Q. What is the relationship between “biology” and kinship systems?
A. Kinship can be defined as society acknowledging biological connections between people. This view however has been challenged because kinship systems are regarded now as too complex. C. Levi-Strauss (1963) argued; “Kinship…only exists in human consciousness.” The correct way of studying the relationship between biology and kinship systems can only be made by looking at particular societies and cannot be made universally.
Biology may have very little to do with kinship when you look at cultures which ‘play with facts.’ However, once you take ethno biology into consideration, everything about kinship can be linked to biology. W. River’s (1965) work on kinship and
…show more content…
By stressing on affinial ties, alliance theory neglects descent. This is highlighted by D. Schneider. In his work on the Yap Schneider argues that membership is not so much based on biological relationships but rather on affinity. “Membership is established not through birth but through residence, activities and relationships.”(1984) Affiliation is also established by name giving. A newborn child becomes formally affiliated through the process of being given a name by one of the senior members. Consequently it "cannot itself be a descent group." (1984).
A. Kuper (1999) points out that if Stauss’ theory was correct then why are all societies not structuring their kinship around alliances such as African tribal societies.
One possible reason could be because of ‘cultural relativism.’ According to R. Redfield (1953) cultural relativism means; “the values of that culture are to be understood only by the way the people of that culture see things.” Schneider uses cultural relativism to analysis the meaning of kinship and the taken for granted assumptions like the construction of relatives.
Although cultural relativism allows each society to recognise different relationships with kinship systems it fails to provide any scientific use of data for studying kinship systems. For example; how do you construct a universal analysis of kinship once you have gathered information from each culture if
Kinship is defined through your descent group/ people who you are related to. In the film, Dadi’s family is shown to be related through an affine kinship. The relationships that are discussed in the film are all based on marriage. Dada, Dadi, the sons and her daughters-in-law are part of the family through marriage. The family is patrilocal extended family.
The essay starts with a very simple definition of a family, accompanied by an explanation of the relationship between family structure and the strength of the link between different people forming the family in question. The introduction has been put in a simple language to provide a fluid understanding of what the reader should expect throughout the text. Literal tools like proverbs and similes have been applied. There is a clear language connection of cultural legacy and a family unit where the authors explain that legacy in the society does not determine how different ethnicities connect with the family unit. Gertsel and Sarkasian believe that deliberations made on family responsibilities tend to pay more attention to nuclear family as opposed to the general family unit. The language used here implies that the general meaning of extended family unit is ignored or in some cases misrepresented.
While Barker focuses on clans in Papua New Guinea and Hedican on Scottish clans they both come to the same result, clans are hard to gain consistent information on and much of their histories are muddled, complicated, and contradictory specifically with the whom is related to who debacle and the ‘true’ back story/ symbols accompanying each clan. Both Authors also explore the kinship terms of Papua and how it differs from the Westerner way of labelling family members (cousin being the broadest Westerner term) compared to the flexible descent groups and hazy distinction that separates immediate and extended family in the villages of Papua New
which family members can easily and meaningfully interact (Gladding p. 203). The essence of family structure is greatly influenced by culture; it defines the role of men and
The kinship is a system that enables people to know precisely where they stand in relation to every person and a group. It is the heart of Aboriginal culture, and controls all facets of social behaviours. The Kinship system has been around for tens of thousands of years and is still used today. (Nations, clans, family groups, 2016). It is a system that determines how people interact with others and how people become related. Thus, controls who can get married and who supports who. Because there are over 500 Aboriginal nations across Australia the system is helpful because it simplifies the different clans and groups that share common kinship and language. (Nations, clans, family groups, 2016)
Aboriginal relationships are governed by a complex and intricate system of rules, known as “the classificatory system of kinship, and is essential to physical, psychological and emotional survival in traditional Aboriginal society” (Fryer-Smith, 2008, p. 47). It organizes social and economic relationships, all of which are of “vital importance” in Aboriginal societies (Edwards, 1998, p. 85).
Kinship is usually much more of a cohesive social force in non-Western societies. Kin group members internalize a corporate identity - the family is viewed as an extension of the self. Often large, pyramid-shaped kin groups - usually descendants of one man (or, rarely, woman) and their dependents - serve to organize political, military, economic, and religious activities.
As proved by anthropologists, primitive human life is essentially based on genealogy, marriage practices, kinship, settlement arrangements and political affairs. It was through
In traditional Aboriginal society inter-personal relationships are governed by a Complex system of rules, known as the classificatory system of kinship. The kinship system
A family is seen as a group of people who are biologically or psychologically related. They connect on historical, emotional
Even today, divisions in groups have been as a result of continued differences among the uniting groups. Humans have a tendency to incline towards the protection of their interest’s aid favors of their perceived groups. Such favourism makes them advocate fully for their interests posing a challenging opposing side to the interests of their unperceived groups. Many nations today are faced with such opposing groups having differing interests and ideals. People advocating for similar ideals tend to create strong ties of
Traditionally, the kinship system by which aboriginal society follows is one based highly on collectivism. Geert Hofstede defines a collectivist society as one that prefers a “tightly knit framework” in which individuals can expect “unquestioned loyalty” (The Hofstede Centre, 2013) from relatives and members of the group.
The kinship system is based on the concept of "equivalence of same-sex siblings". Two siblings of the same sex are considered essentially the same and thus interchangeable. For example, if a man has
societies use kinship as a basis for forming social groups and for classifying people. However,
As someone who did not grow up with a typical family, I claim most of my close friends as “family” members. Every year we get together for birthdays, vacations and celebrate some holidays together. Some of my close friends are even closer than my actual family. One friend that I grew up with since the 7th grade is practically a brother to me, and even though I have and love my own mom, to this day I call his mother “mom” as well. I do believe that family is based on bonds and emotional ties, not just by blood and marriage. Our textbook defines “fictive kin as close relations with people we consider ‘like family’ but who are not related to us by blood or marriage (p.352)”. This sociological concept helps me realize that my own situation of who and what I consider family is more common than I may have thought before.