Analogic Kinship: A Daribi Example Author(s): Roy Wagner Reviewed work(s): Source: American Ethnologist, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov.

, 1977), pp. 623-642 Published by: Wiley on behalf of the American Anthropological Association Stable URL: . Accessed: 16/01/2013 08:30
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact


Wiley and American Anthropological Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to American Ethnologist.

This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

analogic kinship: a Daribi example
ROY WAGNER-University of Virginia

Let us begin with the proposition that all human relationships are analogous to one another. This includes those relationships that anthropologists have called "kin relationships," which, for that reason, will form the subject matter of our discussion. This means that kin relationships, as well as the relatives identified through those relationships, will be considered as basically alike in some important way. Note that I am making this assumption purely for analytic reasons; I do not mean to imply that this basic quality of analogy or alikeness is somehow "given," or innate in the nature of things. I am merely introducing the proposition as a foil to the traditional anthropological assumption of the innateness of kin differentiation-the notion that the genealogical breakdown into "father," "mother," and so forth, is a natural fact, and that it is a human responsibility to integrate them into particular kinship "systems" (or discover such integrations). Consider, then, a situation in which all kin relations and all kinds of relatives are basically alike, and it is a human responsibility to differentiate them. The kin relationships, responsibility of doing so will be our task in understanding as it is man's role in perhaps the majority of human societies. A mother is another kind of a father, fathering is another kind of mothering; a sister might be a better sister for the fact that she is "a little mother" to her siblings, and a good father is often "like a brother" to his sons. A certain solicitude (perhaps epitomized by Schneider's "enduring, diffuse solidarity") is quintessential to all ideal kin relationships, regardless of how they may be defined or in what forms the solicitude is expressed. And this solicitude represents, as well as anything can represent, what I mean by the basic analogy of all kin relationships to one another. From the standpoint I have chosen, I might as well speak of one essential kin and varied in all of the particular kinds of relationship, which is encompassed that human discern and differentiate. This essential similarity relationships beings flows between and among the latter, in spite of every effort one may make to differentiate them. And it is for precisely this reason that man's obligation and moral duty is to and to differentiate properly. For if the appropriate distinctions differentiate, are drawn, and the proper modes of avoidance, respect, deference, and even burlesque are observed, then the resulting "flow" of similarity will be realized,

Kin relationship may be approached in the traditional manner as the classification or the sociopolitical "relating" of genealogically differentiated relatives, or it may be seen as the purposive differentiation of relational categories to compel a "flow" of analogical "relatedness" among them. Analysis of a New Guinea relational system in the latter terms, beginning with the "interdict" on relations with the wife's mother, reveals a set of operant concepts for the understanding of kinship in symbolic terms, as well as a set of general conclusions as to the nature of kinship.

analogic kinship


This content downloaded on Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

" an abrogation of "natural" differentiation that allegedly brings about disastrous natural consequences. or "flow. the "marrying" of two people. can be seen as an ("metaphorical") analogue of each other kind of relationship. a matter of "group recruitment. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." "wife. The creativity of kinship in the West is centered on an act of collective joining." "father. And the inappropriate flow of incest is seen by Westerners as "going against nature. a totality of which the aggregate of all the kinds of relationship represents a homologue." from an initial differentiation. they follow." which has been identified by so many anxious classifiers in so many diverse societies. Let us then explore this mode of thought and action. a moral degeneracy spreading from one kinsman to another. seems to be all about. which resemble each other" (1962:77). but the differences. in which "it is not the resemblances. We "draw" the creative distinctions by perceiving them "in nature. The "relational" aspect of kinship is thus always understandable as a kind of analogic "flow"-that is what we mean by "being related. For Western society. which takes responsibility for "relating" in a deliberate sense. in our sense. and comprises a ("metonymic") part of a potential whole. we find that for certain purposes this homology is significant. doing one's relational duty to kinsmen. But the creativity elsewhere. But in both cases the flow of relationship.perceived as an expression of inner morality." Every particular "kind" of relationship exemplifies this essence in some particular way." and we perceive the consequent flow as a potential for "right" or "wrong" performance. one that will assure a proper relational flow. then the flow of similarity will appear as a kind of contagion. Western middle-class society." "mother. separate. But if these distinctions are not drawn." but is always an aspect of a totality that includes differentiation as well." and this flow is always the consequence of kin differentiation. a proper "flow" results from the conscious and deliberate performance of legitimate "relating": making a legitimate marriage between compatible people. All kin relationships and "kinds" of kinsmen are basically analogous because all incorporate the essence of human solicitude that we call "relating. "political" consideration. and ultimately lineality-analogy across the generations-is Lineality is not a integrally linked to differentiation. or drawn improperly. Applying this model to Spencer and Gillen's description of the Aranda of Central Australia. This is what the celebrated "incest taboo. and especially in tribal societies. Levi-Strauss postulates a homology between a "natural series" of totemic creatures and the set of human groupings that they represent. learning to like one's affines. since it incorporates the underlying context of relational solicitude. An example taken from Levi-Strauss's classic study of totemism (1962) might help to clarify this point." and so forth) eventuates. from which the consequences of marriage also flow. perceives differentiation as something "innate. Others perceive the flow of relationship as a "given" that prompts appropriate differentiation. and the task of the individual and of our this natural "fact" and accommodating society is that of comprehending actions to its precepts. are not "made". whereas 624 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. is based on an act of appropriate differentiation. appropriate flow is defined and promoted by natural differentiation. maintaining and adjusting interpersonal relationships. for it is from this act that appropriate differentiation (into "husband. Each particular kind of relationship. For incest-treating a mother or sister as a wife or lover or treating a son or brother as a lover or husband-is a morally undesirable flow of similarity. or if the wrong or inappropriate ones are made." Thus for Western ideology. Marriages.

parallelalignment indicates resemblances. this traditional conception of kin relationship into the analogical model I have suggested. as I have stated above. But the Intichiuma rite. studies can seen be as of frame of a consequences cognitive kinship homological reference. This transformation is diagrammed at the top of Figure 1. The transformation is diagrammed at the bottom of Figure 1. for that matter. The analysis of joking. I can transform homologue. and respect are understood as conventional strategies for A Homological Equivalence natural human series Emu o o series Emu men B Analogical Equivalence Intichiumaseries Emumen I Emu IKangaroo IHoney Ant Witchetty Grub Kangaroo Honey o o o o Kangaroo men Honey Ant Ant men I Kangaroo | men I Honey Ant men Witchetty Grub o o Witchetty Grub men Witchetty Grub men Homological Equivalence relational kinds of totality relatives paternal solicitude maternal solicitude fraternal solicitude affinal o o o o o o o o "father" "mother" "brother" various I solicitude affines Analogical Equivalence kin relationships paternal "father" I solicitude maternal "mother" solicitude fraternal "brother" solicitude affinal various solicitude affines "totemism" model and its ritual transformation Figure1: A comparison of Levi-Strauss's among the Aranda (Spencer and Gillen 1968) with the model of analogical kin relationship presented in this discussion. Thus the "totemic" groupings in the human series are each responsible for the ritual proliferation of their "natural" homologues so as to benefit the whole of society. Boxes indicate contiguity or incorporation. Joking. and structuralist. and respect relationships initiated by Radcliffe-Brown (1952) and Eggan (1937) deals with culture-specific homologies between sociological kin roles and a set of "given" genealogical relatives. requires that each human grouping synthesize the primordial inapertwa creature that represents a union between man and a natural homologue. avoidance. We can likewise postulate a homology between the various kinds of relatives traditionally recognized in kinship studies (or.for others it is "collapsed" into a series of anthropomorphic analogues. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . analogic kinship 625 This content downloaded on Wed. an anthropomorphic "metaphor" standing in an analogous relation to other such metaphors (Spencer and Gillen 1968:167-211. It is a scheme for the differentiation of a kin universe into analogical units. Kin differentiation (the genealogical "grid") becomes an invariant control against which the sociological alignments and stresses of various tribal peoples are contrasted. between any particular "cultural" set of relatives) and the totality. 445). which brings this about. or aggregate of kinds of human relationship. By recognizing the union of each kind of relative with its relational on the model of the Aranda inapertwa creature. 389. The traditional concerns and problems of functionalist. avoidance.

The traditional genealogical method. its usefulness is ultimately contingent upon the validity of the idea of natural kin differentiation. with its "kinship diagrams" and terminological "kin types. Much of the value of this approach comes from the close specification of particular homological transformations (rather than a demonstration of how a society is held together)." The homology of componential analysis is neither the explication of a sociological dynamic nor a synthesis of the attitudes induced by reciprocity. however. however. preserves the essentially homological character of this model. like other homological schemes. the (homological) correspondence is subsumed by the postulated identity between mode of relationship and kind of relative. however abstracted. Levi-Strauss's "atom of kinship" model (1963) achieves an elegant simplification of this homological approach. and a account of a people's relationship protocols yields their social comprehensive of homologue genealogy. But an analogical analysis is of necessity diachronic and of concerned with "relationship" as the analogical consequence sequential: contrived differentiation." is basically synchronic and emphasizes the systematic deployment of relational across an invariant grid. series through it exhausts a terminological-relational temporal sequence rather than logical systemization. For an analogical approach.converting a naturally differentiated kin universe into a functioning society. The dynamic of explanation for an analogical analysis of kin relations is radically different from that traditionally assumed in homological approaches. they 626 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. and term and relationship together form a conceptual entity that is differentiated from other such entities. an analogical approach does not incorporate the contrast between "mental" symbolization and "physical" fact. having obviated the distinction between "natural" kin type and "cultural" kin relationship by subsuming terminology and relationship within a single entity. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . implication of an analogical approach that deserves clarification. The character of the homology changes radically in the ethnosemantic approaches of Lounsbury (1964) and others. Its constructions are intended as simultaneously conceptual and phenomenal. Here the kin term or terms (as well as the "relatives" it identifies) is part and parcel of the mode of relationship (see Wagner 1972a). There is another. Each differentiation has its consequences and is reestablished or altered diachronically. A set of contrastively defined "attitudes" (the distinction between attitude and relationship is by no means clear) is shown to vary in a regular way in relation to genealogy and reciprocal obligation. rather than an alternative to homology. What Levi-Strauss offers is a limited and rigorous refinement of homology. The insistence on a "given" kin differentiation. The "problematic" area here corresponds to the empty spaces between boxes in the second column of Figure 1 and involves the "flow" of analogy or similarity between kin relationships. but a detailed correspondance established between a native classificatory "system" and the "kinds of relatives" specified by genealogy. For the functionalists and structuralists as well as the ethnosemanticists the "problematic" area is demarcated by the empty spaces between boxes in the first column of Figure 1. Natural differentiation is (or oversimplification) the constraints of the to limit (social) reciprocity supplemented by possible constellations of kin attitudes among four "basic" kin types. This is the fact that. What we might call the "temporal" correspondences factor can be located as one of a number of logical implications subsumed in the total constellation. which substitute culture-specific kin classification for "mode of relationship" or "kin attitudes. perhaps more subtle.

We begin. For the purposes of this analysis I shall consider the interdiction to be the basic and primary consider it). and sanctioned by. however. for example. The abrogation of relationship begins prior to the setting up of the betrothal itself. The relationships. restrictions. it will be necessary to consider it in the light of the analogical flow. analogic kinship 627 This content downloaded on Wed. I shall present an analogical analysis of kin relationships among the Daribi. not with a grid." In order to realize the significance of this. and the significance of kin relationships within this world is a function of their meaningful development in terms of its symbols. rather than the demarcation of a particular "domain" or department of the totality that we might want to designate as that of "kinship. or interdiction. The force of the interdict is to commute all or most interaction ("relating") between two sets of persons. we must consider the nature of the "vertical" lineality. and remains in force with certain modifications." This requires that we begin our analysis with some particular conceptual world. a considerable moral and ceremonial emphasis. for this grounds (and is grounded by) the Daribi conception of sexual differentiation. and with a set of assumptions about conceptual worlds in general. Kin relationships are not separated as a rigid "cultural" response to a set paradigm of "natural" contingency but rather emerge as an integral part of a wholly symbolic conceptualization of things. But since the interdiction is made within a conceptual world. and any familiarity that might arise in ordinary social intercourse. We might in fact consider the prospective bride's mother to be the more significant party in a basic dyad. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . What is abrogated is in fact any preexisting analogical relationships that may be construed to exist among the parties (such as. when go-betweens are used to mediate relations between the two parties. focused on the dyad involved in the exchange of wealth and meat. The interdiction is initiated in the form of a betrothal (orowaie "to betroth") and involves the prospective bride and groom as well as certain key relatives of theirs. The beginnings of our analysis should involve an entry into this conceptual world and a creative apprehension of its meanings. conceptual world I have already reconnoitered 1972b). that is made with. responsibilities. But until this time the prospective for most social purposes as the same person. but with a conceptual world. Accordingly.belong to a single universe of apprehended cultural construction (and culturally constructed apprehension) that is contiguous with other realms of conceptualization." since "exchange" is no more admissible as an unaccountable "fact" than notions like the "domain of kinship. rather than a general orientation regarding "kinship systems" in general. since she assumes the essential role in the interdict once the betrothal stage has been bride and her mother are treated passed. one that presumes the analogical flow resulting from differentiation (since the context of differentiation is an established society. the "maker" or "creator" of kin step (as the Daribi themselves relationship. The interdiction and commutation of relationships here can be understood in terms of differentiation and analogy. This point takes precedence over any implications that may stem from our traditional idea of "exchange" or "reciprocity. as long as marital relations exist. their being "distant second cousins"). and obligations of Daribi kinsmen all flow from an initial differentiation. notably the prospective bride's mother. not an analytical discourse). We might say that any "horizontal" or nonlineal analogical relationship is cut off and transmuted into "vertical" or lineal relationship. an interior Papuan people whose in some detail (Wagner 1967.

Viewed in analogical terms. viscera. The wife takers represent their flow to the wife givers as that of maleness. the skin. But the crucial difference between these fluids and the sexual characteristics they objectify is the relative contingency of the male and relative self-sufficiency of the female. They amount to the same thing seen. teeth. which is contained within the circulatory system and provided by a woman in the conception of a child. because the wife givers regard the woman and her apurtenances as part of their 628 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. Daribi says that the soul of a man is bestowed by the father. which is contained and developed within a system of tubes (agwa bono) and nodes (agwa ge) that we would call the lymphatic system. kawa. but although the blood in a woman's body is sufficient for her role in conception. Thus meat takes on the considerable significance of an adjunct to maleness and male reproductive potential: it is the partible and portable accessory to masculine of maleness amounts to a definitive continuity. But the realization is a gradual and realization and acknowledgement and the force of the moral obligation is that each party to the sequential one. bushknives). places where the thought purposes. lungs. string bags. represent and perceive the giving of its women and their consequent reproductive activities as its own lineal flow of male substance. kawa and pagekamine are simply two ways in which the vertical flow of analogy resulting from the interdict are represented. Although soul (noma') resides and are developed from maternal blood. axes. and so forth) and the promise of a woman. and other internal organs.Maleness is considered to be an effect of seminal fluid. Femaleness is considered to be an effect of maternal blood. and is transmitted by a man in sexual intercourse. but. to manage and utilize meat resources and exercise social force and constraint in such a way as to contain and incorporate male lineality. It forms the inner layer of an embryo. as a flow of "blood. the seminal fluid that a man receives from his father is never sufficient in quantity for conception and must be augmented. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions ." What might be described as exchange or reciprocity is in fact an objectified. and hair. giving adjuncts of female productivity (bark cloth. as it were. But the party of the wife takers will regard the lineal flow of the wife givers as that of female substance. Both fluids are necessary for the creation of an embryo. eyes. It forms the outer layer of an embryo. of this substance. for its primary concern is the retention and replenishment The party of the wife givers will. and that of a woman is bestowed by the mother. It is replenished and increased by the juices and fat of meat that is eaten (in a woman these fluids form maternal milk). the contingency should be to retain and man's responsibility statement of moral obligation: supplement the contingent. of two views of a single thing. Menstruation is seen as the release of pagekamine of as liver the and are heart. the bones. and the circulatory for reproductive system. for this reason. A Daribi man regards and addresses his sister's children as his own. The quantifiable mediation and intermeshing wife givers represent their own flow to the wife takers as that of femaleness. and we shall see that the whole course of Daribi relational transformation is but a sequential of this fact. from different angles. Each party acquires an objectified increment of flow consonant with its perception of the flow of the other. giving meat and other adjuncts of maleness and male productivity (pearlshells. interdict shall represent and perceive its own lineal flow as that of male substance. Beyond this. as well as the lymphatic system and genitalia of a man. pagekamine. and the lymphatic system and mammary glands of a woman.

Any infringement of the interdict between them must be compensated by a small gift of (male) wealth to the female au. we can say that and rather are themselves the objectification of parallel flows through "exchange" is the very substance. It is a differentiation that is recreated constantly in betrothal and marriage and that owes its social persistance to this recreation. via the interdiction and separation of flow through which they are constituted. They may not speak to each other. This amounts to a total.) There is no terminology of address or protocol for interaction between a male and his betrothed. by moral precept. potentially. A male and his betrothed's (or wife's) mother are au to each other. Betrothal and marriage. though the force of the interdict may not be as emphatic in these cases. (To this end Daribi women wear their bark cloaks like a shawl about the face-so that it may be drawn over the face if the occasion demands this. because of their very self-sufficiency. and. and it is always the women. when I asked a group of Daribi men what specific practice had always been theirs (and not introduced as part of a cult). analogic kinship 629 This content downloaded on Wed. though the forms are different. as well as the artifact of the interdict. is thus an artifact of the interdict. utter one another's name or the name of the thing it refers to." The establishment of a betrothal. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . But because the meat. a differentiation that motivates the whole of Daribi secular life.own male lineality." with a certain degree of deference being shown by the prospective groom and his brothers. between baze. or utter the name of his wife's mother. wealth objects. or represent. and the siblings of the prospective bride on the other. who are obliged to mediate the flow of male lineality. see each other. what they stand for. Wai should observe particular care in their relations with one another. formal abrogation of intercourse and even recognition between the prospective groom on one side and his prospective bride and her mother on the other. Those considered "true" bothers (ama' mu) of a groom or prospective groom and all other women married into the lineality of the bride or prospective bride (generally including wives of full brothers of the woman and the wives of their male issue) are also au to each other. or hear such a name spoken. that a man should never behold. "We" are always male contingency. And this perhaps explains why. formalized in the passing over of a sizable amount of "male goods" to the prospective wife's people and a small return gift. as against any single. This is a careful protocol. avoiding embarrassing situations and "speaking carefully. amount to the germinal social differentiation of male and female. initiates the recourse to "affinal" forms of interaction between appropriate parties in the parallel linealities-the beginning of the interdict. including the prospective groom (and his "true" brothers) on one hand. The forms of the interdict are slightly more permissive. analogical flow or relationship between prospective wife givers and wife takers. The terms of the interdict are no less stringent with regard to the father of the betrothed. The objectification of parallel "male" and "female" flows. they replied: "it is this. This man (and his male and female siblings) and the prospective groom (and his "true" brothers) are wai to one another. Now it should be clear why the full force of the interdict involves a male on the side of the takers and a female on that of the givers: because the interdict and the objectification of parallel flows are one and the same thing. speak to. They will also step off a road and turn their backs if there is any possibility of meeting a forbidden person. though no less significant. the woman involved are not "merely symbolic" tokens like our money. each party's giving is consonant with its perception of its own lineal flow.

are likewise fairly unimportant during the betrothal stage of the interdict. she is obliged to visit the prospective groom's people and is then placed under the care and tutelage of her prospective husband's mother. which is to see that the prospective groom is assembling the bridewealth so that she may return to tell her father. who are reciprocally yame to them. splendidly attired. This manifests and exemplifies an ideal of sober male assertiveness. In this usage the noma' can be approached on an analogy with the Maori hau." which carries the same reciprocal. This is also the traditional battle dress of men." She calls her auwa's husband wai'. It is highly significant in terms of male contingency that the female soul is taken. Female wai of the terms with the word we and baze are distinguished by a combination ("woman. whereas the "boy soul" is merely "shown" and retained. Female w?i and baze are potential and even preferred (additional) marriage partners. the ceremony amounts to an assertion and mutual recognition of the self-image of male substance that is proper to each party. which constitutes the wedding ceremony. might also be viewed as the explicit and self-contained assumption of parallel. In their left hands the men hold pearlshells belonging to the brideprice. But the "tying" of the woman also means that she is separated (that is." "wife")." but spoken as a single word). "taken" and "fastened") from her own line. and offspring of male yage. armed manner. but like wgi-we and baze-we. and in the right they each hold a bow and a bundle of arrows. to be requited later by the passing over of the woman. generally when the betrothed reaches the age of eight or ten. and takes the pearlshells from each." The groom's party moves into the residential locus of the bride's people and "shows" but also contains its ogwanoma' in a rigid. the ogwanoma' (literally "boy soul. In sum. literally the "tying" or "fastening" of the woman (as opposed to merely "taking her soul"). Noma' ("soul") can be understood as the moral and social persona. standing at rigid attention in single file before the door of the bride's father's house. who 630 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. baze-we. a black cassowary plume worn on the head. walks down the file of men." that is. vertical "flows. is significant. though this does not affect the protocols of interaction with them during betrothal. and that this "showing" is done in a martial posture. Betrothing a woman is often spoken of by Daribi as noma' sabo ("takes the soul. For the bridewealth is linked to another use of the term noma'. During the course of the betrothal. this potentiality of their role is held in abeyance during betrothal. so attired. "grandchild. The wedding consists of the men. It consists of a covering of charcoal over the entire visible body. Offspring of male baze. This ceremony. She then takes them to her father. we kqbo. the moral "self" of a woman. and the protocols are relatively unconstrained. and contrasting white shell ornaments. the men grasp one of the arrows in the left hand and resume their rigid stance. here "grandfather. whom she calls auwa ("grandmother. The ogwanoma' is the ceremonial attire assumed by the groom and four or five other members of his line for the presentation of the bridewealth.) The purpose of this visit. As they are relieved of the shells. who stand in the yage protocol in relation to the prospective groom and his brothers." reciprocal: wai'. The bride then emerges from the house. "soul taking"). Female yage and yame are potential preferred marriage partners. the spirit of a gift that demands reciprocation (Mauss 1954:8-9). Taking the soul then amounts to acquiring a pledge. as in w i-we. while at the same time presenting the bride's people with pearlshells of the same sort as those worn by the groom and his accomplices.which combines mild joking with a certain amount of deference to the bride's brothers (to whom Daribi occasionally refer as "true" baze). 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .

and pearlshells just precisely where there is no flow of substantial analogy. it is the aspect of kin relationship for which human beings take direct responsibility. and the sociality (and its analogies of substantial flow) will take care of itself. Additional wives may be given in the direction of the original marriage but should not be given in the reverse direction. the exchange of detached. Thus. Unlike internal. For it is these detachable things. Yet the terms of the interdict are such that this kind of analogy is not embodied in internal. to establish and substantiate. substantial flow. as perceived by the respective parties) that it sets up. controlled analogy-the manipulated "flow" that is substituted for internal. women. it is not necessary to adduce literally constituted "groups" (or even "societies") here: all that is necessary is for people to observe the niceties of the interdict and its concomitant exchanges and prerogatives. But we have seen that this constitutive action must respect the exigencies of the substantial analogies (that is. the interdict and the exchange that it leads to is predicated upon immediate human action. This is why Daribi say that "we marry those with whom we do not eat [that is. In those few analogic kinship 631 This content downloaded on Wed.are henceforth known as her "pagebidi"-"base-people"-a tie that is explicated and substantiated through the tracing of pagekamine. For Daribi (whose usages are fundamentally asymmetrical in this respect." It is a self-contained statement. women. They call to mind the painstaking restrictions surrounding food and pollution that Dumont emphasizes in Homo Hierarchicus (1970) as the very core of the Hindu caste system. But presentation of the brideprice commutes this linking analogy to a single tie with her natal line. partible things amounts to deliberate. and this analogy can indeed be said to relate them. Prior to the "tying. Most significantly. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . male and female flows." In sum. and pearlshells. a model "of" and a model "for. The restrictions and distinctions made here. substantial "flow. as the "given" residuum of previous exchanges. this involves the obligations of male contingency-giving meat and male wealth to the pagebidi to make restitution for their perceived loss of male flow. which. used as mediators in lieu of substantial flow. women." so to speak. prompts certain kinds of appropriate human action (such as "sharing"). insofar as these linealities are set up through interdict and exchange. then." her principal links of substantial analogy were traced both through paternal and maternal substance. are the subject of great care and discretion. Thus the latter are obliged to give over a certain portion of the bridewealth as a quitclaim to the bride's mother's people. because the exchange of these detachable markers in one direction is the means by which substantial flow is emphasized (and hence created) in another. in contrast to those of some other Papuan peoples) the morality of this obligation extends beyond individual marriages and becomes a binding consideration for the two linealities involved. There is a flow of meat. the setting up of parallel substantial flows. one being "wife giver" and the other "meat giver." but in the kinds of "detached" or "detachable" things (souls. whether "behavioral" (as with avoidance and respect) or "structural" (as with exchange and marital protocols). As in Dumont's analysis. Like the interdict itself. given more or less to validate assumption of her pagebidi's role. pearlshells) that are being presented and accepted. they will be constituted in terms of a unidirectional "flow" of controlled analogy. that are used socially to "mark" and confirm. We can understand a kind of analogy to be manifest between the givers and takers of souls. substantial flow by the imposition of the interdict. share] meat. The "flow" of controlled analogy through exchange is thus constitutive of the whole relational matrix. viewed as a link of maternal substance by the groom's people and as an extension of their own paternal substance by the bride's.

or wife taker. As the water flows downward from this point. baze-we. This is the junior levirate. This indulgent. Table 1. the internal. are not performed in cases of leviratic transfer. that the protocols regarding meat here are even more crucial than those relating to the giving of women themselves. this one works both ways. "lineal" flow of wives is almost as frequent as the external.8 percent of all cases. kawa. partible equivalent of seminal fluid. whose potential marriage is not encouraged by the levirate. indeed. This includes women who are w. daughters. however. with their dramatic "defense" of male contingency. Another measure of this "flow" is the prerogative or expectation of the groom.i we. and a plurality of widows. As there is a "flow" of meat between linealities that replicates descent. on the analogy of a wQ-gomo. But this is just what we should expect. It is clear that the "obligation" is not always honored by wife givers. are sare to one another and may not joke or act in other ways that betoken familiarity. so the "flow" of its external equivalent passes horizontally in one direction only." "water-head. which for Daribi is generalized to include the inheritance of wives from father to son and among those who regard one another in broad. who may have other obligations or inclinations regarding their sisters. the literally the "head-man" or "source-man. indicates that wives are obtained leviratically in 46. to a lack of wealth on the part of the exchangers. nonrestrictive relationship is also that of grandfather and grandchild and of a wife and her husband's father. who are often criticized on moral grounds). yage. interlineal flow. who are potential spouses under the levirate. as the Daribi say. passes from father to son. to receive further wives from the lineality of the wife givers. very much an ongoing affair. and this is clearly reflected in various kinds of relational terminology. Exchange and descent. idiomatic terms as "brothers. Early widowhood. Like all metaphors. It would seem. and yame to him. but usually focuses more particularly on the wife's sister. Thus we find that. are wai' to one another. We can then apprehend the asymmetrical and unidirectional character of exchange as being itself a kind of analogue of male lineality: as the flow of kawa. such as calling one another by name. given the predominant significance of male contingency. It may be incidental to the central idiom of this discussion." or high point at the source of a stream. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . horizontal "flow" of women from wife givers to wife takers is also. and father's sisters. is an expected feature of such an arrangement. particularly since Daribi usages require that small prestations of meat and wealth be passed along continually in the opposite direction. Certainly this high incidence is the result of diverse situational factors. The external. is on the transference of wives from elder to younger males. The eldest of a set of male siblings is referred to as the gominaibidi. however. A man and his elder brothers' wives. for meat is the externalized. Significantly.cases where sister exchanges do take place (owing. become metaphors for one another. informants insist that any meat exchanged may not be consumed by the exchangers themselves. But the prerogative 632 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. or baze-we. affinity and consanguinity. male relational analogy. however. A man and his younger brothers' wives. so we also find a "flow" of women within these linealities on the model of unidirectional or asymmetrical exchange. including especially the practice of betrothing very young girls to older men. based on marital histories collected from roughly half of the Daribi married males in 1968-1969. so the wives flow from the gominaibidi to his younger siblings. but it is nevertheless helpful to note that leviratic transfer is involved in a significant fraction of all Daribi marriages. statistically. the marital rites of we kQbo. of course." The moral emphasis.

8 4. is often "pushed" by Daribi men. I have several times been approached by anxious Daribi tultuls (government-appointed village leaders) who had forcibly detained their wives' sisters (married elsewhere) and were fearing the Others.2%). Table 2 presents some statistical measures of continuing marriage with wife givers.9 Relationship Baze-we Yage Wai-we wife's other lineage mates other marriages total analogic kinship 633 This content downloaded on Wed. wondered aloud why I consequences. The prevalence of leviratictransfer. one of them assumed as a part of the nature of things. The categories baze-we (including wife's sisters and half-sisters) and yage. More specifically. taken together with wife's other lineage mates. it can be seen as a kind of inveterate "slippage" or "dissonance" in the terms of the interdict. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .6 7.9 .9 100. The prevalence of continuing marriagewith wife givers. Total marriageswithout leviratictransfer373 (53. this yields a total of between 30 percent and 35 percent of all marriages after the first resulting from the continuing horizontal "flow" of meat and partible analogy. account for about 15 percent of all later marriages.0 Number 209 32 56 55 Percent 29.8%).0 4. and the other brought about by human action.0 All completed marriages after the first Number Percent 40 18 3 67 238 366 11.5 15.6 29.5 4.5 4.9 100. taken in the strictest sense. learning that my wife had a sister. For it is an analogy drawn between two rather different forms of analogy.9 7.8 8. especially influential ones.9 .3 65. All contracted marriagesafter the first (includes dissolved betrothals) Number Percent 58 30 3 93 427 611 9. which was set up Table 2.2 69. calculated as a percentage of all marriages contracted and of all marriages completed after the first. however subliminal and implicit it may be from the standpoint of participants. The metaphorical equivalence of vertical lineality and horizontal exchange.0 46 207 34 63 702 6.Table 1. is highly significant for my central argument. MarriagesInitiatedby Betrothal following original betrothal betrothal inherited leviraticallyat death* betrothal inherited leviratically without death* betrothal transferrednonleviratically MarriagesNot Initiatedby Betrothal marriedwithout betrothal or transfer wife inherited leviraticallyat death* wife inherited leviratically without death* wife received nonleviratically total * Total marriagesresulting from leviratictransfer329 (46. did not quit New Guinea and go off in hot pursuit of her.8 18.0 100.

indeed. through the special qualities of maternal blood. pagehabo becomes for them an act of defending male contingency against female sufficiency. this is accomplished through the presentation of detached and partible equivalents of substantial flow. From the respective viewpoints of the two linealities. It is important. Thus male contingency is the chief moral consideration on both sides. a of its two linealities-then or another as to one regarded analogically "belonging" mediation must be effected. Thus the child becomes itself a point of analogic relation between the two linealities: relationship has "happened" to the original demarcation between them. the detachable analogic elements can be accepted (or negotiated for) as a legitimate substitution. Because the latter regard the child as an analogue of their own paternal lineality. This effect. Moreover. If the expression of distinct linealities is to be maintained as a viable social in other words. for this is a moral issue bearing upon health and lineality. linealities-that Terminologically and in every other way. is the mediation that is effected. to remember that every single individual in the society manifests such a confluence of linealities. too. Customarily. in a series of payments called pagehabo (from pagehaie "to pay the pagebidi") by the father of the child to the child's pagebidi. for the pagebidi are believed to exercise. what a man "who understands well" would do). the child is to be construction beyond the point of marriage-if. but they claim the right (which is sometimes exercised) of taking possession of the children themselves in the event of nonpayment. need not supplement their claims. What happens is that the means of imposing the interdict come to model. the two are related analogically to one another. This effect is paralleled by an even more significant compromising of the interdict: that brought about by the birth of children. or the payments for one child or even several are tendered in a single "lump" sum. or "true maternal uncle") in an ongoing exchange relationship. for in the absence of pagehabo payments the father's line would be indeed contingent in the face of the pagebidi's position of sufficiency-the paternal side must supplement its maleness and the claims based upon this maleness. These are given. What is important. The pagebidi. This difference makes paternal affiliation a moral issue. for their part.through the mediation of horizontal "flow. Pagehabo is given a few years after birth. who manifest the substantial flow of both of the mother and that of the father-in a single social persona." to counteract and abolish any substantial flow between the two linealities. though this again is often a matter of negotiation. is the first step in the obviation of the interdict. though it becomes a truly pressing issue for the father's lineality. Once again. this mediation must satisfy the claims of male contingency that both linealities make upon the child. it is only demanded for a woman's first three children. Pagehabo is often subject to negotiation. and to be modeled by. coming about gradually in the years after marriage (in the allocation of widows and the organization of polygyny). 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . analogues through maternal substance. since for them male contingency is opposed to female sufficiency. But adult males should also. and again at death. Daribi men regard their sisters' children as their own. a power of cursing the child with death or illness. and that every expression of lineality as a clear-cut social construction is compromised by the implications of this effect. Because the father's lineality regards that of the mother as the child's pagebidi. 634 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. as a matter of some moral consequence (for example. the thing that is interdicted. regardless of the circumstances of giving. pair off with one of their awa pagebidi (the so-called awa mu. at initiation for males or marriage for females. Because the same social persona stands in an analogic relation to both. payment often is delayed until a child survives its vulnerable early years. the child stands in an analogic relation of paternal substance to each of them. too.

Thus the moral injunction to regard hai' as siblings is in fact a restatement of the primacy of male substantial flow. The right to ask for such a consideration and the contribution itself are tokens of the young man's affiliation with his maternal lineality. for the latter may also be regarded as pagebidi. involve the passing back of a smaller prestation called sogwarema by the receivers of the main prestation. Because the hai' relationship is itself developed out of the paradoxical confrontation of two analogous but distinct semiotic modalities. a deliberate (though motivated) definition of lineality. when it occurs. Even if the sogwarema wealth has not been withheld. because female lineality emphasizes lineal obligation. "are the same as siblings. for inasmuch as the persona for whom the payments are given belongs simultaneously to both linealities. expectations. compromised in a way that the original interdict is not. as well as pagehabo. But of course they are not siblings. a condition that leads Daribi to say that one's patrilateral hai' are "true hai" in contradistinction to one's matrilateral hai'. though it renders the transference of wealth." Daribi say that cross-cousins. the youth's request should be honored. that is. of the erstwhile "wife givers" and "wife takers. more ambiguous." are collapsed into one. Most Daribi exchanges. or hai'. Precisely this sort of ambiguity. It qualifies the redefinition of lineality in pagehabo. and protocols. exchanges. for by honoring the youth's request with sogwarema wealth the pagebidi both "exchange" with the youth's paternal lineality and "share" with the youth himself. including those made at betrothal and marriage. simultaneously honoring the canons of "sharing" and "exchanging. But it is also. should morally be transmuted into a flow of partible analogy throughout a man's life. In terms of our broader understanding. however. however. Thus the identification between horizontal and vertical flow. respectively. Hai' are siblings to the extent that lineality and exchange. The youth then has the right to go to his pagebidi and request a contribution to the bridewealth he is assembling. Withholding the sogwarema prestations has the effect of conserving the definition of lineality. Hai' as siblings are related by the analogy of male substance." suffuses the relations among cross-cousins. the sogwarema wealth is often withheld by the pagebidi until the child grows up and begins to assemble his own brideprice. and the accumulated sogwarema wealth will be turned over to him for this purpose. and relates them. encountered in the levirate and in continuing marriage with wife givers and compounded in the begetting of children is carried forward in a cumulative fashion. the mediating payments that define this lineal affiliation are exchanged within a single lineality. between lineality and exchange (or act and circumstance). a further resolution of male contingency. and its effects grow even more pronounced as the child grows older. it emerges as the crucial point in the self-creation and self-limitation of Daribi kin relationships. and to this extent the linealities that they serve to define are rendered less distinct.Female lineality. for then the paternal linealities of their fathers are merged into a single flow of meat given in exchange and kawa passed down generationally. as I have observed. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Hai' are not siblings to the extent that the lineality of the matrilateral cross-cousins is regarded by the patrilateral cross-cousins as female or maternal rather than male. Because the vertical and horizontal modes of analogic construction are interdependent as well as fundamentally analogic kinship 635 This content downloaded on Wed. In the case of pagehabo given for a male child. but hai'. They are "shared" as well as exchanged. pagehabo is a kind of reimposition of the interdict. over and above the definition of his lineality effected bypagehabo." meaning that they should think of each other and treat each other as siblings. the offspring. "sharing" and "exchanging.

including hai'. the hai' relationship approximates that of siblings." and hence exchangers. As "siblings. Were this not the case. came from there. It is. and. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . We might say that hai' impersonate or dramatize the conflicting implications of lineality and exchange in their relations with one another. Viewed as expressing exchanging through the idiom of sharing. even though the pagebidi here is of the same generation as the "child" and is a "little pagebidi." male hai' should contribute to one another's brideprices and are entitled to a share in the bridewealth received for their respective female hai'. patrilateral hai' become equals through the balancing out of two rather different sorts of inequalities. is that of countering and neutralizing the structural superiority of the matrilateral hai' as pagebidi. like virtually everything else in the relationship. these rights and obligations of sharing are always worked into the idiom of exchanging. which lists leviratic transfers statistically according to the kin category of the source.) Figure 2. generationally equivalent. ego is often paired off with a particular hai' pagebidi in a permanent exchange relationship (that of hai' mu. The leviratic claims that hai' make as siblings must generally be validated by equilateral exchanges among the prospective co-heirs-should the surviving hai' not receive the widow thus "paid for. more widows can thus be accounted for either in terms of their superiority or their inferiority." As in the case of the awa pagebidi." and hence to express exchanging through the idiom of sharing." male hai' may exercise a claim (rated as being just below that of a younger brother in priority) on the inheritance of one another's widows." he may legitimately demand the return of his wealth. or "true hai' ") when he reaches adulthood. then we might expect the normalization of an "Omaha" terminology to apply here (Wagner 1970). the hai' pagebidi retains the sanction of cursing ego. For this reason the responsibilities and obligations. (It is said that the patrilateral hai'." and a gominaibidi is felt to be closer to his mother than his younger siblings are. In fact the term hai' is used almost exclusively-dwano pagebidi being invoked 636 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. were the pagebidi aspects of the relation to be emphasized. "little pagebidi. the matrilateral hai' receives somewhat more wealth than his patrilateral counterpart in the exchanges that pass between them. the ostensible "generational" superiority of the former and the putative "lineal" seniority of the latter. are restricted closely to bivalent usages. ambiguous. those that satisfy simultaneously. is constituted by the summing together and mutual modeling of the two aspects. the hai' relationship approximates the generationally "skewed" one of "child" and pagebidi. and it acquires this character precisely because the relationship. though ambiguously. Terminological usage accords with the injunction to regard hai' as siblings. Otherwise. qua relationship.opposed to one another. for he is a "creditor" of the latter in the pagebidi relation. Thus the injunction of matrilateral and siblingship among hai' is self-fulfilling as regards equivalence. so that expressions of lineality as well as exchange take the same external form. the canons of sharing and exchanging. The effect of the moral injunction to regard hai' as "siblings. also as in that case. with a slight implication of leviratic seniority on the part of the patrilateral eldest male of his partner. of course. statistically. Viewed as expressing sharing through the idiom of exchanging. if a gominaibidi-the his mother "because series-should not of his hai' inherit the widow sibling pagebidi. what we might wish to call the "norms" of the relationship. or maternal uncle. relating to one's hai' is always a matter of playing one set of relational injunctions against another. As "brothers. The fact that matrilineal hai' receive more wealth and. illustrates graphically the prevalence of transfers from patrilateral to matrilateral kin for a number of relationships. But because hai' are not siblings and because matrilateral hai' are also dwano pagebidi.

Leviratictransfers according to kin category of source (preferred "flow" of wives shown graphicallyby arrows). In the following generation. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions .2 7.6 K%%h (half brother) ama' (firstcousin) ama' ama' (half brother) ama' % (first cousin) (second cousin) Total ama' _^ (second cousin) Total hai' (FZS) hai' FZS) ("classificatory" Total number percent 19 4.5 5.8 ama' Matrilateral younger number percent 5 '1. hai' 6 MBS) ("classificatory" 21 Total number Total: preferred source of wives Total: permissible but not preferred source Genealogically "distant"ama' No kin category identification provided Inheritancefrom ogwa or awa (pagebidi) Grandtotal 1 216 40 97 29 L 397100. In each case.3 percent 54. only occasionally as a descriptive gloss.8 ^^ 11 2.1 .4 24. One relates to one's father's male and female hai' as aia ("father") and na' ("father's sister") respectively and to one's mother's male and female hai' as awa ("mother's brother") and ida ("mother") respectively.3 2. Moreover hai' are expected to use affinal terms and relational modes with one another's siblings and to gloss them descriptively as hai' bare affines (one's hai's wife's brother.1 (brother) ogwa (son) Total 4 9 1.8 1. for instance.1 2. the differential aspect of the wife givers' lineality (male vertical flow analogic kinship 637 This content downloaded on Wed.3 Figure2.6 . Because hai' are "siblings" and because the injunction to relate to hai' as siblings invariably puts a patrilateral (male analogical) construction on the relationship. that of the children of hai'.4 23. the distinctions contingent upon the parent's pagebidi relationship are elided and subsumed within an all-embracing "patrilateral" flow.7 ama' number percent 41 10. hai' (MBS) number percent 15 3. the distinction between male and female analogical flow following upon the initial interdict is completely abrogated.ama' (brother) Patrilateral elder number percent 59 14.3 ^""" 39 14 94 9.8 .4 number percent 1 5 1.4 30 7.3 aia (father) Total 33 92 8.3 4 1 10 1.3 10.3 23. is one's hai' bare baze). with corresponding relational usages for those related through them.8 3.

But one may marry the grandchildren of parental hai'. female flow in those of the wife takers) disappears. similar constructive regimes but not necessarily predicated upon such other imputed theoretical orders as political or economic interest or the solidarity of the group. What is important is not that these analogies are used. If they permit a generally unconstrained flow of analogy irrespective of strong lineal bias. But these relationships are broadly indulgent and diffuse. the identification of "sharing" with "exchanging. the impression of a naturally or an innately imposed differentiation of "kinds" of relatives. is far more consistent with observable events and attitudes among the Daribi (and many other highland Papuan people) than lineality as normative dogma or lineality as idiom for social interest. Of course. as a quantity that changes its value with time and with position within the relational matrix. It is said that one should not marry offspring of one's parent's hai'. in any case. it is but a part. tangent to other. Lineality as open-ended analogic flow. And the evidence for this indicates that we need not look beyond the confines of kin construction to find a satisfactory accounting. Parents' hai' are relationally parents' siblings. or that they exist. supported by their own notions of priority and responsibility. there is no necessity to adduce corporate interest here. and projected impositions of the interdict. few obligations or perquisites attached to them. Daribi create their world of relatives and kin relationships even as their perceptions and conceptions of kin and kin relationship are created by this world. tremendous complexity. reciprocal relationships differentiated by the sex (respectively male and female) of the senior partner. Lineality "on the ground" is imprecise and multivalent. Primary parties to the original interdict (the point of reference in the grandparental generation of the children of hai') are related to as wai' and auwa. a strong argument can be made. barring adoption by one's father's hai' through widow inheritance. this study leads to two orders of conclusions regarding kin 638 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. To be more specific. Nevertheless. but how they are invoked and compelled. essentially weak relationships. All Daribi kin relationships can be seen to be generated by the interdict imposed The impression of at the incipience of a marriage. what I have called elsewhere "communities"). There are. and their consequences. present. Such a regime of semiotic construction can be understood and explicated as a phenomenon in itself. More generally. In a broader perspective. as one should not. indeed. They involve. Often enough invoked within and between human aggregates. among hai' in the parental generation obviates the lineal distinctions that the original exchanges (via the interdict) had set up. marry those of a parent's siblings. of the whole of kin construction. that the kin relationships of the Daribi constitute a self-generative means of analogical construction. an individual's own lineal relationships through his or her parents may color relationships with the respective parental hai'. and a transient their own eyes. and by its consequences." of lineality with exchange. is an illusion fostered by the contrapuntal and overlapping implications and consequences of innumerable past. it is negotiable and capable of infinite elaboration and extension. The obligations of "sharing meat" among hai' are another part of this whole and are drawn upon quite as much as lineality in the articulation of human aggregates (for example. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . lineality as analogic flow and its associated premise of male contingency are quite sufficient to account for "recruitment" and other solidarity-oriented issues. in general. but these more recent analogical constructions bear upon other loci of responsibility. it is only because the force of a strongly motivated lineality has gone out of them. like the analogies elicited in Daribi naming.

And because the entailed relationships link relatives to relatives. the flow of analogy that comes to motivate and qualify successive restrictive and differentiating efforts until the force of the initial distinctions is obviated. can only generate viable models ("segmentary lineage systems" and the like) when invoked in the context of an assumed "natural" or "given" kin differentiation. The core of any regime of kin relationship is. diminished and restricted in certain dimensions so as to control and channel the flow of relational analogy. both of them. separate terminologies for "address" and "reference"). My mother is a mother to me and she is also my mother in contrast to other relatives.relationships. I shall list these as a set of conclusions. Only a very small number of them is ever selected for the purposes of social construction. The analogic approach that I have assumed here recognizes an identity between the terms that are used to differentiate relatives and the respective analogical relationships obtaining between those relatives and their reciprocals. certain kinds of analogic flow can be seen to connect an ego with particular sets. This point is sometimes complicated. or chains. Precisely because it is "the opposite of kinship. 3. Analogy. it permits a central focus on the symbolic dimensions of a conceptual world. each corresponding to a kind of relationship. or protocols. in Levi-Strauss 1969) which is also its (generative) beginning point." "filiation") and transdyadic ("descent") categories of homological approaches. The second has to do with the consequences construction. who are aunts. by terminological usages (that is. taken in and of itself as a primitive analytic term. broadly speaking. or (in its behavioral aspect) complete familiarity and lack of constraint. The essence of "kinship" is restriction. but not necessarily contradicted. obviating the distinction between the dyadic ("kinship. Borrowing an idiom from Levi-Strauss. The strength of this approach is that. via the means of eliciting it. unrestricted analogy. and the opposite of "kinship" is therefore total. 2. The assumption that analogical connections might be taken as analytically prior or might be considered the more significant aspect (as in the writings of Fortes and the "descent theorists") is something of a nativistic fallacy. A kind of relationship (designating the particular kinds of relatives proper to it) can then be considered as an analogue of relationship in general. or differentiation. the set of affinal relations (as implied." elicit. or emphasize kin analogic kinship 639 This content downloaded on Wed." complete or total familiarity will often be invoked in the context of kin relationship to "prove. The means by which relatives are differentiated from one another and the means by which they are differentiated from an ego (reciprocal) are one and the same. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . The range of potentially recognizable analogies existing among any set of human semiotic constructions is virtually limitless. 1. The analogies that are actualized in this way are selected and controlled through acts of overt discrimination. The first has to do with kin differentiation and the role of constraint and restriction in eliciting and distributing of analogic relational analogies. interrelated. of relatives or to associate relatives in such sets exclusive of an ego. If we speak of differentiation alone. into a range of contrastive roles. by the same criteria that specify our relationship to them. The differentiation of relatives constitutes a differential and distributive restriction of relational analogy. therefore. we might say that an (unrealizable) ideal of total analogy is detotalized and distributed over a range of partial realizations. we may regard the entailed relational aspect as a "flow" of analogy between any ego and its relatives so differentiated. because the points of differential reference become themselves relational operators. and so forth. We differentiate relatives. 4. for instance. of course. Let us first consider the broad implications of the analogic approach for kin differentiation.

They mark the tolerance limits of socially sanctioned familiarity. When one of them is singled out as the primary focus of an inquiry. Let us then review the analogical implications of kin differentiation as a set of conclusions. and the single most significant methodological constraint upon their application and exemplification as analytic categories is that this contrast be maintained in the most stringent possible terms. 5. the implicit analogies obtaining among kin relationships (and between the "kinds" of relatives to which they 640 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. The initial assumption of the basic similarity of all kin relationships (and.restrictions. and the maternal uncle retains rights of "snatching" from his sister's children. Kin differentiation and analogic flow are interdependent simply because they have been defined in contrast to one another. Thus "joking relationships" frequently entail the mimicry of an unseemly familiarity on the part of one or both "sides" so as to provoke a "disqualification" of the behavior and a consequent realization of the relationship (if the behavior. and it is the maternal uncle who assumes the obligation for his sister's fertility and productivity. which moves from father to offspring but not vice versa. then the other will subsume the implications of this focus as a dialectical antithesis. older children and adults must show considerable respect to their fathers." as it were. between "natural fact" and "social contract. via the implications of this assumption. "close") analogical relationships into the total familiarity of nonkinship." A sister's son can treat his maternal uncle with a certain familiarity because the marriage cattle have already been delivered to the maternal lineality. formless and characterless in itself. A Daribi father is relatively "free" and familiar with his children. 1. 6. and although the familiarity will be reciprocal when the children are very young (this indulgence can be taken as a paternal claim to complete analogy-a supplement to male contingency). the analogical equivalence of all kin relationships to one another can be said to ground their own approach to kin differentiation and relationship. Since. This is why they are so often linked with "familial" or "substance" relations. I have argued that the Daribi themselves understand the differentiation of relatives and relationships to be a province of human responsibility. is a gratuitous projection of Western categorical constructions. and one that leads to illusory problems and pseudoinstitutions such as the "incest taboo" (Wagner 1972a). "Kinship" expands an essentially simple and unitary disposition ("relating"). Unless they are consistently and continually interdicted. Likewise the custom of ritual "snatching" among the southern Bantu peoples described in Radcliffe-Brown's classic discussion of "The Mother's Brother in South Africa" (1952) coincides with the direction of horizontal analogic "flow. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . then the relationship itself emerges as a serious matter). Among the Daribi the obligation for continued payment rests with the wife takers (since the marriage wealth is given over in "installments"). This balancing of familiarity on the part of the father with constraint on that of his offspring emphasizes and coincides with the directional emphasis of analogic flow. moreover. Incestuous relations acquire their often cited moral repugnance by threatening to expand the conditional familiarity of intensely focused (that is. as I have done here with differentiation. as a burlesqued "denial" of the relationship. The contrast that is often made between "given" or natural kin differentiation and "normative" kin classification or relationship. both in an interpretive (analytical) sense and in an operational sense. is taken as a joke. rather than ordering and simplifying an array of particularistic and otherwise hopelessly complex kinds of relatives. all "kinds" of relatives) can be said to ground this discussion. 2.

the resulting construction conforms to what Levi-Strauss (1969) terms an "elementary structure." its specific form depending upon the specifications of wife giving and wife receiving restrictions (sometimes very complex. or a redifferentiation is applied here. too. In such cases usages like those of "restricted exchange" or "cross-cousin marriage" may become. then the construction becomes what Levi-Strauss has termed a "complex structure." "Complex structures" emerge as all those regimes of kin construction that are realized through the progressive obviation of distinctions and restrictions. so. as in the "child price" usages of the Daribi and many African peoples. including "cognatic" regimes. 3. the resulting kin construction takes on a "lineal" character. however. But this very interdependence renders kin differentiation vulnerable to the dissolution of the particular into the general that flow entails. forcing themselves into perception and expression and coloring the resultant social realizations accordingly. as complementary facets of a single human disposition. Such traditionally recognized phenomena as the (systematic) differentiation of relatives and kin relationships. rather than of kin restriction. If a new differentiation. highly desirable. but differentiating social assertions. at least in normative terms. This may be viewed as a means of "alliance" and continuing connubium. 5. What we call "reproduction" or "generation" is modeled entirely by analogic flow: offspring are related by some kinds of analogy to either parent or parental lineality (perhaps this is what Fortes meant by the "universal bilaterality" of filiation) and hence draw an analogy between them. or between paternal and maternal lineality become eroded. analogic kinship 641 This content downloaded on Wed. between paternal and maternal linealities. this complementarity lends itself to the reification of ethnographic particularism. as among many Australian peoples). lineality. for they serve to reestablish the interdict in its original force. The diachronic integrity of a regime of kin construction can be understood in terms of a tension between differentiation and its analogic consequences. or it may be interpreted in less sociocentric terms as a moral effort to conserve "kinship. broadly speaking. "Complex" regimes may be seen as conservative of lineality. and the restrictions of "kinship" are to that degree obviated. Thus "elementary structures" are those that maintain and continually reinvoke the interdict.correspond) will tend to assert themselves. the resulting construction becomes generally "cognatic" or "bilateral. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . If a new differentiation. is the generalization that no single realization of kin construction (an imposition of the interdict and its consequences) seems to persist beyond three or four generations. is introduced. then something of the assumptional basis of the whole constructive effort is realized. when the distinctions between wife givers and wife takers. if not." 4. Such a regime can always be shown to have a systemic character (as in Levi-Strauss's "atom of kinship") if only because the component relationships are differentiated by contrast to one another. The contrasts between sharing and exchanging. qua system. between wife givers and wife takers or between paternal and maternal lineality are not mysteriously "given" facts. Understood in its own (internal) terms. the idiom of affinal differentiation. and reciprocal exchanges are indeed parts of such a self-actualizing intention. When sharing begins to be taken as the same thing as exchanging. Although they elicit analogic flow. Approached as an instrumentality for the creative evocation and temporal realization of a total social construction." If the original differentiation between "wife givers" and "wife takers" is reapplied in the alignment of offspring. the systemic aspect of "kinship" emerges as a function of a larger constructive intention. in certain categories so as to stave off the effects of obviation. the differentiating distinctions and restrictions of "kinship" are themselves carried forward by this flow.

Roy 1967 The Curse of Souw: Principlesof DaribiClan Definition and Alliance. J.Fred. R. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Schoepf. Boston: Beacon Press. Wagner. Levi-Strauss. Ed.. A. 1977 642 american ethnologist This content downloaded on Wed. J. Date of Acceptance: June 16. Gillen 1968 The Native Tribes of CentralAustralia. Radcliffe-Brown. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.and F. G. Cunnison. von Sturmer. Mauss. Baldwin.New York: Dover Publications. 1972a Incest and Identity: A Critique and Theory on the Subject of Exogamy and Incest 1972b Habu: The Innovation of Meaning in Daribi Religion. 351-393. Trans. Marcel 1954 The Gift. 1977 Prohibition. Jacobson and B. The Journal of the Polynesian Society 79(2):91-98. H. 1963 Structural Anthropology. Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. Lounsbury. In Explorations in CulturalAnthropology.references cited Dumont. 1969 The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Louis 1970 Homo Hierarchicus. R. Needham. New York: McGraw-Hill. Ed. 1970 Daribi and ForabaCross-Cousin Terminologies: A StructuralComparison. Bell.FloydG.New York: BasicBooks.and Omaha-Type Kinship Terminologies. 1964 A FormalAccount of Crow. New York: Macmillan. and R.Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press. J. Trans. Eggan.Claude 1962 Totemism. Spencer. Man 7(4):601-613. IL:The Free Press. C. Ward Goodenough. I. 1952 Structureand Function in PrimitiveSociety. 16 Jan 2013 08:30:03 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions . Needham. Trans. Trans. Ed. Boston: Beacon Press. R. pp. Glencoe. Date of Submission: May 20. 1937 Social Anthropology of North AmericanTribes.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful