Core Concepts in Cultural Anthropology [4th ed.] 0073530980

2,594 234 64MB

English Pages 228 [137] Year 2009

Report DMCA / Copyright


Polecaj historie

Core Concepts in Cultural Anthropology [4th ed.]

Citation preview

PDF processed with CutePDF evaluation edition

Higher Education i'~~hlished by McGraw-Hill, an imprint of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 1221 Avenue of rl~eAmericas, New York, NY 10020. Copyright O 2010,2007. All rights reserved. No part of I l~ispublication may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or stored in a 11.1tabaseor retrieval system, without the prior written consent of The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., including, but not limited to, in any network or other electronic storage or transmission, or broadcast for distance learning. 'l'his book is printed on acid-free paper.

To Jan Beattu ISBN: 978-0-07-353098-7 MHID: 0-07-353098-0 Editor in Chief: Michael Ryan Publisher: Frank Mortimer Sponsoring Editor: Gina Boedeker Marketing Manager: Pamela Cooper Developmental Editor: Phil Butcher Project Manager: Christina Gi~nlin Production Service: Aaron Downey, Matrix Productions Inc. Manuscript Editor: Betty Duncan Design Manager: Ashley Bedell Cover Designer: Ashley Bedell Manager, Photo Research: Brian Pecko Production Supervisor: Louis Swaim Composition: 11/14 Sabon by Laserwords Private Limited Printing: 45# New Era Matte, Quebecor World Cover: O Wetzel and Company Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lavenda, Robert H. Core concepts in cultural anthropology I Robert Lavenda, Emily Schultz. - 4th ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN-13: 978-0-07-353098-7 (alk. paper) ISBN-10: 0-07-353098-0 (alk. paper) 1. Ethnology. 2. Ethnology-Bibliography. I. Schultz, Emily A. (limily Ann), 1949- 11. Title. (;N.116.1,39 2010 106-- tk22 200805 1736 'I'll(.


1111rr11r1. addresses listed in the text were accurate at tllr

r i ~ ~ l01i * I ) I I ~ I ~ ~ ( . ; I I ~ I )'I'll(. II. ~IIC~IIS~O ofI I

Wc1) \irt. tlocs not indicate an endorsement by tbr i t i ~ t l l ~01.~ ML.(;I.,IW ~-+ I {ill, ; ~ t ~ (Mc( l ;r;~w-Hill

tl~,r\I I O I

R I I . I ~ : I I I Ithe ~~

accuracy of the informatioil j r t c ~ r t i ~ r ~lllr\r l

\ i t ~ * k , .


Contents e

Preface ix CHAPTER 1

Anthropology 1 1.1 An Anthropological Perspective 2 1.2 The Subfields of Anthropology 3 1.3 Is Anthropology a Science? Modernism, Postmodernism, and Beyond 10 1.4 Reflexive Anthropology 1 1


Culture 15 2.1 Culture Against Racism: The Early Twentieth Century 16 2.2 The Evolution of Culture 19 2.3 Culture and Symbolism 21 2.4 Ethnocentrism and Cultural Relativism 23 2.5 The Boundaries of Culture? 25 2.6 The Concept of Culture in a Global World: Problems and Practices 27 2.7 Culture: Contemporary Discussion and Debate 30 2.8 Culture: A Contemporary Consensus 32


Language 33 3.1 Studying Language: A Historical Sketch 34 3.2 The Building Bloclzs of Language 37




3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 CHAPTER4


7.7 Social Control and Law 123 7.8 Nationalism and Hegemony 125 CHAPTER8

Economic Anthropology 131 8.1 The "Arts of Subsistence" 132 8.2 Subsistence Strategies 133 8.3 Explaining the Material Life Processes of Society 13 6 8.4 Modes of Exchange 139 8.5 Production, Distribution, and Consumption 141 8.6 Mode of Production 143 8.7 Peasants 144 8.8 Consumption 148

Culture and the Individual 51 4.1 From Individualism to Agency 52 4.2 Culture and Personality 54 4.3 Enculturation 56 4.4 The Self 59 4.5 Cognition and Cognitive Anthropology 62 4.6 Cognitive Styles 63 4.7 Emotion 64 +



Languagc ;111cl (:iilture 39 Languagc a n d Society 41 Discourse 44 Language (:ontact and Change 47

Expressive Culture: Religion, Worldview, and Art 67 5.1 Religion 68 5.2 Myth 71 5.3 Ritual 72 5.4 Magic and Witchcraft 75 5.5 Religious Practitioners 80 5.6 Change in Religious Systems 81 5.7 Art 83 5.8 The Anthropology of Media 86 The Dimensions of Social Organization 89 6.1 What Is Social Organization? 90 6.2 Dimensions of Social Organization 92 6.3 Caste and Class 96 6.4 Race 100 6.5 Ethnicity 101 6.6 Gender 103 6.7 Sexuality 106


Political Anthropology 109 7.1 Power 110 7.2 Political Ecology and Political Economy 212 7.3 Disputes and Dispute Resolution 114 7.4 Forms of Political Organization 2 16 7.5 Social Stratification 119 7.0 1:or111b of Political Activity 120






Relatedness: Kinship and Descent 153 9.1 Kinship Versus Biology 154 9.2 Descent 156 9.3 BilateralDescent 157 9.4 Unilineal Descent 159 9.5 Kinship Terminologies 163 Marriage and Family 167 10.1 What Is Marriage? 1 68 10.2 Whom to Marry and Where to Live 169 10.3 How Many Spouses? 171 10.4 Marriage as Alliance 173 10.5Family 175


Globalization and the Culture of Capitalism 179 11.1The Cultural Legacy of Colonialism 180 11.2 Analyzing Sociocultural Change in the Postcolonial World 183 11.3 Globalization 189 11.4 The Cultural Effects of Contact 192 11.5 Globalization, Citizenship, and Human Rights 195

( :I I A I ~ ' I ~ I 12 ~I

^t!:if :


-og-..,n nF^eY











: :


: u


JO .-.) > i





'r i 6 :c






< O



- 4 --

t L


@.X Y o ^:_ -

,* -r! -s :a_ :-:


F:, o;




o =2




2.'sE " ;99E E








;* gEF=i -Ei5;i




= .r. ! t! ; ; = ! > - =+ ==-= r.'-.;

;I ij


= Z : -

:! = -.

b g ; + L 5 *e : E: EE*




-t E Q _! -^ ; = = t 1= -. i=a:-:x-?1il

'6!b .9-F::.iF9q:i)

i. : t




A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase from to remove the watermark



# r)




I o- -o -c X


!-=+E gE;5*;t;

3E fi ==:i:€i; €+l:;elf


:t+iiff;jj;i ji{

:€:;Ei;:HEtcE€g iE ' 6


.iizii:=i;iij;€E e ; Y i =3;;, 4


ii +zi.!:i;:;I z2 , 1:Eij€;;ili;€i*

: 1;iiii;iit;jjsrE si:ii;iii ii::ii


cultures try to make sense of their experience in ways thaslink them rneeningfglly.tothe %id+ world: Anthropologists use the term worldview to refet tti the result of such intwpretiveefforts: an encompassing picture of reality based on a set 6 f shred assumptions about how the world works. P i n t j ~ ~ g o b g i.have s t ~ long been ihtexcsted in how wo~ld-,I view&ace conwucted and how people use them t~ make sense of rheir experiences. Worldviews establish symbolic frameworks that highhght certain significant domains of social experience while downplaying others. Multiple worldviews my coexist in a single e~c&&* ~q 3 single worldview may dominate. UWAN BEINGS IN ALL



As they began to compare cultures, anthropologists repeatedly encountered worldviews that reminded them of the religions they knew from Euro-American societies. Over the years, they have tried with mixed success to craft definitions of religion that took these diverse beliefs and practices into account. Most definitions that are currently in usedo seem to agree that a religion is a worldview in which people per40nify caamic forces and devise ways to deal with them that resemble the ways they deal with powerful human beings in their satiety. In practice, this means that people with religious worldviews conceive of the universe as populated by powerful forces that may un&rstand human language and take an active interest in human + W s . Although their presence ordinarily may not be detectable by &; human senses, they are never very far away. They may monitor human behavior and send punishments to those who violate m x a l 'rdles, but if human beings approaoh them in the proper fnamer, they may use their power to confer benefits. Such pergd&ed beings have been variously called gods, goddesses, spirits, aneestoxs, ghosts, or souls. ,,;,wr~~&vedrt&y,rn& this is callkci congegation. sMemhers:., &s;o&e . ,':' selmigious traditions insist t h a t c z r ; m ~ ~ r i a ~ a ~ b@ha~iss 4s [email protected] times &-prayer or sauifice and &@ ,$q .&~&a* nfl@&e. riku$il,,~hdeed,some religious t&t&& a i ~ ~~tw&~~b'(rjrtua;#l~e.Pev d wakng a t t k t adherents,perfar* '. re1igfo;us prze&e .&tIed o&opray .(itwwr)I :nlsmii:aret+ i e & q




7.4~ q g j and c W&TCT&

tU.;~&~,,,~,$~,p:~+~v. .,.,:i,... ,.., 1j+1,:,


Anthropologists have also paid much attentihn to abo~herform of ritual called magic The persisxente of definitions of magic that include the term stlpernamrr@iisanocher iditation ~Fthedifficulty of using one culmre's definLtions io describe practices in other c a NreS, ~ e n e t - a l lmagic ~ ; refem $9 ritual practice's that do not,have technically or scientifiaakty kpparent efieck brg are believed by the actors to have %ninflience on the outcome a4 psacticil matters. People ttmy believetbat the corred iperformence of'suchritgals can result in healing, the growth.of plants, the rewpery of lost o r s$olen objects, getting a hit in baseball, or safely sailing an ouuigger canoe in the Pacific Otean. 'The classic anthropologcal expla~ation of magic comes from theresearchof Bronislaw Malinowski in the Trobriand Islands early in the twentieth c e n t q . ~ E i n ~ ~ s S c i e effective i a o ~ l ~ suggested &at all living .societ~esb a ~ develaped. edge and practical techniques for,dealing with the. id. &$,the same time, however, hey. also re& ihar thsir p r a q b l t@.~m@$:

over the world hm limits9Where.:&& c e u M m & d r b W l a d p '&c&&&&$wk


r m w ~ ~ ~ f i u C f l i o i ~ w AoN D~ A~R T~ 79 ~ v ~ ~ w ,





effects of belief in the efficacy of magic spells. E. E.Emna-Pritchard (1902-73), in his classic monograph Witchcraft, Oracles, and Magic Among the Azanda (first pnablishzd in 1937), demonstrated that the beliefs and practices associated with all thee phenomena were \perfectly Ldgical if ,one accepted certain basic assumpbions aboutthe world. Among the Azande, witohcraft involves the p e r f m a n c e of e ~ i by l human beings believed to possess an innate, n o d u - I man "wir&waft substance" that can be activated wicheut the ind'iidualas awareness. (Dither anthropologifssss,udng batkde, ' witchcraft as their pnotrstype, have applied the term to similar bdfeh and practises found in other so~ieties.') Fur the Azande~ ulrit~hixaf~c tads to explain misfortune when other possibilities ham been dis~orinted~ For example, if a good potter carefuI2-p' p~ekmmhis pots and fises them as he always does but they ' still break, he will attribute his misfortune to witchcraft, and his neighbors will probably believe him. But if a carelea6 potter is sloppy when firing his pots and they bteak, he may claim that witchcraft was the came, but no one who knows him will : believe it. Evans-Psitchard & Q W ~that t'he hentire system of Azande beliefs and practices comerning w i t c h c d , oracles, and magic rationaf if we assumed that unseen forces exist in . was the world and that nothing happens to people by accident. For example, when someoae fallls v e q ill or dies, the Azande assume that the person has been b t c h e d . But the Azande are not helpconsult oracles who will help less because they know they them pilipaint the w&& rwponsible. Once the oracle has identified the witch, they can send a ritual message to the accused witch, who can offer a ritual oepIy-thattwill stop the witchcraft if indeed he (it is usually a man] has been the cause of it. If the bewitched person dies, however, the next step is to obraim vengeance magic, . which can be used so seek out the witch responsible and kill him.


'Th~stechleal use oftbr~ru~ahould not be confused with everyday uses of the wbrd in contempo~aryWeetern soaeues, stdl less with the practices of followem of mowments like %?am, which are very dlffereut.


The Azande do not collapse in fear in the presence of wicchcraft because they know how to deal with it. Moreover, they make an accusation of witchcraft only after cross-checking the oracle's pronouncements carefully. Because all the steps in the process are carried out in great secrecy, who has accused whom and who has killed whom with vengeance magic is not open to public scrutiny, so contradictions in the system are rarely exposed. This, Evans-Pritchardsuggested, is how all complex belief systems operate, even in the so-called scientific West. After all, the "ximtific method" at its most stringent is hardly followed regulady by ordinary citizens or even scientists once they are outside the laboratory. Evans-Pritcharss work has inspired many subsequent studies that debunk ethnocentric Western notions about the supposed irrationality of magic and religion. Beliefs and practices bearing aresemblancetohandewitchcraft are found in many societies, in Africa and elsewhere. Comparative studies of these phenomena revealed interesting variation in the patterns of witchcraft accusations in a given society. Patterns of accusation fall into two basic types: Wirches are wil outsiders, or witches are internal enemies, either members of a rival faction or dangerous deviants. These different patterns of accusation have different effects on the structure of the society in which they are made. If the witch is an evil outsider, witchcraft accusations can strengthen in-group ties as the group unites in opposition to the witch. If the witch is an internal enemy, however, accusations of witchcraft can weaken in-group ties, perhaps to the point at which one or more factions in a c o m m u ~ y might leave and build a new village; then the entire social structure may have to be rebuilt. This, anthropologists argued, was not really a bad thing because what had prompted the accusations of witchcraft in the first place was a communiq that had grown too large f.os the prevailing political organization to maintain order. The kt&craft accusations provided a relatively nondestructive way to restore systhe community to the proper size for a kinship-based tem. If, on the other hand, the witch is a dangerous internal devian to accuse that person of witchcraft might be an attempt to c the deviant in defense of the wide&valuesof the community8

. .


1 'I;;* .1


5.5 ~eligiousPractitioners

1 I



Anthropologists also have devoted attention to the organization of religion as a social and cultural institution. V i a l l y without exception, anthropologists have stressed that complex skts of religious beliefs and practices are not merely the by-products of idjrosynaatkc individual invention. Rather,they are the products of coflective c d tural construction, performing social and cultural tasks that inyo1 far mose than tending to the spiritual needs of supporters. The mtrask between different kinds of religious inr;Xitutio in different socikties can be illustrated with reference to the &tence and role ~f specfabd rzligious practitioners. In many s m d scaie, saCiedes, apetiallzed ritual knowledg~or practice may simply belmg to dld~rswho perform r e q ~ z e drituals for their kin. Other societies, however, do accord a special status to religious specialists, and anthropologists have classified them in two broad categories: shamans and priests. Shamans are part-time religious specialists commonly found in small-scale egahtarian societies. The term shah man itself comes from Siberia, and Siberian shamans constitute the prototype that anthropologists have used to classrfy similar reltgious specialists in many other societies. They are believed to have the power to contact powerful cosmic beings directly on behalf of others, somerimes by tramling te the costnic realm to communicate with them. They &en ykead with those beings to help their peopleby curing them, .for. example--and they may also bring hack messages for them. In &a cases, the shaman enters an altered stateof consciousnessto seek andremove the cause of an iItness that is afflicting a persdn who has Gome for healing. In many societies, the training that a shamanife*ves is long and demandmg and may involve the use of powedd pphotropic substances. The position of shaman may be danger&& The effects of entering altered states of consciousness can be leng lasting. The power to contact cosmic beings or to heal is itself pmeived as ambiguous in many societies: The person who can inemme for good can also intervene for ill, and shamans are somet&es"feated as well as admired. Priests, by contrastj care skilled in the practice of religious rituals, which are carried out f m the benefit of the group or individuals within the group. Priasta frequently are full-time, formally trained

take a syncretistic form, but syncretism also may be rejected in favor of nativism, a return to the old ways. Some nativistic movements anticipate a messiah or prophet who will bring back a lost golden age of peace, prosperity, and harmorly, a process o h called revivalism, millenarianism, or rnessi.mim. One of the most important aspects of religious changes in recent years has been the spread of religious movements into areas of the world that already have establishd rebgious system3 of their own, This is notably the cqse in Latin America where Pmtestant denominations and sects, have expanded dramatically in recent decqdes at the eqqnse of the Roman Catholic Church. These denominqtion~ft~quentlyoffer a more emotional, dramatic theolom a%w& p~ altered states of consciousness known as ecstatic we@@&+ m$stiences. These include trance, speaking in tonguesL ezy+rns, and possession. In other cases, they offer a more in&midualistic theology. In the United States, anthropologists have studied so-called New Age movemerits: post-1966s foqms of spirituality that exploxe divinity within the individual. New Age movements have amacted people who seek to beak free of &e ddogmas and restriaions of organized Westerxi reli6ious institutions. Followers of such movements believe that adopting alternative, especially non-Western, religious practices will p&t +,em to develop an individual spirituality free of such restrictions, b o q g the berter known pracCanvergence, and Neo-paganism, tices are chandeling, Hqrp*, sometimes known as vice*. In recent years, anthrp~&&rs have examined not only the power zelations involved @ p n c r t l s m and revitalization but also i y srelated to the creation and the way that different w ~ ~ l ( 1 ~ iare maintenance of poweE adattom, within societies. For exarnlje, power differences mag swstained by differential knowledge as when some groups Qd,pwple within a society ham access to iqportant knowledge, d9b& not available to everyone or when a limited number of indi.v.ii4tualsexercise control over key symbols cases, those with power in the sociand ritual practices*kj-y ety seem to have sutc~s:&llymade use of the self-evident truths embodied in their w ~ l d x i e wto continue to control others.


m. - -


case that the aesthetic response is a universal feature in all cultures and, as with play, may be part of the human candition. This does not mean that everyone in dl places and at .× responds in the same, way to. a given wock of @--quite the .contrary,, there is aqple : e ~ i d e m that awthetic response varies kom p h e to p h c , Nevertheless, ,,.~. as p a t of one of anthropolagy's prc~j~cts over Gh$i y~ar~~,~nrhrop.aLogists have. been eager to undermine &heoomPI& cent.Western assumption 'of cultural and social mperf.@itya2 @d emphasizing the presence oi "art" in n o n - W e s t e r n . s : o ~ i e ~ . & ~ . ~ when, people in .a.par~cular,swiety do not recoglrize. a ?id,@ , . ,term, has. ~ o : n @ i ~ t.o ~ ~,,this , &Brrqiecr. In r$k~fi~t..p%s, ,. it h4s bbabme increasingly ththecase&at>a . x q .*j&xa~gg,@t.~,cq&q*eqf , ~,~. . &wanactivity ace.mnsider.e&toibe,+ , . bFp.eo:,$~k~$e~t~n.sacieties, .,.* acad equally dear thatmany ,. ,_ & ~ e ~ o d u c twere s n~t,~rmIuced;to be "art." Western art.mv6p ' , t a m s pment furniture, religious or dev,otional objects, j.ewk&$ , . ,, ,.-,; '( ,desig&d f a personal adordmwt, te&noloog, arms and'arttia-.: and much mate from Western history a s qrt, and they d , the ~ s aI ~ ~ f i r sbjects .fsom ~gfi:Vestem sociaiqs as !4; Anthropolo&$ti' Shelly ,Erxington (I$ q&p&?$ [email protected] $) between art 4~ intention im.t&on and air by ?DFqpda%o~. Art objects that were made to:,ba,mt, such ,as.Impressionist paintine;,,, Art by appropriation, h&e&, consists of all the othkr obje& that "became art" b,e,e~u&et a Fitah moment certain peopdci (they colild he local .art$5t~.~ @ tuqgeum'c&ators, art dealers, ayt colle.ctor.s, interior dcj~ignag)de:cided that they belonged to th& categoty 9f arti Becafipe $Q&$@Q@@~ q t dealers, and art collectq~s are fpmd everywhere in &. 'vozld today, so too it is now the ca6e that p~tentiallyafi? m;2ttmiialabject crafted by human bands, ean be appropriated by ,ybw-einstitutions as "art." The set of people and institutians!c~nceinedwith defining and maintaining up an art world. This includes art in one form or ,a~o+~e:make artists, art hist~rianq,~. &tics, curators,, gallery owners, a n witas*, designers, ark> . . ~Qilgctors,art patrons, museums, ,galleries, art ychools, ags ~:!@$nes, art fairs, paint companies,, stone ,quarries, ,and so £ g -&, . ~ M these people and institutions make it possible for the art;&q,r! carry out his or her but also help :









A number of anthropologi,sts have considered how identity becomes connected with art (and vice wrsa); for example, how indigenous people in Southeast.Alaska use commercial and "towist" a r ~ ~ h l a n k e tpict;uris, s, ~e$&p'-t& ;iAni+ex membership +thin a auIew$l group (Buten; 2a0.6). In &&kt casesj ap~&r@. pologrsts have craced the .M@ences&SPcl;e.s:'s;ternatt~mafkesa n dhe pfodm'&p o$ f i s f h e s rn. w w n g@o&or h e eitadhed ~ O J ~ P the Aboriginal acrylic paimings have. become :si@ifi;me,mz& &s. bf the Ausaafian stase. A$ .tha ,sams .time, an .Awtdian &. WOi-kdh * ~emaged , wkt.h ~ ~ f m e c t i ~inn&tlie. s : remote area6 @ f t ~ & : ,,themajtj~reitiea if Anaalia, and such att ~e,atefg, bsl a s : E e W v ~ &eiw. k &,i$&mi ,k .1 .


h rehent years,



i ~ h i i t ~ ~;;+# m?;

anthropologists have begun to direct their gaze at the ways that the media-television, radio, photography, f i k 9 and soap operas-are received, understood, created, and used tbp people around the world. The media have extraordinary power and exceptional reach, and an&ropolagists have realized that the, effect the media have oh people's lives can be very great. Some of this work connects to processes of globalization (see Chapter l f ), including the ways that television programming diminishes, iE not erases, the boundaries of t h e and space (somewherein the world, Gilligan's Island is heing broadcast). But at the same time, some of the international cable teevision companies (Sky, for example] have begun regional services ehat "reterritorialize" the medium by providing programming thq is culturally and linguistically appropriate for the different parts of India or China. Some of the most interesting work deals wi& devision and the cultural politics of nation-states-for exam&J&,India. Purnima hfankekar (1999) connects television, wpfla&ooh, and the nation-state In examining how the televisioq @rials (soap operas or mphical or historical serials) on the n%tippaltelevision service were created and how they were received by vimers. Mankekar suggests that television broadcasting in India 60& underlies and undermines the creation of a nationalist conmiousness on the part of viewers. * , ."I. 7 4 ' "



r l-


\ o

{ s




-cs -:i : S

s E. s








= j









iE.t$= X t:

a" iiti


-:3;::! -sq 9 € H;gE F",=trz -f- O:":.Y 'i=: jv!=


I h SiF-

iE 3:


).=l==.=aa= ; ;- j==; :_;=i:







E., F"l€

.g5i c Y




;-H u

F" t gili

i ,.8 -:: Y Y i'!-i



4Jt, ;9d - 9. (!E*iErt



iJ c

A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase from to remove the watermark

\ 4'{.t ,

positions. Each such social position is called a status, and all individuals come to occupy a range of different statuses in the c0eours.e of their lives astheytake part in a .caariet)raf s ~ i a l . i m e m c t b n ~ ~ People h o w what to do in such iiteractionektcause e a i ~ s t a ; tus is asgociated with a co~respondingrde:a b-ndke of rights and dbligatims apprLopriatefos occupants bf' rhe scams in ques,@; ~ h u s ,Eor ex&plej the kinship status, 96 parant- mighr inrclude; awing 0 t h $kings, t h e . ~ % htot discipli-ne ,en& e&i$L&en. and r.he wbkigation to feed &em a d send them to 6haol'. Violation cd the role reguirementa associateddh a particular :social sca;tus genbrally bringe abrm$.d&app>ovalf-iom o~herfn6mbes-of sakiew. S(yC$a1 sJso AS&@ish basid h d g ;of m:a a1 status@ fbwd in. ail $&+&es:. !asc*&,~d :dd achieved. d;n a s d e d staws;3~:s s t a m @v@%, . ~ h t &m.hawe ]i&e,.con@ok$yo,^ ate b r n into ~ C Q :.@~w;fam I ,&&jjop@&$@ :@ft*n ewamphex from hmafl ;1&Bfii.pqm6, Fg~&ga~Li'6t&eei&c&i&e~ $$amsi.=ban tm born, yeh are.a ~ ~ ~ ~ a y & y q1 a ,~&p w @ f pMd, @ $;m!a &ju&ery when ;you have pij:!&*;@@&mhly a puenr, mother or.faher. a$~f?b;e& sta,txzsesS~ f & ~ & ~ ~ ~ & @ notbe discarded, and any pe~sonwhoq$plifis will be eqecced to fdlfill the role obl.igations that go with. the 's6atusaVety ;&fe*&nt, however, is ari achieved status, one-&at y.o+may rrot assume weil or unless:you meet geftainoriteria through your own (or others'.) efforts. For instanoe, being a college graduate is a n achieved ,sta~tus, and achieving that status ofdinarily te&ire~both hard work .and financial resources. &ch member of a society occupies a mix crf ascrw&m to find. its termi~.bbadans, ,even when they nology useful far tlons. ' do net swept some of i@s~~@e:&&fi&f@@~&~p . . :,,',, ,. w : Mi# ' m J!: , A d A. .:* , 6.2 Dimensions of Socia Organization b , ,,

One widely influential model was proposed by Emile Durkheim (1858-1917), a French sociologist considered a founder of bath modern sociology and modern anth-ttopolem: Durl&eim ww interested in what held a socigy together,, .eowas&g s&idete~ heldtosther by mechanicalsolidarity W& thqgekekd:t&&b~4~ organic solidarity, Meoh.hanical@dmiq chara.a.erked:smaU.~ed.e~,


8 i


. I ,

. ,

One issve of great merest in the early years of anthropology and sociology was the contrast between large and powerful European nation-states, w~thindustrial technology and a complex division of labor, and small-scale societies, with little or no social stratification, whose members used simple tools to make a living and who were socially organized almost entirely on the basis of kinship. The contrast was sometimes phrased as an opposition between so-cqlled civilized and so-called primitive societies. Sociologists were supposed to explain how "civilized" societies worked, and anthropologists were supposed to explain how "prhtlve" societies worked. !


mak%nglormetalworking m i g h t o t have had the time o r resources n ~ became dependent on to produce their o m food o r ~ l o t h i they other urr tailordfor these goods and servites. Such interdependgate aeant't& kny stgle occupatiisl grouping could n6t easily break away frsm the larger social whole becauss It was not self-sufficient. Like the organ systems of a livin~ body, spec?alized ~s.u.bgroupsof complex societies clung t o g e h e ~ and depended on one anodmr to survive, thereby preserving and :strengthofthe whole. Thus, organic,mlida~'*k .. could hald ,much la~gei-societies together f a more, secmely -d could mechanical solidarity. Anthrspologjsts incorporated concepts l i e these. &YO! '&:&& ewn analpic t~oJkiras they ammpced to make t&, &e:~*& ety of forms that different human mieries ass:m& ig &@gipj ! times and places. They also,introduced new concgpxs*:q1 b m further ~&s&cti~nareveaIed by .e.hographic~reseaveh ;@;m>t$$h msst basic is ,the fou~foldclassification of so sf their foi-m of politl~al' o ~ a n i ~ t i o 1band, 1: state (discwsedat.greater length in Chapter Tkk;~. similar fowfold classification of soc&&qa!~ ".?




of economic organization: foragers, - . herders, extensive aasiculturalists, and intensive agricultucalists (discussed at greater length in Chapter 8). The correlations between these diffezent eiassifications highlight the connections between the mays that people make a living a d the ways that they organize themselwes politically. The,~orreiationis not perfect, however, and this is highlighted bv ta%e.thapair of concepts that cro$.scutsthe earlier dassifkt i o h %'hatis, anthropolo@stsdi&nguish,betwem egaliratjw s.o,iieties, in whidh dl members (or c.omponent groups) ,enj,oy~OQ&JX the #%wedegr6&of, porn=, and prestige, and m d e d so~i@ies,, @ @M.,$o@er&cmb@rb(ar 'c.owpcment groqps,) have @e%w!(a~ds&@p@&anep$) :ac~s&$, to Borne or 41 of these h r e e %dud~,@@w$e>~ .Bat & :&&.m,y of 'the transition f r ~ i negsllitar, iam ~s.p&etbs(#,b;?&s md i&ys,: la: the current classifictgion) EO mati$&d;ss&e.&s i(&&awa~d .gates) is not fully understo.od. .%M a&~pa1.gists. pap pla"#h$Iar a y e ~ t i o nt o societies. k n q q throygh gthr&graph%ar-k o q w m c h a e o l o ~in which egalitarian relbtions ~haxe.&em to b ~ ia $ .whioh p.wmanent, inherited.pagems ,of g*i:%k sqa&e6& yet been established, Such societies, like.those of, th.e :&digenpus peoples of the northac &e Tq&riand Islanders of Papua west coa*loi Worth &+& New Guinea,. .&epended+gt$:f@#@&@,, @rextbnsive agriculture for subsistence, just as m q + ~ , ~ q g j dsocieties ~ ~ ~ hdo. But they also have social structures t h . t i : b t e i ceatain individuals and their families above everyone, d&?,;admvin~them privileged access to a limited number of h$&-$cm~. gasitions. Anthropologist Morton &$me of whose members r a k e d Fried c d e d these r&,g~&&&~, above others in stxiailkm@ghwt did not have disprop~rtionate access to wealth or ,%hi+consensus is that fully stratified societies. probably ~~P$Q@$$$taukt of rank societies, but the ezact m~shanismsfox the C W ~ & & O I h~ a w been much debated and may yell hape been seme&4e.,d'@e~ent' in each case, Ethnographic:~e$tbk.o~~g.parted Durkheim's observation that small-s@le s,ociet~~~$@&,,@ i;ie organized primarily on the basis of b - h i p . As we &&av~l'@j@apter9, kinship ;systemsmust be fairly elaborate to aarg gj*.:.&i~ task, and anthrop.~logy,traditionally has solzghtto undb@diand compare the many &fexent kinsltip

knowledge revealed only to initiates, which they are not allowed to share with outsiders. Initiates may also progress to higher positions within the society to which they belong, but they must pay fees and receive special instruction to do so. In addition to these hiternal activities, secret societies also carry out speci$ic tasks public. Social relations between men and women tend to be highly e g a l i ~ i a nin cultures with secfet societies; for example. the male roro society and female Pande society of a village might jointly be responsible for supervisingpublic behavior and sanctioning - those who.violate.expe&etd ru1,es 03 co~&ot. F o m s of s o ~ i o d w f a a t i o n , such as: kinship and sodalities, c& ~hll. be fowd ih:s&&es :.hat &re.socfallystratified, but thejr g~irpg. &p'm.ance $re mo&fied by new featares of social Sti"nmPrh'. , . , . . , , a #ustsin the inequalities on whidh social stratification ?s b-a~d.Thaf i%> swaiified sbE?eties are internally divided iuto a am:ber of groups;that .mearranged in hierachy. The most importantbsuch ' b r c h i c a l smctufes studied by ,ir:n&tpplogists have been a t e and class> I,'J- 1 : ' ,, , ,.P.,mw:n.~. . '..:'I ~,;;,!,; :...>. . &yj*"r(-. :l.z.'.: ,






m lowest are $he a u ~ ~ ~ or ua n,t o, u c h a b

, ,

b ' . ~




%.. I & ? :



,+;LM2:-b.,i , .!.,:, Antlhropolagists traditiouaUy desc2fb met@societies as stratified

&-3.casteand class


individuals out of die s&p;3;u'p: Srr. which they were born, is cot &&.. ~ltho~&:t.he;~ri~r& for caste societies comes from Indga, 'an&ropoIogislts haw wed the term to describe similar scacai & ~ & @ e ~ e &@:&' j ? ,e~ $'societies. ~ ,b@&-~ ;a,& $guth Asia, each caste traditionally is ddf"f& nw,6# gs &&:endogamousgroup within which members m w chose mates $see Chapter 10 for a deiiilition of endogdmy) &terms. of 'a tradiEional occupation wfth which the caste hat is. identitie4 :(s$lt makes, farmer, warrior, or priest, for eicample). Each o~apatfon,and the caste associated wi@hit, i~ ranked on a r y .pollution, with higher-ra&ed,cas$es subject to scale of ~ , ~ I.akd vaifbus$ie~ar.y&ridother taboos mainraincastepurity. Highest ti &ep&tyscake are the Brahmim, the vqetaiian priestly


, 4




identity to others. This ambiguity appears when we conaidcr another important social categosy.investigated by a t h r ~ ~ ~ o l o g i sthat t s , of gronps usually are dietinguishedfrom other the @~hniegroup..Ethnic h d s i OX social groups based on attributes defining g~bup.membership that are cuI.mal in natwer shared language, shared r&&e,n, shared c~ptornsyshared hi.stoi;y. However; beeause all &is sulpupil shatihgicodd qeverhave o a r e d if goup members did .not r q u 1arJ.yintera;ceand even intermarry,, ethnic identity i s often .tho&, by both grouyp'members "and ou&i&ts, ta be ro,oted in .some cemL m m bhl~gicalorigin. indeed, wme anthr.opolo&ststhi& of @Gal identity as bein&nadi&esent.hmerhnic identity, w e p t thatratid idebti~&gp&edl%iis biohigiea1 .h ripin in whereas ethnic identitp h?$ tii@&&$ @~~~~.~.hdjinp~a~fi~~~~~he~~concepts~of both race a ~ d @&ptg?mq~ &i~~@y&$@~&th &* macept f na.e,n(disoU~ed &

&&@m .F:)..


& l ~such @ h di&ea;b&C~esw&$&&r . u ~ m s ~ o Oino terms d mi &&p:or WE @r!:e!&&$id~~d:~jp In o @ p ~ & e , @ ~ similar ided6ies i.n a ceompleg s.@$fl,g~&g.. T ~ U the ~ , boundaties t h eventue&.me ~ tra be: rmwgp&.ed* 8bew.m races or ethnic gro;us are a pcordu@:o$ h ~ k ~ i n i e ~sel$&fi&tion nd: and exter~al ~. d e h i t i by ~ ~othrs, :Of,coq@~, ~ ; ~ m ~ 1 e : d ~belonging, . ~ g ~ o uand ~ th.0 ability to distihguish oil& a&. @,upP -from neighboring groups stretch far b a ~ kinto &e.krn& m a t makes the study of racial on eth,nic er n a ~ o d i ~hportant ~ p ~ today, ~ however, elgs .withip the boundaccies od conis.thanew ole such g.cp~$ te-mporary nation-states. As djgussed in Ch~pt:erT$?m~ion%tares , , are relativelyn .forms ~ of poliuml .~rga&a~o+~~~h&dav~I~~in~ in late-eighteenth-ceatury and nidetemth-ce@tm~&&e@ad~the Americas and later spseading thro:ugho&t the.g & g . & ~ & ~ gthe dissolution of Weste~n colonial empices, Eef@e~~&@. Preach Revolution, European ..states were ruled by kings aq&;bmperors whose access to the throne was officially believed ,tahmiiibeen ordained by God. After the French Ilevolution, whbktb&&1y. discredited the divine ri& of kings &d gr0claLne.d. th~,:?&&@ of Man," a new basis for Legitimate ~~ta;te authori* had:$&& lound. Over the course of the nineteenth cenngy, the g a & a ; d $ ~ d a p d that rulers were :legitimate. ot~lyif ''i&*, .,,I' -

:h' ,(

i=#lzit;!;ra:fttlZ ;!iES{F:?firqasE{:roEi!

-+E 4 f* ;a; v5:f q E1

S =; E y e *:

$i*i ;lrE€i*Fa;Eg' * iE*"=f Es+*;: PiiE€i;r eg€iE€ t h = E'g[ F! ; =a*= ird g:= 3.iEtiE ;i $* v;

:;;**5€*=E5g€!Eiii;E;giE :*i ri !gE,;

e;5',ElEg;E;€€tE *i*;E*tEi sii i; Ji;!

cuetody of the children they cwe for is officiall~.teqoml?y and can 8crazin;areif ~blneqkefd~~ clears the h,wdc!s n - q a~~8diqpi

&a#&jLd~~&@lb, sir


technologies-technologically mediated reproductive practices such as in vitro fertilization, smrogate parenthood, and sperm banks. For example, new types of kin ties are being created in the United States through the process of 'organ transplantation from brain-dead individuals t o people. who need organs t o s n r Gve. To t& surprise of spme of tbe professionals who Aan&e organ ttmsplantation, the recipients and families of the &tors not only ww to meet one another but also have devtioped kir* relationships (Sharp -2006).A man in his mid-69$ ,who.teceived the heart .of a reenagm now calls the danot's ,sister ''Sis,'' and she oalls,him ''Bfia.:'' Zhle .donor?s.m~ther*inher dd-5Bs a d the recipj,ni g & . ~ ~ a e ~ . '!aMo& ~er ?.'&-.' ,Sharp found that foj h, w~$leh~ofvedthamampka0,ted.argati was believed to carry g~&:es&&ce d rh6:,&0r&& wi& it,end &is powefif& connkctgf the t,&cipie; 80 the Un of [email protected]. was pai?icularly tfue ijn & j


-.!. !:.,rntrclW~dfr*)l.=


~. .



! h l t ~ l , , t ~ ,,



Discussions in anthrap~Iogy&d in different aspects ~f kinehip,Cu&twal?Fd&~e:d westi ions b,ased on mating are ueuallp 'called mawh;.&d QEC &.en referred to as affnal.relationships (the term baed afittity, which means "personal a~raction").These relafihs&ps, which link a person to the kin of his or her spouse, will be &&ussed in the next chapter. In this chapter, we consider e d d y defined relationships based on birth gists call descent. and nmtumnce, ~ & c h ~ ~ & ~ a ~ m l otraditionally Peop1e:relkted to !-: &p descent are what English speakers often r e f ~ to r *$" ' ? i ~ ~ . & elations " and .are socially relewant connqcti:o~sbased ~m&&vp,went-child relationships of si61ing relationships. hthr:@@&giimuse the term comanguineal kin to referto all those P~q$g.8i!hoare linked to w e another izy birth as blood x,elations~~tb.m~,~ . . comes ~ from the Latin sangwineus,meaning "dMoo.d''),.,ki &dai.don, however, a consrlnguineal kinship gcaup anay inuladw idividuals whose membership in the group was establishdl adt by birth but by means of cultwrally specific rimale of inccq&wtion that resemble what Euro.Americans call


unambiguous: An individual belongs to only one lineage. This is in contrast to a bilateral kindred in which an individual belongs to ov&lapping groups. Talk of patrheal or matrilineal descent focuses attengoo on the kind of social grbup created by this pattern of descent: the lineage. A lineage is composed of all those~peoplewho believe they can specify the parent-child links that connect them to m e another thraugh a common anmtor, Typically, lineages vary in size from 20 or 30 members to several hundred or more. Many anthropologistshave argued that the most important feature of lineages $that they are corporate in organization. That is, a lineage hm a single legal idefitity such t h a to outsiders, a l l members oF&e line'age are equal in law to all others. In the case of a b h t l feud, frs~example, the death of any opposing lineage member avmges the dea& of the lineage member who began the feud; the death of the a m a l murderer fs' not required (feudhg is defined in Chapter 7). Lineages are also corporate in ithat :&.qrontrd property, such as lakd ot herds, as a unit. Finally, lineages l'e the main politi~al,WS@Q~&WS in the societies that,havethem. Individuals h,av=e h~p&&d of legal status in such sucieties except thfough linea@a&xb;~s'~hip. They have rela~n and legal tives who are outside the lineage, b a t , t h ~ i f , op.oolitical status derives from the lineagete whfah rkey belong. .&ermined though a &ect Because membership in a ike@ge~;l& line from father or rnoth~rw hnezges can endure over time and in a sense hawe,,= 'hde+widmit existence. As long as people tan remember heir mi~.&@&~r,, h e group of peopke. descended frdn&Maammi?can .'. . en. dLire. Most lineage-based societies ha~.ea :$kpt&;&df about five generadoas: grandparents, psm;tsj J&i, &n:, &&,gmdchil&en. Whennmmbers062 descent group believe that they arein some way :connected but cannot specify the precise genealogical links, t h &&ompose ~ what anthropologists call a clan. ,&ually, a clan fs made ,%p@t'.lineages that the larger so.ciety's members believe to be r61gted to ,one another through links &at go back to mythical times. Smethxzps-thecommon ancestoris said to:he-an animal that livsd .arthe ik@*g of t h e . The importQntpoint to remember -,

h.dbringuishing heages and clans is that lineage d e a e can q&fy

the .pne&se-&& ,a d

us Mz>m:&c&


By contrast, in a matrilineal society, descent is traced through a mawifincage is a women ratha than through men. Supe~ficiall~, mirror imaged a patrilineage, but certa.k features make k distinct. Firstj the protatypical kernel of a mstrilineage is the vistet-brother p&ka mawsineageinay be,&o~&t a @@upof b$oththae a@, sisters ,cmnected through liriks made by-w o r n . Brothers: mwtp ouc &&en live-with ,thefamikes of their wises, but -they tain h x e s t inthe affaim &,their ,own lineage. gecqnd, he most ,kpoTtant man in a boy's.lifeis sot his father (who isnot 3n his lineage) but& m6kher's brother from whomhe will receive his; lineage inhedtance, Thi,rd,,the amotlnt oEpower women exer&e itl.rn;a&hmm . .. iqg.@fbejnE h & z:&bated in &&opol.ogy. A,jjmqa;@w ,~ $$,fl@t .k; .~ ,&&g as. .a ma$r&Cky (a w e t g ,&& ,'rSw. - 4 *,-:4~,d,e)i,&,b# &en zetain what appear* to be a tce&b~o&pgb f f m t ; h&;e fffk&;@.. Same an&~ogolog&$s, &at %hem.& membars ;&.a maef&wge me suppSeddto rm the lineage, tipen thaqgh there i s , < m ~ t ~ : a a t e nfor ~ mwe;men y in matrilineal. societie. in pa@W&&e$j they suggest the day "-day exercise o&ptwtip re.&wf&d out by hebrothers o t soinethps the hu$.bahd$.~. A.6@tq~bnjp Bf swdes, however, have questioned the va1Eidity Q@ these . ~ e ~ ~ ~ a a l i m t i,Tryhg o n s . to say something abaut milla:ike&so 3csiite tki' &r:etyof ki'%Gilj. s ~ d e m sm &e kbitd, &throf l I ,: .


5 . 55 -i e



* .::



99E 6 .; (! b! blDo ! ?: h C U

FE o.i


5 tr-=L

_>." >.k= ts ?

s tbE E€=;

U -:l



-.': =:



" =



i t

ib=' O cb-; F +=u 5 Q oo. e dE



-=+=P?0+['! b € o € > ! = { u!E =:; ' . i =;




:! -

trI !! 6 6= E F (n -: X; = 9 = ;?=-Yi:=.. d:3 q E. 3: o.;;3 e fr i.o


;: e t

A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase from to remove the watermark

_g) rrt tl

rc i a\3



SS >.F q ,.: .{u -s :., ! s: F S



he hen viewed by m&m

DISCUSSIONS of marriage and the #a& ily complement discussions of descent and round oat our study of relatedness. As we saw in Chapter 9 , the complexities and ambiguities of descent are many. The study of marriage and the family offers just as many complications, the first of which is how to defipe these terms. NTHROPOLOGICAL

10.1 what is Marriage? If we take what Euro-Americans call marriage as a prototype of a particular kind of social relationship, we discovet. in all societies institutions that resemble what people in the United States would call marriage. At the same time, the range of beliefs and practices associated with these institutions is broad, and the degree of overlap is not great. Nevertheless, we tend to classlfy all these institutions as marriage because of the key elements they ddo have in common. On these grounds, a prototypical marriage involues a man and a woman, transforms the status of the r t ~ and n the woman, and stipulates the degree of sexual access the mafried partners may have to each other, ranging from exclusive to preferential. Marriage also establishes the legitimacy of children bmh to the wife and creates relationships between the kin of the wife and the kin of the husband. We stress the pfotdtypjcd nature of our definition because, although same sacikrits are quite strict about allowing females to marry only malks, and vice versa, other societies are not. The ethnographic literature cohtains many examples of marriage or marriagelike relationships that resemble the prototype in every respect except thar the partners may be two men or two women (as defined according to biological sex criteria) or a living woman and the ghost of a deceased male. Sometimes these marriages involve a sexual relationship between the partners; sometimes they do nat. Apparently, the institution we are calling marriage .


of many so cia tie^ as st"UAI .d

person is to marry outside a defined social group-extended family, lineage, clan, class, ethnic group, or religious sea, for exampleanthropologists say rhat &e society in question practices exogamy (or wt-marriage). The opposite situation-in which a persan is expected to marry withthin a defined social wup-is called endagamy.These patterns may be obhgatory (i.e., strictly enforced) ETE merely preferred. Once mar~ied,thk spouses must live so~ewhme.Anthropologists have ideatihied six patterns of postmarital residence, Meolcfcal residence, in which thenew partners set up an independent homehoid at a place of theit own thoosing, should be familiar to peo, and most of ple w h ham gs:own up in h e United S ~ t e sCanada, Emope, H&hc;ul residence tends to be found in societies that are ntr)%eWfieSs iadividual%ticin their social organization, especially tho~eiu which bbateralkin&eds also ane found. N e o l ~ c dresidence the world bzrt is most common in nation-states exists thro+u,t and in saGeties. b~td&ngh e h / l e d i t a m m &a, .&,me ,so;ci&es with bilateralk i n & & h a v e b i l & d r e i e e n s in whichmarried partners live,wirhfor near),eithe~pb:%&~s or thehusbandL parents. Despite ,this flexibilip '$a iuilniphg married partners to wake&ecisionsregardiorg where &.hey Wght,li*e, very few societies with bikocal residence hme been $@&bed in the anthropoLogical literature. . . The most cbmmon r&sideii~agmwm~ in &e world, in tenns of the is patrilocal residence i?l number of societies in whi~liai~.k,~t;~cticed, which the p m e z s in .a m@$&ge: fiw with (or near) the.hisband's father. ,[Inolder an&op&@&g&' w~iting,the term ,virilocd is sometime$ usedto distinguiglx44&&g~ch the husband'sJIcin: b m iRg:~pecifi~allTwithth&e:.h~~~#s~Stitther, for which tlietempqtdocal, reserved.)~ a @ i l o . ~ disnstrongly ~ e associated with p a t r k eal d e ~ c e a t . s ~ s t e m ~ ~ ~ kpercent ~ & @of ~ socieries in which postmarital residence is patt&g$l~@e also patrilineal. I f c W e n s e b o r n into a patrilineage an@?&~&.&om the father or other patrilineage members, then there p%dP.vntagesto rearing theq amonp'the members of thelineage: .' When t h e p. ~ m w in a marriage live with ( ~ r ~ n e athe r ) wifeas mother, an&~@bJo,gi~ts use the term mdtrilod rexi&=. (A++, ~


c:llsic '



h,@Jrd& anthropological dct ~ i d h g the , term m d o ~ al d gpmthwea Ifa&:tg ~ e f e r ~ 8 & . ~ . & & &&jLfe'eh w., vA& t h e wife's mother.) MacjlocBI .~sidence is, f&&e&i~swi in mafrilmeal societirs (sotne:.matsiliaea&sc&xk aee.gab&&

brother in yet another kinsh~pgroup. In many societies in eastern and southern Africa, a woman gains power and influence over her brother because the ca'ttle that her marriage brings allow him to marry and continue their lineage. Dowry, by contrast, is typically a transfer of family wealth, usually from parents to their daughter, at the time of her marriage. It is found primarily in the agricultural societies of Europe and Asia, but it has been brought to some parts of Africa with the arrival of religions like Islam that support the practice. In societies ~nwhlch both men and women are seen as heirs to family wealth, dowry is sometimes regarded as the way women receive their inheritance. Dowries often are considered the wife's contribution to the esrablishment of a new household to which the husband may bring other forms of wealth or prestige. In stratified societies, the size of a woman's dowry frequently ensures that when she marries, she will continue to enjoy her accustomed style of life. In some stratified societies, an individual of lower status sometimes marries an individual of higher status, a situation in which the children will take on the higher status. This practice is called hypergamy, and it is usually one in which the lower-status person is the wife and the dowry is seen (sometimes explicitly) as an exchange for the higher social position that the husband confers. The ties that link kinship groups through marriage are sometimes so strong that they endure beyond the death of one of the partners. In some matrilineal and some patrilineal societies, if a. wife dies young, the husband's line will ask the deceased wife's line for a substitute, often her sister. This practice, called the sororate (from the Latin soror, "sister"), is connected with both alliance strength and bridewealth. That is, both lines-that of the widower and that of the deceased wif-wish to maintain the alliance formed (and frequently contmued) by the marriage. At the same time, if a man marries the sister of his deceased wife, the bridewealth that his line gave to the line of the first wife will not have to be returned, so the disruption caused by the wife's death will be lessened. In many societies, if the husband dies, the wife may (and in rare cases be obl~gatedto) marry one of his brothers. T h ~ practice, s called the levirate (from the Latin leuir, "husband's II!R

b d l c r m ' ) is , intenbed, likwohc sororate, to maintain the &WB Lamween d e s o ~ mu;~51. ~oci&&s.~, & a h *um&ia$:,a. -t - b',.xl:8~m kind of social sscuriry system for widows, &? mi&.&w&ie b destitund.after the death of their husbands.. ,.1 . ~ ~ . y k ! , i m ~ & J ! ~

elations st ups am~.%the c ~ w i wand the therel&~Mp of the g r o t ~ ~ of ~ . w ,G& g ~ OhPi ,sin&% h*@& .&d&&@l! pmp1exi~ arises in the younger generanon as children haye wnne~$opto halfslbbnps (the same father but a different mother) and-MI siblngs -,

of &~(Itsin their lives-their>otber's cowives.Xhese Merepa m&e,thz ..-.. ititernal dpamics of polygynous families qf&re& frb


children who may be adopted-forms a family. GLBT activists have used this model as a resource in their struggle to obtain for longstanding families of choice some of the same legal rights enjoyed by traditional heterosexual families, such as hospital visiting privileges, partner insurance coverage, joint adoption, and property rights. Marriages do not always last forever, and almost all societies make it possible for married couples to divorce-that is, to dissolve the marriage in a socially recognized way, regulating the status of those who were involved with the marriage and any offspring of the marriage. In some societies, it is not merely the people who were married who are involved in the divorce; it may also include other family or lineage members of the divorcing parties whose relationships are also changed by the divorce. In societies in which bridewealth is part of the marriage ceremony, for example, divorce may cause difficulties if the bridewealth must be returned. In such societies, a man who divorces a wife or whose wife leaves him expects her family to return to him some of the bridewealth he offered in exchange for her. But the wife's family may well have exchanged the bridewealth they received when she married to obtain wives for her brothers. As a result, her brothers' marriages may have to be broken up in order to recoup enough bridewealth from their in-laws to repay their sister's ex-husband or his line. Sometimes a new husband will repay the bridewealth to the former husband's line, thus letting the bride's relatives off the hook.







>---c--c ^or:

= =ji?8.F€


': '


P i




. ' =. E i =+


\ o *\



s; =!iE;E[

{ s







= F.: 4 = i;




--6 q



=4 F = L v a >.=


r-+E i -










.:i 6i * ? ; i




t I .



i r i F 3.

> z = >. r

j.3 i

- E i-












. {. i

F$ -E 4

?i ; I







= = 3



p i ;Tr





zt-^t6=: E I

E 9 d.




=* i3E





r^ -o!

A-PDF Merger DEMO : Purchase from to remove the watermark




i;=itrYtyt=E;:6I :i:iiiti;i'-== r

?,ii;i i ;t1sg i:E Ei:E 1

;*iiE;4=;i ?;iEij i; j jtf ; lj

==E7i i=u;!"rtri;=;=

tif€:fE;i i itiE=,

!j i3r:3!i iTiiiEi s E Ff?;5 E: *ps E P E =: L-,-i ^

: ii s=;:iiaili : :l

p d o d of greatest expandon, which suetched roughly f~omrhb d l the ,nineteen& until s h o d r @P. .%$'add w@p D[ .







ways of life of people in "remote" p m of the wo~ld- rewok, that is, from the activitiee and concerns of most people in the vestern capitalist nations from which the anthropologists traditionally came. Untilvery recently, limitations rooted in the te&nologies of transportation aad communication meant that, even when political or economic ties linked mrritories at some distance from one another, the movment ~f peeple or goods or ideas from one place to another was slow and cumbersome. By $,000 years ago, the growth of states and their expansion into empkes drew peoples in several regions of the world into intensified contact vith one another. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, however, economic or pditical events whose consequences used to be felt only within restricted geographical regions regularly affected people living in regions of the world that used to be considered distant born ome ananother. It was only a little over five centuries ago that Emopean explorers began to make contact and then to conquer indigenous g~owpson all continents, eventually establishing far-flungcdanid einpires that lasted until the middle of the twentieth century. The teIatitmships established by European colonial domination created the condirions for the emergence, by the integrated global economy. end of the twentieth





Europeans did not invent colonialism, which can be defined as political conquest of m e society by another, followed by social domination and forced culmral change. Since the rise of the first states in antiquity, rsgions of varying sues have been brought together in differewpnrts of the worldag a result of imperial expansion, and what is today Western Europe was marginal to most of them. None of those earlier empires, however, ever attained the scope of the European colonial empires, especially during their '




peoples for the purpose of resource extraction (mining, for cxample) or far growing cash crops valued in Europe (see Chapter 8.for further discussion oi cash crops), displacing indigenous farmers and herders from their lands and turning them into wagt wurkers forced to seek employment on, plantations,. in mitres;ol in the growing cities. Economic efficiency further requ+r& @ht h~iIdihg:~f infrastructure (mads, ports,, and sr, cm)by whichcad crops or minerals could be transported out-.of colonies and .back to Europe. Culinists regularly relied gn, the labor of coIoriize~ peoples to build such infrastru'c,~ure,sometimes resorting to thc use of comet, or fo*d labor, ih which laborers were kequired t c wwk a gk~eaatnb.&.o$ .daysa n a given project .or rfsk fines or











As cakB&l . e r c@afr:01, ~ qnrxeased, ~ ~ ~colonized ~ peoples beeam familiar-withEuropeae .eeonotnic practices such as tht use of money goods for emh to meet subsistent ple were deprivedof the land. dh which&e.y:~~'im,efly had growr subsistence crops or as*dit&d glj&@nal produttion of pots or cloth or f a ~ mimplements sag ~@&lantedby rnanufactured items produced in and imppmgd &om Europe. Over time, indigenous peoples ,hadto eomtwtwt m s i t h these cultural practices, and the way they did sar h'wv&ied from time to time and ' .. kith what many scholars have place to. place. They werei&,@&g called cultural imperialism, a sifitation in which the ideas and practices of one CUIQ@@ &$,&wp@eSed upon other cultures, which a result. Western colonialism may be modified or "e:I;~&~@tids: appear,& to produ~e:g &&narive kind of cultural imperialism, frequentlycalled w e w a . t S a n , in which the i,deas and practices of Western Europtia+$kw North American) culture eventually displaced ma,nE"w$'?&4dtias .and practices of the in:digenous cultures of the r ~ k b s $ e ~ .places where European settler colonies. eventually broke &$faEurope, as in North, Central, and South America, antl@@gGb,&stsoften speak of iureinal adlonialisin imposed on i~&@wo,uspeoples within the hiders. of independent states.; . ' ...

ought to assist the "young" nations to attain maturity. However, economists fcom Western industrial nations insisted that the leaders of new nations carefully follow their recipe for development. Like parents dealing with sometimes unruly adolescent children, they worried that young nations eager to modernize might resist disciplined evolution through the stages of economic growth and look for a shortcut to economic prosperity. During the cold war years when modernization theory developed, the tempting shortcut was seen as socialist revolution. The twentieth century has been marked by a series of revolbtions all over the globe, the best known being those in Mexico, Russia, China, Vietnam, Algeria, Cuba, and Nicaragua. In 1969 anthropologist Eric Wolf characterized all but the Nicaraguan revolution (which would take place 10 years later)as wars waged by peasants to defend themselves from the disruptions caused in their societies by capitalist market penetration. Followingthe Russian Revolution, opponents of the capitalist system elsewhere in the world also formed revolutionary movements whose explicit aim was to h o w capitalists out of the country by force. Although many rank-and-file members of the revolutionary movements had modest dreams of return to a more prosperous status quo ante, their leaders often hoped to replace capitalism with some locally appropriate form of socialist society. After the successful Cuban Revolution in 1959 when Fidel Castro and his supporters openly committed themselves to socialism and allied with the Soviet Union, modernization theory became the foreignpolicy option of choice in the United States, a potentially powerful approach to economic development that might woo potential revolutionaries elsewhere away from the Marxist threat (see Chapter 8). The Marxist threat was real because Marxists argued that the factor responsible fot the impoverished economies of postcolonial states was precisely what the modernization theorists were offering as a cure, namely, capitalism (see Chapter 8 for a detailed discussion). A key feature of capitalism is the way it creates separation, or alienation, of workers from the tools, raw materials, and technical knowledge required to produce goods, When, for example, peasants are pushed off the land and forced to work for wages in mines or on commercial farms, they are caught up in a

Oha: these. ttansformcd relatioris ef pprodiuaion ares.j,&~snuenche4 pditidll independence done will iiot mike dwnein.'~

trying ~

a . ~ d ' ~ ~ ~ ~ natioh fm over a . ~ 3 w u ~ . I d m states ofiAfrjca; A!reie~a&g-~ * i b tohe called dependency t h ~ . s h q ~ h t ' p t d m $ a a i & ~ & development" were a w ) z s e q r c e m e ~ o f . . c ~ ~ s t ' & O ~ ~ ~ ~ n il

state of derdevelopment in whch their economies came to depend on decisions made antbide thelr,bordersby edonial~nrlerswho were

nation-states as primordial socioculturalunits, each of which is individually responsible for its own successful modernization. In recent years, the individualism at the center of modernization theory has reappeared in the guise of neoliberalism in which internationalinstitutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund urge individual nation-states to pursue their own economic selfintexest in competition with one another. Neoliberdism replaces the goal of achieving prosperous national self-sufficiency with the goal of find& a niche in the global capitalist market. State bureaucrats have had to divert funds away from state institutions that subsidized poor citizens in order to invest in economic enterprises that "wouldearn income inthe market. Dkpendemq t h e o ~ ,by contrast, rejects the individualistic analysi-s along w1rh its cancl~sions.Naioh-states are rcot primordial enrities but are historical creations; and some nations of the wodd were able to become pcrwerful and rioh only because they forced other societies into weakness and poveq. The fates of a rich country and its poor colonies (or neocolonies) are thus intimately interrelated, Social-scientific perspectives that rake this observation as their starting point us~altyare said to pay attention to an international political econbmy i(see Chapter 7). In recent years, many anthropologists inmtested i m the international political economy have become shanp eritks "of neoliberalism. An ongoing struggle hetween anthropologists favorable to modernization thwry and those mitical ot it was a feature of the cold war years of the i195Qsand 1960s. By the 1970s, critics of modernization theory were act$ve in anthropology, many of them iduenced by dependenq i!lgory. By the 1980s, however, many anthropologists agreted &IT dependency theory was too simplistic to account for the cohpfwities of the postcolonial world. Many anthropologists&as"adbpredthe broader perspective of world system theory, an anakMa4 framework first suggested in the 1970s by sociologist Imm%nhelWallerstein. World system theory expanded upon and strengthened the Mmxist critique cd capitalist colonialism inherent in dependency theory. Wallairstehqbmost original idea was to apply a functionalist analytic flamework ((see Chapter 12) to the capitalist world

system, which was, in his opinion, the only sooi;rl systtmthat vame tb being s e l f . c ~ ~ & & ~ ~ &sel$+wla&g?.&: L&@ mwl+ -+. %&pst&im:&w?s&: itha*.n~a.w&k'm& / , ~, ,

, g s ~ : z ; ~ a ~ ~ b m u m ~ & : ~ ~d ~w&+~m. & Mby , &, .G: ,w $ 1


o;r&$ I


_ I&$&& gts&;&&&w@w,,




@ . $

@&&&:& i ;

s&f.k~ ., ,. @f~ t i e ~ ; ! f l i r ~ k ~ f l ~ f ~ ~ & . @ . ~ & ~ ~ s & @ e , @ @ & ~ ~ ~ & @ & .tw(j&s .. a,;-:&m,q@rM:@mm IW&, .~. &q$~;~ " ..PI. . * ~ .,. ,