ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the meaning and usages of kinship.
Meaning of Kinship:
The bond of blood or marriage which binds people together in group is called kinship. In order to understand kinship, we may start with a familiar biological fact: men and women have sexual intercourse and, as a result, women bear children.
We may also consider a second fact: given the nature of human memory and language, blood ties are held in mind and recognized by special terms of relationship: mother, child, father, mother’s brother, etc. The relationship based on blood ties is called consanguineous kinship, and the relatives of this kind are called consanguineous kin.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
The desire for reproduction gives rise to another kind of binding relationship: the bond between spouses and their relatives on either side. This kind of bond, which arises out of a socially or legally defined marital relationship, is called affinal kinship, and the relatives so related are called affinal kin. The affinal kins are not related to one another through blood.
Rule of Descent:
The principle or set of principles by which one’s relatives are determined is known technically as the rule of descent. There are three basic rules of descent: patrilineal, matrilineal and bi-lateral or bi-lineal. In patrilineal descent, each individual automatically becomes a member of any consanguineal kin group to which his father belongs, but not of those to which his mother belongs.
In matrilineal descent, an individual joins the consanguineal kin group of his mother but not those of his father. In bi-lateral descent, an individual inherits some but not all of his father’s consanguineal relatives and also the corresponding consanguineal relatives of his mother.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Strictly speaking, probably no society is perfectly bi-lateral. No society is perfectly unilineal either, if that term implies total neglect of one side in favour of the other. If a common ancestor binds a group of people together, they are called cognates. If their common ancestor is a male, they are called agnates or agnatic kin or patrilineal kin.
The descendants of common female ancestress, on the other hand, are called uterine kin or matrilineal kin Those kin who are related to One another directly through descent are called lineal kin and those who branch out from the main group, like uncles and cousins, are called collateral kin.
On the basis of nearness or distance, kins are classified into:
(i) Primary Kins,
(ii) Secondary Kins, and
(iii) Tertiary Kins.
There are eight primary kins:
Husband-wife,
Father-son,
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Mother-son,
Father-daughter,
Mother-daughter,
Younger brother-elder brother,
Younger sister-elder sister,
Sister-brother.
Our Secondary kins are primary kins of our primary kins. For example, father’s brother, sister’s husband, brother’s wife, is our secondary kins. Anthropologists have identified altogether thirty-three secondary kins. Our tertiary kins are secondary kins of our primary kins. For example, brother of sister’s husband is our tertiary kin. Anthropologists have identified 151 tertiary kins.
In every society, the rule of descent is important for at least two reasons:
(i) It automatically establishes for every individual a network of social positions in which he participates with specific obligations and rights. Apart from mutual aid of various kinds among members of the kin group, these rights and obligations ascribed on the basis of descent always include some rules regulating marriage relationships among them.
(ii) By law or well-established custom, the rule of descent automatically defines some rights of inheritance: rights established by birth— either the eldest son or the youngest son or all the sons or all the sons and daughters inheriting the property of the deceased—as well as rights established by marriage—the wife inheriting the property of the deceased husband.
Bilineal/Bilateral Group and Unilineal/Unilateral Group:
The family is based on the integrative bond of kinship, and this integration extends universally in two directions, viz. the direction of the father’s family of origin and the direction of the mother’s family of origin. For some reason or the other, stress may be laid on either of these directions. For example, we have the modern practice of ignoring the surname of the mother’s family of origin.
Not only do her children not take this name, but she also gives it up after her marriage and takes the surname of her husband’s family. However, a family never ignores either of the two contributory sides in any considerable degree or manner. The family is, therefore, called a bilateral or bi-lineal group.
There are other types of groups with kinship as their basis of integration which differ from bilateral group in so far as they ignore one of the contributory sides completely. These are called unilateral or unilineal groupings.
Lineage:
The simplest type of unilateral grouping is the lineage which consists of all the probable blood relations of one line of descent exclusively. A lineage consists of descendants in one line, either patrilineal or matrilineal, who know their exact genealogical relationship and who recognise obligations to one another. A lineage is thus smaller, more localised and more function-laden that the broad kinship grouping.
Clan or Sib:
When the simplest type of unilateral group (called lineage) is extended to include all those believed to be related through common descent, then we have a sib or clan. Thus, a sib or clan is often the combination of a few lineages and descent may be ultimately traced to a mythical ancestor who may be human, human-like, animal, plant or even inanimate.
The gotra of the Hindus is an example of clan. Obviously, the terms clan or sib describe larger, more geographically dispersed, near-functionless unilineal groups.
Sibs are often bound together by a common totemic name and by a common ritual taboo against eating the flesh of the totem animal. The fiction is solemnly maintained that the sib members are all descended somehow from a common ancestor of the totemic species.
Phratry:
A kinship group is called a broad-range or a narrow-range one according to the number of persons it includes. The modern kinship system is a narrow-range system, whereas the primitive clan or sib is a broad-range system which includes people scattered over relatively large areas among whom it is not possible to trace relationship without bringing in a mythical common ancestor.
Kinship Usages:
Kinship usages or the rules of kinship accomplish two major tasks:
First, they create groups, special groupings of kin. Thus, the social invention of marriage assigns each mother a husband,, and makes her children his children, thereby creating special group of father, mother and children which we call family. By use of additional rules and social conventions, larger kin groups are created, such as extended families or lineages or sibs or clans.
The second major function of kinship rules is to govern the role relationships among kins. Kinship provides a sort of social grid. In a society people are joined to one another by genealogical ties and by common kin-group membership.
Kinship usage assigns guidelines for interactions among persons in these social groupings. It defines proper, acceptable role relationships, say, between father and daughter, between brother and sister, between young son-in-law and mother-in-law, etc. Kinship usage thus acts as a regulator of social life.
The importance of kinship as a regulator of social life depends on three things:
(i) The extent to which a person is surrounded by kinsmen. Kinship usage would have a limited role when the kinsmen are dispersed over a wider geographical area,
(ii) The degree of development of ‘patterned’ kin behaviour. Certain kin relationships in certain societies are so highly ‘patterned’ that little leeway is allowed for spontaneity. In some societies kin relationships have little ‘patterning’ which leaves much room for individualized behaviour.
(iii) The degree of development of alternative basis for assigning people to roles. In urban areas, our own behaviour is not affected by kinship rules inasmuch as we do not ordinarily interact with kinsmen. This is in marked contrast to the usual peasant village in which practically everyone in the community is related to one another.
As a result, almost everything that a person does is in the presence of his kinsmen. In very small societies with little or no geographical mobility, kinship usage practically governs social behaviour.
Patterned kin behaviour might be divided into two categories:
(i) Rules governing rights and obligations and
(ii) Rules of comportment or ‘manners’.
Rules Governing Rights and Obligations:
These rules apply where one kinsman owes another certain services or duties or privileges. For example, a general hospitality ethic generally prevails among kin. If a relative expresses a desire to pay a visit to any of his kins, he may rightly expect free meals, a place to sleep, and other tokens of hospitality. His expectation or claim is considered to be legitimate on the ground that he is a kinsman.
Rules of inheritance provide another example. These rules may prescribe that a deceased father’s property would go over to his wife or to his eldest son or that the property would be divided among the children.
A further example of kinship usage is the manifold obligations that go with parenthood: namely, obligations to feed and provide shelter to one’s child, to train him up properly for life, and, in some societies as in India, even to pay dowry at the time of daughter’s marriage. Even the division of responsibilities between husband and wife is largely determined by kinship usage prevalent in a particular society.
In some societies these rights and obligations are balanced fairly equally. In some other societies, these are quite unbalanced: one party gives and the other receives; one has rights and the other has obligations. This state of affairs characterized husband-wife relationship as well as parent-child relationship in our country.
According to the tradition prevalent in Indian society for a long time, a husband is not expected to help his wife in domestic chores. On the other hand, a wife is expected to serve her husband as best as she can. Similarly, an Indian child, as soon as he reaches working age, is expected to assume heavy return obligations toward his parents and continue to shoulder this responsibility till the death of parents.
Rules of Comportment or Manners:
These rules may be sub-divided into several sub-categories:
(i) Rules of Deference:
Deference customs are a ritual expression of social inequality. For example, in Indian society a child is expected to touch the feet of his father or mother or anyone considered to be of higher status than his own.
Deference customs also forbid a young boy or girl to say certain things in the presence of adult members of the family or kin group. There are sections of Indian society in which smoking and even betel chewing by young people are not allowed in the presence of elders by deference rules.
(ii) Rules of Avoidance:
These rules are designed to curtail intimacy, and usually apply to cross-sex relationships. In almost all societies avoidance rules prescribe that both men and women must maintain a certain amount of modesty in dress, speech, gait and gesture in a mixed company. There are more strict avoidance customs which restrict kin relationships in certain societies.
For example, in many societies spouses are not supposed to touch each other or show affection in the presence of others. The personal name taboo may apply between them—the wife calling her husband ‘Husband’ and the husband calling his wife ‘mother of so and so’. In all societies, avoidance of one kind or another is observed in the relations between a daughter-in-law and her parents-in law.
There are three common avoidance relationships: brother and sister, a man and his mother-in- law, and a woman and her father-in-law. These extreme avoidance relationships are ‘focal’ because they appear to determine other and less common avoidance relationships. If a man must avoid his sister, he will often avoid various female cousins.
If a man must avoid his mother-in-law, he usually avoids other female relatives of his wife—most typically, the mother-in-law’s sisters. Similarly, if a bride must avoid her father-in-law, she will often avoid her father-in-law’s or mother-in-law’s brothers. The aforesaid three ‘focal’ avoidance rules tend to be associated with one another.
As a result, the societies fall under two polar extremes:
(i) Avoiding societies with many extreme avoidance relationships, and
(ii) Non-avoiding societies with little, if any, avoidance beyond the bare minimum of ‘modesty’ between the sexes.
Nothing much is known about the origin of these rules of avoidance. There are two functionalist explanations for kin avoidance. First, avoidance rule serves to forestall further and more serious trouble. Radcliffe-Brown has argued that the respect implied in avoidance practices and the formalized disrespect demonstrated by joking relationships is expressions of alliance or consociation.
The actors in roles characterised by avoidance or by joking have divergent interests which could generate conflict between them and thereby undermine the bases of their common interests. The institutionalisation of avoidance and joking serves to minimize the chance of the development of openly hostile relations between the parties.
According to the second functionalist explanation, advanced by G.P. Murdock, avoidances exist because they re-enforce incest taboos. According to him, if sufficient self-control is instilled during the socialization process, then the extreme avoidances are unnecessary. In societies whose members lack the necessary internalized inhibitions, the avoidances arise as an added safeguard against incest.
(iii) Rules of Joking:
Many societies provide for joking relationships among particular kin relatives, generally of opposite sexes but not always so.
By way of illustration, we may refer to the joking relationships between a grandson or grand-daughter on the one hand and his or her-grand -father or grand-mother on the other, or between a man and his older brother’s wife, or between the husband of an elder sister and his wife’s younger sister. There are many such joking relationships.
The origins and causes of joking relationships are utterly obscure. Some anthropologists refer to the possibility that these joking relationships might permit a sort of ‘safety valve’ for giving expression or release to the pent up feelings and emotions.
(iv) Teknonymy:
According to this usage, a kin is not referred to directly, but he is referred to through another kin. For example, all over rural India, and among some tribal groups, a wife does not utter the name of her husband but refers to him as the father of so and so. The husband also refers to his wife or calls her in the presence of others as the mother of so and so.
(v) Avunculate,( Avunciate):
If the maternal uncle enjoys, as a matter of convention, a pre-eminent place among his nephews and nieces, if he has special obligations towards them which exceed those of their father, if he transmits according to convention his property to his nephew, if the nephew works for him rather than for his own father, then this kinship usage is called avunculate. This is a common usage among patrilineal people.
(vi) Amitate:
When a special role is given to the father’s sister, the usage is known as amitate. This usage is more common among patrilineal people.
(vii) Couvade:
This kinship usage involves only husband and wife. Anthropologists have reported the prevalence of this usage among the Khasis and the Todas, and also among some people from outside India.
According to this usage, the husband is made to lead the life of an invalid along with his wife whenever she gives birth to a child. He refrains from active work, takes sick diet, and observes certain taboos. This kinship usage involving wife and husband has been variously explained.
Malinowski, for example, considered couvade to be a cementing bond of married life and a social mechanism designed to secure paternal affection. Some writers have sought to give a psycho-analytical explanation. They have attributed this usage to the husband’s desire to lighten the wife’s discomforts by a process of participation through identification.