Ambivalence in Kinship since the 1940s

Peletz, Michael G.

doi:10.1215/9780822383222-016

Cited by 85 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…5.Fortes (1969) and Beidelman (1986) have consistently paid attention to ambivalence and tensions built into particular social relations. Peletz (2001) is a useful overview. Karp (1987) and Kratz (2000, 2005a, 2005b) focus on tensions, ambivalence, and uncertainty in relation to marriage.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship in Action, Kinship in Flux: Uncertainties and Transformations in Okiek Marriage Arrangement

Kratz¹

2018

Afr. Stud. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:For Okiek in Kenya, marriage arrangement is a nexus where transformations of personhood and social relations, changes in land tenure, and shifting state engagements come together in ways that shape individual and family lives as well as communities. This article sketches transformations in Okiek life and marriage arrangement and considers how Okiek have managed interlineage discussions central to marriage arrangement. It explores the social dynamics, evocative rhetorics, uncertainties, and moral imaginations through which people constitute lineages and affinal relations in changing circumstances, and situates these processes within a longer historical trajectory of socioeconomic and demographic change.

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kinship in Action, Kinship in Flux: Uncertainties and Transformations in Okiek Marriage Arrangement

Kratz¹

2018

Afr. Stud. Rev.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Ambivalence has also, if more recently, been identified as central to kinship systems. This is a sentiment Michael Peletz illustrates with the salty words of a Malay man who described ungrateful relatives with the phrase “ kasih bunga, balas tahi ,” translated by Peletz as “you give flowers, you get shit in return” (2001: 413). Peletz traces the importance of ambivalence in kinship to a variety of phenomena, including the “potentially time-consuming, arduous, and/or alienating (if only because frustrating and/or unrequited) emotional labor associated with the invariably precarious transformation of duty into authentic emotional motivation” (ibid.…”

Section: Analysis: the Ambivalence Of Gratitudementioning

confidence: 99%

Toward an Anthropology of Ingratitude: Notes from Andean Kinship

Leinaweaver

2013

Comp Stud Soc Hist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article I examine gratitude and ingratitude as valuable analytical tools for determining how social inequalities inform kinship practices. Accusing one's kin of ingratitude reveals the edges and fault lines of kinship, as well as closely related expectations about what should be given, how it should be given, and how it should be received. As such, this essay follows in an esteemed anthropological tradition of unifying analyses of the gift and of kinship. It argues that expressions of and talk about gratitude and ingratitude closely index dimensions of social relations such as gender, generation, and social class, and simultaneously reveal tensions within kinship relations where duty and obligation are contested. Ethnographic examples are drawn from fieldwork in Ayacucho, a small city in the Peruvian Andes, where informal fostering and the fraught relations between grown children and their aging parents provide two related arenas for expressions of ideas about gratitude and ingratitude. Analyzing these two examples, I argue for gratitude and ingratitude as analytical heuristics, useful to identify and focus upon dimensions of relations understood to fall within the domain of kinship, and potentially useful in other settings as well.

show abstract

“…237-238) is resistance to having to freely share, especially in contexts of rivalry for succession. Peletz (2001) develops this theme by noting that the very prescription of living up to a culture's deepest values generates ambivalence when people feel they are not living up to expectations. As he argued, "kinship is heavily freighted with moral entailments that are often burdensome or impossible to fulfill" (Peletz, 2001, p. 415).…”

Section: Why Kinship?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The prospects for family business in research universities

Stewart

Miner

2011

Journal of Family Business Strategy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Family business shows the promise of becoming a respected scholarly field in research universities. However, success is not a given. We inquire about its prospects, with reference to the sociology of science. A key requirement for success that has been met is identification with an important and distinctive domain of inquiry. This domain is at the intersection two phenomena -of kinship and business -but more attention has been paid to enterprise than to kinship. We suggest that this creates important windows for theoretical development, an important requirement for a core presence in research universities. We further suggest additional priorities, such as progress in journal and research quality, more developed links to pressing social issues such as international business, inclusion of family business issues in the credit curriculum, and faculty lines that create research continuity and legitimize research on family business.

show abstract

Ambivalence in Kinship since the 1940s

Cited by 85 publications

References 25 publications

Kinship in Action, Kinship in Flux: Uncertainties and Transformations in Okiek Marriage Arrangement

Kinship in Action, Kinship in Flux: Uncertainties and Transformations in Okiek Marriage Arrangement

Toward an Anthropology of Ingratitude: Notes from Andean Kinship

The prospects for family business in research universities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About