The Structure of Unilineal Descent Groups¹

The Construction of Gender in Mid-Century British Social Anthropology

“…Edmund Leach's 1961 article (portions of the text date from 1951) begins a partial re-evaluation. While our first axis' marks remain virtually unchanged throughout the second and third decades of our references, that is, word order presenting males in a primary position ( [10]:57, [8]:75) native actors as males ( [10]:72, [5]:266), egos in kinship diagrams as males ( [10]:75 but cf. page 62 where both sexes are represented), and the type face in both text and diagrams ( [10]:86) underscoring androcentric categories, other broad categories of paradigmatic quality, or that which actually gives rise to 'paradigms' are slowly fading: "By this I do not mean to argue that women have no part to play in the arrangement of a marriage or that remotely situated kinfolk are ignored..." ( [10]:56), began questioning the accuracy of the androcentrism in marriage description, and "But since this kind of ordering of local groups does not, as far as we know, exist, the Murdock version of the Murngin social structure need not be further considered."…”

“…In Fortes ([5]:263) we find descent categorized in jural-legal language, and that of ritual symbolism ( [5]:270). There is also a growing recognizance of American anthropology, in quoting or using student's work from that tradition ( [5]:270, [6]).…”

“…There is also a growing recognizance of American anthropology, in quoting or using student's work from that tradition ( [5]:270, [6]). People become loci of rights and obligations, the property relation between males and females is divided into reproductive and pleasure/productive powers ( [9]:107ff., [5]:272, [13] Leach continues to shift from the naivety of 'butterfly collecting' comparative analyses to the mathematical and generalizing naiveties of his rethinking. He feels that math and logic are somehow less value-laden than previous concepts used to drive methodologies.…”

Descent Systems, Affines and Kindreds: A Rejoinder to Befu

“…It is, therefore, the aim of this communication, based on the writings of Radcliffe-Brown (1950;1952), Bohannan (1963), Forde (1963, Fortes (1953;1959a;1959b), Freeman (1961), and Leach (1961;1962), to show that in patrilineal Japanese society "two systems of descent)' are not "simultaneously operating,)' that no "personal kindred" is present as the result of the application of a bilateral rule, that it is nonsense to attempt to include affines within a descent category, and lastly, that the definition of a "family" without a qualifying adjective as a corporate group is a contradiction of terms.…”

“…By definition the social group formed by the parent-child relationship is a self-liquidating unit, disbanding upon the death of its members. Fortes (1953), following Radcliffe-Brown, identifies the basis of a corporate unilineal descent group as the sibling link, or rather as a group of siblings. The parental family, or to use Befu's term, the "parent-child relationship," is the growing point which is bound to the lineage or joint-family, and not the structural basis for the jural group, the lineage or joint-family.…”