Kinship is generally a system of recognising relationship by

marriage , blood and social relationship. Thus ,Kinship relations

can be studied through three approaches- cultural approach,
affinal, consanuinal/biological approach . Alliance approach is
an important approach towards understanding of kinship
system. Levi-strauss and dumont in their ‘the elementary
structures of kinship’ and ‘marriage alliance’ respectively talks
of the alliance approach . By alliance approach of kinship,it
refers basically to understand those kin members which are
related by affinal relation and thereby understanding the
kinship network. Kinship according to this approach consists of
number of components – descent , inheritence , marriage ,
affinity, residence.
There are two rules regarding marriage – prohibition and the
prescription which helps in understanding the of alliance
approach. in all societies it is seen that there is prohibition of
marriage with certain relatives and prescription of marriage
with others relatives. In this way, two kinds of cousins are
sometimes distinguished –
(a) marriage being prohibited between children of siblings
of same sex – parallel cousins .(MZD,FBD)
(b) marriage being prescribed between children of siblings
of opposite sex – cross cousins .(MBD,FZD)
The prescribed rule is a positive rule of marriage, its is
endogamous rule , cross cousins are prescribed marriage
partners. On the otherhand, the prohibition rule is a negative
rule of marriage , it is an exogamous rule , parralel cousins are
prohibited marriage.
‘alliance’ refers to the repetition of intermarriage between
larger or smaller groups. Thus, alliance theory is developed to
deal with those types of kinship systems that embodies positive
marriage and helps in further understanding kinship network. It
consists of the combination of the positive marriage rule with
exogamy , or atleast a prohibition against marriage between
parralel cousins . For levis-strauss , universal rules of
prohibiting marriage and sexual relation amongst certain
relatives with exogamy helps in incest prohibition.
Moving on to the defintion of marriage , we can talk of katleen
gough who points out that there has been many problems
regarding the definition of marriage , which have vexed
anthropologists for decades . the common definition of
marriage is “union between a man and a woman such that
childen born to the woman are recognized legitimate offspring
of both parents.” This definition too raises problems in a
number of societies. The nuer case institution of woman –
marriage –to- a woman would be a case . similar veiws have put
forward by Kath Weston when she talks of the gay and lesbian
families where union is established between people of same
sex ; and not mainly due to affinal relation people of opposite
sex.
the second difficulty arises with the issue of legitimisation of
children. According to leach however that legitimizing children
alone doesnot make the definition of marriage reasonable. Nor
thus , marriage means legitimisation of child as seen in the case
of nayars where a child is legitimate only when one or more
men of appropriate sub-caste acknowledge paternity by
providing a fee of a cloth and some vegetables to the mid-wife
who attended the woman in childbirth. If no consent to make
this gift , it was assumed that the woman had had relations
with a lower man ,christian or muslim. She must then be
expelled from her lineage . and the child couldnot be accepted
as a member of his lineage and caste.Leach points out the case
of nayars , where marriage doesnot serve to establish
legitimacy of children. In modern times , as put forward by
Patricia Uberoi in her -When is a Marriage not a Marriage?
Sex, Sacrament and Contract in Hindu Marriag ,Legality is
accorded by the state and not by exchange of gifts as
such .Marriage and legitimacy doesnot go together here.

The alliance approach as establishing itself as a development

over the descent approach criticises it on the ground that it
lays too much emphasis on consanguinal relation leaving
behind relations formed by marriage. In the initial stages of
kinship studies, too much emphasis have been laid to the
KINSHIP TERMINOLOGIES . it can be seen from lewis morgan’s
two assumption that points out his emphasis on kinship
terminologies . he opined that-
i) they reflect behaviour and hence
ii) if a terminology cannot be understood from present
behaviour it must reflects past behaviour.
Similarily W.H.R rivers recognised the link between an actual
marriage rule (symmetrical cross cousin marriage ) and a
certain type of terminology (often called bifurcate merging).(in
iroquios bifurcate merging is seen – F= FB == MB ). once again
terminology reflects behaviour .It was an ethnocentric
assumption that kinship terminology reflects behaviour. In
australia ,terminology is seen as representing behaviour but
that doesnot necessarily mean that it would always reflect the
same behaviour.these classification are considered as irrelevant
by post modern anthropologists like Schneider .
Along with it there was too much emphasis on DESCENT AND
DESCENT GROUP and also Filiation (complementary). It was
seen in australian systems studied by Radcliffe-brown , descent
was overstressed. Radcliffe-brown or SELIGMAN’S attempt to
reduce the ‘type of marriage’ to ‘forms of descent’. He saw the
presence of matrilineal exogamy in his classical work on
australian patrilineal systems and describing ‘double descent’.
Moving towards understanding of kinship ties by marriage ties,
dumont brings into analysis the matrilineal exogamy among
kariera, aranda, amrym tribe .Among these , there is MERGING
OF ALTERNATE GENERATIONS. thus the patrilineal unit has 2
units – (a) ego and grandfather (b) father and great grand
father. A patrilineal group is seen as duality among made up of
two alternate generations to different groups. And thus we see
how marriage was conceptualised as reciprocal relation.
A1 B1

A2 B2 KAREIRA AMBRYM
In ,the above figure , [=] denotes marriage in both direction .the
letters A,B,C represent patrilineal groups and the number 1
and 2 are used for two alternating generation sections in each
group. thus , we see from the above that intermarriage is a
basic element in those systems which poses a preferential or
prescriptive marriage rule. Thus , alliances are based upon
reciprocal relation. ( mam will it do if we donot include this part
?? )
Levi strauss in his ‘the elementary structures of kinship’ talks of
cross cousin marriage and prohibition of incest. Cross cousin
marriage are preferred marriage partners whereas parallel
cousins are prohibited marriage partners. the incest prohibition
is taken to be a protective measure , sheilding the species from
the disastrous results of consanguinous marriages. According
to him , primitive societies have positive prescriptions to limit
such consanguinal marriages - One has to marry outside the
elementary family and to trace which relatives are prohibited
and who are prescribed
Marrying of parrallel cousin is linked to fraternal incest , and
cross cousin marriage despite the very close degree of
consanguinity between the spouses is regarded ideal. Levis
strauss points out however that the diastrous consequence of
consanguinous marriage can be eliminated in the succeding
generations . they affect only generations immediately
folllowing . it thus has a temporal effect. This alleged horror of
incest can also be manifested when a kinship relationship is
supposedly known. This horror is based upon actual attraction
or lack of it . thus , ellis explains the prohibition of incest by
negative effect of familiarisation upon erotic excitability,
westermarck holds a similar but more psychological
interpretation.
Considered as a social institution, the prohibition of incest has
two different aspects . sometimes it is only prohibition of sexual
union between close consanguines or collaterals , while at
others this form of the prohibition based on biological aspect is
only one aspect of a boarder system .In many societies , the
rule of exogamy prohibits marriage between social categories
which includes near relatives but also to distant
consanguineous or collateral relationships .The prohibition of
incest is neither purely cultural nor purely natural , nor it is a
mixture of both . it is at the threshold of nature and culture .
even Kathleen Gough when she analyses Nayars talks about
incest prohibition when she points out that relations between
two persons from same property-group with one person was
forbidden. (this would automatically exclude relations between
a man and his biological daughter).
Coming to the prescribed marriage ,Dumont talks are 3 types of
cross cousin marriage which are allowed– Bilateral ,
matrilateral and patrilateral cross cousin marriage.
(diagrams at the end)
In bilateral,
 i) It is harmonic system all transmission between
generations takes place in one and the same line ,
ii) Ego would marry mother’s brother’s daughter (MBD) or
father’s sisters daughter . (FZD)
iii) two intermarrying groups exchange women as wives
and thus constitute a self sufficient unit. Thus we see
reciprocity as an important feature in alliance approach.
iv) Levis strauss has calld it as ‘closed ‘ or ‘restricted’
exchange .
v) It is symmetrical , the wife taker group is same status to
wife taker group
vi) It is also known as “sister exchange”.
In matrilineal socities and patrilineal societies, there are
opposite characteristics which are seen-
i) They are disharmonic -some features are transmitted
patrrilineally or matrilineally .
ii) In matrilineal system ego would marry MBD(mother’s
brother’s daughter), and patrilineal FZD (father’s sister’s
daughter).
iii) They are an open group where exchanges takes place in
more than 2 groups. It is generalised exchange.
iv) It is assymetrical . Difference of status is also seen at
times – wife givers might be higher in status than wife
givers. intermarriage is thus assymetrical.
 v) Here . B takes from A , A gives wife to C,generation
after generation. it is thus known as ‘circulating
connubium’ .
vi) Since intermarriage is directionally oriented – a group
doesnot receive wives from the group to which it gives
its daughters .
Leach and needham have however sharply criticised levi-
strauss’s work.
i) He talks exclusively about viripotestal societies . he
looked exclusively from men’s perspective and so he
sees women as a commodity , ‘something’ to be
exchanged .
ii) In anthropology, incest prohibition and exogamy
connotes similar meaning. Thus using it together in
understanding alliance approach is tautological.
iii) He veiws marriage as exchange . it may be questioned
on two counts . (a) it introduces an analogy between
women and chattels , women being supposed , for
instance to be universally most prized ‘valuables’. (b) he
doesnot consider women’s feeling while exchange .
being a functionalists he talks only about harmony,order
which results out of exchange. It has however been
criticised by the post modern thinkers and feminists
who think such notions commodify women .the
 supreme court of kenya in 1917 decided that ‘a so-
called marriage by the native custom of wife-purschase
is not a marriage’.
iv) Exchange can be between many groups of people . thus
exchange is wide and abstract . levis strauss contradicts
this by saying exchange can be one- on –one relation.
Needham says exchange takes place at group level and
not individualistic level. Levis understanding of marriage
is qt restricted .
v) It is not necessary as levi-strauss argues that there is
relation between incest prohibition , exogamy and
positive marriage . we see that parts may not always be
related whole . it is difficult to always understand the
relation between part and whole. There are different
parts – consanguinity , heredity which forms part of
kinship (whole). There is no fixed relation of part and
whole . thus there is not always fixed cause-effect
relation . it is a component of social science and culture
and we we cant have a generalised part- whole relation.
DEVELOPMENT
Since 1949 the levis- straussian theory has been tested and
undergone partial modifications and developments.
Needham made certain improvements in levis- strauss ‘s
theory.
i) He made clear cut distinction between prescription and
preference marriage rules . according to levis-straussian
theory both are same. He says levis strauss has dealt
only with prescription . prescription is defined more as
the characteristic of a system than as simply a marriage
rule . it involves the combination of a rule prescribing
some relatives and prohibiting others . it is seen that
relations that are prescribed might not preferred.
Example – arranged marriage is prescribed but it is more
preferred by those who go for love marriage .This
distinction has however being challenged by R.B Lane .
these distinction is nt easily visible.
ii) The main development has probably been a refinement
of the concept of alliance and the substitution it with
more structural understanding for a more emperical
notion. Needham and Leach tries to focus alliance at
the emperical level – at smaller groups . thus we see
levis-straussian understanding of alliance was at a
restricted level as he focused only upon structural level
understanding.
iii) Leach went on to criticize the assumption that marriage
rule should necessarily result in groups intermarrying ‘in
circle’ , an idea which NEEDHAM , on the other hand ,
tried to refine. Alliance is not cyclical , it is actually
dualistic .
 iv) for needham , the important opposition between two
groups , i.e wife givers and wife takers. It is no longer a
group activity. That means it deals with smaller groups
and not larger groups like lineage.
Thus , marriage is symbolic in nature . it thus doesnot deal
alone with sexual relation (prohibition , prescription )but also
with caste purity , recruitment of caste and political significance
; as seen in case of nayars- a nambuduri brahmin marries a
nambuduri brahmin women ; it also highlights how a child gets
membership of higher caste and thereby political power due to
hypergamous marriage. Marriage however have changed its
course in the present scenario . it has changed its nature from
Sacrament (as seen in nayars – tali act )to Contract . and this
shift has clearly being potrayed in Patricia Uberoi’s essay.
The change in Hindu marriage law over the last century is seen
as a change from sacrament to contract. This explainition can
be traced from works of Henry Maine who points out the
progression from “status to contract’. It talks of the change of
tradition to modernity. Modernity entails a process of
secularisation wherby uniform civil code becomes distinct from,
develops from canon or chruch law .
Patricia Uberoi says that the sacrament to contract model is
long evolution; though not very convincing as even in Christian
law.to condone a marriage is considered as a sin despite of the
presence of legal divorce in Britain. It continues to be a
religious rite. Marriage is made binding through a religious or
civil ceremony endorsed by STATE ; to be followed by an act of
sexual intercourse ; it is presumed to be a life long
arrangement ; and it is terminable only on grounds approved by
the state . when marriage is said to be a relation between two
persons we can also see a shift from Radcliffe Brown’s veiw of
African Marriage which refers to union of two failies rather
than modern conception which talks of marriage as union of
indibiduals based on contract .
Marriage alliance thus covers the general both the general
phenomenon of mental integraton and particular phenomen of
group integration. Restriction of marriage shouldnot be limited
to cross-cousin marriage . one should be allowed marriage
outside blood relatives . it is categorisation and classification
helps in understandng the two group’s affinal relation- as who
can be married and who cannot.we must not give too much
emphasis on terminologies. Moreover marriage is not fixed to
the FZD or MBD .thus dumont says a lot has to be done .
marriage is to be studied in relation to political institution ,
economic institution and other institutions (as seen in
nayars ) .Though needham criticised and helped in its
development a lot is to be done . thus comes in the critique of
the cultural approach towards understanding kinship. Kinship
cannnot be understood only by looking at the consanguinal or
affinal relations it has to go beyond and look into the
social,affective and material relation.janet carsten points out
that kinship can be described through other ways too(cultural
approach).in this context we can consider the study of the nuer
society . Evans-Pritchard’s pointed out only the consanguinal
relations of the natives. However in the work of hutchinson it
was described as how nuer relatedness have came to be
understood not only in terms of blood and cattle but also
through the media of money, paper and guns etc. kinship
understanding has moved beyond the mere understanding of
kinship through biological ties. Unlike formal kinship , new
kinship did not have fixed kinship terminologies along with
kinship diagrams. The culutural approach also pointed out that
there can be other types of union between people. A family is
not necessarily the outcome of heterosexual marriage.
Here ,hayden’s study of the lesbian family can be cited. Thus ,
it was clearly showed that it is not biological ties alone through
which kin ties are reckoned. For schneider symbols and
meanings are important . for him,kinship is cultural . According
to Janet carsten ,david schneider a post modern
anthropologists thus tries to trace the development of new
form of kinship studies which wouldnot trace only biological
relations , rather would take into account the study of cultural
relations in tracing ones relatedness to others. Even in
Kathleen gough’s definition , we see the importance of cultural
setting in the establishment of relatedness . thus the definition
of group “marriage goes like this – it is a relationship
established between a woman and one or more other persons
which provides that a child born to the woman under
circumstances not prohibited by rules of the relationship , is
accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of
his society or social stratum.”