UNIT IV: KINSHIP, FAMILY AND MARRIAGE

Module 1: Kinship: Types of Kinship, Affinal and Consanguinal

Objectives:

The objectives of the present topic are to:

• understand the anthropological concept of kinship in the study of social structure ;

• have a good knowledge on different types of kinship;and

• know the importance of kinship.

Summary

Kinship is one of the important aspects of social structure and one of the basic principles
for organizing individuals into social groups, categories and genealogy. Broadly, there are
two types of kin - i) Affinal kins ii) Consanguineal kins. Those related to each other through
marital relationship are called affinal kins or affines. The affinal kins are not related through
the bond of blood. And, the kind of bond between spouses and their relatives on either side
which arises out of legally defined marital relationship is known as affinal kinship. Whereas
those who are related to each other by ‘blood’ are known as consanguineal kin or cognates
and the relationship based on blood-ties is called consanguineous (same blood) kinship. But,
the concept of kinship must take account of and be defined by social and not only
genealogical relationship.
In simple societies, relationships to ancestors and kin are the bases of group formation.
These are the relationship around which social interactions, claims and obligations, loyalties
and sentiments turn. Social structures in these societies are structures of relationships of such
kin-based groups. In addition, even modern western societies which are relatively kinless
society can not throw off this slowly accumulated, almost innate wisdom of the blood.

Introduction

Kinship is one of the important aspects of social structure and one of the basic principles for
organizing individuals into social groups, categories and genealogy. In anthropology, kinship
system includes people related through the bond of marriage and birth. Marriage establishes
social recognition of copulation which is the basic need of life. The socially sanctioned union
of mates reproduces offspring. It provides the basis for the social status of ‘husband’ and
‘father’. Hence, kinship is the social recognition of the biological ties of marriage and birth
and all those who are related to each other through these bonds are known as ‘kins’ as
distinguished from ‘non-kins’ who may be related to each other through other ways.

Types of kinship

Regarding the types of kins, it can be thought that the body of kin who are recognized by one
man will be different from those recognized by any other, except his own brother and sister.
The kindred are the individual’s world of kins and can not form a continuing element in the
structure of society. It is simply the total of kins who are genealogically linked and have
common obligations for being linked. In some societies it is the duty of a man’s kindred to
avenge his murder.

This used to be the rule among the Anglo-Saxons, and Philippines (Lucy Mair 1965).

Broadly, there are two types of kin - i) Affinal kins ii) Consanguineal kins.

• Affinal kins: Those related to each other through marital relationship are called affinal kins
or affines. The affinal kins are not related through the bond of blood. And, the kind of bond
between spouses and their relatives on either side which arises out of legally defined marital
relationship is known as affinal kinship.

• Consanguineal kins: Those who are related to each other by ‘blood’ are known as
consanguineal kin or cognates and the relationship based on blood-ties is called
consanguineous (same blood) kinship. There are three types of consanguineal kins. These are
given below.

• Lineal kins who are the direct descendants of common progenitors in a vertical line, for
instance, grand father-father-son-grand son.

• Siblings who are the brothers and sisters i.e., the children of the same parent.

• Collateral kins who are not related in the single line and are related indirectly through a
linking relative, such as father’s brother or brother’s daughter.

In connection to consanguineous kinship, not only biological fact (actual blood relationship)
but also social recognition (adoption or convention as in polyandry) are important. Among
many primitive societies the role of a father is unknown, as among the Trobriand Islanders of
Melanesia. Among them it is the wife’s husband who is conventionally accepted as father.
Among the Toda, a polyandrous people in which all the brothers share a common wife,
fatherhood of a child is established through a ceremonial presentation of a bow and arrow to
the wife. Until and unless another brother performs this ceremony, he is the father of all the
children born to the wife, even if he is away for a long time or dead (Majumdar & Madan
1987:99).
Social kinship

The definition of kinship can not rest exclusively on the notion of genealogical connection.
The concept of kinship must take account of and be defined by social and not only
genealogical relationship. In many societies, the identity of genitor is not posited and seems
quite unnecessary. These are societies that posit genealogical connections but ascribe little or
no social significance to them. The issue is the necessity and sociological utility of
Malinowski’s ‘principle of legitimacy’ and of his and Radcliffe-Brown’s concept of ‘social
kinship’ that describes social relations ascribed on the basis of genealogical connection
(Scheffler 1997:751). It means that the role of pater or ‘social father’ is more important than
that of the genitor. Radcliffe-Brown (1950:4) mentions that ‘social fatherhood is
usually determined by marriage’ and so, a man who is not married to the genetrix of his
offspring has no right in respect of them as their genitor, and if the genetrix is married to
another man, that man is entitled to claim the offspring as his own for any and all social
purposes. Here, it is mentionable that a husband can acquire two main rights over his wife –
rights in uxorem and rights in genetricem. Rights in uxorem are rights over a woman
considered as exclusive sexual and domestic partner; rights in genetricem are rights over
a woman’s reproductive capacity as a mother regardless of their presumed paternity. Among
the Nuer of Africa, a remarkable kind of consanguineal relationship is established through
which a child belongs to the lineage of the man who holds the rights in genetricem over its
genetrix, whether or not he is presumed to be the genitor, and in many cases he is not. In
many cases, proxy fathers are created through ‘ghost marriage’ as the Nuers believe that
every man has a right to marry and found his own line of descent. But sometimes, a young
man dies before his marriage or a man has no son, then it is the duty of the nearest kinsman to
marry a wife to his name. The children of this marriage will count as dead man’s children and
a kinsman will have to make a ghost marriage. A ghost family consists of the ghost (the
pater), his wife, their children and the kinsman-genitor.

Among the Meitei of India, there is a kinship system having a peculiar kind of agnatic pools
known as sairuk tinnaba. The Meitei has seven exogamous, patrilineal clans which are again
divided into lineages and sub-lineages. Sairuk tinnaba groups are not included in this division
of descent groups. It points to the common reference of different descent groups (because of
rights in genetricem) to an ancestor (because of the same genitor).

For instance, Pakhangba, the Meitei king who belonged to Ningthouja clan, while taking
asylum in Moirang, became the conjugal father of two sons, namely, Mungyang Chaoba and
Tangkrup Lumyiba whose mother was Yunam and pater was Mungyangchao who belonged
to Moirang (ariba) clan. The descendants of Muyang Chaoba became the lineage
Mungyangjam whereas the descendants of Tangkrup Lumyiba became the lineage Loirenjam.
Both the lineages belong to the Khwang group under Moirang (ariba) clan and not under
Ningthouja clan. But, the members of Khwang group and Ningthouja clan are prohibited to
intermarry thereby lingering the incestuous relationship between the two descent groups
because of their common apical genitor. This norm of kinship relationship is expressed as
sairuk tinnaba.

Kinship and descent

In order to know the genealogical connection among the members of a society, it is necessary
to distinguish the concept of descent from that of kinship. In kinship system, egocentric
systems of social identities and statuses are described whereas in descent system, it is
ancestor-oriented. Here again, Fortes distinguishes between descent and filiation, the former
being the relation between a person with his ancestors among whom the nearest one is a
grand parent whereas the latter being the relation of a person with his own parents. Whatever
it may be only blood tie is counted in descent system. Then, who are the persons to be
connected through blood tie. If descent is traced only in one line, the principle is called
unilineal descent. Where descent is traced through males exclusively it is called patrilineal or
agnatic and if it is traced exclusively through females it is called matrilineal or uterine. In
patilineal descent, a child belongs to the lineage (a corporate group recruited by descent) of
his father. Because of his relationship through his father, a man has a claim on the
productive resources of the lineage not only for his own subsistence, but also for special
needs, such as, the payment for his marriage or payment of compensation for a wrong done
by him to a member of another lineage, etc. His rank as a king or noble or commoner is
ascribed by his lineage membership. He also has certain obligations by virtue of his
membership in the particular descent group. In matrilineal descent, every person belongs to
the lineage of his mother. The Ashanti of Ghana, the Khasi, the Garo of India, etc., have the
matrilineal system of consanguinity.

Even though a person traces his descent, he has mutual rights and obligation with the kin of
the other. There is the importance of matrilateral kin in patrilineal society and of patrilateral
kin in a matrilineal society. ‘Lateral’ means ‘on the side’; ‘lineal’ means ‘in a line’. This
egocentric category of kin beyond the descent category of kin is known as complementary
filiation.

If the descent is traced in the male line for some purposes and the female line for others, it is
called double unilineal descent. Among the Yako of the Cross River in the east of Nigeria
where this kind of descent is prevalent, a man inherits land-property through patrilineage and
he also inherits livestock and currency, tools, weapons and household goods in the female
line. Another form of descent is bilateral or ambilateral descent that allows a person to choose
his descent either in the father line or in the mother line, but not in both lines. The Iban of
Borneo, the Maori of New Zealand trace descent through the bilateral system.

From the above discussion it is known that the totality of any individual’s kin is bilateral but
the relation of kinship is different from the relations of common descent.
Importance of kinship in Anthropology

In simple societies, relationships to ancestors and kin are the bases of group formation. These
are the relationship around which social interactions, claims and obligations, loyalties and
sentiments turn. Social structures in these societies are structures of relationships of such kin-
based groups. In such societies, statuses are ascribed and a man’s place in society, his rights
and duties, and his claim to property largely depend on the genealogical relationships to other
members. Thus, loyalties to kin supersede all other loyalties. Kinship is the hub of the entire
social organization.

Psychologically, kinship refers to the feelings of oneness among certain individuals simply
because they are of the same blood. By kinship relations are meant relationships to an
ancestor or ancestress or as many ancestors and ancestresses as so claimed in certain cases or
still to both an ancestor or ancestress, and relationships among their descendants. And these
relations are derived from the feelings of oneness of the members of the kin groups, based on
the theory of the same blood.

It is perhaps basic in human nature to trust the familiar and fear the strange. If it is so, then
those who share one’s blood share part of oneself, and so are by definition the most familiar
of all. Thus the sense of security lies at the fountain-head of kinship, to interpret it in its
psychological terms. As such, kinship bonds are the most fundamental and original of all
bonds.

The kinship principle of social organization was not completely abandoned when human
development reached the stage of civil society with the formation of state. In most cases the
territorial principle of state organization functioned rather as the content of the new formation
while its form still lingered on assuming kinship character in that process of state formation.
Kinship does not die out in history. It survives in the present era too. In the modern
developing countries bureaucratic rationality often loses out to kinship loyalties: it is all too
apparent in such countries that recruitments to pubic services are often based not on the
criterion of ability to do the job, but on the closeness of relationship. From Clifford Geertz,
we know that kinship works as one of the primordial sentiments in raising obstacles to the
bounden concern of the new states in the modern developing countries to install integration in
such states which are composed of diverse ethnic elements. He (1963: 109) reports, “...the
new states are abnormally susceptible to serious disaffection based on primordial
attachments. By a primordial attachment is meant one that stems from the ‘givens’- or, more
precisely, as culture is inevitably involved in such matters, the assumed ‘givens’- social
existence: immediate contiguity and kin connection mainly... ”

Even in the modern western enlightened and rational societies kinship ideology looms large
and pervades most corners of political and public life perhaps except in the case of the less
conservative and more mobile middle-classes among whom kinship is seemingly of little
relevance beyond the level of parent-child relationship. And, in noble families the length of
genealogy has been a measure of relative prestige. Robin Fox (1964:15-16) concludes the
point while saying, “Thus, even our relatively kinless society can not throw off this slowly
accumulated, almost innate wisdom of the blood”.

Kinship is tenacious. To the materialist grand theorists of society it holds on at the very core
of society. Historical materialists hold it to be a part of the determining factor of history.
Thus, in his preface to the first edition (1884) of his The Origin of the Family, Private
Property and the State, Frederick Engels (1977: 191-192) says, “According to the materialist
conception, the determining factor in history is, in the last resort, the production and
reproduction of immediate life. But this itself is of a two fold character. On the one hand, the
production of the means of subsistence, food, cloth and shelter and the tools requisite
therefore; on the other, the production of human beings themselves, the propagation of the
species. The social institutions under which men of a definite historical epoch and of a
definite country live are conditioned by both kinds of production: by the stage of
development of labour, on the one hand, and of the family, on the other. The less the
development of labour, and the more limited its volume of production and, therefore, the
wealth of society, the more preponderatingly does the social order appear to be dominated by
ties of sex...”

This materialist theory clearly places both economy and kinship in the base-structure of a
society as the two-fold character of the determining factor in history. Marxist anthropologist
like Maurice Godelier (1978) also evaluates the basal importance of kinship along with
economy in the deterministic factor. To him kinship is the conditioning factor within the
base-structure of society.

These grand theories of society suffice to testify the supreme importance of kinship in human
social affairs. Certainly, it is so. Accordingly it has been popularly held that kinship is to
anthropology what logic is to philosophy or the nude to formal logic. Kinship is so the basic
discipline of anthropology. What is more, after exploring the universal basic dyadic structure,
true of all human societies, on the analysis of the Purum kinship and marriage system, the
Oxford anthropologist Rodney Nedham (1971) commends that the Purums are what the
whole of social anthropology is all about. Here, Needham’s “the Purum” should be construed
as referring to Purum kinship and marriage system. This remarkable comment of Needham
implies that kinship is the epitome of the entire social organization. It is definitely a logically
elegant understanding of the thing under discussion. Methodologically, one may observe a
more critical and deeper concept of social structure in Levi-Strauss’ structural thought as
compared to Needham’s formalist and non-dialectical conception of social structure in terms
of a naïve non- dialectic dualism. Odd to the current trend of assessing the amazingly
dominating status of kinship in anthropology, Levi-Strauss has, however, relegated it to a
realm of social reality by which alone one can’t discover the inner structure of the human
mind which he hopes to unravel in the study of mythologies. Levi-Strauss departs at this
point from empirical anthropology. The point is that within the limit of empirical
anthropology the theoretical significance of kinship study stands large unswearving still in
this discipline.
Admittedly, there are differences among human societies of different times and different
places in respect of the intensity with which kinship ties are utilized to induce social bonds;
no society so far has managed to dispense with an irreducible minimum of kinship-based
social relationship. However, from the point of view of the comparative nature of the science
of empirical anthropology even the society with the least intensity of kinship bonds is not less
important than one obsessed with kinship.

Conclusion

Kin relationship may be derived either from descent or be established through affinity. In
other word, kins are of consanguineal and affinal types. In the simple societies, the most
important statuses are defined in terms of kinship through which a person’s place in society,
his rights and duties, and his claim to property largely depend on the genealogical
relationships to other members. Thus, loyalties to kin supersede all other loyalties. Kinship is
the hub of the entire social organization. Consequently, the anthropologists, who take more
interest in simple societies, have directed a great deal of attention to the structure and
meaning attached to kinship.

Anthropology is interested in the comparative study of societies and culture through time and
space.

TRANSCRIPT

1. Introduction:

Man and its evolutionary history have given us a chance to understand the concept of society
and culture. Mankind has experienced various stages of development which is well explained
in the developmental history in the form of various stages along with the development of
technologies. In this process of adaptation and evolution, man creates his society and culture
through various network relationship and process linking it with different stages of
development socially and culturally (technology) paving a way for the continuity of mankind.

Let us try to understand the conceptualisation of the term society and culture.

The concept/notion of culture provides a long term network of relationships between

individuals of a society. And when we use the term society it always consists of various
socio-cultural systems, roles, and regulations, institutions that remain the backbone of man’s
existence. Man developed unity and solidarity through the process of learning and teaching.
in other words, the knowledge which are transferred from one generation to other by the
process of socialisation and social organisation pave the way for attaining such solidarity and
unity among the members of the society or societies. To understand details of it, there is a
need to understand man and its society which can be understood through the analysis of
culture and its relationship among the individual members of the society.
2. Concept of Society:

Many scholars have given the definitions of society in different ways. Some of them are:

MacIver and Page, (1950) defined “society as a web of relations, a complex system of usages
and procedures, of authority and mutual aid of many groupings and divisions, of control of
human behavior and of liberties”.

According to Durkheim, the sociologist defined “it as the combination of social facts and
values, a sense of collective consciousness for social integration”.

The definition of society provides the importance of the role relationships among the
members of society which in turn provides the intricate relationships expressed in different
ways based on the position as well as capabilities of the individual members.

However, understanding such relationship is not a simple way, instead it is considered as

rather difficult, and complicated in terms of its function as well as applicability. The assigned
role relationships and responsibilities are meaningful when it meets the required expectation
from each members of the society. These relationships are always considered and accepted in
a very systematic way and we as an individual cannot stand or exist unless we become part of
this larger group or what we called members of the society.

Now, what are the main components of society? Is it only the individual members present in
it or anything other than this? There are patterns and behaviours to be followed in a society.
These remain the part and parcel of what we called the learned behaviour or culture which
keeps on transferring from one generation to another.

Before we take up the term culture into detail discussion let us try to define the term society
in a general way:

The term society can be compared with an individual where, he has different organs and
organ systems which become functional only when each and every organs of the body
coordinates in a well-mannered system. This functionality continues until the death of the
individual. Likewise, a society constitutes of group of individuals who correspond to different
roles and responsibilities taking different positions and duties. Unlike an individual body,
society remains functional and continues for generations by the random roles and behaviours
of the people through the systematic process of procreation and orientation. The coordination
of different individuals as per the norms established by the members of society, different
societies have different rules and regulations depending upon the nature of social structure.

3.Social structure:

Social structures are the social facts and components or the principles in which a society is
organised. A.R.Radcliffe-Brown, the social anthropologist (1881-1955), defines the
components of social structure as human beings, which are institutionally regulated by
organising individuals in different roles and relationships. Therefore, understanding social
structure means one has to follow the prescribed social relations and norms as per the
established rules found in various institutions of the society.

Is society dynamic?

Every society has its own structure which keeps on continuing from one generation to another
generation and thus, the nature of society varies accordingly. Besides the varied nature of
structure among the societies, it is also found within the society. The dynamic nature of
society can be explained by our own social system such as family, marriage, caste system etc.
The basic unit of Indian social system is family and the structure of family varies from one
community to another, from one generation to generation. As for example, there used to be a
rigid form of Joint family structure especially in the Hindu society which is now changing to
such an extent that almost all of us belong to nuclear or extended forms of family. These are
nothing but the product of individuals and its role relationships. Likewise, the forms of
marriage or caste system found in any society is changing from time to time and this has
resulted into a changed nature of society. Thus, society is not static but dynamic in nature and
function.

4.Forms of society:

There are various forms of society found in the social structure of an area based on the level
of technology used. Mention may be made of the -

• Hunter-gatherers

• Pastoralist

• Horticulturalist

• Agriculturalist and

• Industrialist

5. Concept of culture:

We have discussed the structure and forms of society in relation with definitions provided by
different anthropologists and sociologists. However, understanding a society and its structure
is not possible unless we are clear about the concept of culture which remains as the
constituents of social structure. Some of the selected definitions given by different scholars
are:
• E.B. Tylor, the father of anthropology defined culture as “that complex whole which
includes knowledge, belief, art, law, morals, customs and any other capabilities acquired by
man as a member of society”

• According to Herskovits, “culture is the man-made part of the environment”

• Keesing, another renowned cultural anthropologist (1958) explained it as “totality of

learned socially transmitted behavior”

The above mentioned definitions have included various facets of understanding the term
“culture”. Tylor’s definition of culture includes the manifestation of our shared beliefs,
morals, values, and ideas into several norms and patterns passing through generations. His
complex whole includes the very intricate units of man and his works, thought processes and
behaviours that include both tangible and intangible characteristics of culture. These are the
product of the abilities and proficiencies of man who remain as a member of society, one who
lives in groups or organisations to continue the process of adaptation and existence. So, the
most important point to remember is the learned behaviour of human beings.

6. Components of culture:

Every society has its own culture based on the nature of structure, geographical environment,
and population relating it to certain norms and rules. These norms and rules allow
performing roles and responsibilities in the society and relating it with other societies. In
order to have a successful understanding and functionality of a society we need to know the
components or structure of culture.

The aspect of culture can be differentiated into real or ideal/ material or non-material / of
which the smallest units of it is called culture trait.

According to Kroeber, It’s been considered as minimally definable element of culture.

Let us take an example of a classroom where you have table, chair, benches, desks,
blackboard, chalks, duster, and students. Each of these is considered as culture trait as each of
them gives a minimally definable or functional element in the classroom composition.
However, in case one of the legs of the table is broken and becomes non-functional then, the
table can’t be considered as a trait since it failed to act as a single minimally definable
functional unit. Thus, table in the classroom becomes a culture trait only when it acts as a
functional unit which is real and observable.

Now, if we combine two or more culture traits and represent it into a functional network of
relationships then, it is called culture complex. In the example, the classroom itself is the
representation of culture complex where, more than one cultural trait combines and become
functional for the deliberation of lectures or classroom teachings. Such web of relations
establishes coordination in various institutions of the society.

These cultural components are expressed in the form of cultural patterns and behaviours in
different culture areas.

7. Is culture dynamic?

When we understood the dynamicity of society, it is imperative to arrive into the conclusion
that culture is not static but dynamic in nature. All society performs its role in accordance
with the cultural norms, values, and practices involved. The roles and responsibilities of
different institutions in a society are governed in relation with values, beliefs, worldviews,
ideas, folkways, and mores and noticed lots of diversity in different cultural traits and
complexes. For e.g., the dressing patterns of western societies are accepted and absorbed
within the Indian society directly or indirectly. In this process, there may be certain
modifications from the original cultural trait /complex or no modifications at all. Same is
with the case of socialisation in the Indian society or a community where, role and
relationships among the members are changing.

8. Conclusion:

To conclude, the above mentioned points show that understanding mankind and its
developmental procedures provide an intimate relationship of network of social relations and
systems which are bound in the social structure of a society. Each society has its own social
systems which are expressed and functional based on the cultural norms, values, and
practices. The conceptual understanding of society and culture provides the involved
relationship of these two terms and can be considered as both sides of a coin.

Glossary:

1.Affines: The kins related to each other through marital relationship are called affinal kins
or affines.

2.Cognates: The kins related to each other by ‘blood’ are known as consanguineal kin or
cognates.

3.Complementary filiation: The egocentric category of kin beyond the descent category of
kin, for instance, matrilateral kins in a patrilineal society or patrilateral kin in a matrilineal
society.

4.Descent: An anthropological concept which has the rules to connect individuals with
particular sets of kin because of known or presumed common ancestry.

5.Genitor: The biological father.

6.Ghost marriage: It is an institution observed by Evans-Pritchard among the Nuers. It

allows an agnatic kin of a deceased man to marry a woman in the name of the deceased to
continue his (deceased’s) descent line.

7.Pater: Socially recognized father, even though he is not the biological father.

8.Polyandry: The form of marriage in which a woman marry more than one husband.

9.Sairuk tinnaba: A peculiar kind of agnatic pools prevailing among the Meiteis of India. It
points to the common reference of different descent groups (because of rights in genetricem)
to an ancestor (because of the same genitor).

10. Social kinship: A concept developed by Malinowsk’ and Radcliffe-Brown that describes
social relations ascribed on the basis of genealogical connection.

FAQs

Q1. Why is social recognition more important than biological fact in the network of
consanguineous kinship?

Ans: At certain conditions in consanguineous kinship, social recognition (adoption or

convention as in polyandry) is more important than biological fact (actual blood relationship).
Among many primitive societies the role of a father is unknown, as among the Trobriand
Islanders of Melanesia. Among them it is the wife’s husband who is conventionally accepted
as father. Among the Toda, a polyandrous people in which all the brothers share a common
wife, fatherhood of a child is established through a ceremonial presentation of a bow and
arrow to the wife. Until and unless another brother performs this ceremony, he is the father of
all the children born to the wife, even if he is away for a long time or dead

Q2. How do you differentiate affinal kin from consanguineal kin?

Ans: Affinal kins are those related to each other through marital relationship. The affinal kins
are not related through the bond of blood. And, the kind of bond between spouses and their
relatives on either side which arises out of legally defined marital relationship is known as
affinal kinship. On the hand, consanguineal kins are those who are related to each other by
‘blood’ tie.

Q3. Write briefly about the complementary filiation.

Ans: Even though a person traces his descent through a parent, he has mutual rights and
obligation with the kin through the parent from whom he/she does not trace descent. There is
the importance of matrilateral kin in patrilineal society and of patrilateral kin in a matrilineal
society. ‘Lateral’ means ‘on the side’; ‘lineal’ means ‘in a line’. This egocentric category of
kin beyond the descent category of kin is known as complementary filiation.
Q4. What are the two major rights of a man over his wife?

Ans: A husband can acquire two main rights over his wife – i) right in uxorem and ii) right in
genetricem. The right in uxorem is the right over a woman considered as exclusive sexual and
domestic partner whereas the right in genetricem is the right over a woman’s reproductive
capacity as a mother regardless of their presumed paternity.