Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dwight W. Read
Department of Anthropology
UCLA
dread@anthro.ucla.edu
Introduction
Culture in explanatory arguments
Societies from “simple” to “complex”
From group to band organization via kinship
Kinship as a cultural construct
Modeling of a kinship construct
Instantiation: Symbols to people
Implications for two views of human behavior
Inadequacy of Classical Mathematical Modeling:
Problem of Self-Modification
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Explanatory Paradigm
Biological Sciences
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Evolutionary Fixation of
Natural Selection Fitness Stable Evolutionary
Maximization Strategies Stable
Strategies
PHENOMENOLOGICAL LEVEL
Explanatory Paradigm
Cultural Framework
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Group Structure:
2 element group
<{I, X}, o>
Identification II = I, IX = X
of Bride and XI = X, XX = I Bipartite
Cross Cousin Marriage Sidedness
Groom Instantiation: network
I = parallel Marriage structure
X = cross Marriage
Predicted
Theory Pattern Model T
Match =
Explanation
"… the most striking differences between states and simpler societies lie in
the realm of decision -making and its hierarchical organization …"
(Flannery 1972, p. 412 )
Three Paradigms for Modeling Evolution of
Complex Societies (cont’d)
(2) Group consisting of several individuals: G = <{Ii: 1 < i < m}, SG>
(3) Band society/community composed of several groups: B = <{Gi: 1 < i < n}, SB>
(4) Tribal society/simple chiefdoms composed of several B's: T = <{Bi: 1 < i < p}, ST>
and
(5) Complex chieftains composed of several T's: C = <{Ti: 1 < i < q},SC>,
where SG, SB, ST, SC, stand for the internal organization of the units making up a society
at a particular level in the sequence.
Groups of Individuals
Band society
Tribal Society (groups)
Tribal Society (lineages)
Tribal Society (political office)
Tribal Society (moieties)
Tribal Society (ritual)
Chiefdom (Simple)
Chiefdom (Complex)
State Structure
(top down structure)
Shift from Simple to Complex
Society
Simple Society
Complex Society
Shift from Simple to Complex
Society
Kinship Identification and
Calculation
Gao [a Nyae Nyae !Kung] had never been to Khadum [to the north
of the Nyae Nyae region] before. The !Kung who lived there at
once called him ju dole [dole: ‘bad’, ‘worthless’, ‘potentially
harmful’]. He was in haste to say that he had heard that the
father of one of the people at Khadum had the same name as
his father and that another had a brother named Gao. `Oh,’ said
the Khadum people in effect, `so you are Gao’s !gun!a . . ..
(Marshall 1976:242)
[!gun!a -- kin term for persons in a name giver-name receiver relationship]
Gao’s Calculation
(same name)
Gao’s father A’s father
!gun!a
kin relationship
Complexity of Genealogy compared to
Simplification Achieved through a Kinship
Terminology Structure
Genealogical Tracing
Term Number
of paths
Sibling 2
1st Cousin 8
2nd Cousin 32
3rd Cousin 128
Culture as a Constructed
Reality
Culture as a Conceptual
Structure
Symbolic Structure
(model)
Symbolic Structure
(graph)
Comparison of Two Kinship
Terminologies
Am erican/ English Shipibo
Ter m s Ter m s
Self ea
Approxim ate
Correpondance:
Gao’s Calculation (model)
(same name)
Gao’s father A’s father
!gun!a
kin relationship
C (Gao)
!gun!a tsi (“brother”)
Ego B
(Gao) ?? = tun
Calculation with Kin Terms
Kin Ter m Pr odu ct
Mother
alter1 alter2
Father
?
ego
papaisi yoshan
Binar y operation: o
Structural Equation: P o C = I
Generate a Structure:
Isomorphism
Isomorphism Between AKT
and Generated Structure
Predicted Kin Term Definitions
STEP 1: Instantiation: STEP 2: Construct set products corresponding to
I --> {ego} symbol products:
P --> {f, m} e.g. CP = {f, m}{s,d} = {fs, fd, ms, md} = {b, z]
C --> {s, d}
S --> {h, w} RESULT: Predicted genealogical diagram
Where:
f = genealogical father
m = genealogical mother
s = genealogical son
d = genealogical daughter
h = husband
w = wife
Explanatory Paradigm
Cultural Framework
IDEATIONAL LEVEL
Group Structure:
2 element group
<{I, X}, o>
Identification II = I, IX = X
of Bride and XI = X, XX = I Bipartite
Cross Cousin Marriage Sidedness
Groom Instantiation: network
I = parallel Marriage structure
X = cross Marriage
Predicted
Theory Pattern Model T
Match =
Explanation
marriages p-graph
representation
of marriages
Instantiation of Abstract
Symbols
Integration of Material and
Ideational Levels
Dual Mental Processing
System
Individual
Contention Resolved?
Sociologist James March (1999)
”There are two great contending visions of how human action is to be interpreted.
The first vision sees action as driven by a logic of consequences in which
alternatives are assessed in terms of two guesses a guess about the probable
future consequences of action and a guess about the probable future feelings an
actor will have about those consequences when they occur. The second vision
sees action as driven by a logic of appropriateness in which actors seek to fulfill
identities by matching actions to situations in ways that are appropriate for an
identity that the actor accepts" (emphasis added). (Marschak Colloquium, UCLA)