![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BTW my revision took into account SineBot's comments below: I did translate the German Wiki entry and modeled some early elements of our new entry on it. Those early paragraphs might might still be a bit stilted and repetitive as a result.
(Sorry, I dont mean to preempt but we need to discuss the recent revision) Douglas R. White ( talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the description here is too vague. definitely!
Kinship is a concept shared between people about their relationship to one another. They believe they share a common family, usually by descent from a common ancestor but also through additional adding rituals such as marriage. In almost all societies, an individual shares some economic, political, or emotional resource with their "kin". This sharing provides a tempting target for political manipulation or "top down" redefinition. Traditionally, kinship is determined "bottom up" in a culture. Authoritarian interference with an individual's internal definition of his/her kin is very common and is the source of much confusion about this term.
I took out the final line, which mentioned the "Christian injunction" that "charity begins at home." That's an error - the phrase is not found in the Bible, but in Dickens. It's a minor point, and it was extraneous to the entry anyway, so I just deleted it.
Not only is this description a bit too vague and narrowly focused, it's somewhat off the mark. The idea of symbolic kinship is already prominent in Claude Levi-Strauss' The Elementary Structures of Kinship. First published in 1949, Levi-Strauss' study of kinship is interested in the way social alliances are established and structured. For example, inter-tribal marriage is a mode of creating kinship between two tribes, thus strengthening their collective social influence and offering a means of protection through sheer increase in mass. Schneider's work some 35 years later is most certainly not the first influential work on kinship to consider the topic outside the biological realm.
The german version of this article is great and also has a nice little german picture and everything. Anybody up to translating it into english? This one is kind of sparse.
206.45.152.130 —Preceding
comment was added at 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if someone would start adding the areas that relied on the kinship network, giving more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.101.250 ( talk) 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Subject to advice and/or confirmation from others (particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology members), it would be my proposal to, initially, here on this talk page, collect together some of the key anthropological writings about kinship, arrange them chronologically, then annotate them.
It is anticipated that such an approach has the potential to grow comprehensively .. and that as the annotated chronology grows .. annotations/writings will start to fall and/or bunch into groups with certain endeavours, kinds of findings, or kinds of conclusions .. which we might then 'label', and transform into narrative?
For any who may be interested in participating in an exercise of the above kind ..or simply expanding and upgrading the article in their own way, for interest, I include a quote I've just encountered:
"Few Academic Battlegrounds have been so littered with the ink-stained corpses of their protagonists as those surrounding kinship and cultural relativism." [1]
Bruceanthro ( talk) 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
References
MAINE, H.S. (1861) Ancient Law John Murray
MCLENNAN, J.F. (1865) Primitive Marriage Black
MORGAN, L.H. (1871) "Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family". Smithson. Contrib. Know. Number 17. Page 218 [Confirm details!]:
MORGAN, L.H (1877) Ancient Society. Henry Holt and Company. New York.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
TYLOR, Edward (1889) "On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions; Applied to the Laws of Marriage and Descent" Journal ofthe Royal Anthropological Institute. Number 18. Pages 245-272.
RIVERS, W. H. R. 1907. "On the origin of the classificatory system of relationships." in THOMAS, N.W (Ed) Anthropological Essays Presented to E. B. Tylor. Clarendon. Oxford. Pages 309- 25.
RIVERS, W.H.R (1914) Kinship and Social Organization. Oxford University Press. London.
LANG, A. (1908) "The origin of terms of relationship." Proc. Brit..4cad. 3:139-58
KROEBER, Alfred (1909) "Classificatory Systems of Relationship" Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Number 39. Pages 77-84.
SPENCER, B & GILLEN, F.J. (1927) The Arunta: A Stone Age People. (2 Volumes) MacMillan, London.:
LOWIE, Robert H. (1928) "A Note on Relationship Terminologies " American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1928), pp. 263-267:
LOWIE, Robert H. (1937) History of Ethnological Theory. New York:
MALINOWSKI, B (1929) The Sexual Life of Savages Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bruceanthro ( talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
HOCART, A. M. (1937) "Kinship systems". Anthropos 32:345-51.
FORTES, M (1945) The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Bruceanthro ( talk) 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LEVI-STRAUSS, Claude (1949) The Elementary Structures of Kinship
Opposition of alliance theory came from [descent theory]] .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruceanthro ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
MURDOCK, George (1949) Social Structure. The Macmillan Company. New York.:
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E. (1951) Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Free Press. Glencoe, Ill.:
Bruceanthro ( talk) 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
LEACH, Edmund (1959) "Concerning Trobriand Class and the Kinship Category Tabo' in GOODY, J (Ed)
LEACH, Edmund (1962) Rethinking Anthropology. London
BARNES, J.A (1967) "Genealogies" in EPSTEIN, A.L (Ed) The Craft of Social Anthropology. Tavistock Publications. London.
FOX, Robin (1967) Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective Penguin Books. Ringwood, Victoria
"Kinship and marriage are about the basic facts of life. They are about 'birth, and copulation, and death' .. Man is an animal, but he puts the basic facts of life to work for himself in ways no other animal does or can..."
SCHNEIDER, D. M. (1968) American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
All of the significant symbols of American kinship are contained within the figure of sexual intercourse,itself a symbolic course. The figure is formulated in American culture as a biological entity and a natural act. Yet throughout, each elementwhich is culturally defined as natural is at the same time augmented and elaborated, built upon and informed by the rule of human reason, embodied in law and in morality.
"..biological facts, the biological prerequisitesfor human existence, exist .. There is ,,a system of constructsin American culture about those biological facts. That system exists in an adjusted and adjustable relationship with these biological fastest .. But these biological constructs which depict these biological facts have another quality. They have as one of their aspects a symbolic quality, which means they represent somehting other than what they are, over and above and in addition to their existence as biological facts andcultural constructs about biological facts.."
Bruceanthro ( talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
FORTES, Meyer (1969) Kinship and Marriage, and Anthropological Perspective. Penguin Books. Ringwood, Victoria.
GOODENOUGH, W. H. (1970) Description And Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Aldine. Chicago.
NEEDHAM, R (Ed) (1971) Rethinking Kinship and Marriage
SCHUSKY, Ernest L. (1972) Manual for Kinship Analysis. (2nd Ed). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sydney.
"Anthropologists have studied kinship more than any other single topic. In these extensive studies involving complex kinship charts, symbols, and formulas, anthropologists may even seem to be performing mystic rituals rather than making an analysis of human behavior or cognition .. A major reason for this is that .. kinship .. exhibit[s] regular, recurrent behavior, and is only on the basis of regular, repetitive phenomena that generalizations can be built and tested."
"The regularities of kinship were recognized early in the history of anthropology. The first scholars found that many different peoples of the world classified relatives in much the same way and that there were several basic types of kinship terminologies.."(Schusky: 1)
"..kinship is central in the lives of most people. The rules of behavior and the rules for classifying not only are extensive but also govern one's relationships with all other people.(Schusky: 4)
KEESING, Roger M (1975) Kin Groups and Social Structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Fort Worth
BARNES, J.A. (1980) "Kinship Studies". Man
STRATHERN, Marilyn (1992) After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
SCHNEIDER, D.M as told to HANDLER, Richard (Ed) (1995) Schneider on Schneider: The Conversion of Jews and other Anthropological Stories Duke University Press. Durham, NC.
SIMPSON, Bob (1998) Changing Families: An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation
SUTTON, Peter (1998) "Kinship, Descent and Aboriginal land tenure". SUTTON, Peter (Ed) Native Title and the Descent of Rights. National Native Title Tribunal. Perth. ISBN 0-642-36505-9.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
CARSTEN, Janet (2000) "Introduction to cultures of relatedness" in CARSTEN, Janet (Ed) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship Cambridge University Ptess. Cambridge. Pages 1 - 36
( Bruceanthro ( talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
'tis a good idea to get started. I've thought through what else should be in the above list, and Evans-Pritchard and Levi-Strauss are foundational for the topic, Fox is the best overview of I know, and then Strathern and Simpson at the end will give us an insight into more recent developments... which should be more than enough to be getting on with, unless we've missed something important out?
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1949) The Elementary Structures of Kinship
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1951) Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer
Fox, Robin (1967) Kinship and Marriage
Strathern, Marilyn (1992) After Nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century
Simpson, Bob (1998) Changing Families: An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation
Robotforaday ( talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
May soon (next day or so) have a go at an initial proposed structure for upgraded and amended kinship article, arranging article and presenting various dimensions of the kinship concept 'historically' (ie as far as practical, in order in which each dimension was focused on/elaborated upon by writers above)..
EG (for initial comment/discussion)
In the annotated chronology above, I've included some 'cotents lists' of some general texts .. not only to make notes, but also to use as a kind of checklist with which to tick off dimensions covered (or missed?)
In the mean time, I'll quote some of the following summary/overview material from SEYMOUR-SMITH, Charlotte (1986) MacMillan Dictionary of Anthropology. MacMillan Press Ltd. London entries on kinship etc:
"The importance of kinship studies .. is due in large part to the great importance attached to kinship relations in the societies typically studied by anthropologists. It has frequently been noted that the significance of kinship in pre-industrial society is more far reaching and systematic than in modern industrial society. Thus it is often stated that kinship (and/or marriage alliance, which is .. included under the general rubric of kinship) constitutes the basic organizational principle of a pre-industrial or small-scale society. In many such socieites the universe of kin and affines is the universe of significant social relationships, all persons who enter into relationship with Ego being defined in terms of some kinship status, whether or not their exact relationship to Ego is known."(Page 158)
I think the structure you're discussing there has a lot of merit. Very briefly, in my mind before I read this, I was thinking of something along these lines (after a new lead para; those who haven't already should see WP:LEAD for guidelines on that sort of thing):
As I say, I had this in mind before reading yours, so it's certainly open to radical correction. All I'd say is that our primary concern should be acessibility, and we should make sure that people who read the kinship article don't need to be hugely familiar with the history of anthropological theory when reading it. With that in mind, I would want to make sure that the section follow thematic lines rather than reproducing disciplinary debates. Robotforaday ( talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the basis for claiming that "kinship and descent" is specifically "cultural anthropology?" My recollection is that the first major paper on descent groups was by Fortes, a social anthropologist. I agree that the attention to descent groups gained purchase in the US - Fried wrote an early important paper about them - but that coincided with a period when British structural-functionalism was also gaining purchase in the US and I don't think that the main literature on descent groups is really "cultural" anthropology, it is at best "socio-cultural anthropology." I think the "cultural anthropology" tradition has, starting with te Boasian move away from Morgan (when Franz Boas moved away from the word "clan" and began writing about the different meanings of "numaym" and then Lowie critiqued Morgan directly) always emphasized that kinship terminologies exist in the realm of language and not social groups (Schneider, Lounsbury). The only American anthropologists I know of who try to relate kinship to "descent" as such are those influenced by sociobiology like Robin Fox. Don't most cultural anthropologists see a clear distinction between kinship terminologies and descent groups? Maybe this article needs to distinguish between "system of consanguinity" and "descent group" as they are not identical. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a recent edit took care of this specific concern. Now, since you asked for it:
1. Introduction
2. Kinship as a cultural system: kinship terminology
3. Kinship and Social Organization
4. Kinship and social structure I: The Household
5. Kinship and Social Structure II: Descent groups
6. Kinship and social structure III: Marriage = the socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women.
After going throught these basic concepts it may be timely to return to current theoretical debates among anthropologists.
Well, anyway, just one way of organizing it. I like much of what others have posted and certainly hope to think what I propose can accommodate alomost if not all of the content you and others have been working with recently. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Conncerning "kindred," what are the "multitude of sins?" I just think that kindrid is an important concept to discuss, as well as the ways network analysis can be used to map out relationships. As to your proposal, I have two problems qith 1 and 2. First, I have mixed feelings about a history section. On the one hand, I am all for historicizing the presentation of academic topics i.e. putting them in a historical context. On the other hand, histories are themselves partial and often too linear, and distort the kind of history a geneaology (in the Foucauldian/Nietzchian sense) would provide. I also have qualms about a separatre section on kinship and biology - this is an issue from the very start, it is an issue for HRR RIvers and Levi Strauss, so how could it go after the history section? I think we need to disinguish between the general relationship between society/culture and biology - which has been handled in diferent ways by functionalists, structuralists, and marxists, and a more narrow debate between disciplines of anthropology and sociobilogy. These doubts I have about your sections 1 and 2 explain my section 1. I agree, it covers a lot and perhaps can be improved on but I think that as much as people need a historical context they ned a theoretical context and need to understand that even today anthropologists do not all look at kindhip the same way - some still work largely within a functionalist mode, some structuralist, some arxist. I wanted an "introduction" which both introduced key concepts in the study of society and culture that anyone new to anthropology needs to understand first if they are to understand any of this (I admire what Douglas White is adding but it is at a high level a general audience wouldn't understand), and second, provide a "metatheoretical" context that makes the history intelligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think kindred is an important term. Also, it does not refer to a social group, and I am not sure it is even a clear status position. Network analysis shows how apparently clear structural relationships can actually be very fluid once one takes individual action (or agency) into account, as well as contingent factors, which is why I personally identify it with social organization. That said, i welcome other people's ideas. As for my section 1 and your sections 1 and 2 I do nthink this is largely a matter of presentation. Do you see your sections 1 and 2 as including all the content I have in my section 1? i certainly think my section 1 can accommodate most of what you put in your sections 1 and 2 (and I am sure that anything left out can find a place somewhere else in the article) so I do think it is about presentation. Please note that my list of major theoretical approaches is vaguely historical ... I just focus on what I think are the amin streams, and exclude most of the people Bruceanthro listed above (which frankly I think is too much detail for this article ... But perfect for a separate article on the history (or genealology!) of kinship theory!!) I bet we can work out a hybrid or compromise. At this point I suggest you and I pause for a whileand give Bruceanthro and Douglas White think before you and I comment further... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Although writing is clearly the obvious priority, perhaps it would be a good idea for us to note down any appropriate illustrations for this article that we can think of? I think kinship diagrams would be a great help, and I am happy to have a go at creating some, as long as we have an idea of what we want. Just to get the ball rolling, I would suggest the following; feel free to list other useful diagrams that you can think of, or indeed to object to these ones!
Also, does anybody have any ideas about good photographs, paintings, etc, that could be used? My only idea so far would be an image of the table of kindred and affinity from the Book of Common Prayer. Robotforaday ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(surely royalty, and the royal family is a most recognisable instancing of family .. plus all the associated kin/ship ramifications?!!)
[the Iroquois being both the group that famously inspired Morgan to examine, compare and contrast kinship terminologies .. and visually displaying the primary subject matter of 'kinship', and kinship studies?
User:SummerWithMorons has recently been editing the references to a fixed style, and while I felt he was going too far from the guidelines in WP:CITE, I suppose in fairness we do need to have a discussion about what kind of referencing to use; from my involvement in wikipedia, it seems there's a strong bias towards the style of referencing I have used in kinship and biological relationships section, including the use of Wikipedia:Citation templates, so my preference would be to follow use the citation templates for consistency with much of the rest of wikipedia, although I am happy to go along with consensus on this. Also, User:SummerWithMorons changed a couple of the page number references; the page numbers I used were from the original 1929 Routledge and Kegan Paul edition that I cited, and I have now double checked them so as to revert them. It is possible that he is using a later edition; however, I am confident that the page numbering I have provided is the page numbering in the original.
I plan on working some more on the article today. Robotforaday ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem whatsoever with including it under "See Also" since the ethnicity and kinship articles are clearly pertinent to each other. By including ethnicity, you're not saying Kinship and Descent is obligate to all ethnic identities, only that for more information on a concept that can involve or be related to Kinship, see ethnicity. What else is at issue ? Epf ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most anthropologists today view ethnicity in the modern sense as somehing that comes into existence in relation either to the capitalist economy or contact with states."
I've read that some view ethnicity in such a way but clearly this is not the case for others. Many have simply viewed ethnicity as a different definition from tribe that encompasses some different aspects (this isexplained in detail in an article by Ronald Cohen). Aspects of tribal identification have been incorporated into ethnicity. Kinship and descent are clearly core factors in the basis of many ethnic identities. The dominant view is not that non-state societies "have no notion of ethnicity" and there is nothing to support such a claim. There are numerous ethnic groups around the world who have no official nation-state or political entity, but still have an ethnic and cultural identity. The whole emergence of many nation-states developed from ethnic groups who had no unified political entity, not the other way around. Some groups who do not use the western label "ethnic" (i.e. those not in contact with western society) however still use a synonym for it or "tribe". Few also actually contest that non-state people have clear social boundaries, especially since there have long been linguistic and cultural groupings which used terms that pre-date the modern use of "ethnic", such as "tribe", "race", "kin", or "clan". The word ethnic itself derives from "ethnos", literally meaning "people" in ancient Greek. Epf ( talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that was not my wording and you misrepresent what was actually said. "Kinship is one of the most basic principles for organizing individuals into social groups, roles, and categories" - this is what is mentioned in this article. Kinship, but specifically descent, are clearly major factors in ethnic and tribal identification. My whole point of adding ethnicity as a link in this article was to show this point since the information in that article alludes to this just as it does in tribe. Epf ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, its not simply POV since this is about including a related article based on the information and sources in that article (ethnicity). Epf ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, when Cohen talks about the salience for kinship for hunting and camping groups, Epf makes a huge mistake to think that this is an example of ethnicity depending on decent. "Kinship" refers to many things and in this case Cohen is refering to kinship terminologies, referential systems that are typically unaccompanied by geneaologies (Joanna Overing even argued that in most such societies - she posits all societies in Amazonia; Robert Murhy independently reached the same conclusion - "sociological time" (the remembered experience an individual has of relations with other individuals) dominates against geneological time (an individual remember who his or her grandparents or great grandparents are) Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, he made two basic assertions above and I have asked for sources. I am still waiting. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a detailed response. I, and Ramdrake, asked for sources for your claims. A few days ago. This is very reasonable. I am sure if you have time to edit Wikipedia you must also have time to provide sources for your edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? My two requests for sources were regaqrding statements you made specifically about ethnic groups or ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you now acknowledge that the statements you made for which I requested sources involved ethnicity - no need to apologize. But I am still waiting for those citations. As for descent, when kinship theorists talk about descent they generaly are refering to lineages or clans, i.e. social groups to which are atached specific jural rights and obligations. When theorists of ethnicity invoke descent, they are not refering to these institutions but rather to, in the Weberian tradition, what Shils called primordial ties. They are not the same thing. One word can mean different things in different contexts and in this case descent in the context of kinship studies and descent in the context of ethnicity studies means very different things; let's not mix them up. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we finally are beginning to understanding one another. I will provide sources for those claims but I don't see how they are related to the issue here, about including ethnicity as a link to this article. Clearly, there are numerous ethnic groups out there which use kinship systems, through genealogy/descent or marriage ? Ethnicity therefore incorporates such groups and must also incorproate aspects of kinship to its groupings ? The common descent in ethnic groups and that of Kinship, as I see your point, differ in respects but I know there are some anthropologists who acknoledge or at leatst believe that the notion of common descent retained in ethnicty traces to that found in kinship, do you not agree ? Epf ( talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, new to Wiki editing/discussion, hope I've done this right! It is important to discuss Malinowski's view's in the following paragraph but we should not assume they are correct:
"Ideas about kinship do not necessarily assume any biological relationship between individuals, rather just close associations. Malinowski, in his ethnographic study of sexual behaviour on the Trobriand Islands noted that the Trobrianders did not believe pregnancy to be the result of sexual intercourse between the man and the woman, and they denied that there was any physiological relationship between father and child.[7] Nevertheless, while paternity was unknown in the "full biological sense", for a woman to have a child without having a husband was considered socially undesirable. Fatherhood was therefore recognised as a social role; the woman's husband is the "man whose role and duty it is to take the child in his arms and to help her in nursing and bringing it up";[8] "Thus, though the natives are ignorant of any physiological need for a male in the constitution of the family, they regard him as indispensable socially".[9]"
My point is that similar assertions were made about Australian Aborigine's beliefs (and taught in my school in the 1980s)which were mistaken. An understanding of the connection between sex & reproduction (and therefore of patrimony)existed but there was a second belief that spiritual life of an unborn baby began with the quickening and this moment was associated with the childs spiritual "totems." Anthropologists mistook the beliefs associated with the quickening to mean that the aborigines believed that was when a woman became pregnant. Does anyone have further info on Troubianders beliefs past & present? Rightfeckineejit ( talk) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
After all uncited material was deleted - leaving only a stub - I did a major overhaul of Incest taboo. Hoping that it rises to our standards for good anthropology related articles, would people who watch this page mind looking it over, making any obvious improvements or commenting on the talk page? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page at Scion lists this article as the number one direct link for the term. And I think the disam page is correct the way it is now. Yet this article does not use the word. I'd prefer at least one sentence be added to the article that uses the word, preferably in a context that helps "disambiguates the reader" (that would be me, in this case). Thanks. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
While "legal issues" are mentioned, I see no mention of the legal principle (occasioned in places in the U.S.) where a non-biological parent can be made financially liable for a child fathered by someone else... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has extensive material and quotations from a thesis by Maximilian Piers Holland which may or may not have been added by the author himself. Unless the claims are peer-reviewed I see no reason to include them. If they are, the peer-reviewed sources should be given instead. Miradre ( talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Your explanations for your changes do not hold water. Regarding layout - why move coverage of debates and theories that are at the center of the discussion about how biological processes / social relationships may or may not interact out of the biology section? The sociobiological perspective is seen as part of the same intellectual/cultural tradition from within anthropology (have you actually read Schneider 1984?) and should thus be in that section. Evolution has a more nuanced meaning with anthropology - why do you not stick with the 'sociobiology' or 'reductionist' nomenclature? Why have you moved well established aspects of the debate (such that sociobioloical and anthropological perspectives have disagreed with each other from the 1970s onwards) into a section called Holland's thesis? What justifies that? This debate is very well understood to exist, by all involved and all informed observers. You seem to want to put all well established points lumped under this section, just so you can classify it as "holland argues", and thus suggest it is not the commonly understood view. Then you conveniently put a tag on the whole section - all the points, summaries and evidences - both widely established and more novel, as undue weight? Nice circular reasoning in your editorial posture there. Most of these points have been argued for decades by many anthropologists, not just by Holland. If an editor knew something about the study of kinship, s/he would surely be aware of that. If not.... what would they be doing editing this article..? Oh yeah, I remember.
Anyway, I'll rest my justifications for removing most of your changes there for now - We'll see how all this pans out. I'd be glad if others who have been curating this article could join in the discussion. Discotechwreck ( talk) 03:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sentence Structure It may be unclear which word is modified by "more." For clarity, consider rewording your sentence.
Sentence Structure It may be unclear which word is modified by "more." For clarity, consider rewording your sentence. • Instead of: The boardroom needs more comfortable furniture. • Consider: The boardroom needs more furniture that is comfortable. • Or consider: The boardroom needs furniture that is more comfortable. • Instead of: Businesses are looking for more capable employees. • Consider: Businesses are looking for employees that are more capable. • Or consider: Businesses are looking for more employees that are capable.
If these words are not essential to the meaning of your sentence, use "which" and separate the words with a comma.
Comma Use You have the option of using a comma and "and" before the last item in a list or leaving the comma out. Whatever your choice, be consistent throughout your text.
Capitalization
Some words are always capitalized. Other words are capitalized when they are part of a title, a name, or a place. A minor word such as "the" is capitalized only when the word begins a sentence or officially begins a name.
• Instead of: The pet store closes on Valentine's day.
• Consider: The pet store closes on Valentine's Day.
• Instead of: Mary has a map of the Hague.
• Consider: Mary has a map of The Hague
"That" or "Which"
If these words are not essential to the meaning of your sentence, use "which" and separate the words with a comma.
Instead of: I have a great book which you can borrow for your vacation. Consider: I have a great book, which you can borrow for your vacation. Or consider: I have a great book that you can borrow for your vacation. Instead of: We want to buy the photo which Harry took. Consider: We want to buy the photo, which Harry took. Or consider: We want to buy the photo that Harry took.
Order of Words Consider whether one of the two marked words is necessary to the meaning of your sentence or whether these words are in the correct order. • Instead of: The of road of life has many detours. • Consider: The road of life has many detours. • Instead of: The we chefs have not yet made the eclairs. • Consider: The chefs have not yet made the eclairs. • Or consider: We chefs have not yet made the eclairs
Reflexive Pronoun Use Use pronouns ending in "self" in conjunction with a noun, as in "Andrew himself" or when the pronoun refers back to the subject, as in "I hit myself." Use "own" in conjunction with a pronoun only when referring back to the subject. • Instead of: They heard herself on the radio. • Consider: They heard her on the radio. • Instead of: John watched her own meal get cold. • Consider: John watched her meal get cold.
Please edit the text 77.28.211.57 ( talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's main content jumps straight into Morgan and kinship terminology. Whilst this is an historically accurate account, it must seems strange for today's students who are (hopefully) aware that social group living is not just a human trait. I have therefore contextualized Morgan's research goals in their contemporary world-view, explaining that social group life was at the time largely believed to be an exclusively human trait. This caveat helps to make the subsequent content about how kinship studies developed more understandable, including the major revisionary influence of Schneider in the 1970s/80s. DMSchneider ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
should perhaps the page Kinship terminology be mergerd here. It seems to be context-wise quite similar to this page 88.114.154.216 ( talk) 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been for a long time two out-of-context sections in the middle of the article, as if someone was experimenting with a different article layout without following through properly and never cleared away their mess. Their inclusion was never recorded here on the talk page, nor argued for.
- 'Degrees' which is a table format with values of genetic overlap with no other text or introduction or explanation given of what it means, its relevance or its fit in the broader article. I suggest to remove this or put it at the end of the article as an appendix.
- 'extensions of the kinship metaphor' - which is just a heading with two subheadings with no content given or explanation given to readers of what this means.
Since these currently break up the flow of the article and unnecessarily divide the first section 'concepts' and the later section 'history' I am going to move these to the end of the article and put them on probation unless their inclusion and their place within the flow of the article can be argued for either here or the talk page or within their own (future?) content. 109.69.8.99 ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Given Schneider's very significant influence on kinship studies in the past 30+ years (since 1984 especially), I have created a new section in the history part of the article outlining his contributions (with quotes) and anthropologists' reactions. I hope other editors with knowledge of the subject will agree with me that Schneider has been a huge influence, and that it would be a disservice to wiki readers (wishing to understand the subject as it exists today) to not give a decent account of this influence. I intend to add more detail to the section 'kinship post-Schneider' in the coming days (and encourage other editors to add to these parts of the article). 109.69.8.99 ( talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just an observation regarding the text membership in corporately organized dwellings rather than around descent groups or lineages, as in the "House of Windsor". In British usage the House of Windsor refers exclusively to the blood-line and marriage ties of the descendants of Edward 7th, it has nothing to do with any dwelling. The text appears to mean the opposite. Perhaps it's just a misplaced comma. JohnHarris ( talk) 18:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
BTW my revision took into account SineBot's comments below: I did translate the German Wiki entry and modeled some early elements of our new entry on it. Those early paragraphs might might still be a bit stilted and repetitive as a result.
(Sorry, I dont mean to preempt but we need to discuss the recent revision) Douglas R. White ( talk) 16:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the description here is too vague. definitely!
Kinship is a concept shared between people about their relationship to one another. They believe they share a common family, usually by descent from a common ancestor but also through additional adding rituals such as marriage. In almost all societies, an individual shares some economic, political, or emotional resource with their "kin". This sharing provides a tempting target for political manipulation or "top down" redefinition. Traditionally, kinship is determined "bottom up" in a culture. Authoritarian interference with an individual's internal definition of his/her kin is very common and is the source of much confusion about this term.
I took out the final line, which mentioned the "Christian injunction" that "charity begins at home." That's an error - the phrase is not found in the Bible, but in Dickens. It's a minor point, and it was extraneous to the entry anyway, so I just deleted it.
Not only is this description a bit too vague and narrowly focused, it's somewhat off the mark. The idea of symbolic kinship is already prominent in Claude Levi-Strauss' The Elementary Structures of Kinship. First published in 1949, Levi-Strauss' study of kinship is interested in the way social alliances are established and structured. For example, inter-tribal marriage is a mode of creating kinship between two tribes, thus strengthening their collective social influence and offering a means of protection through sheer increase in mass. Schneider's work some 35 years later is most certainly not the first influential work on kinship to consider the topic outside the biological realm.
The german version of this article is great and also has a nice little german picture and everything. Anybody up to translating it into english? This one is kind of sparse.
206.45.152.130 —Preceding
comment was added at 02:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be wonderful if someone would start adding the areas that relied on the kinship network, giving more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.172.101.250 ( talk) 03:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Subject to advice and/or confirmation from others (particularly Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anthropology members), it would be my proposal to, initially, here on this talk page, collect together some of the key anthropological writings about kinship, arrange them chronologically, then annotate them.
It is anticipated that such an approach has the potential to grow comprehensively .. and that as the annotated chronology grows .. annotations/writings will start to fall and/or bunch into groups with certain endeavours, kinds of findings, or kinds of conclusions .. which we might then 'label', and transform into narrative?
For any who may be interested in participating in an exercise of the above kind ..or simply expanding and upgrading the article in their own way, for interest, I include a quote I've just encountered:
"Few Academic Battlegrounds have been so littered with the ink-stained corpses of their protagonists as those surrounding kinship and cultural relativism." [1]
Bruceanthro ( talk) 13:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
References
MAINE, H.S. (1861) Ancient Law John Murray
MCLENNAN, J.F. (1865) Primitive Marriage Black
MORGAN, L.H. (1871) "Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family". Smithson. Contrib. Know. Number 17. Page 218 [Confirm details!]:
MORGAN, L.H (1877) Ancient Society. Henry Holt and Company. New York.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 15:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
TYLOR, Edward (1889) "On a Method of Investigating the Development of Institutions; Applied to the Laws of Marriage and Descent" Journal ofthe Royal Anthropological Institute. Number 18. Pages 245-272.
RIVERS, W. H. R. 1907. "On the origin of the classificatory system of relationships." in THOMAS, N.W (Ed) Anthropological Essays Presented to E. B. Tylor. Clarendon. Oxford. Pages 309- 25.
RIVERS, W.H.R (1914) Kinship and Social Organization. Oxford University Press. London.
LANG, A. (1908) "The origin of terms of relationship." Proc. Brit..4cad. 3:139-58
KROEBER, Alfred (1909) "Classificatory Systems of Relationship" Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Number 39. Pages 77-84.
SPENCER, B & GILLEN, F.J. (1927) The Arunta: A Stone Age People. (2 Volumes) MacMillan, London.:
LOWIE, Robert H. (1928) "A Note on Relationship Terminologies " American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr. - Jun., 1928), pp. 263-267:
LOWIE, Robert H. (1937) History of Ethnological Theory. New York:
MALINOWSKI, B (1929) The Sexual Life of Savages Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bruceanthro ( talk) 14:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
HOCART, A. M. (1937) "Kinship systems". Anthropos 32:345-51.
FORTES, M (1945) The Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi. Oxford University Press. Oxford. Bruceanthro ( talk) 14:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
LEVI-STRAUSS, Claude (1949) The Elementary Structures of Kinship
Opposition of alliance theory came from [descent theory]] .. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruceanthro ( talk • contribs) 12:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
MURDOCK, George (1949) Social Structure. The Macmillan Company. New York.:
EVANS-PRITCHARD, E.E. (1951) Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer
RADCLIFFE-BROWN, A. R. (1952) Structure and Function in Primitive Society. Free Press. Glencoe, Ill.:
Bruceanthro ( talk) 07:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
LEACH, Edmund (1959) "Concerning Trobriand Class and the Kinship Category Tabo' in GOODY, J (Ed)
LEACH, Edmund (1962) Rethinking Anthropology. London
BARNES, J.A (1967) "Genealogies" in EPSTEIN, A.L (Ed) The Craft of Social Anthropology. Tavistock Publications. London.
FOX, Robin (1967) Kinship and Marriage: An Anthropological Perspective Penguin Books. Ringwood, Victoria
"Kinship and marriage are about the basic facts of life. They are about 'birth, and copulation, and death' .. Man is an animal, but he puts the basic facts of life to work for himself in ways no other animal does or can..."
SCHNEIDER, D. M. (1968) American Kinship: A Cultural Account. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J:
All of the significant symbols of American kinship are contained within the figure of sexual intercourse,itself a symbolic course. The figure is formulated in American culture as a biological entity and a natural act. Yet throughout, each elementwhich is culturally defined as natural is at the same time augmented and elaborated, built upon and informed by the rule of human reason, embodied in law and in morality.
"..biological facts, the biological prerequisitesfor human existence, exist .. There is ,,a system of constructsin American culture about those biological facts. That system exists in an adjusted and adjustable relationship with these biological fastest .. But these biological constructs which depict these biological facts have another quality. They have as one of their aspects a symbolic quality, which means they represent somehting other than what they are, over and above and in addition to their existence as biological facts andcultural constructs about biological facts.."
Bruceanthro ( talk) 13:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
FORTES, Meyer (1969) Kinship and Marriage, and Anthropological Perspective. Penguin Books. Ringwood, Victoria.
GOODENOUGH, W. H. (1970) Description And Comparison in Cultural Anthropology. Aldine. Chicago.
NEEDHAM, R (Ed) (1971) Rethinking Kinship and Marriage
SCHUSKY, Ernest L. (1972) Manual for Kinship Analysis. (2nd Ed). Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Sydney.
"Anthropologists have studied kinship more than any other single topic. In these extensive studies involving complex kinship charts, symbols, and formulas, anthropologists may even seem to be performing mystic rituals rather than making an analysis of human behavior or cognition .. A major reason for this is that .. kinship .. exhibit[s] regular, recurrent behavior, and is only on the basis of regular, repetitive phenomena that generalizations can be built and tested."
"The regularities of kinship were recognized early in the history of anthropology. The first scholars found that many different peoples of the world classified relatives in much the same way and that there were several basic types of kinship terminologies.."(Schusky: 1)
"..kinship is central in the lives of most people. The rules of behavior and the rules for classifying not only are extensive but also govern one's relationships with all other people.(Schusky: 4)
KEESING, Roger M (1975) Kin Groups and Social Structure. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich College Publishers. Fort Worth
BARNES, J.A. (1980) "Kinship Studies". Man
STRATHERN, Marilyn (1992) After Nature: English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 08:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
SCHNEIDER, D.M as told to HANDLER, Richard (Ed) (1995) Schneider on Schneider: The Conversion of Jews and other Anthropological Stories Duke University Press. Durham, NC.
SIMPSON, Bob (1998) Changing Families: An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation
SUTTON, Peter (1998) "Kinship, Descent and Aboriginal land tenure". SUTTON, Peter (Ed) Native Title and the Descent of Rights. National Native Title Tribunal. Perth. ISBN 0-642-36505-9.
Bruceanthro ( talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
CARSTEN, Janet (2000) "Introduction to cultures of relatedness" in CARSTEN, Janet (Ed) Cultures of Relatedness: New Approaches to the Study of Kinship Cambridge University Ptess. Cambridge. Pages 1 - 36
( Bruceanthro ( talk) 15:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
'tis a good idea to get started. I've thought through what else should be in the above list, and Evans-Pritchard and Levi-Strauss are foundational for the topic, Fox is the best overview of I know, and then Strathern and Simpson at the end will give us an insight into more recent developments... which should be more than enough to be getting on with, unless we've missed something important out?
Levi-Strauss, Claude (1949) The Elementary Structures of Kinship
Evans-Pritchard, E.E. (1951) Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer
Fox, Robin (1967) Kinship and Marriage
Strathern, Marilyn (1992) After Nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century
Simpson, Bob (1998) Changing Families: An Ethnographic Approach to Divorce and Separation
Robotforaday ( talk) 00:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
May soon (next day or so) have a go at an initial proposed structure for upgraded and amended kinship article, arranging article and presenting various dimensions of the kinship concept 'historically' (ie as far as practical, in order in which each dimension was focused on/elaborated upon by writers above)..
EG (for initial comment/discussion)
In the annotated chronology above, I've included some 'cotents lists' of some general texts .. not only to make notes, but also to use as a kind of checklist with which to tick off dimensions covered (or missed?)
In the mean time, I'll quote some of the following summary/overview material from SEYMOUR-SMITH, Charlotte (1986) MacMillan Dictionary of Anthropology. MacMillan Press Ltd. London entries on kinship etc:
"The importance of kinship studies .. is due in large part to the great importance attached to kinship relations in the societies typically studied by anthropologists. It has frequently been noted that the significance of kinship in pre-industrial society is more far reaching and systematic than in modern industrial society. Thus it is often stated that kinship (and/or marriage alliance, which is .. included under the general rubric of kinship) constitutes the basic organizational principle of a pre-industrial or small-scale society. In many such socieites the universe of kin and affines is the universe of significant social relationships, all persons who enter into relationship with Ego being defined in terms of some kinship status, whether or not their exact relationship to Ego is known."(Page 158)
I think the structure you're discussing there has a lot of merit. Very briefly, in my mind before I read this, I was thinking of something along these lines (after a new lead para; those who haven't already should see WP:LEAD for guidelines on that sort of thing):
As I say, I had this in mind before reading yours, so it's certainly open to radical correction. All I'd say is that our primary concern should be acessibility, and we should make sure that people who read the kinship article don't need to be hugely familiar with the history of anthropological theory when reading it. With that in mind, I would want to make sure that the section follow thematic lines rather than reproducing disciplinary debates. Robotforaday ( talk) 12:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
What is the basis for claiming that "kinship and descent" is specifically "cultural anthropology?" My recollection is that the first major paper on descent groups was by Fortes, a social anthropologist. I agree that the attention to descent groups gained purchase in the US - Fried wrote an early important paper about them - but that coincided with a period when British structural-functionalism was also gaining purchase in the US and I don't think that the main literature on descent groups is really "cultural" anthropology, it is at best "socio-cultural anthropology." I think the "cultural anthropology" tradition has, starting with te Boasian move away from Morgan (when Franz Boas moved away from the word "clan" and began writing about the different meanings of "numaym" and then Lowie critiqued Morgan directly) always emphasized that kinship terminologies exist in the realm of language and not social groups (Schneider, Lounsbury). The only American anthropologists I know of who try to relate kinship to "descent" as such are those influenced by sociobiology like Robin Fox. Don't most cultural anthropologists see a clear distinction between kinship terminologies and descent groups? Maybe this article needs to distinguish between "system of consanguinity" and "descent group" as they are not identical. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think a recent edit took care of this specific concern. Now, since you asked for it:
1. Introduction
2. Kinship as a cultural system: kinship terminology
3. Kinship and Social Organization
4. Kinship and social structure I: The Household
5. Kinship and Social Structure II: Descent groups
6. Kinship and social structure III: Marriage = the socially sanctioned union that reproduces the family. The most common type of marriage is the union of one or more men with one or more women.
After going throught these basic concepts it may be timely to return to current theoretical debates among anthropologists.
Well, anyway, just one way of organizing it. I like much of what others have posted and certainly hope to think what I propose can accommodate alomost if not all of the content you and others have been working with recently. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Conncerning "kindred," what are the "multitude of sins?" I just think that kindrid is an important concept to discuss, as well as the ways network analysis can be used to map out relationships. As to your proposal, I have two problems qith 1 and 2. First, I have mixed feelings about a history section. On the one hand, I am all for historicizing the presentation of academic topics i.e. putting them in a historical context. On the other hand, histories are themselves partial and often too linear, and distort the kind of history a geneaology (in the Foucauldian/Nietzchian sense) would provide. I also have qualms about a separatre section on kinship and biology - this is an issue from the very start, it is an issue for HRR RIvers and Levi Strauss, so how could it go after the history section? I think we need to disinguish between the general relationship between society/culture and biology - which has been handled in diferent ways by functionalists, structuralists, and marxists, and a more narrow debate between disciplines of anthropology and sociobilogy. These doubts I have about your sections 1 and 2 explain my section 1. I agree, it covers a lot and perhaps can be improved on but I think that as much as people need a historical context they ned a theoretical context and need to understand that even today anthropologists do not all look at kindhip the same way - some still work largely within a functionalist mode, some structuralist, some arxist. I wanted an "introduction" which both introduced key concepts in the study of society and culture that anyone new to anthropology needs to understand first if they are to understand any of this (I admire what Douglas White is adding but it is at a high level a general audience wouldn't understand), and second, provide a "metatheoretical" context that makes the history intelligible. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think kindred is an important term. Also, it does not refer to a social group, and I am not sure it is even a clear status position. Network analysis shows how apparently clear structural relationships can actually be very fluid once one takes individual action (or agency) into account, as well as contingent factors, which is why I personally identify it with social organization. That said, i welcome other people's ideas. As for my section 1 and your sections 1 and 2 I do nthink this is largely a matter of presentation. Do you see your sections 1 and 2 as including all the content I have in my section 1? i certainly think my section 1 can accommodate most of what you put in your sections 1 and 2 (and I am sure that anything left out can find a place somewhere else in the article) so I do think it is about presentation. Please note that my list of major theoretical approaches is vaguely historical ... I just focus on what I think are the amin streams, and exclude most of the people Bruceanthro listed above (which frankly I think is too much detail for this article ... But perfect for a separate article on the history (or genealology!) of kinship theory!!) I bet we can work out a hybrid or compromise. At this point I suggest you and I pause for a whileand give Bruceanthro and Douglas White think before you and I comment further... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Although writing is clearly the obvious priority, perhaps it would be a good idea for us to note down any appropriate illustrations for this article that we can think of? I think kinship diagrams would be a great help, and I am happy to have a go at creating some, as long as we have an idea of what we want. Just to get the ball rolling, I would suggest the following; feel free to list other useful diagrams that you can think of, or indeed to object to these ones!
Also, does anybody have any ideas about good photographs, paintings, etc, that could be used? My only idea so far would be an image of the table of kindred and affinity from the Book of Common Prayer. Robotforaday ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
(surely royalty, and the royal family is a most recognisable instancing of family .. plus all the associated kin/ship ramifications?!!)
[the Iroquois being both the group that famously inspired Morgan to examine, compare and contrast kinship terminologies .. and visually displaying the primary subject matter of 'kinship', and kinship studies?
User:SummerWithMorons has recently been editing the references to a fixed style, and while I felt he was going too far from the guidelines in WP:CITE, I suppose in fairness we do need to have a discussion about what kind of referencing to use; from my involvement in wikipedia, it seems there's a strong bias towards the style of referencing I have used in kinship and biological relationships section, including the use of Wikipedia:Citation templates, so my preference would be to follow use the citation templates for consistency with much of the rest of wikipedia, although I am happy to go along with consensus on this. Also, User:SummerWithMorons changed a couple of the page number references; the page numbers I used were from the original 1929 Routledge and Kegan Paul edition that I cited, and I have now double checked them so as to revert them. It is possible that he is using a later edition; however, I am confident that the page numbering I have provided is the page numbering in the original.
I plan on working some more on the article today. Robotforaday ( talk) 12:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I personally don't see a problem whatsoever with including it under "See Also" since the ethnicity and kinship articles are clearly pertinent to each other. By including ethnicity, you're not saying Kinship and Descent is obligate to all ethnic identities, only that for more information on a concept that can involve or be related to Kinship, see ethnicity. What else is at issue ? Epf ( talk) 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
"Most anthropologists today view ethnicity in the modern sense as somehing that comes into existence in relation either to the capitalist economy or contact with states."
I've read that some view ethnicity in such a way but clearly this is not the case for others. Many have simply viewed ethnicity as a different definition from tribe that encompasses some different aspects (this isexplained in detail in an article by Ronald Cohen). Aspects of tribal identification have been incorporated into ethnicity. Kinship and descent are clearly core factors in the basis of many ethnic identities. The dominant view is not that non-state societies "have no notion of ethnicity" and there is nothing to support such a claim. There are numerous ethnic groups around the world who have no official nation-state or political entity, but still have an ethnic and cultural identity. The whole emergence of many nation-states developed from ethnic groups who had no unified political entity, not the other way around. Some groups who do not use the western label "ethnic" (i.e. those not in contact with western society) however still use a synonym for it or "tribe". Few also actually contest that non-state people have clear social boundaries, especially since there have long been linguistic and cultural groupings which used terms that pre-date the modern use of "ethnic", such as "tribe", "race", "kin", or "clan". The word ethnic itself derives from "ethnos", literally meaning "people" in ancient Greek. Epf ( talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, that was not my wording and you misrepresent what was actually said. "Kinship is one of the most basic principles for organizing individuals into social groups, roles, and categories" - this is what is mentioned in this article. Kinship, but specifically descent, are clearly major factors in ethnic and tribal identification. My whole point of adding ethnicity as a link in this article was to show this point since the information in that article alludes to this just as it does in tribe. Epf ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
No, its not simply POV since this is about including a related article based on the information and sources in that article (ethnicity). Epf ( talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Also, when Cohen talks about the salience for kinship for hunting and camping groups, Epf makes a huge mistake to think that this is an example of ethnicity depending on decent. "Kinship" refers to many things and in this case Cohen is refering to kinship terminologies, referential systems that are typically unaccompanied by geneaologies (Joanna Overing even argued that in most such societies - she posits all societies in Amazonia; Robert Murhy independently reached the same conclusion - "sociological time" (the remembered experience an individual has of relations with other individuals) dominates against geneological time (an individual remember who his or her grandparents or great grandparents are) Slrubenstein | Talk 12:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
In the meantime, he made two basic assertions above and I have asked for sources. I am still waiting. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
I didn't ask for a detailed response. I, and Ramdrake, asked for sources for your claims. A few days ago. This is very reasonable. I am sure if you have time to edit Wikipedia you must also have time to provide sources for your edits. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Huh? My two requests for sources were regaqrding statements you made specifically about ethnic groups or ethnicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I am glad you now acknowledge that the statements you made for which I requested sources involved ethnicity - no need to apologize. But I am still waiting for those citations. As for descent, when kinship theorists talk about descent they generaly are refering to lineages or clans, i.e. social groups to which are atached specific jural rights and obligations. When theorists of ethnicity invoke descent, they are not refering to these institutions but rather to, in the Weberian tradition, what Shils called primordial ties. They are not the same thing. One word can mean different things in different contexts and in this case descent in the context of kinship studies and descent in the context of ethnicity studies means very different things; let's not mix them up. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we finally are beginning to understanding one another. I will provide sources for those claims but I don't see how they are related to the issue here, about including ethnicity as a link to this article. Clearly, there are numerous ethnic groups out there which use kinship systems, through genealogy/descent or marriage ? Ethnicity therefore incorporates such groups and must also incorproate aspects of kinship to its groupings ? The common descent in ethnic groups and that of Kinship, as I see your point, differ in respects but I know there are some anthropologists who acknoledge or at leatst believe that the notion of common descent retained in ethnicty traces to that found in kinship, do you not agree ? Epf ( talk) 23:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, new to Wiki editing/discussion, hope I've done this right! It is important to discuss Malinowski's view's in the following paragraph but we should not assume they are correct:
"Ideas about kinship do not necessarily assume any biological relationship between individuals, rather just close associations. Malinowski, in his ethnographic study of sexual behaviour on the Trobriand Islands noted that the Trobrianders did not believe pregnancy to be the result of sexual intercourse between the man and the woman, and they denied that there was any physiological relationship between father and child.[7] Nevertheless, while paternity was unknown in the "full biological sense", for a woman to have a child without having a husband was considered socially undesirable. Fatherhood was therefore recognised as a social role; the woman's husband is the "man whose role and duty it is to take the child in his arms and to help her in nursing and bringing it up";[8] "Thus, though the natives are ignorant of any physiological need for a male in the constitution of the family, they regard him as indispensable socially".[9]"
My point is that similar assertions were made about Australian Aborigine's beliefs (and taught in my school in the 1980s)which were mistaken. An understanding of the connection between sex & reproduction (and therefore of patrimony)existed but there was a second belief that spiritual life of an unborn baby began with the quickening and this moment was associated with the childs spiritual "totems." Anthropologists mistook the beliefs associated with the quickening to mean that the aborigines believed that was when a woman became pregnant. Does anyone have further info on Troubianders beliefs past & present? Rightfeckineejit ( talk) 10:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
After all uncited material was deleted - leaving only a stub - I did a major overhaul of Incest taboo. Hoping that it rises to our standards for good anthropology related articles, would people who watch this page mind looking it over, making any obvious improvements or commenting on the talk page? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
The disambiguation page at Scion lists this article as the number one direct link for the term. And I think the disam page is correct the way it is now. Yet this article does not use the word. I'd prefer at least one sentence be added to the article that uses the word, preferably in a context that helps "disambiguates the reader" (that would be me, in this case). Thanks. — Aladdin Sane ( talk) 19:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
While "legal issues" are mentioned, I see no mention of the legal principle (occasioned in places in the U.S.) where a non-biological parent can be made financially liable for a child fathered by someone else... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 13:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has extensive material and quotations from a thesis by Maximilian Piers Holland which may or may not have been added by the author himself. Unless the claims are peer-reviewed I see no reason to include them. If they are, the peer-reviewed sources should be given instead. Miradre ( talk) 22:25, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Your explanations for your changes do not hold water. Regarding layout - why move coverage of debates and theories that are at the center of the discussion about how biological processes / social relationships may or may not interact out of the biology section? The sociobiological perspective is seen as part of the same intellectual/cultural tradition from within anthropology (have you actually read Schneider 1984?) and should thus be in that section. Evolution has a more nuanced meaning with anthropology - why do you not stick with the 'sociobiology' or 'reductionist' nomenclature? Why have you moved well established aspects of the debate (such that sociobioloical and anthropological perspectives have disagreed with each other from the 1970s onwards) into a section called Holland's thesis? What justifies that? This debate is very well understood to exist, by all involved and all informed observers. You seem to want to put all well established points lumped under this section, just so you can classify it as "holland argues", and thus suggest it is not the commonly understood view. Then you conveniently put a tag on the whole section - all the points, summaries and evidences - both widely established and more novel, as undue weight? Nice circular reasoning in your editorial posture there. Most of these points have been argued for decades by many anthropologists, not just by Holland. If an editor knew something about the study of kinship, s/he would surely be aware of that. If not.... what would they be doing editing this article..? Oh yeah, I remember.
Anyway, I'll rest my justifications for removing most of your changes there for now - We'll see how all this pans out. I'd be glad if others who have been curating this article could join in the discussion. Discotechwreck ( talk) 03:34, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
Sentence Structure It may be unclear which word is modified by "more." For clarity, consider rewording your sentence.
Sentence Structure It may be unclear which word is modified by "more." For clarity, consider rewording your sentence. • Instead of: The boardroom needs more comfortable furniture. • Consider: The boardroom needs more furniture that is comfortable. • Or consider: The boardroom needs furniture that is more comfortable. • Instead of: Businesses are looking for more capable employees. • Consider: Businesses are looking for employees that are more capable. • Or consider: Businesses are looking for more employees that are capable.
If these words are not essential to the meaning of your sentence, use "which" and separate the words with a comma.
Comma Use You have the option of using a comma and "and" before the last item in a list or leaving the comma out. Whatever your choice, be consistent throughout your text.
Capitalization
Some words are always capitalized. Other words are capitalized when they are part of a title, a name, or a place. A minor word such as "the" is capitalized only when the word begins a sentence or officially begins a name.
• Instead of: The pet store closes on Valentine's day.
• Consider: The pet store closes on Valentine's Day.
• Instead of: Mary has a map of the Hague.
• Consider: Mary has a map of The Hague
"That" or "Which"
If these words are not essential to the meaning of your sentence, use "which" and separate the words with a comma.
Instead of: I have a great book which you can borrow for your vacation. Consider: I have a great book, which you can borrow for your vacation. Or consider: I have a great book that you can borrow for your vacation. Instead of: We want to buy the photo which Harry took. Consider: We want to buy the photo, which Harry took. Or consider: We want to buy the photo that Harry took.
Order of Words Consider whether one of the two marked words is necessary to the meaning of your sentence or whether these words are in the correct order. • Instead of: The of road of life has many detours. • Consider: The road of life has many detours. • Instead of: The we chefs have not yet made the eclairs. • Consider: The chefs have not yet made the eclairs. • Or consider: We chefs have not yet made the eclairs
Reflexive Pronoun Use Use pronouns ending in "self" in conjunction with a noun, as in "Andrew himself" or when the pronoun refers back to the subject, as in "I hit myself." Use "own" in conjunction with a pronoun only when referring back to the subject. • Instead of: They heard herself on the radio. • Consider: They heard her on the radio. • Instead of: John watched her own meal get cold. • Consider: John watched her meal get cold.
Please edit the text 77.28.211.57 ( talk) 20:56, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
The article's main content jumps straight into Morgan and kinship terminology. Whilst this is an historically accurate account, it must seems strange for today's students who are (hopefully) aware that social group living is not just a human trait. I have therefore contextualized Morgan's research goals in their contemporary world-view, explaining that social group life was at the time largely believed to be an exclusively human trait. This caveat helps to make the subsequent content about how kinship studies developed more understandable, including the major revisionary influence of Schneider in the 1970s/80s. DMSchneider ( talk) 00:23, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
should perhaps the page Kinship terminology be mergerd here. It seems to be context-wise quite similar to this page 88.114.154.216 ( talk) 18:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
There have been for a long time two out-of-context sections in the middle of the article, as if someone was experimenting with a different article layout without following through properly and never cleared away their mess. Their inclusion was never recorded here on the talk page, nor argued for.
- 'Degrees' which is a table format with values of genetic overlap with no other text or introduction or explanation given of what it means, its relevance or its fit in the broader article. I suggest to remove this or put it at the end of the article as an appendix.
- 'extensions of the kinship metaphor' - which is just a heading with two subheadings with no content given or explanation given to readers of what this means.
Since these currently break up the flow of the article and unnecessarily divide the first section 'concepts' and the later section 'history' I am going to move these to the end of the article and put them on probation unless their inclusion and their place within the flow of the article can be argued for either here or the talk page or within their own (future?) content. 109.69.8.99 ( talk) 12:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Given Schneider's very significant influence on kinship studies in the past 30+ years (since 1984 especially), I have created a new section in the history part of the article outlining his contributions (with quotes) and anthropologists' reactions. I hope other editors with knowledge of the subject will agree with me that Schneider has been a huge influence, and that it would be a disservice to wiki readers (wishing to understand the subject as it exists today) to not give a decent account of this influence. I intend to add more detail to the section 'kinship post-Schneider' in the coming days (and encourage other editors to add to these parts of the article). 109.69.8.99 ( talk) 01:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kinship. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
Just an observation regarding the text membership in corporately organized dwellings rather than around descent groups or lineages, as in the "House of Windsor". In British usage the House of Windsor refers exclusively to the blood-line and marriage ties of the descendants of Edward 7th, it has nothing to do with any dwelling. The text appears to mean the opposite. Perhaps it's just a misplaced comma. JohnHarris ( talk) 18:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)