst is a kinsman,
the second is not. ''Brothe:'
.
can be used for a maIe si5Iing and for a
maIe feIIov Iodge or church mem5er; the 6rst is a kinsman, the second
is not. "Son`' can 5e used for one's ovn maIe chiId and for any younger
maIe; the 6rst is a kinsman, the second is not. Daughter'` can 5e used
for one`s ovn femaIe chiId orfor any younger femaIe; the 6rst is a kins-
man, the second is not .
The use ofparentaI terms 5y a hus5and and vifefor each other,5oth
vhere chiIdren are reIevant and vhere they are not, is a particuIarIy
good exampIe of the fact that kinship terms can 5e used to invoke a
particuIar roIe, 5ecause this is one of their meanings, and the tenns can
5eusedvith referenceto thismeaningaIone. A man vho says tohisovn
small chiId, ''Cive this to mother," does so to invoke the roIe ofmother,
de6ningthatvoman's idcntityasa person as that ofa n:other. The same
man saying to the same smaII chiId I von`t have myvife treated that
vay young man, nov invokes his ovn o5Iigations to his vife and de-
hnesheridentityas aperson ashisvife ratherthar as the motherin the
famiIy.
Ifkinship terms are not necessariIy terms forkinsmen, vhat, then is a
kinshipterm andhovcanakinshipterm 5e distinguished from anyother
kind of te:m The distinctive feature of kinship terms in American cuI-
ture, asagainstany otherkind, is thatkinship termshave as one oftheir
manymeaningsthe5iogeneticreIationshiporthecode for theconductof
kinship ( that is, diEuse enduring soIidarity) or 5oth. Other terms do
not contain these meanings as their dehning or distinctive features. For
instance, friendship terms can 5e compared vith kinship terms and dis-
tinguishedfromthem5ythefactthatfriendshiptermsexcIude5iogenetic
reIationship as a de6ning feature, and 5y the fact that the diEuse soIi-
darity vhich is a feature of
-
friendship terms is not mcessory eodu:og
as a partofthedistinctivefeatures of its denition. Instead, its soIidarity
is contingent. This foIlovs from the fact that the code for conduct of
kinship is de6ned in te:ms of the sym5oI of 5iogenetic unity vhich is

de6ned as enduring, and this !iogenetic sym5oI is a5sent from friend-

ship,asitisde6nedinAmerican cuIture.
_
_

Insum,thefactthat the uncIe

svifeand theaunt`shus5and arecaIIed

''aunt`` and uncIe`` oIy means that some kind of a kinship roIe is in-

voked for them. They mayor maynot 5e regarded as reIatives, forvhat

they are caIIed

B
and
h
vhether they a
k
re coi
h
:nted as reIati
5
v
I
es are not the
same questions. yt e very same to en, t en, it is possi e in American

kinship to regard a person as a reIativeyet not 6nd a kinship term asso-

ciated vith him. This is the case for some informants in regard to the

1 7 In-laws and Kinship Terms

.
spouseofacousinwho is not called''cousin,"thespouse'ssibling's child

spouse for whom the term ''nephew` or `'niece is only occasionally in-
voked, and so on. Such persons would all be normatively constructed

outofthoseelements which go tomake upthe general class of relatives

by marriage or in law, while the other elements of their construction
as
a person wouId be dehned by how old or how young they were, their

sex, class items, and so on.

:,;

This still doesnot tell us allthat weneed to know in orderto under

stand relatives by marriage or in laws or the uncle's wife or aunts hus

band in particular. There is a very special kind of unanimity to

*

formants' responses which has yet to be explained. Informants almost

always say that uncle's wife and aunts husband shoul be called by

''aunt'' and ''uncle" terms, or that they themselves do so or have done
so, or that they were instructed to do so by their parents, or that it i

only after the nephew orniece has grown up-if then~that hrst-naming

might be acceptable. This is u marked contrast to terms for cousin's

spouse, the spouse of a nephew or niece, or the spouse of a spouse's

sibling`s child. Inthese latter situations informants often simply saythat

there are no terms for such relatives, orthat they call them cousin' o
nephew'' or ''niece" but that one does not have to. The consistent ap-
plication of the aunt and uncle" terms to the uncle's wife and auns

husband, then, is in marked contrast to the alternate norms for the

cousin`s spouse, the nephew and niece's spouse, or the spouse's silings
h'ld'

c I spouse.

Now let us turn the matter entirely around. Instead of asking about

kinship terms, consider instead the terms that are used forpersons wIa

are, inone oranother sense, relatives. Here again we can ask this ues

tion in the form in which American culture puts it Who calls who

ai

Tes for relatives consist ot kinship terms of some kind ( moter
ma, pop, uncIe, etc or nonkinship terms. Those which are not kinship
terms are either names, words, orphrases ( ]ack, Smith, kid, mister, old
man, the old lady, etc ) . A third category is formed by combining I

rst two Uncle ]ack, Cramma Smith, Sister Sue) .

The kinship tenns themselves are of two kinds: the formal termsfo

In-lows and Kinship Terms 1

maIIy used, and the informaI terms informaIIy used. This second kind
might aIso 5e descri5ed as intimate forms. Thus, "father`' is formaI,
"pa"isinormaIorintimate; "grandmother'is!ormaI,''nanna`'isinformaI.
Thenames,vords,andphrasesaIso divideinthesamevayintoformaI
and
informaI or intimate forms. First names are informaI and intimate
as against fonnaI Iast names. But hrst names can 5e formaI or informaI
asveII,so that]ohn is the forniaIform, ]ohnny the informaI form. TitIes
are formaI; certain vords and phrases are not. Mister and doctor are
formaI; oId man and 5oss are not.
So m uch !or `'vhat" ''Who`' and ''vhom" divide into those vho are
equaI and those vho are not. EquaI shouId not 5e confused vith the
same." Brothers may 5e equaI and the same, 5rother and sister may 5e
equaI 5uthardIythesame.
SymmetricaI usageis the markofequaIity. Cousins vho are equaImay
caII each other 5y their hrst names, 5y nicknames, or 5y a com5ination
ofkinship term and hrst name ( as in "Cousin ]ane" ) . When tvo coupIes
vhose chiIdren have said that they intend to marry meet for the hrst
time, if they consider themseIves equaI or vish to at Ieast proceed on
that manifest assumption, they may 5e introduced to each other and
addresseachothersymmetricaIIy5y theirtitIepIusIast-name. Thus, they
viII5e introduced as Mr.and Mrs. Lastnameand caII eachother5y that
symmetricaI form. Hus5and and vife may use pet names, terms of en-
dearment, or the aII-purpose honey or ``dear,`' or they may, in a more
Victorian context, use the formaI Mr. and Mrs. or Doctor and Mrs. for
each other, vhen they are treating each other as equaIs. It especiaIIy
shouId 5enoted that tvo diEerent formaI terms may 5e symmetricaI ( or
equaI ) 5ut diEerent, rather than 5eing asymmetricaI.
AsymmetricaI usage is a mark of inequaIity. Where one person shovs
respect tothe other, one isseiorand theotherjunior, or one is superior
and the other inferior, it marks distance 5etveen unequaIs. In asym-
metricaI usage the senior has the right to expect tbat the ]unior viII use
respectfuI forms vhiIe the seniorhas the right to use intimate, informaI,
personaI forms.
The most o5vious exampIe is in parent-chiId usages. A father may
address a son 5y the son`s hrst name, 5ut certain canons of propriety re-
quire the son to caIl him "father." A variant may 5e vhere the son caIIs
the father "dad", in another variant the father caIIs the son not 5y his
" See 1O this connection P. Friedrich, "Structural Implications of Russian Pro
nominal Usage," in Sociolinguistics, ed. W. Bright ( The Hague: Mouton & Co.,

1966) , Q. 214-59. Also see R. Brown and M. Ford, "Address in American English,"
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (1961 ) , 275-385.
104 In-laws and Kinship Terms
fo:aI 6rst name, "]ohn," 5ut 5y his nicIname, "]acI`' ( This does @_ `

mean that the oo/y vay to marI respect for a senior is 5y the use
of

asymmetricaI fonns. TerminoIogy may 5e symmetricaI and respect

Uay`
,

5e paid in othercoin.)
.

OtherexampIes come readiIy to hand. Kinshipterm-pIus6rst-natne

_ _
,
_ _
6rst name is a common one. Here itmay 5e UncIe ]ohn~]ames, Fa,,,_
,,,
_

_
]ohnMary; Crandfather ]ones-Susan, and so on. ach term in
equation can of course vary in the vays that have aIready 5een
cated a5ove ( grandfather, grandpa, grandpop, grandpappy, gramp,
etc. ) .
In asymmetricaI usages, it is the right of the superior to controI
changes in the arrangement, and it is on the initiative of the sueri_
that changes are properIy made. As I have aIready noted, for i
vhen a 5oy grovs up and feeIs aduIt, and his mother's 5rother
.
nizes this state of aEairs, he may suggest that he 5e caIIed BilY'
now
insteadofthe oId "UncIe Bilr'; orifhis nephev tactfuIIy tries it, he may
give his permission for the change. When a mother-in-Iav suggests
`` `
she 5e caIIed ''Mary
.
' instead of Mrs. ]ones'` 5y her son-in-Iav,
muchthesame thingishappening. Heretootheson-in-Iav maytacth
try it,5utitisher right topermititornot. Theperiod oftransition

the time vhen the potentiaI son-in-Iav addresses heras Mrs. ]ones
t
e
the time vhen she initiates the change to ''Mary" may5eoccupied 5y
periodofsuspendedaddressorno-naming,vheretheson-in-IavisC3t6u
to avoid the ''Mrs. Lastname
,
` form as 5eing entireIy too formaI v
cum5ersome,5uthasnotyethadpermissionto usetheinformaI, inti

:ute

6rst-name form
The pro5Iematic data that require some expIanation incIude

the

nimity vith vhich informants insist that the uncIe's vife and the aunt`s

hus5and are "aunt and 'uncIe,'` respectiveIy. This requires some ;

pIanation,sincereIativesin compara5Iecategories appearto5e govemed
,

,

5y aIternate norms vhich maIe it a matter of personaI option

theyarecousin, nephev, or niece. Since the Iatter Iind of responsefr
`
a
infomantsthat aItenate norms goven this situation-is consistent

everything eIse that ve Inov a5out the American Iinship system, ui

data vhich are inconsistent and must 5e expIained are, paradoxicaIIy
enough,thosea5outvhichinformantsareinaImostcompIete
nameIy, that uncIe's vife is properIy caIIed 'aunt," and that aunt`s h

.,,_
5and is properIy ca!Ied uncIe"
Whatthesepersons arecaIIed,vhattheproper Iinshipterms for 6
are, and in vhat terms they are thought of are distinct and
.
`
lnLaws and Kinship Terms 105
questions from hov they are cIassed, or vhat kinds of persons they are
1 have aIready indicated that at the IeveI of kinds of persons, aIternate

noms goven their construction as reIatives. This is a matter of choice

betveen tvoforms: hrst

.
vhether to count them as reIatives inIav, and
second, vhethernotto countthem asreIatives at aII

What they are caIIed, or the proper kinship terms for them, depends
on
vho is caIIing them, as the formuIa vhich informants state puts it

(Who
caIIs vhom vhat?) . Kinship terms are used as status-equivaIence

and status-diEerence markers in that if the person caIIing them is ]unior

|o
them, and theonIy Iinkviththemis that they are marriedto a 5Iood

reIativ
e,then theymust5e treated vith respect, and the respectfuIform
is asymmetricaI This form is the kinship term pIus the rst name. The
oIder
person is caIIed uncIe or ''aunt`` pIus the 6rst name, and the
younger person is 6rst-named in retun
Where the facts are inconsistent, hovever, the form changes. Where
the person~vhether he is the parent`s si5Iing or the parent's si5Iing's
spouse~can5eregarded asan age equaI, symmetricaI 6rst-namingis the

proper form. Where the person-parent's si5Iing or parent`s si5Iing`s

spouse-is ina varm, friendIy, egaIitarian reIationship, symmetricaI 6rst-
ramingcan5eoneoftheproperformsWhereEgo isnovmature andno
Icnger a chiId and this fact is honored rather than the fact that they

.
- stiII considera5Iy diEerent in age, vhich may aIso 5e true), then
symetricaI 6rst-naming can 5e one of the proper forms. Where the

p ersonparenssi5Iingorparent`s si5Iing's spouse-is distant,hostiIe,not

respected, theneitherantagonistic6rst-namingorno-namingmay5ethe

ppropriate forms to markthesituation.

In summary, it is veII to go 5ack to the very 5rst question posed in

cuu u_ vith kinship terms in this chapter Does itfoIIov that an uncIe`s
wlF- oranaunt`s hus5and is cotntedasa reIativ because it is properto
calI them ''aunt`
.
and 'uncIe," respectiveIy The ansver is simpIe, no, it

4-snotfoIIov ataII. Kinship termsareusedasstatus markers inone of

speciaI aspects of the more generaI rule that they mark a code for
V a pattern for 5ehavior, a kind of reIationship Status diEerence

equivaIenceis sinipIyonespeciaIkindofreIationship5etveen persons

may 5e in a kinship reIationship as veII. The reIative as a person
not ]ust some5odyvith vhom a reIationship of diEuse, enduring soIi-
o5tainsThe reIative as a person is madeup ofothereIements as
II. He may 5e equaI or unequaI 5y virtue of his age or some other
M1 te, he viII 5e maIe or femaIe; and so on Where he is senior in
ouH)O respect he requires respectfuI treatment, and the mark of respect
1 ln1aws and Kinship Term$
or a parent's sI5Iing`s spouse is the use of Iinship-term-pIus-6rst-name

forms, asymmetricaIIy Iinked to the

recIprocaI rst-namc form, nIe

BiII" and ]ohn.``

Lompar. f. Lounsbury, `Another iew o

!he 3tobriand Kinshp Lategories'

in o=na 5emantic Anaysis, ed. E. A. Hamme, Amcrican Anthropologist, 7:,

,

__
Vart 2 (I96), I3-67, . f. Iounsbury, `A orma Account o the Lrow- and

Lmaha-3ype XinshIp e:mno!ogies, in

Explcrctons in Cultural Anthropologp, g,

V. H. foodenough ( New York: Mcftaw-Hi Book
Lompany, 1964), ootnote 21

and foodenough, l96, op. cit. foodenough treats the unces wie and the aunts
husband as ncccssarl/p re!atives by marriage. He recognizes but does not resove

a ptobem with the divorced or widowed unces, aunts or grandparents spouse. t

s ceat rom his exposi!ion that the cousins spouse, the spouse o a nephew or

nece, and the spouse o a spouses nephew or niece are not inc!uded in the mean-

ings o any o the kinshp terms he ists nor are they considered to be reatives b

marriage. As \ have aready indicated, his s certainy one o the ateOate pattem

which can be ound in America and his data is, thereore, perectly good as at b
`

``

`
it goes. Uut on a theoretica eve t is not cear why he ais to resove the ambg

ous status o the second or subsequent spouse o an aunt, uncle or grandparent and

why he did not ook urther than his no=nants bat statement that an aunts hus
band and unces wie were uncle and aunt respectivey, and that !hey were reatives

.`

``

by marriago. or it is c!eary inconsistent or them to beuncle and cuntwhen cousins

spouse is not ccusin and sons spouse is not dcughter. Vhat 1 have suggested above

is, 1 suggest ayan expicity here, particuaty true or inormants ike foodenough

!nc!es wie is accorded aunt as a orm o respect, aunts husband is accorded uncl0

as a orm o respect, and this orm o respect aong with the kinship roe which is
mpied are enorced on chidren who, when they reach the age o consent no

beore, may simpy sip the reationship and !he orms impicity, not openy, and`

,-* ' *

terminate the reationship. 5impy put, thereore, foodenoughs is an ethnograph

_,
ertor n that he aied to eicit cll ol the reevant norma!ion and a theoretica ettor
in that he aied to integtate ah o the reevant inormation into his theoretica con
.
snucts. he incusion o tho kintypes Mo5iHu, a5iHu under the kinshp term un

and MoUrVi and aBrVi under !he knship term aunt without urther quhcatio

or expanation is an ethnographi error which seems dictated by !he theory o com

ponentia anays1s, not by the u weight o the inorma!ion which coud be

rom hs inormant. 1recisey this same criticism must be directed at Lounsbury

we, or he never hnds out rom his inormants whether ndeed the stepkin
is an ethnographc act o the cuture he is anaysing or a theoretca distortion 1 CI ;.
he is imposing on !he ethnographic acts.

LAI b I 2

*'

Conclusion

1+
1he reIationship between man and nature in American cuIture is an
active one. Itis not aimedat abaIancebetween opposedorces,oritis
not deemed to be man`s pIace to accept the ate which nature has de-
nned or him. Instead, it is man's pIace to dominate nature, to controI

it,to use nature`s powers orhisown ends. Whetherthis is doneIy the

revention and cure o iIIness, the Iridging o great rivers, or the con-

quest o space does not matter. In American cuIture man`s ate is seen
as one which oIIows the injunction, Master Nature! His science and
technoIogy andmuch ohis Iie is devoted tothat task.

But at home things are diderent. Where kinship and amiIy are con-

cerned, American cuIture appars to tu things topsy-turvy. For this

is one part o nature with which manhas made his peace and in terms
o which heis content to hnd hisate. What is out there in nature, say

the de8nitions o American cuIture, is what kinship is. Kinship is the

bIoodreJationship,theactosharedbiogeneticsuIstance. Kinship is the

mother`s bond o esh and bIood with her chiId, and her maternaI in-
stinctisherIoveorit. 1his isnature;thesearenaturaIthings, these ae
the ways onature. To be otherwise is unnaturaI, arti8ciaI, contrary to
nature.
Yet in American cuIture man is denned as being erymuch a part o
uature,obeyingtheIawsonaturejustIikeeverythingeIse.Theantithesis
o the 8rstparagraph is thus denied in the second. Yet both paragraphs
are true o Amcrican cuIture, nnd both represent American cuIture :n
very important ways.
I7
1 08 Conclusion

_ _
AIthough Ihaveputthissetofcontradictions in themostgeneraIter
m

and at themost generaI IeveI, thesame contradictions occur at the Iee

of very specihc matters 5etveen kinship and the rest of American
cul

ture.
SexuaIity in American cuIture is a case in point. Of aII of the fo,,

of sexuaIity of vhich human 5eings

are capa5Ie, onIy one is Iegitimat

e

and proper according to the standards of Anierican cuIture, and that

Is

heterosexuaIreIations,genitaI to genitaI,5etveennan andvife. AIIothe

formsareimproperandheld to 5emoraIIyvrong. Seefootnote O, Chap

ter Three. )

Man is thus faced vith an array of possi5iIities in his ovn natu

vhich he must master. He shouId controI them, so that he determine,
theirfate, theyshouIdnot5efree to determine his fate.

Yet heterosexuaI reIations, gonitaI to genitaI, 5etveen hus5and a
vife, aredehned asthenaturaI stateofaEairs, the vay it is, and the
it shouId 5e. As the state of nature itseIf, it marriage. And it is o
gratifying, revarding. As I said a5ove, quoting vhat I 5eIieve is th,
cuIturaIIy stated maxim, It shouId be fun, 5ut is not

jcv fun. Indeed,

anything eIse, in any other vay, and vith any other aim, is dehned

American cuIture as unnaturaI

The antithesis 5etveen man and nature is resoIved at the very

ne

IeveI 5y the premise that man is onIyone speciaI part of nature. But

man is vieved as 5eing a part of nature, then the antithesis arises at

quite diEerent IeveI of American cuIture. This antithesis 5ecomes

5etveen tvo opposed parts of nature itseIf, one of vhich is de6ned

American cuIture as animaI, and the other of vhich ishuman ( or man

Vhat is distinctIy human, as against animaI
.
is reason or inteIIigenc

But inteIIigonce is not something oE 5y itseIf, existing aIone and apatt

from everything eI

e. Itis a

part ofnature, and it is a

attri5ute oft

part of nature vhich Amencan cuIture de6nes as an:maI. Thus ag

the antithesi

5etveen m

n andanimaI i

res
'
Ived at

he very ne

ev
5ythe premtse thatmanis 5utonespeciaIkind ofan:maI, andh:s:nte

Iigence is 5ut a speciaIkind ofanimaIinteIIigence. Man`s is the capaci

to reason, the premise of American cuIture has it, against animaI s

reason

And so another contradiction emerges. For human reason or inte

gence, it seems cIearIy given in American cuIture, departs from ha

animaI in nature, and there5y departs at the same time from vha

naturaI. BeasonseIectsthegoodandre}ectsthe5adinnature,andreas
I

invents vays

customs, ruIes, Iavs.

American cuIture postuIates a direct reIationship 5etveen the

exte

to vhich inteIligence has acted and the distance of the pro

duct f

Conclusion
thestateonature.ToputthissomewhatdierentIy,themorethathuman
,
reason has worked at it, the Iess o nature there is Iet. The edect o

reasonandinteIIigenceis dscribedas being''cuItivated,''sophisticated,'

arti8ciaI,` unnaturaI.'`

At whatever IeveI it is taken, then, there remains a contradiction be

tween man and nature. It is either man against nature directIy ( as in

man's 8ghtagainst disease) , man as a part onature against the animaI
art onature asinsexuaIity) , orman`s reasonagainstunreasoningani-
maI nature.

1he contradiction Letween the good and the Lad parts o nature, as
they are contained inman as an animaI and as apart onaturehimseI,
andthecon

radictionbetweentheactthatiamandepartstooarrom
rature noth.ngbutbad unnaturaI ) can resuItareresoIvedLy the order
,

o
Iaw.
Accordingtothe

postuIatesoAmericancuIturetheorderoIawisthe
utcomeo the act:on ohumanreason on nature. The good ts seIected,
1iscovered, chosen, ruIes and reguIations the order o Iaw) are estab-

Iished tomaintainand perpetuate the good. Whether this is atthe IeveI

discovering the cure or prevention o a disease or routinizing Ly

raIes) thecure orpreventionothat disease does notmatter. But itcan

aIso be done in another way, and that is Ly inventing some customary

proper way o behaving. BuIes are made, in the sense o invented,

orjustthispurpose.Andso

govenmentisregarded in American cuIture

$ the ormuIatoroIaws andruIesintheIightoreason.
, 1he anthropoIogist's notion o cuIture is thus not very dierent rom
theAmerican`snotionotheorderoIaw.ThisLeingso,itisnotamatter
ecuIture ogo:ostnature, nor o cuIture ogo:ost man at aII. In America,
itis the order o Iaw, that is,

uIture, which resoIves the contradictions

hetween man and nature, which are contradictions within nature itseI.
:

I suggest that it is within the ramework o American cuIture itseI
that American kinship as a cuIturaI system is Lest understood. 8o it is
t in one sense ''amiIy" in American cuIture :s simpIy the naturaI
5ioIogicaIstateoaairscenteringonreproduction. Marriage, inits most
iim:teusense,t8 sexualunion.1he reproducing pair, Iivingtogetherwith
their ospring, t8 the amiIy.

ButhowevernaturaIthisis,itisnotdistinguishedinanywayromthe

rimaI, and this, ocourse, is why Americans seea pair o woIves with

theirpupsintheircaveasaamiIy.
ItistheorderoIaw,Lasedonreason,which atoncedistinguishesthe
Unnatural" is thus used to mean b
9
th far fro
m
nature, contrived> without any
. in nature, and also that part of nature which J9 wrong, bad, evil, or repulsive
to human reason as in the "unnatural" sexual acts.
11 0 Conclusion

-`.`:
human from the animaI, yet keeps it aIIvithin the reaIm of nature and

.
5ased on nature. This comes a5out vhen reason reguIates, vhen huma
n

sensi5iIities dehne the proper kind of sexuaI union from among aII pos
-

si5Ie kinds, vhen human inteIIigence chooses and de6nes the prope

kind of 5ehavior 5etveen genitor and oEspring. For then there is the

mastery of nature through nature's ovn Iavs, humanIy seIected and

teIIigentIy ordered,vhich constitues the ideaI ofAmerican cuIture. Itis
the order ofIav, 5ased on reason and onnature, vhich, com5ined vith
natureisthemostpoverfuIandthemostnearIyideaIarrangementinthe
de6nition ofAmerican cuIture.

The cIassihcation ofreIatives inAmerican kinship is 5uiIt on the same

,
set of premises set in the same reIationship to each other. The reIative

in nature is at one extreme, tbe reIative in Iav is at the other extreme

The 5rst is 5ut a reIationship of nature, fundamentaI as that is. The

second is5ut a set of arti6ciaI ruIes or reguIations for conduct, vithout

su5stantiveornaturaI5ase. Butthe 5Iood reIative,reIated in nature and

5y Iav, 5rings together the 5est of nature modi6ed 5y human reason

heisthus thereIativeinthetruestandmosthighIyvaIued sense.

I have put the reIations 5etveen man and nature as they are dUbUed

inAmericancuIture as a set ofcontradictions vhich are resoIved invari-

ous vays. But the diEerent reIations 5etveen man and nature can 5
stated in another vay vhich is equaIIy true 5uthas somevhat diEerent
signi5cance.

TheformaIcategory of nature, as itis deBned inAmerican cuIture, t

cIudes vithin it 5oth manandanimaI. Yet in anothercontext, the mean-
ing of the vord man`' is sharpIy diEerentiated from the category

nature and set apart from it.

This patten is thesame as thatfor the category 'reIative,'`vhere th

vord is used to incIude anyone reIated 5y 5Iood or marriage in one

meaning, and vhere on the other hand the vord is reserved for 5Ioo

I have aIready discussed othersets of contradictions and their resolutions whi

crosscut those I have focused on in this section: the contradiction set in terms cf

place hetween work and home, reso!ved hy the vacation, and the contradiction 5
in tenns of code for conduct hetween family (or kinship) and work, resolved h
friendship. These two contradictions in turn distinguish hetween suhstance and a
tion, hetwee physical nature as ohJective and action as suhJective. This distinctic!
seems systematically elahorated throughout all of American culture. ]ust as suhstan

.
and code for conduct ae distinct in American kinship, so tco work as a place ad

work asa fonn of activity eredistinct. Sometimes this distinction ismarked hygrm
matical fonn, as with friend and friendship, kin and kinship, reIative and elation

ship. But this is not a!ways so-take work, which is hom place and activity.

Conclusion 1 1 1
reIatives aIone and ]uxtaposed to in-Iavs. I reported this a5ove as the
situation in vhich itis equaIIy possi5Ie Ior a person tosaythathis viIe

( or hus5and) is a relative 5ecause she ( or he) is an in-Iav, and to say

that his viIc ( or hus5and) is nct a reIative 5ecause she ( or he) is an
in-Iav.
The very same pattern occurs vith the tenn ''Iamily,` vhich canmean
loththeunitoIhus5and,viIe,andchild and theaggregationoIaIIthose
who are reIatives, or can 5e reserved Ior the unit oI hus5and, viIe
.
and
chiId aIone.
The category oI5Iood IoIIovs this patten too. It not onIy means the
red stuE vhich courses through the veins, 5ut aIso that com5ination oI
su5stance and code Ior conduct vhich those vho share that red stuE
.
the 5Iood reIatives, shouId have. )none sense its meaning is rcserved to
that oI su5stance
.
in the other it incIudes 5oth su5stance and Iav.
OI course, each oI the kinship terms Ior 5Iood reIatives IoIIovs this
patten too, so that''Iather is5oth the genitorand the Iather roIe or its
meaningisrestrictcdto genitoralone.
So too the notion oI distance can 5e physicaI, socioemotionaI, and
genealogicaI, as against its restricted meaning as geneaIogicaI aIone.

FinaIIy, the most important exampIe is the IundamentaI distinction

in American kinship 5etveen the reIative as a person and the distinc-

tive Ieatures vhich de5ne the person as a reIative. These constitute tvo
maJor systems, the one restricted to a sct oI distinctive Ieatures, de5ned
and diEerentiated 5y a singIe sym5oI, and the other, the personi6cation
in acta5Ie terms oI a variety oIdiEerent sym5oI systems, incIuding the

6rst.
.

In restating this patten Irom that oI a set oI contradictions vith a

resolution to that oI a syst

m oI markcd and unmarked categories

vhich interlock and ovcrIap, it is not my intention to nov deny that in

some important respect these are indeed aIso contradictions, and that
they are in Iact resoIved in the vays suggested. But it shouId 5e cIear

that they are, at the same time, cuIturaI categories vhose vaIue, marked
and unmarked, is equaIIy true.

Indeed, the

Iactthat these exist bcth asa system oI contradictions and

their rcsoIution, ond as a system oImarked and unmarked categories in
American kinship as a cuIturaI system is the cruciaI Iact. For it is pre-

ciseIy this Iact vhich makes it possi5Ie to soIve vhat I regard as the
IundamentaI and most dimcuItpro5Iem in the anaIysis oI American kin-
`
.:
:`:

" J. Greenberg, Language Universals ( The Hague: Mouton & Co., 1966) . I have
;' based my discussion on Greenberg's development of the concept of marked/ unmarked
I categories.
1 1 2 Conclusion
ship. Ihis is the probIem presented by the great range o variation
at
aImost everyIeveI.

I say aImost every IeveIbeeause atone IeveI, thato the distinetive

eatures

there is no varianee, whiIe at aII other IeveIs the varianee

is

great.

Ihe rststep in soIvingtheprobIe:novarianee in the Ameriean kin

ship system eonsists o reeognizing that there are reaIIy two systems

`*`

operating, and that the two are eIoseIy artieuIated but by no means

:
identieaI.

Or, toput itin operationaItetms, the rst step in solvingthe probIem

o varianee in the Ameriean kinship system eonsists in listening to the

infornts.

_
Atrst inormants makewhat the Iistener C onIy interpret as noise

Butsoonthenoiseehangestowhateanbestbedseribedas doubIe-taIk

Inomants seemineapabIeousingwordspreeiseIy,osayingwhatthey
mean or meaning what they say. Ihe Iistener who beIieves that words

have preeise, eIearIy dened and standardized meanings nds this in-
tenseIyrustrating

Ihe subtIemanipuIations that go on when thewords

reIative,

` reIated, and ''reIatiouship are used are partieuIarIy taxing.

Ihis is true or every word used in eonneetion with kinship, rom sueh
simpIe notions as ''distanee'' through the kinship terms, sueh as ''uneIe''
and aunt.''
But it soon beeomes eIear that the doubIe-taIk o the inormants is
^

nothing more than the same words, now in theirmarked, now in their

unmarked meanings, the inormants themseIves are not uIIy aware o

the aet that they shit usages, sometimes in the middIe o a sentenee.
Ihus some inormants may start a sentenee with the word mother,
meninggenetr|x, and endbyusingmother``asa verb.

Ihe rst step, then, eonsists in making the distinetion between the

reIative as apersonandthe distinetive

eatures whieh deuetheperson

as a reIative. Ihis simpIy separates the system o distinetive eatures

rom the system o person-eentered denitions.

Ihatthis rststepisvaIidis shownnotonIybytheaet thatthedata

themseIves easiy

divde.n this
"
ay, but more importantI
;
by the
.
aet

thatonee thed:st:neuonI5 made:tean beseenthatthere :snovanane

wherethedistinetiveeaturesareeoneened, aIIthevarianeeoeeurswith

regard to the person-eentered system. Ihe presenee orabsenee o vari

anee is thus a distinguishing mark o the two systems.

Ihe varianee whieh is assoeiated with the person-eentered system is

otwo dierent kinds. One eonsistso the aet that the immediate data
whieh eobserver eneountersare speeie deeisions personshave made

aboutspeeiepeopIeunderspeeiaIeireumstaneeswhere thesystemitseI

` *

J14
, penis a wide variety o aIteate modes o Iegitimate action. I have
*.
aIready deveIoped this point in detaiI in Chapters IV and V and it is

suHcient to simpIy repeat here that this array o diverse data depends

in part on the act that the dierentwords and categories o American

kinshipeachhaveanumberodiderentmeanings ( poIysemy) ; thatthese

,, diderent meanings may distribute as marked and unmarked categories,

or
as contradictions and resoIutions; and that the actoris ree to choose

which o the many meanings inthis array hewiII empIoy.

1he second ki:id o variance is at the IeveI othe diderent normative

constructs o the rcIative as a person. 1he undamentaI question which

thiskindovarianceraisesistheoneIposedintheIntroduction,nameIy,
.
whether there is asingIeAmericankinship system, with perhaps variant
orms associated with one oranother ethnic, reIigious, cIass, or regionaI

group, orwhethertherearereaIIymany diderent kinship systems,which

are aII simpIy heId togetherbythe ramework o the United 8tates as a

geographic and poIiticaIunit .

1he answer now seems cIear. 1he system o distinctive eatures, de-

ned and dierentiated in terms o one centraI symboI

constitutes a
8rm, 8xed core which provides the de8ning eature or every kind o

person. It is around these 8xed eatures that variation occurs, and at

Ieast in this sense it can be said that there is a singIe American kinship

system.

, 1hereisanotherreasonorsayingthat there is onesystem, notmany.

.
1he variant orms o the nonnative denitions o the dierent kinds o

reIatives as persons aIso constitute a singIe system o variation and not

8 series ooJ hcc orrandom variants.

1his concIusion is based partIyonthepremise that the diderentcom-

ponents o the nonnative de5nition o the reIative as a person have a

de8nite order and are integrted in accordance withsome cIear vaIue

.

.
hierarchy.

Every normative construct o a reIative as a person starts with me

xed,distinctiveeatures.1hus aatherisintherstinstancethegenitor,
| and as areIative ormemberotheamiIyheis guidedbyconsiderations

o enduring, diduse soIidarity or Iove.

Butthe atheras a personhas a cIass position, and he is o the maIe

''

Whether the system is even wider and more extensive than American culture
alone must remain an open, empirical question at this time.

have not developed this point systematically in this book. Neither have pre
sented any systematic treatent of the problem of just which components, from

which symbol systems other than kinship, go to make up the normative defnition
) of the relative as a person in American culture. What follows, therefore, must O

. taken with more than the us4al grain of salt; it is at best a programmatic statement
which may prove useful when it is worked out fully.

1 1 4
Conclusion
sex. How do these components distribute themselves MaIeness isvaried

bycIass position. What is appropriate and properor a maIe upper-cIass

person who is a ather is diderent rom the standards appropriate or a

maIemiddIe-cIasspersonwhois aather. 1hesein turn arenotthe same

as thc standards or the behavior o a male Iower-cIass person who i a

ather.

In a very important sense, then, variation in what has been caIIed

''amiIy orm'` consistso variation at the IeveI othe amiIy as a group

opersons and variation inthe normative denition o the reIative as a

member o the amiIy.

8uch variaton, in tun, does not depend on variation in the kinship

component, that is 8xed and standard, since it consistso the distinctive

eatures. 8uch variation depends instead on variabIes such as sex-roIe
diderentiation rom the sex-attribute system, and cIass diderentiation

rom the stratication system. Variation in amiIy orm, then, is IargeIy

amatterovariationincIass andsex-roIe attribute, notkinshiporamiIy

and shouIdbestudiedas such.

It is preciseIy because a singIe-core system o kinship is the centr+I

component o everynormative dennition o tLe reIative as a personthat

it is possibIe to say that there is a singIe kinship system or the United

8tates. And it is or th very same reason that the variant and variabIe

normative defnitions can be regarded as part o one system, not many
systems. For the sexattribute or sexroIe-diderentiation system has its

ownseto distinctiveeatures,whichconsitutesa singlesystemin Amer

ican cuIture. 1he stratication system aIso is part o a singIe system.

.
-_

I turn now to the questionosexuaIintercourse as the centraI symboI

oAmerican kinship as a cuIturaI system.

It wiIIbeheIpuItobegin witha ew simpIe distinctions. First, sex+

intercoursecanbe seenas a setobiological facts. 1hesearepartothe

worId. 1hey exist, and theyhave edects.

8econd, there are certain cuIturaI notions and constructs about bi

Iogicalacts. 1he exampIe par excellence in American cuIture istheli

sciences-bioIogy, zooIogy, biochemistry, and so on. 1his is a cuItura

system expIicitIy attuned to those bioIogicaI acts as such. It discove

them,studies them organizes what it regardsasacts into a system. u
it remains a system ocuIturaIconstructs which shouId not beconIused

with the bioIogicaI acts themseIves. Outside the ormaI organization

o
the sciences there are aIso cuIturaI notions and beIies about bioIogicaI

acts. In certainrespectsboth theormaI science and theinormaIeth

Conclusion 11 S

scienceare the same. Both mayinfact 5e in error in some matters, 5oth

may in fact 5e correct in some matters, 5ut 5oth serve as guides for the
actions of peopIe deaIing in some vay vith those 5ioIogicaI facts. In
addition, 5oth are organized so as to remain attuned to the 5ioIogicaI

facts themseIves; that is, 5oth are modeIs of the reaIity vhich consists
:
, of the b:o|og:co/ ]octs. Hence there is a very strong tendency~though
2
_ this

is far from perfectIy carried out~to adjust the cuIture to the facts

and notvice versa, and` to change the cuIturaI constructs vhen they faiI
to conform vith the facts. This is seIdom a perfect process for many

, reasons vhich need not detain us here.

' Third, there are certain cuIturaI notions vhich are put, phrased, ex-
pressed,sym5oIized5ycuIturaInotionsdej:ct:og5ioIogicaIfacts,orvhat
purpor to 5e 5ioIogicaI facts. SexuaI intercourse and the attendant eIe-

ments vhich are said to 5e 5ioIogicaI facts :oojo: osthey cooce:o k:o-

s/:pas a cuIturaIsystem,are ofthis order. Kinship is mta theory a5out

bioIogy; 5ut 5ioIogy servestoformuIateatheorya5out kinship.

AmuchsimpIerexampIetostartviththansexuaIintercourse,hovever,
is the matterof the heart; its Ioss, its5reaking, its sveIIing, and its feeI-

ing.
First, there is the heart, a 5ioIogicaI fact. Sccond, there is a 5ody of
science and ethnoscience a5out the heart~that ir pumps 5Iood and has
four cham5ers and so on. And third, there is that heart5reakingmoment
vhen a man oses his hcart to the girI of his dreams, vho jiIts him, thus
reaIIy 5reaking his heart. Or she may not JiIt him, and his heart viII
sveII vith pride and

joy, vhiIe he pIeads his suit-from the heart, of

course~in U vayvhich he hopes viII 5e taken as heartfeIt. HeartfeIt, in

just the same vayas vhen he puts his right hand ( or his hat ) over his

heart as the American Hag goes5y during a parade, or vhen hepIedges

aIIegiance to the American 5a
This is not a set of 5ioIogicaI facts. Neither is it a theory obout5io-
ogicaI facts, and no amount of research a5out the hea:t has had any
eect on this particuIar coIIection of cuIturaI constructs depicting the
heart. Whether these eververeregarded as 5ioIogicaIfacts, vhether the
seat of the emotions vas once 5eIieved to 5e the 5ioIogicaI organ, does
not reaIIy

matternov.
But the heart is a very good exampIe 5ecause it is such a poor ex-
ampIe.ThereisavorIdofdiEerencetothe native5etveenthe5ioIogicaI
of the heart andthe idea of a heartache or5roken heart. The heart
in this context is a metaphor at 5est, and everyone vho uses it in that
way knovs that it is a metaphor. The simpIe distinction 5etveen heart-

ache and heart5urn 5rings this metaphoricaI quaIity out quite cIearIy,
fr the former stoods]or an emotionaI state, the Iatter :s pureIy gastric

1 1 6 Conclusion

and quite somatic. InAmerican culture, kinsbip ) biology, tbebrokeo

beart and beartacbe arenot.

8omucbokinsbipandamilyin Americanculture:s de8ned as being

,
nature itsel, required by nature,

or directly determined by nature tbat

itisquitedicult,oten impossible, in act, or Americans to see tbis
as

asetocultural constructs and not tbe biological acts tbemselves. 1hey

see tbe acts o esb and blood as the pertinent acts, tbe acts wbicb

contain tbe actualidentity oparent and cbiId, wbicb contain tbe orce

wbicb compe!s tbe deep eeling and !ove between tbe two, and wbicb

maketbem 'onlynatural. 1bemilko buman kindness is a niet
apbor

orAmericans,butitisnotane:nptymetapborlike tbebeart. Forwitb

out tbe milk, kindly given,bardly a cbild would survive.

1besebiologicalacts,tbebiologicalprerequisitesorbumanexisteoce

exist and remain. 1be cbild does not live witbout tbe milk o buma

kindness, botb as nourisbment and as protection. Nor does tbe cbild

_
comeintobeingexceptbytbeertilizedeggwbicb, exceptortbose rare

casesoartcialinsemination,istbeoutcomeosexualintercourse.1besel
arebio!ogica!acts.1beyare actsolie and acts o nature.

1bere is also a system o constructs in American culture about tbos

bio!ogical acts. 1bat system exists in an ad}usted and adjustable rela

tionsbip witb tbe bio!ogical acts.

8uttbese same cultural constructs wbicb depict tbese biological acts,

bave anotber qua!ity. 1bey bave as one o tbeir aspects U symbohe

quality, wbicb means tbat tbey represent sometbing otber tban wba

tbeyare, overandaboveand in addition to tbeirexistence asbio!ogica

actsandasculturalconstructs aboutbiologicalacts. 1bey serve intbi

respect as symbols precisely because tbere is no necessary or intrinsi
relationsbipbetween tbemandwbattbeysymbolize.

Wbat, tben, do tbe cultura! constructs depicting tbe acts o seua1
intercourse symbolize?

1beysymbolizediuse,enduringsolidarity.1beysymbolizetbosekindt
o interpersonal re!ations wbicbbuman beings as biological beings

,
bave i tbey are to be bon and grow up. 1bey symbolize trust, but

a,
specialkindotrustwbicb isnotcontingentandwbicb doesnotdepen

on reciprocity. 1bey stand or tbe act tbat birtb survives deatb, a

tbat solidarity8 enduring. And tbey stand or tbe act tbat man c

create,bybisown actand asanactowill, andisnot simply anobj

onature'smind!essmercy.

Injust tbesan:ewaytbat reproduction is aset o biologicalactstb
isprerequisite to tbe continuityoa society as abodyopeople, so o[
diuse, enduring so!idarity is a social and psycbobiological prereqis
totbe continuityobotbtbesocietyanditsculture.

ontu$on T T 7
8ut how can this be expressed? How can it be said? How can i tbe
put so that it can guide the action and show the paths or people to

ollow?Ithesethingssomehow need to be done,what rules need tobe

set to assure that they are done, or people do not have the instinctive
patterns o ants lhey need to leam what they like to think are their
instncts.Andsoamodel:sneeded, amodeltol:veby.

i-.
~
_
.
.

- .
_

..
1.1

__
-
--

*-`

.
~

:
What better model than sexual intercourse and its attendant psycho-
biologcal elements? lhese biological acts are transormed by the at-
tribution omeaning into cultural constructs and they then constitute a
modelorcommit-nent, or the passionate attachment which is one side
o trust, and or the unreasoning and unreasonable set o conditions
whichalonemake''so!idarityreallysolidary, andmake itboth enduring
and diuse.

3.
. '


1hisbook, eomp!eted in I01, pub!ished in I08, and reprinted in I080,
marks a important point in a Iarger enterprise. It represents my 8rs(
ma|orpieeeoworkontwoIong-standing interests. thestudy o Amer
ean eu!ture and the deveIopment o a theory o euIture. Its speeiaI sig
nieanee,orme,isthatitbringstogetherbothotheseinterestsinthe;r

_

traditionaIandproperbaIanee,makinguseoanexpIieittheoryoeuItre

inthe ana!ysisoaeoneretebodyodata. 1heorywithoutdataanddata

without theory are ineoneeivab!e to me, or the one a!ways entai!s th

other. It is easy toseethe impIieit theory in any work that purports tU

bpuredeseription; itisharderto seetheimp!ieitbodyodata aroun
whieh a theory deve!ops,butits there nonethe!ess

1hisenterprisegoesbaektomygraduate student days. Vyinterest

studying Ameriean euIturestarted inthe ear!y I040s, andmyinterest
deve!opingatheoryoeuIturewhieheou!daeeordwith1aIeottParsons
`

theory o soeia! aetion started when I retuncd to graduate sehooI m

I04 ater World War II. i ean e!aim no specd reeord. And it is nct

unreasonab!e to saythatrom those years o e0ortthere has eomeord

a verysma!!bookindeed.

As I reported inWhat is Kinship aII About

.
` '

I rea!ized too !ate tha

thetitIeothe bookwaswrong,orIoundthat I had muehmore tIaa
AmerieankinshipbythetaiI.1hebookwasinasensemoreabouteerta

undamenta!postuItes oAmeriean eu!tureingeneraIthanitwasabo.(

Tinship.WhatwasmostannoyingaboutthiswasthatIhadbeenteI!i
myse! ( andanyonewhohadthepatieneeto !isten) ora!ongtime

1 1 8

.-
:
.
.
*

.
-
.=

:.
^.
. -

-.
..

.
.-

:
.
..

: :

.^.

TweVe Yeurs LUter

1 19
therewas no sueh thing as '1inship,'` that it was a ehimera, an artifaet
of a bad theory. 1o get hoist in this way was, and remains, aeuteIy
embarassing.
8eaIizing that I was deaIing with more than Ameriean kinship, I
immediateIy wrote Kinship, NationaIityand 8eIigion in Ameriean CuI-
tare'`whieh, in eeet, said thatwhat I had been eaIIng'kinship reaIIy
aIso eneompassed at Ieast nationaIity and reIigion in Ameriean euIture.
Not onIywas the domain of '1inshipnot distinetin Ameriean euIture,
itasaIso thewayintoamuehIargerdomainthat I happened,forgood
historieaIreasons, to getstarted on. A short paper, Ameriean Kin Cate-
gories,`` for the Levi-8trauss Festsehrift foIIowed. 1hen, working with
8aymond 1. 8mith, the foeus shifted to a Iower eIass group of BIaeks,
Latinos,andAppaIaehiansinChieago
.
andonthebasisofthisnewbody
ofdata, ahrstdraftofanewbookwaswritten in I010, entireIyrevised,
and pubIished in I018

as Class Dife-ences and Sex Roles in American

Kinship and Family Structure.
VeanwhiIe,in I012
.
thepaper\\hat is Kinship aII About attempted
to bring the Iessons of this book to the more generaI probIem of the
anthropoIogieaI study ofkinship.` 1hat is,byreviewing the theoretieaI
position of this book and contrasting it with the more orthodox theory
generaIIy heId, I triedto show that''kinship as a thing, as an ob|eet of
study, was at best onIy possibIe in a very restrieted sense, and then
probabIy onIy in Westen euItures sueh as that in the United 8tates.
1his is the more eonservative, temperate statement of the message of
that paper. 1he more dramatie statement was that '1inship" was, Iike
totemism, a non-subeet, and pureIy an artifaet of a demonstrabIy faIse
theory. NeedIess to say, this mcssage was not reeeived with universaI
aeeIaim andtheanthropoIogieaI profession did not pour into u:e streets
in |oyous eeIebration. One Isson of this paper is that it is mueh more
ainfuI to disagreethan it is to be wrong. None of this diminishes the
paperinmyownestimation. I thinkthatitisa eompeIIingposition.
WhiIe that paper was brewing, ]ames Boon and I were taIking of
Levi-8trauss'

s strueturaIism and the dierenees in Levi-8trauss`s treat-

mentofkinship andmyth.1histaIkresuItedinthe8rstdraftof'Kinship
vis--vis Vyth,`
.
whieh we gave at one of the annuaI meetings of the
AmerieanAnthropoIogieaIAssoeiation. Butagain,aII myeontribution to
uat paper derived in more or Iess direet form from the impIieations of
Amercan Kinship> and so it, too, represented mereIy another deveIop-
mentof the theory 8rst stated most eIearIy in American Kinship.
InIate I068 and in I00, the anaIysis of the geneaIogies ve had eoI-
IeetedaIongwith aIIthe othermateriaIonwhieh thisbookisbasedwas
beguni neanest, butwork had to be suspended inthe earIy I010s, aI-
120
Twelve Years Late.
:

'
,

though the draftversion was fairIycompIete by J972. Thus, 1he Awer

:cooK:o uo:ce:se did not appearunt

iI J975.

Keith Basso and Henry SeIby had arranged a conference sponsored,

by ue SchooI for American Besearch in Santa Fe in March of

where theyand Ira BuchIer, Susan

Etin-Tripp, Boy d'Andrade, CIiord

Geertz,EIIie Maranda,HaroId Schemer, MichaeI SiIverstein, and I spent

endIess, and for me intenseIy happy, hours, discussing Veoo:og :o Ao-

thropologq,exacuywhat I thoughtmy theory of cuIture was about. My

debt to aII of them is considerabIe, for I Iearned much from them, and

fasterthanI mighthave otherwise. Notes Toward aTheory ofCuIture"

appears inthevoIumeresuIting from thatconference.

Andsoitgoes. Iroadapaperin|une I977ataSmithsonian Institution

symposium caIIed Kinship, Community and LocaIity in American CuI-

ture" which has just been pubIished. During the Iate J960s, I began to

rework some of my Yap materiaI in terms of a better deveIoped t!eory

of cuIture, and it wiII come as no surprise that its center of interest i

Yap kinship.I gave an earIy and abbreviated version of this paper
to

the AnthropoIogy Department of the University of New Mexico as on

ofthe FredHarvey, ]r. Lectures in 976, butthishas grovn into another

l
bookwhich shouIdbecomIeted soonSchneiderforthcoming).

Thus Awe::coo K:osh:pis partof a Iarger bodyofwork thatstiII con-

tinues and stiII focuses on theprobIem of cuIture theory based on data
from the study ofAmerican 'kinship,'' Yap, and the MescaIero Apache,

even when data from one or another of these cuItures is not epIicitI

cited.

FinaIIy, two points shouId be cIari6ed for the record. First, the op

position between 'substance'' and code or ''code for conduct,'` wic

was 6rstset frth in detaiI in this book has been picked up and appIied

tosome other cuItures byotheranthropoIogists, incIuding some working

on materiaIs from India. So far as I am concened his opposition s

demonstrabIy important in American cuIture. If it tucs out to beuseful

in the anaIysis of materiaIs from India or eIsewhere, good. ButI myseIf

make onIy one Iimited cIaim for this opposition, it is an important part

of American cuIture. I make no cIaims for its universaIity, generaIity

orappIicabiIity anywhere eIse.

The second point is rather Iike the 6rst. So far as I am ncerned

`'dif|use, enduring soIidarity is a fundamentaI feature of certain area

ofAmerican cuIture. Since I have takcn the cIear position that I do no

beIieve that the concept of ''kinship'' in generaI is usefuI, and that i

beIievethat'1inship asa universaIisfaIse, and uatitis a nonprobIem

it wouId be absurd of me to caim that ''diuse, enduring soIidarity'` i

characteristic of `1:inship'' in generaI. For me, at this moment,

there

-:: Twelve Years Lo1er X1

-

:.

onIy Amer:ean ''k:nsb:p' ` and even tbat :s very I:m:ted :n :ts den:t:on.
Heneetbeattempttbatbasbeen made, byCra:gor exampIe, to equate
d:tluse, endur:ng soI:dar:ty'` w:tb Proessor Veyer Iortes`s eoneept o
tbe 'ax:om oam:ty:s

to put :t poI:teIy, m:sgu:ded. 1o treata spee:e

ebaraeter:st:eooneparteuIareuIture as a eature o a et:ve un:versaI
bardIy seen:s w:se to me. AII I mean by 'd:use, endur:ng soI:darity
:s a eature o Amencan euIture. I Dr. Crag sbouId deeI:ne to agree
w:tbme and:ns:st tbat one ean :ndeed d:seuss k:nsb:p :n generaI, as
aun:versaIeatureoevery euIture, and tberebydraw paraIIeIs between
Iortess 'ax:om o am:ty and myd:use, endur:ng soI:dar:ty`` tbat :s
ent:reIy bs aa:r. 8ut my pont rema:ns tbe same, tbe onIy eIa:m tbat
Imakeor ''d:use, enduring soI:dar:ty`` :s or tbe pIaee tbat I bave de-
ser:bedor:t:nAmer:ean euIture.
I3-
1bework onwb:eb Amer:con K:osh:p was based was doneus:ng aI-
most ent:reIy wb:te, urban, m:ddIe eIass :normants. I tr:ed to expand
mybor:zonsbyread:ngas mueb as I eouId:n tbe soe:oIog:eaII:terature
about Iower eIass am:Iy and k:nsb:p and aIso spent more bours tban
proved useuI Iook:ngoretbn:eandraee` d:tIerenees as weII. Inretro-
speet, :twas t:me tbat bad to be wasted. 1o bave a:Ied to eomb tbe
I:teraturewouId bave been grave dereIet:on oseboIarIy duty. 8utbav-
:ng done so

pree:ous I:ttIe eame o :t. EndIess t:rades and agon:zed

rev:ewsotbestate omarr:ageand d:voreenever touebed tboseerue:aI
quest:ons-or quest:ons en:eaI to me-nameIy, How :s marr:age to be
understood?How:s:tdened?InsteadI IearnedtbatsomeeItmarr:age
was doomed and otbers eIt tbat tbe am:Iy, and benee marr:age, was
`
`

te
d
eornerstoneo aII ev:I:_a+:onas we,:andtbatbr:s:g_rae

o :voreewas e:t erg astyoreommen a e. utnoneo t ese oary

works I eonsuIted toId me very mueb about wbat I wanted to know.

And most :mportant was tbe aet tbat tbe wboIe am:Iy and k:nsb:p

system o tbe In:ted 8tates was treated :n terms o tbe wb:te, urban,

m:ddIe eIass. EarI:er, Vargaret Vead, among

otbers, tr:ed to make tbe

ease tbat tbe m:ddIe eIass set tbe standard, stated tbe asp:red goaIs,

ormuIated tbe vaIues wb:eb permeated every otber strata o Amer:ean
soe:ety. 1bereore wb:te, urban, m:ddIe eIass vaIues eouId Ieg:t:mateIy

betakentorepresenttbeeuIturaInorms. It:s:ron:e tbatttooktbee:v:I

r:gbts movement, not systemat:e se:ent:e enqu:ry, to d:speI tbat eom-

o_bt
d
oetb_eentr:ty. _n_tupper assbas n

entered:nt
or tnt :ae any pper ass :g s ovemen we are S I very mue

:ntbe dark aboutwbat goes ontbere. )

-
``

`
122 Twelve Years later
But the long and the short of it was that I did make some very bad
mistakes, and these came out most clerly when Raymond T. Smith and
I studied some Chicago Blacks, Latinos, and Appalachians, all of whom
were lower class. The results of this study have now been reprinted by
the University of Michigan Press as Class Diferences in Amercan Kinship
(1978). See Barnett and Silverman in this connection.
In the frst place, my claim that there is only one American kinship
system tripped over the fact that the family
,
means something diferent
to the lo-v er class from what it does to the middle class. Family and
household have been persistently confused in the ethnographic literature.
This may be a consequence of the fact that most ethnographers are mid
dle class and the middle class tends to treat the family and the household
as one and the same thing. The lower class does not. Co-residence is not
nearly the great symbol of unity for the lower class family that it is for
the middle class. So there are some corrections in Class Diferences in
American Kinship of statements in American Kinship. Many of these
corrections sort out that which applies to all Americans from what is
class-linked. But most of what was said in American Kinship survives.
One of its most useful aspects is that American Kinship did, perhaps
impetuously, ofer some hypotheses which the later research could deal
with explicitly and, where necessary, correct. One of these corrections
is the idea that the tcfamily'' and co-residence of the middle class is identi
cal to the (family, and co-residence of the lower class. There are a num
ber of other, perhaps less serious errors -v hich the later book corrects,
but this is one of the major ones.
A second error which later research has corrected is the assertion that
ethnicity does not matter, that once an ethnic group is in the United
States, i t takes
.
over American culture, lock, stock, and barrel, and so
felt free
.
to talk about American ('kinship'
,
as applying equally to diferent
ethnic groups. Sylvia Yanagisako showed that this was not true for Japa
nese-Americans, and in an unpublished paper, Phyllis Chock suggests
tactfully that it would be stretching the case to claim that Greek-Ameri
.
.
cans are just exactly like all other Americans so far as their kinship sys
ter, as a cultural system, goes. I suspect that if our material were richer
on the Latinos it would show some important diferences, too.
The problem that remains is to see how each of these qualifcations
relates to the other and how the qualifcations relate to the whole con
ception. It is not impossible that the variations in class and ethnicity
are but systematic transformations of an underlying or more general set
of similarities, and it may yet be shown that there is a single, coherent,
and integrated patter of which that part outlined in American Kinship
`

` `

`
.

` ` .
` .

` `

` `
`
` ` `

.
`
.

.

`

`

:.
`
_

` :

.
`

`
` `
`
` `
`

+

`
:
:
``
.
` ` `

.
`

:
`
.
`
`
`
`
.
` .
.
`
'
'

`
.

.
`
.

`
.

`
.
`

`
`

. .

.
:
_
`
'
.

`
.

( .:

`
`

`
`

`
.
` `` `

`
'

: .

..
.
.

+

-
.
.

.
`

`
.
.
:
`
`
.
.
`
:
`

`
`
`

`

` `

`
` `
`

`
:

.
. *

:
`
.

.
`

`
`
`

`
:

` `
.
.

`
` `

` :
` ` .

`
. `

`
`
`

_
.

.
` `
.

.
``
.

:
.
` `
`

`
``
::

_
@
@
'
` -
`

'
`
`
:

`
`

.


.
`
`
`

_
.
.
.

` ` '

'
*

.
*

^

:

-

-
.

- :
*
`
*

I
`

`
*
.

.

-
-

.
.
:
:
.

:
,
_

1weIvo Yeors Loter
X
is but one. Wbatever tbe outeome o sueb an analvsis, tbis raises tbe

question otbeintcgration o eulture as I bave dened it, and wbetber

iteanoreannotbe regarded as more orlesspereetly integrated.
1be diseussion above aboutdata brings up tbe eritieism tbat it eon-
tained littlei anydata at all. Wbat is at issue, oeourse, is. ]ustwbat
are data? Ior some, tbey apparently eonsist o a set oob|eetiveIy veri-
able aets wbieb ean be dseovered and reported as pure deseription
and wbieb ean and must be kept sbarply distnet rom any analysis or
interpretations. Vy own position ( as I bave suggested above) is tbat
tbe distinetion between aet and analysis eannotbe made sbarply; tbat
tbeyaresointerwoventbeyeannotbeseparated.IIeneetbepresentation
owbatpurports to be puredata is a!ways a seleeton, tbatseleetion is
always gudedbyimplieitorexplieit presuppositions, and tbose presup-
positions orm a more or less eoberent tbeory. A set o aets or body
odata is simply some empireal statement made witbin tb
_
ramework
o aeoneeptual sebemeor tbeory, boweverinexplieittbis remains.Wat
IbelieveIbavepresentedinAmerican Kinship are data in tbis sense,
ustasit is'analysisintbe samesense.
1bis is not to deny tbat tbe six tbousand pages o typed interview
material seep. I2) on wbiebtbis bockis largelybasedis not quite ue
same tbing as tbis bock. 8ut even i one were to argue tbat tbosesix
tbousandpagesaretbedataand tbisbookistbeinterpretation,itwould
beextraordinarily dimeult to sbow tbat tbe materia

tbat went into tbe

sixtbousandpageswasnotselceted,andtbatits seleetionwasnotguidcd
byverymuebtbesametbeoretiealeonsiderationsasguideditsdistillation
into tbe one bundred and seventeen pages wbieb eonstitute tbe book.
Voreover, it is impossible to stipulate preeisely tbe operations wbieb
transormed tbe six tbousand pages o typed materal into tbe one bun
dredseventeenwbieb purpo

?ttorepresent it. 1beleasttbateanbesaid

istbattbere isindeed an intimate and determinate eonneetion between

tbesixtbousandpagesandtbebundredandseventeen.
1bis is not tbe plaee to present a ully developed argument or tbe
position I bave taken 8ut it is tbeplaee to indieate wby I eannot seri-
ously aeeept tbis eritieism as tstands. 1be aet remains tbat tbis book
is largely in tbe orm ogeneralizations, and tbe six tbousand pages o
eld notes are speeie instanees, bowever ormed by tbe apprebension,
eon.prebcnsion, andprcsuppositionsotbe eldworkers asreworked by
tbeautbor.I eould indeed bave doeumented aseries oextended exam-
ples or caeb o tbe generalizations made in tbis book. I bave ebosen,
bowever,notto do so.
Hereapieeeobistorysuseul.Attbetimetbemanuseriptwasbeing
124
Twelve YearG later

VtttCD, u CO8C 888OC8tC VCDt tDtOu_D tDC DtCtVCV8 8DU tDC OD8CtV8-

tOD8 uDU 8CCCtCU u VCtt8DC ttC88utC ttOVC Ol QuOt8tOD8 ltOm DlOODuDt8

8DU Ol OD8CtVutOD8 Dy DCU VOtKCt8 VDCD `8u__OttCU umO8t CVCt

8t8tCmCDt CODt8DCU D American Kinship. 1t V88 8 OD_, 8tUuOu8 tu8K,

,
uDU tCQutCU 8 _OOU KDOVCU_C Ol VDut 1 Vu8 VttD_ 8DU 8 UCtuCU

_t88_ Ol CVC1y Dt Ol tDC Du_C mu88 Ol mutCt8 COCCtCU D tDC DCU.
DC VC KDOVD 1uC tDut `DO _OOU UeCU _OC8 uD_uD8DCU CumC DtO

_uy. 1 tOOK tD8 COCCtOD Ol QuOt8tOD8 uDU 8tutCmCDt8 8DU tC8U tDCm

OVCt C8tCluy. DCy UU DUCCU _tOVUC 8u__Ott lOt 8 Ol tDC m_Ott8Dt

_ODt8 D tDC DOOK uDU mO8t Ol tDC mDOt ODC8 u8 VC. CtC V88 8D
CmDutt888mCDt Ol tCDC8. ut 8DCC U8t8 8DU uDuy88 8tC DCXttCuDy
DtCttVDCU, t 8 u UtCCt COtOuty tD8t 8t8tCmCDt8 Dy DlOtm8Dt8, QuOt8-
tOD8 Ol VD8t tDC D8tVC8 uCtuuy 88U, OD8CtV8tOD8 uDOut VD8t tDCy
8Ctu8y UO C8D COD8ttutC DOtDD_ mOtC tD8D CXum_C8, Ot u8tt8tOD8,
8DU CuD D DO 8CD8C DC tC_8tUCU u8 _tOVD_ 8DytDD_. O uUU tD8 tCD

D8tVC8t Ol QuOtutOD8 tO tDC DOOK VOuU, tDCD, 8CtVC DO _ut_O8C OtDCt

tDuD u8tt8tOD, 8DU m_Dt Cu8y DC m8uDUCr8tOOU 88 cODhtmD_ tDC
+

uD8y88. LD tDC ODC DuDU 1 UU DOt lCC tD8t 8 8CtOu8y uDUCtt8KCD

VOtK Ol tDC 8Ott 1 tDOu_Dt 1 V88 UOD_ DCCUCU u8tIutOD8 tO _C_ t u_

Ot _VC t 8 `lCC lOt tDC U8t8; OD tDC OtDCt D8DU, 1 V8DtCU tO DC VCty,
VC1y 8:uC tD8t DO ODC COuU _O88Dy m8DtCt_tCt VD8t 1 V88 UOD_ Dy

DCD_ m8CU DtO tDDKD_ tD8t tDC mCtC u8tt8tOD8 Ot CX8m_C8 COuU

_tOVC 8DytDD_, Ot CDU l8Ctu8 8u__Ott lOt 8Dy DtCt_tCt8tOD. ADU l

tDCtC VCtC 8 CDOCC DCtVCCD tDC8C tVO tC88OD8 Ot OmttD_ umO8t u

8uCD u8tt8tOD8, QuOtutOD8, CtC. t V88 tDC 8CCODU tC88OD 1 lOuDU mO8t

COm_CD_. 1 D8VC ltCQuCDty DCCD ODCDUCU D OtDCt 8DtDtO_OO_8t8,

8OCOO_8t8 8DU _8yCDOO_8t8 VDO _uy VD8t 1 tDDK Ol 88 tDC QuC8\OD-

.
+

8DC _8mC Ol 8u__C8tD_ tD8t tDCt _CDCtu28tOD 8 `_tOVCD Ot `8u_-

_OttCU Dy 8OmC 8__tO_tutCy cDO8CD CXCC1_t ltOm tDC hCU m8tC188.

1 tDCtClOtC OmttCU, CXCC_t lOt 8 VCt lCV D8tDCC8, tDC Vu8t DOU_ O

m8tCtu tD8t myu88OC8tC D8U 8DOtOu8y COCCtCU OD tDC _Ou8 _tOuDU

tDut 1 tClu8CU tO CDC8t. 1 m_Dt DC VtOD_ D my uD8y88, Dt 1 V88 CCt-

tuDy DOt _OD_ tO CDC8t. ADU u8D_ DCC ttC QuOtC8 8DU CODVDCD_

ttC u8tt8tOD8 V88 1 tDOu_Dt tDCD 8DU tDDK CQu8y 8ttOD_y DOV, U
lOtm Ol CDC8tD_: t _tCtCDU8 tO UOCumCDt8tOD VDCD t 8 Dm tDut 8l

8. CCUC88 tO 88y, my u88OC8tC U8u_tCC8 8DU D88 DOt lOt_VCD mC t0

tD8 U8y.

oO tDC ODy tCu8OD8DC tC_y tDut 1 C8D m8KC tO tDO8C VDO DOU tD8\
tDC DOOK _tC8CDt8 DO U8tu 8 tO 8uy 8m_y, `DC DOOK 8 tDC Uut8. 1

C8DDOt CX_CCt CVCtODC tO u_tCC VtD mC, Dut 1 DO_C tD8t my _O8tOD

,_
18 CC8t.

`.

Twelve Ye=rS tvr
!15
III.
Of great interest to me, and 1 hope to readers of this book, are U series
of closely interwoven problems that arise out of a theory of culture which
centers on problems of meaning.

The best way into this area is by "vay of a short paragraph which
Cliford Geertz published and which 1 have chosen to treat as being of
direct concern to the theory of culture to which I have committed my
self. Geertz says:
Culture is most efectively treated, the argument goes, purely as a symbqlic
system (the catch phrase is, "in its own terms'') , by isolating its elements,
specifying the internal relationships among those elements, and then char
acterizing the whole system in some general way-according to the core sym
bols around which it is organized, the underlying structures of which it is a
surface expression, or the ideological principles upon which it is based . . . this
hermetical approach to things seems to me to run the danger ( and increasingly
to have been overtaken by it) of locking cultural analysis away' from its proper
object, the informal logic of actual life.
Behavior must be attended to, and with some exactness, because it is through
te flow of behavior-or more precisely, social action-that cultural fonns fnd
articulation. They fnd it as well, of course, in various sorts of artifacts, and
various states of consciousness; but these draw their meaning from the role
they play (Wittgenstein would say their <use
,
) in an ongoing pattern of life,
not from any intrinsic relationships they bear to one another (Geertz, C., 1973,
The Interpretation of Cultures> p. I7) .
There is, in this brief quotation, a veritable mares nest of problems,
each of which has been put to me in one way or another as a criticism of
Amer:coo K:rsh:p
First, there is the problem of the relationship between culture treated
as a system of symbols and teanings and what Geertz here calls "be-

havior-or more precisely social action." He uses Talcott Parsons's terms,

and 1 presume that he uses Parsons's defnition of them, too. Social action
is behavior that is symbolically and meaningfully entailed, the symbols
and meanings deriving from the shared system of symbols and meanings
in a society. Behavior is the residual category; it is any action that is not
entailed in the symbol and meaning system of a society-it is .raw be
havior, so to speak, not ccial action.
The Parsonian frame takes social action as the object of its study and
it distinguishes four systems as the determinants of social action no one

of
1
whic
1
h c
h
an be r
1
edu
h
ced to
h
an
1
y oth
1
er. T
d
hese a
b
re, as is wel
h
l know
1
n, the

cu tura , t e soda , t e psyc o ogica , an the iological. T us, e erents

from each of these systems are present in any concrete social action.

T20 Twelve Years Luter

1here is always a soeiaI eomponent, aIways a psyehoIogieaI eomponent,

aIways abioIogeaI eomponent, and aIways aeuIturaI eomponent in any

soeiaI aet.

``

As I tried to expIain inNotes 1oward a 1heory of CuIture," I have

taken Parsons`s seheme ( not his whoIe theory, but onIy this partieuIar
,
part ofit) onestep further than hehas himseIf. If the euIturaI system
. . ;
asheeaIIs it, eannotbe redueed to any othersystem of determinants of

soeiaI aetion, and if indeed it does have systemate features, then two

questions ean be asked. One ean ask the proper Parsonian' question,

\\hat is the roIe tIat eulture plays in soeiaI aetion?or, in other words,

:
WhatistheeeetofeuIture on soeiaI aetion inits determinant aspeets?

Further, one ean ask, Wherein Iie the systematie features of euIture? In

_
what way does it eonstitute a system? How are its eIements reIated to

eaeh other? 1o put itin Ceertz`s terms, euIture ean be treated ''pureIy

U a symboIiesystem ( theeatehphraseis,'initsown terms` ) .

But it is not neeessary to be a proper Parsonian. Vy position eon-

verges with the position of a number of other workers who are in no

way Parsonian. If, however, one aeeepts Parsonss distinetion between

;j
behaviorandaetionitfoIIows thatsinee notaIIbehavior issymboIieaIIy

ormeaningfuIlyengaged ( whieh is byitseIfa fairenoughposition) , the

symboIie part or the meaningfuIness of aetion is an aspeet of that be-

.
haviorwhiehindeedeanIegitimateIybeabstraeted. 1hisisnomorethan ,

tosaythatiftheabstraetions are madewith respeettotheir reIations to

]
eaeh other
.
thesystem of abstraetions ean be studied in its own terms
apart from the ow of aetion and vith respeet to the reIations among

the abstraeted eIements.

,
8aussure distinguished between langue and pat ole; Chomskybetween

eompetenee and performanee, 8iIverstein between funetion, and fune- .

tion,;8ahIinsina reeent,unpubIishedpaper''IndividuaIExperieneeand

CuItural Order, between euIture-as-eonstituted and euIture-in-aetion or

euIture-as-Iived.

Iam weIlawareofthefaetthattherehas beena greatpIunderingof

IinguistiestonndeoneeptsandideaswhieheanbeappIied ( aII toooften

naiveIy) to euIture. I am aIso aware thatIanguage is often not thebest

analogytoeuIture andthereforethemethods forits studyeannotaIways .

beappIieddireetIytothestudyofeuIture.ButthisisnotanaIIornothing
matter.1heproblem istoappIytheanaIogywhereitis appropriate,and

inthispartieuIarrespeet I thinkitappIies. 1he faetthatiteonverges

eertain important respeets with the Parsonian position ean be taken as

a good omen or abadomen dependingon ones outIook.

,
WhereonedeniestheIegitimaeyofthestudyoflangue, ofeompetenee

of8iIverstein s funetion,, oneaIso denies the Iegitimaey of the study of

+^
^
+

-
:`
`

-
^
-

^^

.
:

*.
.

-:

.
.

^
_
:-

^
~
Twelve Yean Later 127
eulture-as-eonstituted.Iwesimplyebange''eultuteto'1anguage,some
woulddenytbatlanguageaseonstitutedcan beaptopetobeet ostudy
andtbatiteanbestudiedonlyasitis aetuallyspoken.Ctammat, syntax,
voeabulary would all be gven tbe same sbott sbrit as eultute in its
owntetms'` ( eultute-as-eonstituted) . 1bus, languageean only bestudied
as spoken, as diseoutse, ot tbat is tbe otm wbieb language takes as
soeiaIaetion.
A ptoblem wbieb otbets bave taised beats on one o Ceettz's state-
mentsin tbequotationabove. Itis said tbat itis all vetywellto absttaet
eultute as I bave, but tbat tbis is petbaps a useless enterptise beeause I
nevetsbowboweultutestbentelatedtobebaviototsoeialaetion.1bus,
o wbat use is ittoknowtbattbete is a distinetion between substanee
and eode oteonduetsinee I nevet sbow bow ( to quote Ceettz again)
''euItutal otms ndartieulationtbrougb tbe ow o . . . soeial aetion."
1bis etitieism eanbe answeted by teealling tbattbe study o eultute
in its own terms,`' as I bave desetibed it in tbis book, is an endeavot
in wbieb tbe vety tst step is to deal witb tbe dow o soeial aetion"
and ''aetual bebaviot`' as mueb as possible

ot, wbat is tbe next best

tbing, to tepott wbat people say about wbat tbey ate doing, and wbat
tbeytbinktbeyate doing, and.vbytbeyate doing wbat tbey ate doing,
and above all, bow tbey deneand undetstand wbat tbey ate doing. It
istom tbismatetial-wbiebin

tbe ease o tbis book is tbe six tbousand

pages o intetview matetiaIs-tbat tbe symbols and meanings ate ab-
sttaeted. Itbe ptoeess oabsttaetion basbeenpetotmed propetIy, and
i tbe tbeoty wbieb bas guided tbat ptoeess is not aulty, and i it is
indeed symbols and meanings tbat bave been absttaeted ( and tbis ab-
sttaetionisealIedeultute` ) , tbenitmustbebotbpossibIeandIegitimate
toaskbowtboseabsttaetedelements atetelatedto eaebotbetandwbat
systematieebataeteristiestbeymaybave. Itisanotbet,butquitedietent
question toaskbov tbeya0eetsoeial aetion,otbowtbey ateartieulated
in soeial aetion.
D itis Iegitimate

as weIl U possibIe to so absttaet euItute`' and to

askabouttbetelationsbipsamongitselements,itistbenneeessatyto go
to tbe next question. How is eultute attieulated in soeiaI aetion ot bow
doeseultutea0eetsoeiaIaetion?ot,Wbattole doeseultutepIayinsoeiaI
aetion? 1bis is ultimately the question, o eoutse, tbis is wbat soeial
seieneeisot. Witbouttbatquestion aIl tbetest is empty.

Is tbete any justieation ot asking just one question at a time, ot

asking onlytbequestion abouteultute, and leavingtbe seeond question
untouebed? I tbink so. Fitst, i tbe ptoeess o absttaetion is done eot-
teetly ( and tbat is not always easy, as tbe tstseetion o tbis tettospee-
tive essay suggests ), it guatantees tbat tbe symbols and meanings wilI

128 Twolvo Teor

for
-

betaken rom the ow o soeiaI aetion, and thereore the abstraetions

wiII remain impIieitIy tn:e to their pIaee in the 8ow o soeiaI aetio
n.
8eeond, i the theory whieh guides the abstraetion is eorreet, then the_

'
abstraetion oeuIture''in its own terms``wII not beonewhieh ineludes

irreIevant eIements. Indeed, the reIevanee

oeuIture or soeiaI aetion

ether axiomatie or a working hypothesis. 1hird, to use the anaIogy
.
Ianguage onee again, i we listen to someone who speaks the sentenee

''Nowis the time or aII goodmen ;o eometo the aid o the party,'we

ean anaIyze that sentenee or its grammar, syntax, ete., we ean 8nd
a

sub|eet and a predeate, a verb and a noun, and so on. From this

Iearn part o the langue, the Ianguage-as-eonstituted, but we have not

anaIyzed itasparole, Ianguage-as-spoken. Wehavenot Iost the eapaeity
togobaek tothatspokensenteneeandaskwhatroIethegrammarpIays
int. Our anaIysis does not exhaust the sentenee by any means, or we
haveIetoutintention
.
amongotherthings, in ordertoseetheIanguage-

J
as-eonstitutedinitsownterms. Norhavewegotsoarrom the ow o

aetuaIIieastoIoekeuIturaIorgrammaticaIandsyntaetieeonsiderations

awayromit.

.
1here has been a surge o interest among Iinguists in diseourse and

in Ianguage-as-speeeh, parole. Vany Iinguists are interested, |ust as ar

many anthropoIogists
.
n symbols or signs, and in meanings, and in the
reIations betweensigns andmeaning. 8omehave gone soar as to den
)

the Iegitimaey o the study o langue and wiII study onIy parole. 1heit

resuItsarethen expressed asruIes or speeeh and ruIes oreerenee and
eonsistin what appears to tne to be|ust a bare step away rom simpIe

empirieaI generaIization. Instead o being abIe to stipuIate |ust wha ,_

signs or symboIs are embedded in the ongoing aetion, how those signs

arereIated to eaehotherand to thedierentmeanings, we have onIya

deseription o the ow o aetion. 1he materiaI eannot be anaIyzed in

anyothe traditionaI senses othat word, butmustbe'understoodb
somehermeneutieproeess.AIIisaetion;pure,thickaetion.1his Idono
aeeept.Iamnotapositivist.IamnotevenIookingoreausaIeonneetions ,

But I do think that some kind o anaIysis is possibIe, that it is possibIe

to separateaetionintoits eonstituentpartsin ordertoseehowitis eon

strueted, andbyso doing,better to understandhow aetion proeeeds.

1heprobIem oeuIturaI determinism andthe probIems o euIture su

generis are eIoseIy reIated to the probIems I have been diseussing. 1h

discussionhasbrought out myposition that euIture is one, but|ust one
among other determinants o soeiaI aetion. I do not take the positio
that euIture is sui generis, a thing in and o itseI or that it has an

existeneeoutside the eonstruetion othe anthropoIogistwho buiIds that

twelve Years Later

129

Ds lCaVCs tDC grODlCm Ol sDOwn_ DOw tDC CulturC wDCD DaVC

aDstraCtCd dOCs ndCCd ahCCt, dCtCrmnC Or rClatC tO aCtOn. n gart, tDC

rCgly s tDat tDC grODlCms Can DC sCgaratCd: tDC hrst grODlCm, grCC:sCly

DCCausC t Das DCCn nC_lCCtCd lOr sO lOn_, s tO _Ct at tDC /vgue, tDC

cOmgCtCnCC, tDC CulturC-as-COnsttutCd. YDCn wC knOw as muCD aDOut

CulturC-as-COnstitutCd as wC dO aDOut tDC struCturC Ol _rammar and syn-

taX,
/ogueand COmgCtCnCC, tDCn wC Can ndCCd, as tDC l:n_usts arC dO-

)n_ nOw, _O all-OutlOrtDCsCCOnd grODlCm, tDC study Ol CulturC-n-aCtOn,

gra_matCs, Or tDC study Ol lan_ua_C-as-sgCCCD. ]ust as tDC ln_usts usC

tDCr knOwlCd_C OltDCgDOnCtC systCm, _rammar, syntaX, and vOCaDulary

ntDCstudy Olgra_matCs Or lan_ua_C-as-sgCCCD, wC Can usC Our _rOwn_

knOwlCd_C aDOut tDC struCturC Ol s_ns Or symDOls and tDC struCturC Ol

mCann_, and tDC ways nwDCD s_ns and mCann_s rClatC undCr VarOus
lOrmally dChnCd COndtOns, n tDC study Ol tDC On_On_ gattCrn Ol llO

or tDC bOw Ol sOCal aCtOn, CulturC-as-lvCd. LulturC wll nOt CXglan

CvCrytDng, Dut t s a nCCCssary gart Ol

tDC CXglanatOn.

DavCDCCn DlCssCd wtD a DOunty Ol COllCa_uCs, lrCnds, and aCguan-

tanCCs, all Ol wDOm DavC aCtCd as Crt:Cs Ol OnC sOrt Or anOtDCr Ol tDs
,

: DOOk. bOmC Ol tDCm DaVe DrOu_Dt rCgCatCdly tO my attCntOn anOtDCt

gOnt wDCD DCars On tDC grODlCm Ol tDC rClatOn DCtwCCn CulturC and

aCtOn. DC lODn Ol tDCr CrtCsm Das DCCn ClCar and drCCt. n tDs DOOk

say as lOrCClully as gOssDlC tDat CulturC s nOt tO DC COnlusCd wtD

aCtual gattCrns Ol aCtOn, wtD wDat gCOglC Can DC ODsCrVCd tO DC aC-
tually dOn_ nOr sDOuld CulturC DC COnlusCd wtD gattCrns for aCtOn

{wDCD 1 Call nOrms and dstn_usD sDargly lrOm CulturC] . Ds Das

l
lClt sOmC Ol my CrtCal lrCnds and COllCa_uCs nd_nant, gartly DCCausC

gut tDC mattCr n tDC strOn_Cst gOssDlC tCrms. DCsC statCmCnts DavC
DCCn ntCrgrCtCdand COrrCCtly sO-tO mCan tDat am nOt COnCCDCdwtD
dCsCrDn_ aCtual gattCrns Ol 8CtOn, wDat gCOglC aCtually dO wDCn tD0y
aCt Out rOlCs, wDat rOlCs gCOglC aCtually glay, Or _CnCra1 rC_ulartCs n
tDC DCDavOr Or aCtOn Ol tDC gOgulatOn undCr study. amrm mOst Cm-

gDatCally n beCtOn VOl tDC ntrOduCtOn [g. J8) tDat am COnCCDCd

wtD tDC systCm Ol symDOls and mCann_s and nOt wtD dCsCrgtOn at

anyOtDCr lCVCl. DC DOOk s nOt aDOutwDat gCOglC say { tDOu_D tdCrVCs

lrOm wDat tDCy say) , and t s nOt RDOut wDat gCOglC aCtually dO Or
aDOut tDCratCs atwDCD tDCy dO t. All tDs sCCmCd gutC stra_DtlOrward

and Casly undCrstandaDlC wDCn wrOtC t.
DC grODlCm DCrC s smglC, rCally. Ny CrtCs and DaVC dCrCnt
dChntOns Ol Culture, dhCrCnt tDcOrCs Ol sOCal aCtOn, ddCrCnt OD[CC-
__

tVCs. YDCtDCr tDCrs arCanymOrC OrlCss lC_tmatCtDanmnC OrwDCtDCr

wC Only dO dhCrCnt tDn_s and sO dO tDCm n dhCrCnt ways s tDC guCs-

tOn. DCsC CrtCs may dChnC CulturC as any gattCDCd DCDaVOr wDCD s

130 Twelve Years later

Iearned. 1bis, to me, ine!udes everytbing-tbe kiteben sink as weII as
aII

tbe p!umbing.

8uebadenition oeuIture makes itdi0euIt to separate tbemeaning.

uI rom tbe organizationaI aspeetso aetion, tbe motivationaI rom tbe

non-motivationa!. It Iumps symboI, meaning, vaIue, roIe, patten., inten-

tion, andineIudesevenbebaviorasIongasitis patterned-anditisbad

to !Ind any bebavior wbieb is not pattened. It is, in a word, an i

m-

periaIistie notion oeuIture, Ieaving no room or tbe eareuI diserimina - _

tion o kinds o variabIes ( soeioIogieaI, psyeboIogieaI, ete. ) or tbeir
re-

spcetive pIaees.

Witbd:erentobeetives,and a dierentdenitionoeuIture,itis not

surprisingtbatmyerities obeet to my tbeory witb as mueb vebemenee

as I do to tbeirs. I tbink tbeir tbeory and eoneeptuaIization is auIty
tbeyeeImytbeoryandeoneeptuaIizationareoutrageousIywrong. 1ber
is reaIIya very simpIesoIution to tbis di|euIty, andtbat is to speII out

tbe dierenees and to anaIyze eareuIIy tbeir impIieations. 8ut tbis
..

nottbe pIaee to do so. Perbaps timewiII teII. I bave ebosen to assume

tbe signieanee o symboI nd meaning in tbe totaI pattern o aetion

andtogoabead andstudytbat. Henee, orexampIe, I donot takerat
o eross-eousin marriage as tbe obeet o mystudy, but onIy as data

beused in be!ping to !oeate tbe meaning o eross-eousin mattiage and
bow itissignied.

Ceertzsaystbatmeaning:s ''drawnrom,oreuIturaIotmsndtbeir

artieuIation in an ongoing pattern o Iie.`

1bese a0rmations se

innoeent enougb. 8ureIymeaning is no more made in beaven tban mar-

riages are, meaning musteome rom Iiesomebow. 8ut Ceertz goes t
stepurtber byteIIingus tbatmeaning is not tobe ound by speeiying
tbenternaI reIationsbips amongtbe symboIie eIements. 1bis prettyweIl|
takes eare o 8aussure and Levi-8trauss, among otbers, aItbougb -
migbtweIIeompIain about tbe Iaekodueproeess.

Wbetbermeaningis drawn rom aetion, orwbetber meaning is give

bytbeusetowbiebtbesignsareputis notreaIIyaprobIem, sueb t

ments are patentIy inadequate. I, to repeat yet again, soeiaI aetion

meaninguI, symboIie, tben tbe meaning must be in tbe aetion in t

rst pIaee and eannot be ''derved'' rom tbe aetion or ''drawn rom" .
exeeptintbeobvioussensetbati''euIturaIors ndtbeirartieuIation"

in aetion, and tbe aetion is symboIie and meaninguI in tbe rst pIae
tben eIearIy we ean reeover tbose symboIs and those meanings byac
Iyzing tbe aetion. 8ut the statement tbat meaning derives rom aeio
orrom usemustbewrong, in tbesensetbattbereisrst the aetionac


tben tbe meaning emerges onIy ater tbe aetion takes pIaee, onIy at-

Twelve Years Later 4

tbe useis esiablisbed in tbe aet. It is meaning, and tbe vebieles wbieb

catty itwbieb go to otm tbat aetion beote itoeeuts, ot at least, wbile

itisoeeut:ing. Wesutelydonotspeak Englisb as distinet tom Pteneb

:
l
as adetivativeotbeaetiono speeeb, Englisband Pteneb eomebeote,

and eame beote, any speeeb tbat anyone makes today. Its signs ate
|
dtawn upon by tbe speaket to eonstitute tbe aet o speaking, and ate
l
telated to wbat is signied. Its meanings ate tbete and ate among tbe
.l
conditions wbieb petmit a speaket to eboose wbieb sign to voealize

beote bespeaks. He does not say ''1be quiek ted ox jumped ovet tbe

lazybtowndogwben wbat beintended was ''Please pass tbesalt,`'ot

beknows tbattbewotd ''saltisnowbeteeasilytelated to quiektedox

.
otlazybtown dog. And wlat is just as impottant is tbe aet tbat ibe

teally wants tbe salt, be won't get it, no mattet bow oten be tepeats
I

'1bequiek ted ox jumped ovet tbelazybtown dog.'`1be aetot basin-

|

tentions, tbey ate eustomaty, genetally sbated struetutes o signs and

wbat tbey signiy so tbat be ean not only indieate bis intentions, but

bavesometeasonableassutaneetbatbewill notbewbistlingintbedatk.

It is eoneeivable tbat bemigbt eventually sueeeed tbtougb some otbet

ebannel oeommunieation-petbaps bepoints to tbe salt eellat, petbaps

be teaebes outandpieks itup seven times, eaeb time utteting tbe sen-

tenee''1bequiekted oxjumped ovet tbelazybtown dog`' so tbatatet

awbilepeoplegettbe ideatbattbispeeuliat,idiosynetatiespeaketmak-

ingtbosenoises,sbouldbepasscdtbesalt. 1benand onlytben eanitbe

s
8
aid
t
witb
t
a
b
ny lgi
.
timaey
.
tba

t''use

is wb
b
at tb
t
e
b
m
l

e
b
aning
t
is

dtawn tom.
u even en,rt:snotstmpyuse, utt eesa :s men o a eonsensus
amongtbeeommunityospeakets and beatets tbat intbis situation, ot

tbisspeaket,1bequiektedoxjumpedovettbelazybtowndogsbould

beusedto mean''Pleasepasstesalt.''

1beteisasystem osigns and meanings wbieb evetyone bas to lem

:
as a ebild and must eontinue to leatn even as an adult, and tbis is not
simply an ediet o any individual aetot. It is pteeisely tbis system o
signs andmeaningstbat is'outtbete'`tbat I eall eultute-eultute-as-eon-

stituted. 8ut out tbete`' is only a way o saying tbat i an obsetvet

watebes and listens to wbat goes on be will be able to absttaet tom
tbatongoing ow o lie eertain tegulatities wbieb ate

genetally agteed
telations between sign and meaning in tbis eommunity. 1bese telations

atenot'outtbete as objeets,asteiedentitieswbiebean be elt,smelt,

and tasted. 1bey ate eonsttuetions o absttaetions built by an obsetvet

and itis in tbis sense alone tbat tbey ate ''out tbete. It is tbose patts
oongoing aetion wbieb ean besbown to be signs and meanings wbieb


:

:

4X Twelve Yean later

*
areconventionaIIy associated. Further, anynewcomer to the commuoity,

aduIt or chiId, must Iearn these conventionaI associations before he can

do more than behave, that is, before his behavior can be regarded
as
`

sociaI action.
Itis preciseIythosedimensions orsigns and theirmeanings which can

be abstracted as previousIy constituted which I treat as cuIture. Even

highIy context specic or context dependent signs derive a part of :i-..

meaning from the constituted, orpreviousIy constituted cuIture. To tuu

-

the whoIematter around, as can be seen from the anaIysis in this book,

I use not onIy reIativeIy context free materiaI, but aIso highIy context

sensitive materiaI from which to abstract the cuIture-as-constituted ma-

teriaI withwhichI am concerned.

Occas:onaIIy I am toId, The main troubIe with your book and your
theory is thatyoudon`tunderstandthato//meaning is context sensitive.

You assume that meaning is absoIute and does not depend on context,

and that is just wrong.' It is cIear that such a speaker misunderstands

boththeobjectand the method ofmyenterprise. I know just as weII as

hedoes thataIImeaningismoreorIess contextdependent. Andknowing

uat, I am abIe to use both the more, as weII as the Iess context de-

pendent materiaI I encounter in 6eId work to abstract those aspects of

eventhemostcontextsensitiveruIesforaction, andfrom this,toabstract

the cuIture-asconstituted and go on to construct the abstract system

which I caII'cuIture.'`

Thispointissigni6cantbecausefrom thevery6rstmyobjection to not

onIy componentiaI anaIysis, but to aII of those forms of the treatment

_
of kinship`' and ''kinship terms which anthropoIogists have pursued

with unremitting vigor, is preclseIy that they faiI to take Iarge masses
of datainto account. They con6ne themseIves to the so-caIIed 'referen-
tiaI terminoIogy, ignoring vocative forms, they ignore diBerent usages,

they ignore aIternate forms, they ignore what they caII "metaphoricaI

_,
extension.'' My criticism is preciseIy that it is not ust in the narrov

referentiaI usagesaIonethatthemeanitgofkinsip Iies,but thatthere

aremanyother constituted eIements, vaIued e!ements which need to t-

taken into account. And in this book, for exampIe, my discussion of the

diFerentforms of''father ( pop, dad, etc. ) and the probIem ofthe aunt

-
-

and uncIe by marriage are preciseIy to the point. Here are exquisiteIy

context dependent usages wIich cannot be ignored if one is trying, as I

have,to constructanodeI ofcuIture-as-constItuted.

IhaveaIready noted thatmydehnition of cuIture asa system ofsy

bols and meanings diFers from other de6nitions, especiaIIy those whicb

treat cuIture in themost generaI terms as patterns of Iearned ti

aII patterned behavior, or aII Iearned or sociaIIy transmitted behavio.

--
'
-

`
`

.
'


'

Twelve Years later 133

Buttbere is anotbersignieantdiereneebetween tbe denition oeuI-
turewbiebIuseandmanyotbers.1bisis my distinetionbetween euIture
as a system osymboIs andmean:ngs, and oo:ms as patterns o and or
bebavior. Or, to ebaraeter:ze norms in a dinerent way, as tbe ruIes or
aetion. In tbe introduetion to Ame::coo K:osh: I deaI witb tb:s distine-
tioninIessdetaiItbanIsbouIdbave, itisexpIainedmoreuIIyin''Notes
1owarda1beoryoCuIture.``

Norms are, oeourse, aetor-oriented and aetion-oriented, tbey speeiy

tbe roIes wbieb sbouId be piayed under designated eireumstanees by
aetors oeeupying designated statuses or eategories. 1be system o sym-
boIs andmeanings o a euIture ean beabstraeted rom tbesenoms, be-
eause in tbe norms tbere is an impIieit eIassieation o eategories, sets
o presuppositions about tbe state o aairs, tbe eonditions o Iie, eos-
moIogy, and so on wbieb provide tbe materiaIs rom wb:eb tbe system
osymboIsandmeaningseanbedrawn.1busnormsarenotintbemseIves
s:m/q patterns o and or aetion, tbey eonsist o euIturaI eIements as
weII.1bustbereis aeuIturaIaspeettonormsasweIIas anaetion aspeet.
ButwbereaeosmoIogy,orexample, isorientedtotbestateotbeworId
ortbeuniverse,a no:ativesystem:s orientedtopattens or aetionby
soeiaIIydenedpersons.
8ineeIbavesubser:bedtotbeParsonianpositiontbattbe soeiaIsystem
is quite distinet rom tbe euIturaI system, it oIIows tbat I must eIass
norms, insoar as tbey are treated as patterns or aetion, as part o tbe
soeiaI system and separate tbose aspeets rom tbe euIturaI system.
1be tradit:onaI view bas been to view aetion as an indivisibIe unit
wbieb is tbe maor eonstituent o euIture. Henee tbose wbo take tbis
position nd my treatment o Ameriean kinsbip deeient in ust wbat
tbey are eager to know-in tbe words o tbat amous oId l:meriek, wbo
does wbatwitbwbieb andtcwbom underwbat eonditions.
Vy treatment o euIture :n tbis book, as eIsewbere, bas been based
eonsistentIy on tbe view o euIture as a totaI system. 1be standard o
1
reereneeoranyreIationsbip osignierand s:gniedbas been euIture-

as-eonstituted.Buttbistreatmentisquite dierentrom onewbiebtakes

tbeaetoras tbe point o reerenee and asks, or exampIe, How sbouId

aatberbebave?orWbatis tberoIeo tbe motberin sueb andsueb a
situation?'` Here tbe standard o reerenee is not direetIy tbat o tbe
euIturaI system-as-eonstituted, butis instead tbat o tbe aetor in aetion.


~
~
1

1be more extreme variant o tbis position is taken by tbose wbo use

, some orm odeeision-making tbeory and ask, or exampIe, 'Wbat do I

needtoknowinordertoaetIike anative ( atber, motber, ete. )?'

And bere again tbe undamentaI distinetion between euIture-as-Iived

and euIture-as-eonstitutedbeeomeserueiaI. Various dimeuIties arisewitb

134 Twelve Years Later
.
..

:`

..`

an actor-orcntcd QcrsQcctvc. Jhc hrst and most obvous s that t s not

systcm-orcntcd, as s thc cu!turc-as-consttuted vcW. Jbc sccond s that

,
_

t obscurcs What I ho!d to bc vta! . thc mQortant dstncton bctWccn

_
soca! or_aozaton or soca! systcm and cu!turc. Jo ta! to mantan ths

dstncton !cads to thc rcducton ot cu!turc to soca! or_anzaton

( or

soca! structurc) or to thc oQQostc dmcu!ty, thc mQcra!st vcW
ot

cu!turc, namc!y, that cu!turc nc!udcs and comQrchcnds thc soca! systcm '
'

and soca! or_anzaton. \Jcrc thc soca! systcn: s but a Qart ot cu!turc,

and tbs mcans that cu!turc nc!udcs vrtua!!y cvcrythn_, so that thc

!cvcra_c n ana!yss ot thc dstncton bctWccn rc!cvant varab!cs s !ost.

But thc most Qrotound dmcu!ty Wth thc ta!urc to dstn_ush the
systcm-orcntcd trom thc actor-orcntcd vcW s thc knd ot tunctona!

ana!yscs Whch havc rcsu!tcd trom thc contuson ot thc tWo. Yhat I
:

'

havc ca!!cd cther `thc band-ad thcory or thc cxuvum thcory ot

rtua! and ma_c s a casc nQont. Jrcatn_ ma_c as a Way ot rcducn_
.
anxcty contn_cnt on thc nab!ty to contro! thc unknoWn rcsts Qrccsc!y

on thc conaton ot thc systcm- and thc actor-orcntcd modcs ot ana!yss,

`

_
Jhcsc thcorcs dcQcnd uQon a statc ot ahars _cncratcd n thc cu!ture

or thc soca! structure ( hoWcvcr thcy arc dchncd) Whch crcatc thc con-

,
dtons motvatn_ actors to crcatc and rc-crcatc modcs ot adaQtaton to

thosc crcun+stanccs. ^ot on!y does ths shtt thc burdcn ot causa!ty to

thc soca! or_anzaton and makc ot ma_c and rtua! mcrc Qou!tccs on ,

or mcrc cxuva ot, thc soca! structurc or cu!turc, but t rcsts on thc

Qrcmsc that rtua! and ma_c arc cxcmQtcd trom thc cu!turc-as-con-

sttutcd, andmustberc_ardcd on!y as cu!turc-as-actcd, ormorc Qrccsc!y,

+
cu!turc as rc-acton.
.

_
_

*.

It has bccn sad that my usc ot a dstnctvc tcaturc tyQc ot ana!yss
.
Was a mstakc. Lvcn thc mQortancc ot s_ns as ndcxca!, ot Qra_-

matcs,orcu!turc-as-!vcd or cu!turc-n-acton, a dstnctvc tcaturc ana!y-

:
ss Was just thc Wron_ Way to _o about thn_s.

1t I Wcrc don_ Qra_matcs or cu!turc-as-!vcd, thcn ndccd a dstn0-

tvc tcaturc ana!yss m_ht bc thc Wron_ Way to _o about t. But 1

am don_, as I havc sad bctorc, a dhcrcnt knd ot ana!yss. I am don

a knd ot ana!yss that s c!osc to thc knd that thc !ngust docs When

hctrcs to cstab!sh a Qhonemcsystem, to !ocatc thc Qhoncmcs and the!t

rc!aton to cach othcr. Jhoncmcs, and a Qhoncmc systcm, arc Qrccsc!y

sounds-as-mcann_tu!!y-consttutcd rathcr than a sounds-as-sQokcn sys-

tcm. A dstnctvc tcaturc ana!yss s amcd atbrn_n_ out thc va!orzcd

dmcnsons n tcrms ot thc dhcrcnccs amon_ tbcm. Jhat thcsc arc, or

can bc, sctn tcrms ot oQQostons ot a Q!us and mnus sort, or a Qrcscnt/
abscnt sort Wth rcsQcct to ccrtan sQechcd dmcnsons~vocn_, _!otta!
zaton, and so torth~s c!oscr to thc knd ot cu!tura! ana!yss at Whch

__

.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.

..

`
..

..
. .

. `
..
..
Twelve Years Later 135
I aim than the eIaborate specihcation of the diBerent ruIes for making
the various sounds under various conditions of speech and in diBerent
contexts of actuaI speaking. Much more couId be said about distinctive
feature anaIysis, for itisused by Schemer and Lounsbury and has been
used by other practicing ''componentiaI anaIysts" with whom I have
serious inteIIectuaI diBerences. In a fuII discussion I shouId specify pre-
ciseIy when I mean by a distinctive feature anaIysis and vhere I diEer
from the ways inwhich the componentiaI anaIystshaveused it, butsuch
a discussion wouId Iead us too far aheId. The book itseIf shows just how
I use it.
Another criticism which this book has met with is that the book may
perhaps Iocate symboIs and meanings, but that diBerent kinds of reIa-
tions between signier and signibed,between symboI and meaning, and
between diBerent kinds of symboIs are not fuIIy aIIowed for and cer-
tainIynotfuIIyexpIored. Itis conceded thatthe ideaof an 'epitomizing"
symboI tried to do this in part,butthat itisnotenough: the distinction
between iconic and indexicaI signs is not used. The reIationship between
diBerent signs as being derived from other signs is not touched. The
dea of meaphor and metonym is not mentioned, whiIe in other papers
it is vehementIy denied.
I accept this criticism as just. It is true. I have been of many minds
about the probIems ofmetaphor and metonym, aboutprimary meaning,
about extension of meaning. I hnd the de6nition of poIysemy as a set
ofmeanings inwhich thereisone fromwhichaII others inthesetderive
unsatisfactory, and so I use a simpIe debnition of poIysemy as a muI-
tipIicity ofmeanings without stating the reIationship among them.
The fundamentaI distinction between cuIture-as-constituted and cuI-
ture-in-action or cuIture-as-Iived is usefuI in heIping to understand my
position in another matter. hoId that a signi6cant part of the meaning
of the eIements of a cuIture depends on their reIation to each other in
a system of oppositions or contrasts. Here my position is cIose to Levi-
Strauss and before him,Saussure. Tothem, meaning, in thespeciaIsense
in which they and I use the term, is preciseIy the idea or the concept
ofthesign|n |tc relat|cntc ctbercIg78 u|tb|n tbe came cqctem. Itis not
the reference ofthe sign tosomething intheworId.

It is aIso important to note that this system has the quaIities of

markedness and hierarchy. |ust how these in turn reIate to my conten-
tion thatthe totI system can be shown to be organized around a smaII
setofepitomizingsym boIs isa probIem whichI am notprepared to deaI
with here, for it requires extended and detaiIed discussion. Suce it to
say that I wouId stand bymy contention that if the proposition can be
accepted that cuIture-as-constituted can be seen as a cqctem or a 8ltUC-

136
Twelve Years later
"ure, and thatthe system or strueture is dened bythe relations among
its elements, then oneo those kinds o relations ean beexpeeted to be
sueh that eertain elements in eertain relations have valorization whieh

.
putsthem inaprivilegedposition. Ih|sisnotmorethanmerelytoassert
onee again that every eulture-as-eonstituted ean, I believe, Ie shown to
beorganizedaround sueh a small eore oepitomizingsymbols.

8EPE8ENCE8

aett, 8. ,and8ilvernaa, H. C 1979. 8eparationsinCapitalist8oeieties.

Persons, Ihins, Inits, and 8elations.IaIdeology and Everyday Life.

AnnArIor UniversityoHiehianPress.

Craig, D. ''Immortality through K|nship. Ihe Vertieal Iransmission o

8ubstaneeand8ymbolieEstate.``American Anthropologist 81 ( 1979)

94

Dolin,].,Kemnitzer, D.,and8ehneider, D. H. Syntbolic Anthropology.

NewYork. Columbia IniversityPress, 1977.

Ceertz,C. The Interpretation of Cultures. NewYork. 8asie8ooks, 1973.

8ahlins, H. 'Individual Experienee and Cultural Order. Hanuseript, `

1979.

8ehneider
;

D. H.
.
l955. Kinship erminology and theAmeriean Kinship
8ystem. Amertcan Anthropolog-st 57
:
1194-1208.


---. 1961. ''8ibling8olidarity. APropertyoAmerieanKinship.``Amer
-

ican Anthropologist 63:489-507 ( Cummings and 8ehneider) .

---. 1965. ''Ameriean K|n Ierms and Ierms or Kinsmen. A Critique

o Coodenoughs Componential Analysis o Yankee Ierminology.`` In

'Ponnal 8emantie Analysis, edited by E. A. Hammel, pp. 288-308.

American Anthropologist 61, part2.

---." 1969. ''inship, Nationality and 8eligion in Ameriean Ct ]

Ioward a Denitiono Kinship.In Forms of Symbolic Action, edited

byV.Iurnr,pp.116-25. Proceedings of the 1O Annual Spring Meet

|
ing of the American Ethnlogical Society.

---. 1970. ''An.erieanKinCategories.InEchanges et Communications:

;
Melange oferts u Claude Levi-Strauss, edited by P. Haranda and |.

Pouillon,pp.370-81. IheHague. Houton.

-. 1972. What is Kinship all About?'` In Kinship. Studies in

Morgan Centennial Year, editedbyP.8eining,pp.32-63. Washington

D.C..WashingtonAnthropologieal 8oeiety.

--. 1973. Class Diferences in American Kinship. Ann Arbor. Iniver
sity oHieIiganPress. 8eprinted 1978 ( 8ehneider and 8mith) .

---. 1975. Kinship Vs-a-vis Hyth.`American Anthropologist 76
:
7
9.
817 ( 8oonand8ehne:der) .

1:

TWoVo Yeor8 Lfor

7

-~~. I975 .. The American Kin Universe: A Genealogical St-udy. Cbieago.

University o Cbieago PubIieations in AntbropoIogy ( 8ebneider and

CottreII).

*~~. I976. ''Notes Ioward a Ibeory o Cu!ture. In Meaning in An-

thropology, edited byK.8assoandH. 8elby AIbuquerque. University

oNew VexieoPress.

~~~. I979. ''Kinsbip, Community and Loea!ity in Ameriean CuIture.

In Kin and Comm-nities; editedbyA. |. Liebtmanand |. B.CbaIlinor,

.
pp. I55-74. Wasbington, D. C. . 8mitbsonian Press.
t

"". Fortbeomin A Crtique of the Study ofKinship. AnnArborIni-

versityoHiebianPress.

Yanaisako, 8 ]. VariationsnAmeriean Kinsbip.ImpIieationsorCaIturaI

AnaIysis.''American Ethnologist 5(1978:I5-

.
.
.

'

*
.
.

- * _..

_

-.

`:.
_