Conceptions of Kinship
Conceptions of Kinship Bernard Farber
Elsevier
Ne\'/ York
• •
Ne\\' York Oxford
Exclusive...
81 downloads
1678 Views
35MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Conceptions of Kinship
Conceptions of Kinship Bernard Farber
Elsevier
Ne\'/ York
• •
Ne\\' York Oxford
Exclusive Distribution throughout the World by Greenwood Press,
Ct.
U.S.A.
Westport,
Elsevier North Holland, Inc.
52 Vanderbilt Avenue, f';ew York, New York 10017 Distributors ootside the United
FJsevier/ North- Holland
States
and Canada:
335 Jan van Galenstraat, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam, The
© 1 981
Netherlands
by Elsevier North Holland, Inc.
Library of Congress Catal oging in Publication Data
Farber, Bernard.
Conceptions of kinship.
Includes index.
I. Kinship. 2. K.inship-(.;nited States. I. Title.
GN487.F37
306.8'3
80-16712
ISBN 0444-99076-3
Desk Editor
Robert Glasgow
Design Edmee Froment Art Edilors Glen Bunis & Aimee Kudlak J'Jtclw11icalslOpening pages Jose Garcia Prod,crion MaMger Joanne Jay Compositor Crestwood Press Printer Haddon Craftsmen
�-.tanufactured in the l1nited SIDles of America
Contents
XI
Preface
1
Introduction: Popular and Legal Conceptions
of Kinship
Legal Models of Kinship Kinship and Social Structure Popular Counterparts of Legal Models 2 Historical Backgrounds of Kinship Models
Parentela Orders Model: Judaic and Athenian Backgrounds Rome and the Civil Law Model Canon Law Model: Church and State Historical Contexts Compared
3 Kinship Classification and Social Context
Metaphors of Social S pace Kinship Models as Metaphors of Social Structure
Maps: A
Serendipitous Finding
Formal and Popular Concepts of Kinship
An American The
12
19
20 21
27
29
32 33
Summary
4 Cognitive Kinship
2
Strategy
Standard American Model and the Distribution
of Kinship Maps Compon ential Analysis and Standard American Kinship Standard American Kinship: A Summary
34 34
40
45
45
48
56
58
66
VI
5
iatio n s in Kinship Superficial?
V ar
or
Distances: Fundamental 68
Religious Identity and Kinship Orientation
71
Family Income and Minority-Group Status
77
Occupational Status and Kinship Orientation
83
Assimilation and the Standard American Pattern
89
Summary: Variations in Collaterality
6 Family
of Orientation
95
103
Ideological Aspects of Factionalism and Communalism
103
Kinship Orientation and Divorce
106
Kinship Orientation and Religious Endogamy
109 1 12
Kinship Orientation and Age at Marriage The Maternal Role and Fertility
115
Summary: Kinship Ideology and Family of Orientation
7 Family of Procreation
119
121
Models of Family Organization
121
Kinship Orientation and Religious Homogeneity
125
Idealization , Disillusionment, and Marital Instability
129
Kinship Orientation and Family Roles
Kinship Orientation and Fertility
Summary: Kinship Orientation and Family Organization
8 Relatives and Strangers
135
146
154
156
157
Kinship and Social Exchange Location of Residence
162
I nterest in Kinship Ties
166
173
Actual and Desired Contact
186
Summary: Ties with Kin
9 Perspectives
on Kinship: Concluding
Remarks
Summary Statement
187
1 87
The Kinship Grid
187
Kinship Models and Soci al Settings
192
Kinship Model s and Other Perspectives
196
Standard American Versus Middle-Cl ass Kinship
197
Permanent Availabi lity and Kinship Orie ntation
202
Kinship Orientation and Communal Structures
205
Components in Measures of Collaterality
207
Vll
A Brief Epilogue: Models of Collaterality
and Secular
Immortality
Appendix
A.
Multiple Regression
Analysis
Th e Multivariate Procedure
B. Method of
Data
Collection
Morris Axelrod and Ed-.,vard A. Greenberg Phoenix Probability Sample
Supplementary Sample Field Procedures
Jewish
References
Index
214 214
216
Findings
Appendix
211
222 223 229 230
231
245
Perhaps the title of this monograph should be Conceptions of Collaterality. The term collaterality refers to aspects of kin ship ties associated with genealogical distances among rela tives. George Peter Murdock (1949, p. 1 03) has identified collaterality as a basic dimension in detennining relationships among kin:
Preface
The criterion of co lla terality rests on the biological fact that among consanguin
eal re lati ves of the
same generation and
sex,
some wi ll
be
more closely akin to
Ego than others. A d irect ancestor, for example, will be more nearly related
than his siblin g or cousin, and a lineal descendant than the descendant of
a
siblin g or cousin. Our ov;n kinship system consistendy recognizes the criterion of collaterality and� �·ith the sole excepti ons of 'cousin', never employs the
same tenn for consanguineal kinsmen related to Ego in different degrees.
This book is based on the premises that (I) any major subsystem of a society (like kinship) can be examined as a means for gaining insight into the charac ter of that society; ( 2) since, as far as we know, certain attributes of kinship like collaterality-are universal, kinship seems to provide an appropriate means for the study of modern society; (3) unlike other dimensions of kinship. collaterality lends itself to precise formulations that permit measurement of diversity in a population; and (4) inasmuch as collaterality appears to be a basis for mobilization of action by relatives and for significant rules regarding marriage and inheritance, it appears to provide an effective perspective from which to study the relationship between family and society. In particular, collaterality seems to be related to the extent that pluralism is significant in structuring of society. A pluralistic ideology is one that values the principle that the collective welfare of a society is best served by promot ing the special interests of its particular components defined by race, religion, economic role, status in the socioeconomic stratification system, and/or eth nicity. Kinship may be regarded as a vehicle for perpetuating group identities associated \\'ith these special interests-religious sectarianism, socioeco nomic position, and ethnic distinctiveness. Presumably some relatives are more closely identified than other kin with these special interests. Collateral ity serves to designate the shading among relatives of their relevance to these concerns. One would then anticipate that populations Ylith a pluralistic ideol ogy would develop family and kinship norms that reflect their needs. By way of contrast, in populations that foster universalism and consider the
X
perpetuation of pluralist ideologies as destructive to the common welfare, kinship is used differently. Here the ideology champions either individualism or ·1:otalitarianism. ·'That is, kinship is intended to serve the individual or the nation
as
a whole: it is no longer a vehicle of a special interest. Under these
conditions, the role of kinship (including family) is to provide personnel ex clusively for the society and its duty is to keep them as happy, healthy, and generally proficient.as possible. Consequently, this state of affairs demands a different configuration in collaterality. The monograph elaborates upon various implications of the above distinc tions and reports the findings of an empirical investigation which, to some extent, tests the hypothetical statements derived. The propositions examined in the Phoenix study are that spatial metaphors symbolized by the components of models of collaterality are isomorphic with communal versus pluralist dis tinction in religion, ethnic. and socioeconomic settings in the social structure and that these components are associated with particular kinship nonns and values relevant to the communal-pluralist dichotomy. Many sociologists and anthropologists have \\'ritten about kinship in ways that contribute significantly to the understanding of the relationship between collaterality and social structure. However, this concern with collaterality has generally been peripheral. Focusing on the work from the perspective of col laterality in this book may give a description of their positions a strange cast a vie\\' of their writings that they had not intended.
Of course, this description
does not touch the core of their work, but hopefully it does reveal implications of their conceptions for collaterality. The research in this monograph was undertaken \\'ith a grant from the Na tional Science Foundation
(SOC76-211 10). I am particularly thankful to Pro
fessor John Atkins, University of Washington, for his extensive suggestions
and criticisms regarding my discussions of models of collaterality. His com ments have contributed significantly to the monograph. In addition, I profited
much from the comments on earlier drafts of chapters and introductions to
chapters by Professors G. N. Ramu and Nicholas Tavuchis of the L:niversity
of Manitoba and the late Louis Schneider of the llniversity of Texas at Aus
tin. Their sharp criticisms were indeed expressions of friendship. J appreciate
also the revie\\' of the final chapter by Professors Joan Aldous of Notre Dame
University and Robert Lewis of Arizona State University. Mrs . Temtlin of
Temple Beth Israel Library was exceptionally kind in providing materials
pertaining to Jewish law and kinship. Finally� J thank my associates Morris Axelrod�
Edward Greenberg� and Kenneth Andersen for participating with
me in this adventure. All three of them have made this an exciting enterprise. But above alii
am
grateful to my mischpokhe and to my dear wife Rosanna
most especially for inspiration. patience, and gentle counsel. Bernard Farber
Conceptions of Kinship
Introduction: Popular and Legal Conceptions of Kinship
Studies of American kinship have been limited in the kinds of insights they have yielded. For the most part, they have been concerned with the extent to Ylhich the nuclear family has become '•structurally isolated' ' in different segments of society and various consequences of this isola tion. This concern has stimulated research on patterns of interaction and assistance among relatives, feelings of attach ment, and kinds of personal obligations. To a lesser extent, investigators have treated kinship as a cultural phenomenon, dealing with kinship nomen clature and the meanings of consanguinity and affinity in American society. In any case, there seems to be an implicit assumption that American kinship is some sort of vestige of an institution that used to be important for main taining social structure but now serves mainly as an appendage to the nuclear family or as an ephemeral connection between families. Yet, kinship organization is expressed not only through day-to-day inter actions among relatives but also through legal norms that govern such matters as the definition of incestuous marriage, the priorities of succession when intestacy occurs, and rights and obligations pertaining to support and guard ianship. Presumably, these legal formulations follow conceptions about kin ship ties that are currently in the population. However, family laws often conflict with one another even with regard to such elementary matters as who of a person's relatives are closer and who are more distant. The historical models that provide the basis for computing kinship distances and priorities in modem law differ from each other in significant ways in their ordering of relatives. Comparatively little is understood about these models and their assumptions about the nature of family life. The analysis r epo rted in this monograph is concerned with the extent to which people's ideas about kinship ties conform to the various models for computing kinship distances and the implications of holding these ideas for family life and kinship interaction. In exploring the implications of different modes of handling collaterality, I deal with several questions with regard to kinship as a mechanism for maintaining social continuity. Under what circumstances do people regard kinship as a corporate-like ._reality" by means of which ''the important
2
th ing s in I ife'' are perpetua ted ? What evidence is there that people in A mer
ican society organize
kinship ties in ways that reflect this ''reality?'' How is this conce ptio n of kinship related to such matters as courts h ip patterns, marital norms, fertility, socialization of children, and so on? What might kno wledge about these matters sugge st about future trends in family life and change s in American legai cod es? This book reports the fmdings of a social survey d esig ned to answer these questions The target group consisted of residents of Phoenix, Arizona who have ever been marri ed and who are between the ages of 1 8 and 45. The 772 cases which were st udied had two components, a pro bab ility samp le of Phoe nix and a supplementary sample of Jewish household s The field techniques are described in Appendix B, M e thod of Data Collection. .
.
LEGAL MODELS OF KINSIDP
of kin s hip play an important role i n the analysis, they s hou ld be described first . These models are related to, but are n ot identical with, systems of tenn s by which an individual's relatives are des ignated-parents, uncles, aunts, cou s ins, and so on. A matrix of terminology describing kinship statuses in a particular culture can be regar ded as a t ab le of organization. As such , the table expresses the rights and obligations which, at one time or another in a society ·s history, people have developed to or ganize the ir relationships. The biological similari ty of rep roduction for all humans makes it po ssi ble to compare one table or organiz ati on with another. Lewis Morgan, in his analysis of Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity of the Human Family, has su ggested tha t : Inasmuch as legal models
In every supposable plan of consanguinity, where marriage between pairs ex
ists, there must be a lineal and several collateral lines. Each person, also, in
constructing his own table becomes the cen tral point,
or
EGO, from whom
outward is reckoned the degree of relationship of each kinsman, and to whom
the relationship returns. His position is necessarily in the lineal line. In a chart
of relationships this line is vertical. Upon it may be inscribed, above and below
any given person, his several ancestors and descendants in a direct series from father
to son,
and these persons together will constitute his right lineal male
line, which is also called the trunk,
or
common stock of descent. Out of this
trunk line emerge the several collateral lines, males and female, which are
numbered outwardly. . .. The first collateral line, male, consists of my brother and his descend�ts, and the frrst, female, of my sister and her descendants.
The second collateral line, male, on the father's side, consists of my father's
brother and his descendants, and the second, female, of my father's sister and
her descendants;
the
second collateral line, male, on the mother·s side, is
composed of my mother's brother and his descendan t� , and the second, female,
of my mother's si ster, and her descendants. The third collateral line, male9 on
3
father's side , consists of my grandfather 's brother and his descendants. and female, of my father 's sister and her descendants; on the mother9s side, the same line, male, is composed of my grandmother's brother and his descendants, and the same, female, of my grandmother's s i ster and her des cendants (Morgan, 1871, pp. 17-18). the
the third,
Morgan continues in this manner through the fifth co l lateral line consisting of the siblings of the great-great-grandparent and their descendants. Analyses of kinship terminology are aimed at determining how the relatives who con stitute the person's kindred are grouped by kinship nomenclature to designate the pattern of relationships that one has with relatives. George Peter Murdock has proposed that this grouping can be made on the basis of sex of relatives, generation in relation to Ego, relative age of kin, consanguinity versus affinity, degree of collaterality, and so on (Murdock, 1949 , pp. 136ft). To gether, these patterns or groupings constitute tables of kinship organization. Whereas a table of organization based on kinship nomenclature implies a series of rights and obligations pertaining to each relationship, it does not provide a clue to the relative strengths of these obligations to various kin. The table of organization of kinship nomenclature is much like a set of statutes that has evolved over a period of time. There are times when laws conflict and decisions must be made with regard to priorities. Because of these conflicts, nomenclature must be supplemented by other means for des ignating priorities. The history of legal codes governing intestacy laws in dicates that these laws were fonnulated following periods of conflict (usually between social classes). In complex societies, such as urban civilizations, city states (and dynastic empires, e . g., Feng, 1937), diverse segments of the population differ in ranking which relatives precede others in rights and ob ligations. Presumably the legal models express popular conceptions about priorities orHproximities" of relatives. The sections below describe the char acteristics of the legal models for determining priorities among relatives. The social contexts in which these models emerged wil l be discussed later. The legal models for determining priorities among consanguineal relatives share some characteristics. Indeed, study of the historical contexts indica tes that, i n temporal sequence, the Parentela Orders procedure seems to have arisen first; the Civil Law model represents a modification of the Parentela Orders; and the Canon Law method revises the Civil Law approach. Because of this relatedness in history, despite differences in organizing principles, the three models express similarities in ways of counting the number of parent child links from one relative to another. Like the Genetic model, which is also described below, all three models assume that rights and duties of ''closer'' relatives have a priority over those of more distant ones. They differ only in the way by which they count the parent-child links between relatives. (See Atkins, 1974.)
4
Parentela Orders Model
The Parentela Orders model for computing priorities in the rights and obli gations of relatives has had a long history. According to Lewis H. Morgan (187 1 , p. 34), the tenn parentela was applied by the fifth century Helvetians in their domestic laws to refer to "a number of relatives united under the same set of parents as their next common stock (Stamm).'' The human body was used by the Helvetians as a metaphor for a parentela, so that "husband and wife, united in marriage, b elong to the head; the children, born as full brothers and sisters from one man and one wife, to the neck ...[then] chil dren of full brothers and sisters occupy that place where the shoulders and arms join. These form the frrst kindred of consanguinity , viz., the children of brother and sister.The others occupy the elbow, the third the hand, etc." As a gen eral model, Parentela Orders organize kinship relations in the following way: I
Each parentela is headed by an ancestor of Ego, the rank of any parentela being a function of the number of generations that this ances tor is removed from Ego. The first parentela is headed by Ego and incl ude s all of his descendants; the second parentela is headed by Ego's parents and includes all of their descendants apart from those in the first parentela, and so on . 2. Within each parentela, any relative is located according to the number of generations he is removed from the head of the parentela. By de termining the parentela cla ss into which a relative falls and his gen eration with in that parentela, one can describe his precise relationship to Ego. .
The principles for determining the order of priorities of relatives in the Parentela Orders model are as follows: I. All
membe rs of a lower-ranked parentela have priority over members of a parentela of a higher rank. All of Ego's descendants (i.e., mem bers of the flfSt parentela) have prior rights and obligations over all other relatives. The second class in priority consists of the parents and all of their descendants who are not also Ego's descendants, and so on. In theory , the number of parentelae in an individual's genealogy is infinite. 2. Within each parentela, the head (i.e., a direct -line ancestor of Ego) has priority over all other members and, in tum, each parent has priority over his (or her) children. For example, Ego's children have pri ority over grandchildren and the grandchildre-n over great-grandchildren. In the second parentela, Ego's p aren ts have priority in rights and obli-
5 i
gations over the brothers and sis ters , and the brothers and sis ter s over
the nephew s and nieces. In theory, the progres sio n within the paren t el a continues ad infinitum.
The location of any relative in the Parentela Orders system can be repre
sented s y mboli cally . Let j be the number of g e neratio nal links between Ego
and any ancestor; from Eg o to Eg o 's parent is one link, to the gran dpare nt is two links, and so on . Sim ilarly , let i by the numbe r of generati onal links between the head of a parent el a and h is (or her) own descendants; for the third p arentela, from the grandparent t o the aunt or uncle of Ego is one link and to Ego's first-cousins, two links. Since the progress ion within pare ntel ae is infinite, the rank ordering of re latives depen ds upon the e ntire set of relatives actually c onsidered in a particular instance. Before one goes on to the ne x t paren te la, one must exhaust the generational depth (represented by i) of kin in the g i ven parentel a. Hence, for a particular set of re lati ve s , the rank order of each relative is influenced by th e deepest generational depth (i.e., the large st i) for that set. (The size of the large st i can be repre se nted by m.) The. r ank order for any relative is then determined by the summation of j (as weig h t ed by (m + 1)) plus i. The formula for the rank ordering of re lati ves in the Parente l a Orders system is thus D = i + (m + 1)j. The ranking of ge ne alogical distances from Ego is prese nte d in Table 1-1. Huebner (1968) suggests that the Parentela Orders were derived by the Germans from traditional Jewish law of intestate succes sion . Morg an (1871), ho w ever, believes that Helvetians borrowed the scheme from the Rom an system of ''numbering c oll at er al or •transverse' lines of co n sangu ines in which the first collateral line consists of the de scen dants of parents (oth er than Ego hi ms el f and his own descendants), while the second line co n sists of the des ce nd an ts of grandparents of Ego (e x cludi ng Eg o ' s parents and their descendants), and so forth'' ( Atkin s, 1974, p. 10). Morgan (1871, p. 35) remarks that uthe German [Parentela Ord ers ] is a very perfect system, but its excellence is due to its fidelity to its Roman model. '' Yet, in the 17th century, John S elden ( 1636; 1640) presented several well-documented analTable 1-1. Ranking of Oktances from Ego Acoording to Parentela Orders Model ·
Parentela orders
(ascending generalions)
Generation within
Parentela (in descending order) 1 2 3
a
Ego (O)a Children •: 1)
Grandchildren (2.,
Ranking of distance from E10.
Parenls (3)
Siblings (4)
0
Nieces and nephe ws (5)
m
Grandparents (6) Aunts and uncles (7) First cou s ins (8)
6
yses to support his view that the Roman system had its roots in earlier Hebraic law-both written and oral. Regard le ss of origins, the Parentela Orders s ystem survives in modem German law governing intestacy (Model, 1964) as well as in contemporary Israeli and U.S. law. In the Ordnung Parentelen of West German law s of succession, those relatives who belong to the seco n d, third, and lower orders (Ordnungen) are called to inherit only if at the time of succession no rel ative of an earlier order is c apable of being an heir (Model, 1964, p. 1 1). Heirs of the frrst order include Ego's children, grandchildren, and other descen dants. Heirs of the second order are the deced en t's parents and their des cen dants who are not included in the first parentela. The progression goes on e ndlessl y. Similarly, in Isra�l: The deceased's children or their descendants inherit before his parents, his parents before the parents of his parents .... The Grandparents will not inherit if there are col l ateral relatives who are descendants o f the parents; that is to say, not only the bro thers and sisters of the dece ased , and their children, will oust the grandparents from their right to succeed, but also the grandchildren of the brothers and s isters of the deceased (Tedeschi, 1966, pp. 243-244).
Some states, s uch as Arizona, appl y the principles of the Parentela Orders model in a modified form (Wypyski, 1976, p. 65). Arizona intestacy law (1975, 14-2 103) provides for the follow ing pri ori ties among kin in the as signment of estates ( exclu ding the spouse's share): 1. To the issue of the decedent. 2. If there is no surv iving issue, to the dece dent 's parent or parents equally. 3. If there is no surv iving issue or parent, to the issue of the decedent's parents or issu e of either of the parents. 4. If there is no surviving is sue , parent or issue of a parent, but the decedent is survived by on e or more grandparents or is su e of grand parents , half of the estate pas ses to the paternal grandparent or grand parents equally, or to their issue if both grandparen ts are deceased; the other half passes to maternal grandparents o r their issue in the same m anner . If there is no surviving grandparent or issue on either the paternal or maternal side, the entire estate passes to relatives on the other side in the same manner as the half. Civil Law Model
The Civil Law model for assigning priorities in intestate succession i s asso ciated with that body of law developed in ancien t Rome and later codified
7
in about the middle of the sixth century as the Institutes of Justinian. The earliest record of this model appears in the Twelve Tables, which had been devised at the time of the founding of the Roman Republic in the fifth century B.C. The Civil Lav.t became highl y influential as empires spread throughout Western Europe, and rulers so ugh t a ready-made set of laws to govern with. '"The ideological opulence of this Roman Corpus proved irresistible,
because it embodied jurisprudential principles which with some adaptation could be utilized for the service of the Western Roman emperors in their function as universal lords (the domini mWidi)" (LlJlmann, 1975, p. 85). As
in the days of the ancient Roman empire, the claim v.'as made:
That Roman .law and the governmental themes based on it should become the ucommon la\\'" (the ius
commune) of the Western world, its common legal orde r, so that the old thesis that the Roman lex was omnium generalis could become a legal reality (L llmann, 19759 pp. 89-90). ..
The procedure for comput ing genealogical distances in the Civil Law is sim
ple. In order to compute the distance between Ego and an ancestor or direct descendant, one counts the generational links between them. In the ascending
line, a parent is one degree of genealogical distance, a grandparent tv.'o degrees, and so on; in the descending line, a child is one degree of distance,
a grandchild two degrees. For a collateral relative, (a) one counts the number of generat io nal links from Ego to the nearest ancestor \vho is also an ancestor of Ego's collateral relative; then (b) one determines the number of links between the collat eral relative and that ancestor; and fi nally (c) one takes the sum of these (a and b) as the degree of genealogical distance betv.·een Ego and the collateral relative. Symbolically , if j is the number of generational links between Ego and the nearest common ancestor and i is the number of links between the collateral relative and that ancestor, the Civil Law distance
between Ego and the collateral re latives is (i + j) degrees. (Designations i and j are taken from Atkins, 1974). For example, for the genealogical dis tance between Ego and an aunt one starts with finding the nearest common
ancestor, who is Ego's grandfather. The number of l inks j between Ego and the grandfather is 2, and the number of links i between the aunt and the grandfather is 1 The degree of genealogical distance bet\�·een Ego and the aunt is thus (i + j) or 3. Table 1-2a presents the configuration of close relatives according to Civil Law degrees. Unlike the arrangement of relatives in the Parentela Orders scheme, the mapping by Civil-Law degree permits sev eral kinds of re latives to be equidistant from Ego. For example, although a niece precedes an aunt in the Parentela Order computation, they are of equal degree in the Civil Law procedure. .
The Civil Law procedure has been utilized in one form or another in most major legal systems in Western civilization. Max Rhe instein ( 1955, p. 11)
Table 1-2.
Degree of Relationship Civil Code Models, by
A. CIVIL CODE MODEL
Generation 2
0
According to Canon Law, Genetic, and Generation of Relative
Distan� from EGO: Degree of relationship
1
2
Grandparents
Aunts and
Parents
0
-1
3
EGO
-2
Children
Siblings
Grandchildren
Great
4
aunts
great
and
uncles
uncles
Nieces and nephews
First cousins
Grandnieces and
grandnephews
( continwdJ
indicates that, HAlthough the [Roman] Civil Law was taught in the conti nental universities from the 13th to the 19th century as a common basis, . . . as such Lit] is no longer in force anywhere except, in the form of the so called Roman-Dutch law, in the Union of South Africa and in Ceylon." Yet, the Civil Law model is widely applied in the computation of genealogical distances worldwide in legislation dealing with intestate succession and often in laws pertaining to the prohibition of incestuous marriage. During the 19th century, the development of the Napoleonic Code, based explicitly on Roman law, and the adoption of that Code in various legal systems (e.g., Austria, Mexico, Louisiana) did much to institutionalize the Civil Law model in mod ern family law. In the United States, the Civil Law procedure is followed in most state laws governing intestacy and incestuous marriage. Canon Law Model The Canon Law computational model of genealogical distances was first
introduced into the legal corpus of the Roman Catholic Church; later it was incorporated into English family law. In general, ''The diverse sources of the Canon Law were collected from the 13th to the 15th centuries in a compilation which is referred to as the Corpus Juris Canonici. In 1917 it was superceded as the official source of the law of the Roman Catholic Church by the Codex Juris Canonici. . . . At the Refonnation the ecclesiastical courts and the Canon Law were continued by the Church of England (Rheinstein, 1955, p. 14)." Since, in England, ecclesiastical courts had jurisdiction over family matters, the Canon Law model was applied particularly in the"elaborate system of marriage law. ''
9
Like the Civil La w model for determining genealogical di stances , the Canon Law procedure also involves the determination of generational l inks. For direct descendants and ancestors, the two models are equi v alent in as sign ing priorities ; one merely counts the number of generatio nal links (i or j) bena,reen Eg o and the lineal relati ve to detennine degree of d istanc e They differ, however, in determining degree of distance of co llatera l relatives from Ego. As in the Civil Law degree, one counts the links j from Ego to the nearest relative which both Ego and t he collateral have in common and t hen the l i nka ge i from that ancestor to the collateral relative. But, instead of adding i to j, a person applyin g the Canon Law procedure determines the degre.e of di stance between Ego and the co l late ral relative to be either i or j, whichever is larger. This sch eme of computation yields the c onfig ur at i on of distances in Table 1 2 b. Ego's aunt, w ho was 3 degrees distant according to Civil Law computation, is only 2 degrees distant by Can on Law rules; in Canon-Lav.· de grees , she now shares her locus not on l y with Ego's nieces and nephews, but also with Ego's grandparents, frrst-cousins, and grand
.
-
childre.n.
Rheinstein (1955, p. 53) re gards c urrent applications of the Canon Law mode l to the distribution of es t ates (rather than to incestuous marriages) to be a '6Consequence of hist orica l misunderstandings.'' He re fers specifically to Ge org ia lavl (Code 1933, 113-903) (8)) and to an 1878 Georgia decisi on which ruled that:
Under the rules of the Canon
Law.
.
. �·e must count from the intestate up
to
the common ancestor one degree for each generation, thence down the collateral
line to
the contestant; the number of degrees
in the longer of these ty,·o lines
is the degree of kindred between the intestate and the contestant. And by this
rule the grandchildren of an aunt are in the third degree, and are heirs at law
Table 1-2
(continued)
B. CANON LAW MODEL
Genention 2 I
0 -I -2
n
EGO
Distance from Ego: Degree of relationship 2
Grandpare nts Parents
Siblings
Children
Aunts and uncles
First cousins
Nieces and nephews Grandchildren
Great
3
aunts
and
great uncles
Second cousins
Grandnieces and
grandnephews
10
in preference to the great-grandchildren of a brother, who (Rheinstein, 1955, p. 53).
are
in the
fourth
degree
In this instance, according to the Canon Law degree, the aunt's grandchildren inh eri t ahead of the brother's great-g ran dch ildre n ; according to the Civil Law scheme, both are 5 degrees distant from the d ec eased person, and the two
would have sh are d equally; and according to the Parentela Orders procedure,
the brother ' s great-grandchildren would have inheri ted the estate. Had the Georgia court in te rpreted the English Statute of Distribution of 167 1 to refer
to the Civil Law model, as English courts have done, the choice of heirs in Georgia intestac y cases would have been different. Genetk Model
A fourth approach to kin sh ip distances is described by David M. Schne ider in his analysis of A mer ic an culture. Schneider (1968, p. 23-25) suggests that:
the American cultural conception, kinship is defined as biogenetic. This defmition says that kinship is whatever the biogenetic relationship is. If science discovers new facts about biogenetic relationships, then that is what kinship is and was all along, although it may not have been known at the time. . . . Two blood relatives are "related" by the fact that they share in some degree the stuff of a particular heredity. . . . Because blood is a ''thing , , .and because it is subdivided with each reproductive step away from a given ancestor, the precise degree to which two persons share a common heredity can be calculated, and �'distance·· can thus be stated in specific quantitative terms. In
If kinship is reduced to genetic ties, then Schneider's position i mplies that American k inship maps can be drawn in terms of shared chromosomes or
�'degree of parentage'' (Cruz-Coke, 1977). Because of bisexual reproducti on among humans, people derive half of their chromosomes from the mother and half from the father; consequently. the degree of shared chromosomes between two relatives is always some factor of one-half. The degree of par entage decreases expontentially with the number of generations betw een two relatives.
Symbolically, the Genetic model can be represented
as
follows:
l. Letj be the number of g enerat ions linking Ego to an ance stor (as in the Civil Law and Canon Law models). 2. Let i be the number of gen erations l inking Ego to a descendant or linking a c ommon ancestor to a co llateral relative of Ego. 3. For lineal relatives of Ego (i.e., ancestors and descendants). the degree
1 1 of parentage p is (lh)H,j•. For parents, j = 1 and p = 'h; for grand children, i = 2 and p = 1f.t , and so on. 4. For collateral relatives, the degree of parentage p is the product ( Y2 )J (Ih)t-•. For an aunt, p = (¥.!)2 (¥2)0 = 1"; for a first-cousin, p = (Y.zf (Ih)1 = 1/8, and so forth. (Where half-siblings are involved, p = (Y.z)i
(lh)i .)
The configuration of genealogical distances by degree of shared chromo somes is presented in Table l-2c. A comparison between the Genetic model and the Canon Law degree indicates that the two procedures produce similar
results for most close relatives and for children of Ego's direct ancestors. For other collateral relatives, however, the genetic proximity seems to re semble the Civil Law degree in assigning priorities. For example, the brother's great-grandchildren and the aunt's grandchildren (in the Georgia case) both are the same degree of parentage from Ego, p = 1/ 16. The parentage degree thus seems to combine elements of both the Canon Law and Civil Law models. Cruz-Coke ( 1977, p. 99) suggests that the Genetic model be applied in laws pertaining to uprohibited marriages, inheritance of property, and even royal succession.·' Unlike the other models of genealogical priorities, the Genetic model is capable of assigning precise locations on a genealogical map to identical twins and to half-siblings and their descendants. For ex ample, where Ego is an identical twin, Ego's niece is genetically equivalent to Ego's own child, p = Yl; where Ego has a half-sibling, the daughter of Ego's half-sibling is genetically equivalent to a granddaughter of Ego's full sibling, p = 1/8 . Because of growing divorce and remarriage rates in contemporary society, it may be useful to make a distinction between half and full-sibling ties in future legislation regarding incestuous marriage and intestacy. Table 1-2.
(conlinued)
C. GENETIC MODEL
Distance from Ego: Fraction of chromosomes shared 1/2
Generation
2 1
0 -I -2
1/4 Grandparents
EGO
Parents Siblings Children
Aunts and uncles Nieces and
nephews Grandchildren
1/8
Oreal aunts and great uncles
First cousins Grandnieces and grandnephews
12 Comparison of Models The fo ur procedures for determin ing geneal ogical priorities involve variations
in the application of generational l inks to relatives (i and j ) . The Parentela Orders model differs from the others , ho\\·ever, in dete rmini ng the relati ve priorities of ascendants as opposed to descendants . For the Canon La\\' , Civil
Law , and Ge netic models , i and j are symmetrical , and consequently , their
size relative to each other makes no difference in computing the degree of
di stance . A large i and smal l j are equi v alent in degree of di stance to a small
i
and a large j . For Pare ntela Orders , hov,rever, i and j are not sym metrical .
The
j
is w e i ght ed by (m + l) , but the i is not . As a result , in the Parentela
Orders procedure all descendants have priori ty over any ancestors .
The models di ffer pri mari l y in their treatment of collateral relatives of Ego . For collateral re latives , they each deal with the combinations of i and j in a
di fferent way :
Pare ntela O rders : Priority = i + (m + I )j, \\'here m refers to the largest i in the set of relatives considered .
Civil Law : degree of d i stance = (i +
j).
C anon LaYi· : degre e of di stance = i or j , whichever i s larger.
Genetic model : degree of parentage = ( Yl )i - 1 ( 1h )i . (For half-sib lings . p =
( 1fl ) i ( lh )j ) .
KINSHIP A."''D SOCIAL STRUCTURE Laws governing classifications of relatives in marriage and inheritance have persi sted in their general outlines from earlier hi storical eras to contemporary urban society de spite gre at demographic and technological upheav al s .
These
clas sific ation scheme s permit both (a) the e stab l i shment of boundarie s for
determi ning when marri ages are considered to be ince stu ous and (b) the formulation of priorities among relati ves in cases of intestacy . Es senti a l l y ,
the same principles that were appl ied in ancient Israel , Greece , and Rome
and in medieval ecc lesiastical law still endure in the legal codes governing
incestuous marriage and i ntestacy in the contemporary world . Even ne\\l·ly formed nati ons follow the rules for cl assifying relatives drawn from (a) the Parentela Orders mode l derived from ancient Israel and classical Greece , (b) the C i vil Lavv mode l from Roman civil l aw , or (c) the Canon La\\· model developed in the medieval Church . The surv i val of the Canon Law , C i vi l Code , and Parentel a Orders models in modem l aw suggests that they continue to be relev ant to the organ i zation of family and kinship re l ations in the contemporary world . This relevance can perh aps be c l arified by reference. to comparisons \\'ith nonindu stri al so
cieties . The analyses of nonindu stri al soc ietie s by Eise nstadt ( 1 977), Swan son
13 ( 1 967; 1 969 ) , a nd Paige ( 1 974) seem to converge in their conclusions re ardin g the relationship between the mod e of po l itical integration in a society g and the character of family and kinship institutions. Im pl ici tly , Eisenstadt, Swanson , and Paige seem to assume that soc ial order is generated , in pan , by the need to regulate the distribution of scarce things. There e merge s, then , an opposition between a just distribution of goods and property for use by the c urrent generation , that acts to equalize life chances for people throughout the society , and a competitive d i s tri bu t ion of goods and property , th at tends to maximize life chances for some peop le and their desc e ndan ts more than for others . The motive tow ard just distri bution serve s to create an extensive network of families, w e avin g the society into a cohe s i v e whole . The motive toY�·ard competitive distribution serves to establ i sh a hierarchical structu re i n vo l vin g c on geri es of re l ated families , di viding the society into d i ffe rie nti ated strata . As a
re s u l t of this o pposi t i on, two conflicting kinds of kinship structure may develop--one kind supporting the spec i al interest s of the con g eri es of re l ated fam ilies and the o ther kind promoting the common i nterests that al l famil i es in the soc i ety share . The differe nt kinds of family and ki nship struc tures express in g special versus common intere sts in the soc iety have been conceptualized in various ways by different writers . General ly , writers tend to characterize those fam i l y structures that ex press speci al interests of a particul ar group in tenns of some sort of cor porate rea l i ty and those fami l y structures which e xpress communal welfare in tenn s of personal inc lin at ions and obligations . In each instance , in de scribing famil y life that i s organized to promote a special interest, the writer endows th e ki nsh ip group with po l i tic al, economic and/or religious si g n i fi cance . For example, Jeffrey Paige ( 1974) shows that in s tate l e ss societies , facti onal pol itic al structure i s associ ated w ith patri loc al (or viri local) marital re sidence , Y�·hich permits related men to act as a co he si ve unit in civil affairs . He oppo ses thi s form of kinship organ i zat i on to that fou nd in communal statel ess s ocieties , whereby related men ( e spec i ally brothers) are d ispersed , and their ability to mobilize kinship-ba sed groups is l i m ited. Similarly , Guy E. S w an s on ( 1 969) has shown that a d isti nc tio n between associational and soc i a l - syste m e mph as i s in pol itical regime is related to kinship structure and to re l igi o u s bel ief . In one analy si s , he ha s indicated that fac tio na l societies that empha si ze associational base s for c ol l ecti ve action tend to be patrilineal , wh ereas tho se societies that sttess the common welfare of all members, iden ti fying the political re gime as serving the whole social system as a s i ng l e entit y, tend to be matrilineal in kin ship organ ization . (In a second analysis , he h as shovJ n a rel ati onship between factional re gi me s and a propensity for states at the ti me of the R e formati o n to become Protestant as o ppose d to c om m u nal state s , where the i mmanence of God is widely b el i eved , to re m ai n Catholic . ) A t h i rd w riter , Shmuel Eisenstadt h as dealt Ylith the distinction
14
bet\\'een patri monial and imperial regime s . In his conceptual ization , patri moni al regi mes are characterized by the c lustering of kinship groups in ways that impinge upon economic , pol itical , and/or rel igious institutions of the society , whereas in imperial regime s , kinship structures are relatively i nde pendent of other considerations . In addition , Ei senstadt suggests that while imperial regimes are structured in ways which reveal a dominant core and periphery , patrimonial regimes are general l y decentralized . All three conceptuali zations--i . e. , by Paige , Swanson , and Eisen stadt share the following characteristics: (a) There i s a rel ationship between the development of kinship structure and the relati ve emphasis in political struc ture upon spec i al interests versus general welfare . (b) Societies which h ave factional (or spec ial-interest) regimes are m arked by a strong dependence of political and economic groups upon k inship ties; societies which have com m unal ( or general-interest) regimes are marked by differentiated political and economic structures (i . e . , i solated structurally from kinship) . (c) In societies with factional regimes . kinsh ip structures are organized to act as the primary vehicles for the continuity of the soc i al order; in societies with communal regimes . kinship structures are organized to permit other corporate groups to act as the primary vehicle for the continuity of the social order . The se statements about the relationship between kinsh ip and social struc ture are drawn from research on nonindustrial societi es . Yet, in principl e, they see m appropriate t o contemporary societie s a s well . In his analysis of modern social structure , Edward Shils ( 197 5) appl ies an approach similar to that of Paige , S wanson , and Eisenstadt . Shils conceptualizes social order in tenns of center and periphery , which corresponds in some respects to the distinction between communal and factional structures . • •Thi s central ity has , however, nothing to do with geometry and little with geography (Shils , 1975 , p . 3). " Rather, for Shils ( 1975 , p. 3): The center, or the central zone, is a phenomenon of the realm of values and beliefs . It is the center of the order of symbols , of v alues and beliefs which govern the soc iety . It is the center because it is the u ltimate and irreducible; and it is felt to be such by many who cannot give explicit articulation to its irreducibility . The central zone partakes of t he nature of the sacred. Shi l s notes that , as compared with earlier eras , modem techno logical ad vance has elevated the standard of l iving and • •integrated the population into a more unified economy " and , simultaneously , there has been "more widespread participation in the central value system through education , and in the central institutional system through the franchi se and m ass commun ication ( Shil s , 197 5 , p. 14) . " ' One effect of this · ·incorporation of the mass of the population into the central i nstitutional and value systems • , is an emphasis upon a con cern with the common interests (and consequent equal treatment) of the mem bers of the society .
15
\\'ith an incorporation of the population into this centralized culture , dom ns that enable the society to persist as an integrated entity tend in ant i ns titutio national scope . Major decisions affecting personal destinies are to be those of made in l arge-scale bureaucracies and their supporting agencies . In a cen tral ized culture , t he i mportant things in life are those which override parochial in terests and local concerns . Ho we ver , Shils regards the i ntegration of institutions in modem society as ex istin g in a state of constant tension bet\\'een the tendencies for the common good and separatist tendencie s deriving from special interests . On the one hand, . . the common good cannot be real i zed in a society consisting only of pri v ate entities (Shil s , 1 975, p . 340) . ' 1 Yet , on the other hand , ' �even the most in tegrated society ever known is riddled \\·ith cleavages and antagonistic actions (Shil s , 1 975 , p . 8 5) , " and "scarcity , ambition , human contrariness , divergent tradi tions , conflicting loyalties , and the great une venness of eco logical integration all stand in the way of anything close ly approximating a stable , continuou s , inclusive , all-embracing cultural and authoritative inte gration (Shils , 1 97 5 , p . 84) . � ., Shils emphasizes that along side the central ization of culture and its insti tutional base , there exist collectivitie s that have been alienated in some man ner from the cultural core . These alienated collectiv ities seek to promote special interests that they percei ve to be undermined by the institutional complex supporting incorporation of the mass of the population into the central ized culture . The continual expansion of the core of ' 'public interest , " encroaches upon their special domains of rei ig ious , ethnic , or economic in terest . The threat evoked by this encroachment mobilizes these collectivities to counteract the i nfluence of the � 'core . ' ' In their reaction to central ization of culture for the � 'publ ic interest, ' " special-focus collectivities apparently re ly not only upon associational means (e . g . , religio us , welfare , and educational agenc ies) but also upon communal institutions , such as kinship and family , to sustain an independent identity . Eve n i n a bilateral society , kinship seems able to serve as an effective vehicle for the persi stence of (or the enhancement of) the ' �important things of life . ' ' It prov ide s a ready-made base for e stabl i shing generational continuity and personal lo yalty . Shils ( 197 5 , p. 1 22) suggests that kinship forms a primordial foundation for community . The attachment of interaction ,
to another member of ane 's ki nship group is not just a function
as
Professor Homans �·ould h av e it . It is because a certain
ineffable signifteance is attributed to the tie of blood . Even where affecti on [is] not great, the tangibility of the attachment to the other person , by virtue of our perception of h i s membership in the kinship group, i s clearly in evidence .
Th e attachment , in order to be effective , however, seems to me to require a ce ntr al idea around which relatives can rally in mobil izing themselves and
16
their resources . For middlem an minorities , this ce n tral idea unites kin s hip with ethnic and economic survival ; for rel igious sects and minority re l i gio ns , family becomes a vehic le for ac h ie vi ng a set of re l i g iou s ideals . ( Some groups may of course utilize formally-organi zed associations as an alternative to k insh i p ; but when they do , they also pre sum abl y d i se ntan g l e no nn s pert ai ni n g to family and socialization of childre n from the goals i mp l ied in the central idea. By re ly i ng o nl y upon fonnal associations for perpe tuating an i d eal , these grou ps must then cont i nu al l y recruit outsi ders to p arti c i pate in their programmatic effort s . ) Onl y by mobi l izi ng fam i l y and kin shi p structures in support of the central idea can factional ist, separatist , or al ienated groups c re ate an en s u red s upply of adherents ge neration after gene rat io n . The endurance of a central idea that tran scen d s i mmed iat e perso nal need requ i re s parti cu l ar kinds of n onns co n nec ti ng th i s i de a to kinship s truc ture . It is u n do u btedl y true that under most circumstances dire need will fac i l itate the creation of close ties between indiv idu al relatives . But lacking a u nifying s pec i al interest . o nc e personal needs ab a te , the se t ie s m ay eve ntu a l ly dis sol ve , and c h ance s are s l i m th at the succeeding g e nerat ion , unless it also faces severe p roble m s , will maintain firm ki nship bonds . Without a tran scendant rea son (such as unique comm u n i ty stat us � mi n or ity re l i gion , or et hni c i t y) , there is l i tt l e initial moti vation to conce n trate resource s a m ong people w ith c lo s e ge ne alo gical tie s . The pres ence of a tra ns ce ndan t interest . however, ju stifies the per si ste nc e of k i nsh ip struc tu re s bey on d a s ing le gen eration without regard to in d i v id ua l p ri v ati o n . Consequently , th e transcen dental interest not only fosters stron g personal c ommi tmen ts , but it also prov id e s a b as i s for the form at i on of cen tripetal k i n s h ip norms. By de ve lo pi n g norms w hich sustain a ce ntripetal foc us , ki n shi p groups encourage member families to maintain an identifiable stru cture over ge nerat i o ns . Concentration of k i ns hip resources in modem soc i ety over an ex te n ded time requ ires a c on stan t battle with the corporate repositories whic h c onstitute the c ore of control ove r s ociety . Indeed , the go vernme ntal , industri al , and educational bureaucracies i n modem soc iety encourage residential and social m oveme nt as a means for maximizing utilizati on of human res ource s . More an d more modem soc i ety d iscourages nonbureaucratic personal c omm itme nts (a) by empha si zi ng personal freedom in non-v.'ork affairs and ( b) by defin i ng traditional fami l y and kinship i nsti tutions as coerc i v e , as i ne ffec ti ve loci of socialization , and as interfering with self-realization i n a pos t- indu strial world (e . g . , note stress upon the • •costs of family life " in Morgan ( 1 975 )) . But de sp i te this atte mpted redefinition of family and kinship structures. there i s some ev ide nce t o sugge st that " primordial " c o l l ectivitie s , based on kin ship ties , do pers i s t as viable structures i n contemporary society . I n h i s study o f urb an soci al s truc ture , Lauman n ( 1 973 , p . 203) decid e s that : \\'bile it would be quite fool ish
scene is
a
for
us.
. . to conc lude that the
American
urban
mosaic of highly differentiated , self-contained nat ionality -rel igious
17 groups , it �·ould be equal ly fool i sh for
little
or
us
simply t o dismi ss them
as
being of
no importance in accounting for the v ital ity and heterogeneity of con
temporary urban I ife .
As instruments for mobilizing humans and their resources for attaining special goals-Often millenial-family and kinship i nstitutions cannot be considered
as obsolete ; rather they are seen by some collectiv itie s as being highly rele
vant to the endurance of group identity over generati ons . Indeed , in the se collectivities , kinship ties are regarded as the very vehicles by \�·hich the important things of life endure . Rather, these collectivities consider indivi
dunlistic decisions and adaptations made to meet personal needs as resu l ti ng in the long run in a decrease in the abi lity of their fami l ie s to affect ' 'who gets what , vlhe.n , where , how , and why ' '---c ompared with others . As noted previously , the analys i s by Shils about the tension betw·een the centralization of culture in the " public interest , and the plural ism of 'pri mordial ' ' col lecti vities someYlhat parallels the studies of non industri al soci eties that disti nguish between factional and communal regimes (or bet\\·een patrimon ial and imperi ali stic regimes ) ( Paige , 1974; Swanson , 1969; Eisen stadt. 1 977) . The analyse s share in (a) their focus upon the relationship between the w·hol e and the part s of the society as a s ignific ant aspect of social order; (b) their concern with common interests (or public interests) versus special interests (or private interests) as motivation s for generati ng different social structures; (c) their conclusion that special intere sts tend to segmen talize soc ieties and break down boundaries between instituti ons , wh i le com mon interests tend to sharpen differentiation of boundaries between institu tions but destroy boundarie s between population segments; and (d) the ir belief that kinship structure is an i mportant element in determi ning the character of ·
the social ord er.
The computational mode l s which fonn the focus of thi s study emerged in social orde rs analogous to the regimes discussed by Eisenstadt, Swanson , and Paige . In the hi story of Western civilization , ( a) the Parentela Orders model of kinship priorities developed in a social setting that fostered an emph asis upon the perpetuation of the · 'house , ' ' along with the development of centripetal kinship norms; (b) the Civil Law model arose in a social settin g in which an effort was made to maintain a balance between ' 'family ' ' and civil soci ety ; and (c) the Canon Law model was developed in a social setting
in wh ic h the perpetuation of the • 'family ' ' was considered as subordinate to the pe rpe tuati on of maj or corporate groups , such as the Church or State . Th e stress between centralization and plurali sm suggests that co ntemporary soci al setti ngs parallel the historical situations from which the kinship models
un der inve stigation emerged . The d iversity of social settings in a highly om pl ex s ociety may stimulate different emphasis upon the role of kins hip
�
1 0 pers istence of social order. Thus , the following spec ulations seem reason
able:
18
1 . Some famil ies exist in settings that reflect their concern for perpetuating
special interests . The se families are ' 'sectarian ' , in either a religious or sec ular sense . The se groups may be characterized by a minority religion or they may have a special interest in maintai ning a particular socioeconomic position or ethnic identity . These fam i l ie s will appropriate ideas about kinship prior ities wh ich follow the Parentela Orders model . 2. Some families exist in settings that reflect concern with the common welfare of the society . Universalistic in outlook, these families affiliate or identify v.'ith religious groups that are less sectarian and that may emphasize the ubiquitous immanence of God in everyday life; they emphasize individ ualism as an expression of equal rights and/or the predominance of general corporate structures (such as government or economy) by which the general well-being of the society is perpetuated . The families would appropriate ideas about priorities that approximate the Canon LaYi or Genetic models . 3 . Some families reach a compromise between the special demands of famil y continuity and the more general \\'elfare of the civil society . These families appropriate ideas about kinship priorities which approximate the Civi l Law model . B asic to the plan of analysis in this monograph is an assumption that there are only limited modes of organizing family and kinship structures in relation to the larger social structure . These modes are expressed in legal codes per taining to the continuity of family and kinship ' "properties, , � primarily in those l aws governing succession and incestuous marri age . In Western soc iety , three general models have been applied to succession and incestuous mar riage-the Parentela Orders , the Civil Code , and the Canon Law . I regard these models as markers for popular conceptions about the extent to which family and kinship are considered to be important for transmitting the im portant things about life from generation to generation . Consequently , the analysis focuses upon the degree to which people in different social contexts (and with different ideas about the family and children) al so differ in the extent to wh ich they conform to the configuration of relative s implied in each model . Putatively , the kinship models express orientations to ways of perpetuating the "important things of life ' ': To the extent that people in Hsectarian ' settings regard the family as a vehicle by which their way of life will be perpetuated , they will also: (a) have a larger number of children; (b) give greater weight to family obligations than work obligations; (c) give greater importance to maintaining ties with parents and in-laws and with grandpar ents ; (d) regard marri age as a special status rather than as a mere formalization of a man-woman relationship; and (e) consider inducement of self-discipline and instrumental " 'adultlike ' ' orientation to the world as important aims in soci al ization . ·
19
As s i gn i fi can t determinants in organizing family life , the kin ship orienta by a model should emerge in specific kinds of social contexts ti o ns e xpre ssed r as ephemeral concerns which predominate at different rather than appea fami ly life cycle or merely as express i on s of interpersonal stage s of the relati on s .
pOPU LA R COU NTERPARTS O F LEGAL MODElS
This introd uctory chapter has discussed legal mode ls for assigning priorities amo ng relati ves . Although their appl icabil ity to inte stacy laws and for defin ing m arital prohibitions may be obvious , their i mpl ication with regard to social structure , kinship tie s , family interaction , and socialization of children may not be . The remaining chapters of this book will be concerned w ith an elaboration of these implications . Chapter 2 deals with the historical settings in "''hich these models emerged . Each historical setting seem s to have pre sented a different kind of problem with regard to the role of family and kinship in the persi stence of soc i al structure . Chapter 3 turns to modem soci al settings , and i t involves study o f ways in which the place of groups in the larger social structure is related to metaphors of social space . The. conception of soci al space is considered to be a function of group boundedness (e . g . , independent identity as a faction , sect, or some other soc ial c l ass) in relation to the rest of the society . Chapter 4 presents a new kinship model which emerged through an analysis of cases in the residual category of kin ship orientations . This model happens to be y,ridely prevalent among middle-c lass Protestants . The c hapter al so describes a componential analysis of the kinship model s which re veals their relationship to spatial metaphors . Chapter 5 per tai ns to diversity in kinship orientation among d ifferent segments of the pop ulati on , and it com p ares the efficacy of structural vari ables (such as rel igion , ethn icity , and socioeconomic status) w ith that of personal factors in explain ing v ari ation in kinship orientation . Chapter 6 deals with the significance of the family of orientation (i .e . , the parental family) in determining kinship co nceptio ns , and Chapter 7 vlith the relationship between kinship orientation and attributes regarding one 's family of procreation (i . e . , with spouse and chil dren) . Chapter 8, based on theories of social exchange , concerns the co nnectio n betw een kinship orientation and actual ties with rel atives . Finally , Chapte r 9 offers a summary and a set of conclusions dra\\'n from the analysi s . As a check o n spurious interpretations o f the findings , a multivarate analy sis Was u nde rtak en . The results of this analysis are pre.sented in Appendix A . The methods of data collection are discussed in Appendix B .
Historical Backgrounds of Kinship Models
Now I tum to the specific hi storical contexts in which the kinship models under investigation have emerged . The weight of evidence is that these ki n ship models were not taken over w i l ly nilly in the laws where they have been used . I nstead , indicati ons are that persons who formulated the se laws have found alternative models wanti ng , and neYl models were invented to el im inate deficiencies of those the n in exi stence (See Selden , 1636 , 1 640 . ) . For instance , the Rom ans dispatc h ed th ree com missioners to examine the legal systems of the Greek city- states (especially Athens) when the Twelve Tables were derived at the beginning of the Re publ ic (Heitlan d , 1923 , I, 70) . Since the Twel ve Tables do not fol lov-· the Athenian mode of computing kinship distances. presumably the commission ers regarded that procedure as inappropriate . Similarl y , one can consider the in vention of the Canon Law scheme for dete rmining genealogical distances as a critique of the Roman system . Orig i nal l y , · 'The Christi an l aw took over the Roman sy stem of reckoning rel a ti on ship as explai ned by Pau lus [and later incorporated into the Justinian Code , ] that i s , each generation [either ascend ing or descending] constituted a degree (Smith , 1 940 , p . 24) . ' ' But co n s i de rab le controversy ensued among those who formulated canon la\\i . Commentators , such as Pope Alexander II . thought that the Justin ian mode of c ounti ng kinship distances made first cousins appear to be much more distantly related than they considered them to be . u Applied to the church laws of marri age , this method of calculation wou ld have the effect of con tracting by half the severity of the canonical prohibitions of marriage among rel atives (Smith , 1 940, pp . 28- 29) . " Con sequently , the canonists sought a procedure that would more adequately re
flect their conception s about an appropri ate definition of extremely close kin ship ties . Significantly , in th e past 800 years , legal codes governing incestuous mar riage and intestacy have been able to utilize these earlier kinship models with out significant revi sion . Even the recent emergence of the soci al ist blocs of Eastern Europe has not yet g e nerated new models . (See , for example , John son , 1 969 , p. 1 88) . The only contemporary development in computation pro cedures pertaining to consanguinity has come from the study of genetics . The
21
Genetic model was invented in the 20th century to acco mmodate knowledge bout the mechanic s of bio logic al kinship through chromosomal reprod uc At l east for close relatives , however, the Genetic model generally the same configuration of kin as the Cano n Law procedure . uces The pe rs i stence of ttaditional kinship models in contemporary law s uggests still expres s a mean ingfu l dimension in the life of modem that the se models . The appropriate nes s of a k i nsh ip model apparen tly does not depe nd soc iety pri m arily upon degree of industrialization or modernity; rather it seem s to rely more upon the place of kinship in the particular cultural context. By examin in g the historic al conditions in which each ki n sh ip model has e merged , we should be ab le to infer the kinds of functions kinship is expected to pl ay
:;on .
pro
wherev er th at model is appli ed . The section s below sketch the historical and
re ligious backgrounds out of wh ich Parentela Orders , Civil Law , an d Law models were de v eloped .
Canon
The description of these historical contex t s is n ot meant to i mply a un i l i neal evolution from one model to another; there may be no ne ce ssary evolutionary connec tio n between the m . Rather the inte ntio n is mere ly to that certai n kinds of ki ns hip models have an affinity for p arti c ul ar modes o f social structure .
propose
PARENTELA ORDERS MODEL: JlTDAIC AND ATHENIAN BACKGROUNDS
The Parentel a Orders model i s found both in Judaism and Classical A the ns .
There are several p arallels in Judaic and Athenian social strucblre that seem
bo th societies, (a) ki n ship u nit s pro vided the basic political e ntiti e s ; (b) the continu i ty of soci al structure depe nded upon
to be re l ated to this mod el . In
the abil ity of succeeding g ene rations to c arry on famil i al and religious tra dition s ; (c) the concept of contract u nd erl ay the j ustifications of norms of family and kin ship ; (d) kinship endogam y was preferred ; and so on . J ack Goody su ggests that the p aral l el s between Judaic and Athenian marri age no rms derive from similar inheritance sy stem s . This tendency
[ towards kinship endogamy] is particularly marked where \\'omen are heirs , or even res i d u al heirs . to property of inte rest to males, for they may be enco uraged or ob l i ged to marry within a certain range of kin ; this vvas the case ¥lith the daughters of Zelophehad in ancient Is rael as well as in the epi cle rate of classical Athens (Goody, 1 976 , p. 1 4) .
B
ec ause of thi s series o f similarities betv.'een family and kinship norms in c i ent Ju daism and classical Athens , it may be instructive to rev iew rela
� �tons hips
a mong social structure , the co ncept of contract , and in te stacy law m the se two societies .
22
Judak Law Historically , Jewish legal scholars have assigned the family a central ro le i n social organization. To Maimonides ( 1963 , 1 967) , for example , the family is the basic element in the maintenance of a just soci al order . In his Guide
of the Perplexed, Maimonides ( 1963, pp . 60 1 - 602) locate s the core of ethi c al conduct within the family in that: Fraternal sentiments and mutual love and mutual help can be fou nd in the ir
perfect form only among those who are rel ated by thei r ancestry . Accordingly
a
si ngle tribe that is united through a common ancestor--even if he is remote
because of thi s , love one another , hel p one another , and have pi ty on one another; and the attainment of the se things is the gre atest purpose of the Law .
A similarity to Classical Greece is noted in Plato (Law-·s , 790b) : "When th e ri ght regulation of private households within a soc iety is ne g l ected , it is idle to expect the foundations of public Ia\\' to be secure . ' ' Th us both Maimonide s and Plato consider the family to be more fundamental than the state i n the perpetu ation of social order. In both conceptions of society the perpetuation
of "tribe " (mishpokheh) or "house " (oikos ) represent special interests that must be attended to if the social order is to persist . The state itself endures only by giving priority to these domestic interests . The pol itic al regime itse lf is not the core of soc ial structure that dominates the individual lives of the � members of the soc iety . Rather , its existence is contingent on the fundamental obl igations to the family and the "house . . , Obligations deriving from the Conv enan t are basic in Jewish religion and in family continuity . The concept of Covenant appears in Genesis XVII , where God propose s to Abraham that in exchange for an enduring , ' 'whole hearted ' ' commitment by the descendants of Abraham ' 'throughout their gen erations , " God will protect them and gi ve to them uthe l and of [their] so journs " (Hertz , 1 960 , pp . 5 8- 59 ) . A second statement i s found in Exodus XIX , 5-6. Here , God tells Moses that by undenaking the mi s sio n of bringing other nations ' 'closer to God and Righteousness ' ' by being ' 'a kingdom of , priests and a holy nation , . they would be his "treasure . " The Exodus state ment is elaborated in commentary in a way that emphasizes the metaphor of a long-tenn economic arrangement . According to the commentary : ' 'God asked Israel , 'What sureties have you to give that you will keep My Con venant? ' They offered the Patriarchs , the Prophets and their righteous rulers as their guarantors . But all of them were rejected . It was on ly when they offered their children as sureties for the pennanence of the Covenant ,. that they were accepted (Hertz, 1 960 , p. 291 ) . " The symbolism in regarding chi ldren as pledged propeny to ensure the carrying out the terms of a contract has several impl ications for fami ly and k i nship. First , grace or salvation is not a functi o n of an indiv idu a1 9s own
23
bu t it i s i nstead dependent upon the conduct of descendants and , c ond uc t, n tl y , one is constrained to e mphasize intergenerational obligation s : conseque '" .& · an d h atnten an ce of the soc i alization of c hildr�n 10r ngh teous ' ' 1 1ves _ S econd , there ts no c losure to the contrac t : 1t I S ·everlasting , . . fili al piety . no completion of the terms of the contract, each gen erati on Si nc e there is passes on its obligations to the next , l ike an infinitely-repe ating decim al •
���
·
sult, the soc i al structu re-in this case , the family and nu m ber . As a re ki ndred-that s ustains these reciprocities endures without ever ending gen erational ob ligations . (See Levi-Strauss , 1 969). Henc e , ki nship continui t y is to be real ized even
at heavy costs-and the concerns of succession are fore-
most . The intestacy law s of trad itional Ju daism place much e mphas is upon gen eratio nal obl igation s to perpetuate the family . In his Mishneh Torah , Mai mon ides i ndic ate s:
The sage s o f th e Talmud e stablished the following ord er o f le gaJ
heirs : l )
son s
daugh ters and their de sce n dan l s ; 3 ) I h e father, 4) de brothers and the ir scendants ; 5) si sters and their descendanls; 6) the father 's and
their descendants ; 2)
father;
7) the
fat her ' s brothers and their d e sc e n dan t s ; 8) the father 's si slers and
their descendants ; 9) the father 's father 's father ; an d so on . To thi s l i st� imp l i ed in the bi bl ical passages, the s age s added an othe r legal h ei r , lhe husband , \\' hos e
right to the inheritance of his wife 's posse ss ions was inferred from the bi bli c a l
expres sion " 'nearest relative · · (�umbers 27 : 1 1 ) . Each son of the deceased re ceives an equal share of the estate , except the firstborn of the father, who
rece iv es a double share . Where there are neither sons nor sons ' children , th e
daughters and their descendants become the rightful he irs . . . . When th ere
are
no heirs in the descending l ine . t he property is tran s mitted to the nearest relati ve
in the ascendi ng l ine . The falher take s priority over the brothers of the deceased
in the absence of e ither sons or dau ghters (Maimonides ,
1967 .
pp .
292- 293) .
The prio rities in succe ssion described by Maimon i des had been establis hed
i n Ju daic law in the Mish11ah , which w a s compiled follow ing the destructio n of the Templ e . Radin ( 1 9 1 5 , p . 69) suggests that the Bcreation of houses of
praye r d emanded local organization , and with local organi zation gradations of me m ber s and the establishment of loc al mag i strate s . . . . The organizatio n o f th e G reek ci ty-state , familiar t o t h e East for many years , became a m odel for th ese corpo rately organized LJev.'ish] communities .. ' in the D iaspora . A�p p arently , the necessity for c reating a common social order among the se au tonom ou s J ewi sh commun ities had stimulated the codification of Oral LaVw' in the �\fi.�hnah .
Althoug h the order of prioritie s i n succession was similar to Greek l aw· � hav e not been able to determine the hi storical sequence . The ..Mishnah JUsti fied the ordering on the basis of B ibl ic al refe�nces and rabbinic al com me ntary . The priorities are di scus sed in the Fourth Di vision of the �Wi.� hnah .
�
24 c alled Ne ziki n , in the section Baba Bathra , subsect io ns 8 and 9 (Danby ,
1 933 , pp . 376- 379) . The justifications appearing in The Babylonian Talmud (Epstei n , 1 93 5 , II , pp . 463- 478 ) are founded on the assumption that , ' '.� tribe [ mu st] not be blotted out from Israel , (Judges , XXI , 1 7 ) . According ly . � 'So shall no inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to trib e (Numbers , XXXVI , 8) '' and , "So shall no inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe (Numbers , XXXVI , 9) . " To assure that the continu ity of the tribe or family , The Babylonian Talmud (Epstein, 1 93 5 , II , p . 474) propo ses that:
that none of the l ine survi ve s . enquiries the paternal side , and are carri ed on in the case of the descending line ) , unti l
Once it has been definitely established
are instituted in an ascend ing order , on
from father ( i nc l ud ing their heirs ,
the first ancestor of
the
as
tribe is reached .
The �\1ishnah then establishe s the princ i p le for the order of inheritance
an
Judai c law :
This is the general rule: The lineal
succession take precedence .
(Epstein, 1 935 , II,
A
descendants
of
any
one w ith a priority to
father takes precedence over all his
p. 478 ; cf. Danby , 1 93 3 , p. 376) .
descendants
The order of priorities described in the Mishnah has been appl ied in other
historic al settings as well . Cl assical Athenian society of the fourth century
represents such a sett i ng
.
The parallels between Jewish communities of the
Diaspora and Greek city -states s u gge st a similar role to be played by family
and kin ship in maintaining the soc i al stru cture . 1be Athe nian emphas i s on
the continuity of the household , the si gn i fican c e of the concept of contract in social relationships , and the i mportance of intergenerational obligations
expre ss these parall els .
Classical Greek Law
The Athen ian model of assignin g priorities in succession seem s to pres uppose
a soc iety consisti ng of autonomous segments , co - e xi sti ng in a common ter
ritory , and vying for resource s and s tri v i n g to maintain their individual ident
ities . Thi s conception i s consi stent with the partitioning of the Greek pen
insula into city-states . Ehre nberg ( 1 946 , pp . 29- 52) s ug gests that the Greek terrain d i c tated the struc turing of pol itic al units into a matrix of city-states rather than an e mp i re with a sin gle major urban center as a core . Given a land ' ·div ided into numerous small parts and particles , • ' classical Greece was a qu iltwork of auto no m ou s c i ty s tate s converging on one another and com peti n g for re source s and soil . Each city-state tended to develop independent political , economic , and cu l tural attributes . Yet , they existed "in such a close -
25 · ity to one another, that no natural and political boundaries c ould ex ro le , while at the same time every State w as fully aw are s trife and s trugg rces and �wer of its neighbor (Ehrenberg , 1 94 , p . 42) . " De sp ite re so u
; �pro�the
�
_ o s ingle City-state bec ame the core of an emprre . Ehrenberg In n , ts ic nfl co ' 'E ven Athens never attained more than a temporary and tyrandi cate s th at , ny . The Athenian Confederacy was the rule of Athens over a . al h egemo ntC . it never became a true empire , because tt never became one wi de area, but tate (Ehrenberg , 1 946 , p . 45 ) . ' ' Consequently , for the ancient Greeks , the
e ived as an organism with a dominant core exten ding its �orld was not percperiphery . Rather they thought in terms of the pec i al
s in influence over a terests of political entities strug glin g to surviv e and prosper vis-a-vis each
other (Ehrenberg , 1 946 , p . 45 ) . The ba sic political unit within classical Athen s w as the oikos, that is , the family as a corporate unity , the "house . , . In fact, Harri son ( 1 968, p. I )
considers the oikos to be ' 'the con s titu ent elemen ts of the Athe ni an city state . ' � O ne cou ld not be regi stered as a citizen of Athens without oikos membership . Because of this pol itical use of the fami l y , it was imperative to ensure the continuity of the oikos . The political s ig n ifican ce of the oikos was complemented by it s relig ious importance . The contin uity of the oikos
depended, in part , upon the fu lfillment of religious obligations in the famil y
cult over successive generations . Indeed , becoming an heir invo l ved an ob ligation to participate in the sacred rites of the oikos ( H arri s on , 1 968, p . 1 30) .
In Athens , the concept of ownership (as power over the d i spos iti on of property or person s) �·as more limited than in Rome . The Atheni ans placed a greater emphasi s u pon contractual arrangements , which permitted speci fied uses of property with the stated l i mits of the contract-rather than the unlim
ited domain by paternal power (patria potestas ) or by the persisting po\\'er of "spirits p (genius ) in Roman society . The limitations of contract see m to have perv aded all relatio ns hips Ylithin the family , includi ng m arri age (Har
rison , 1 968 ) .
The concept of contract or negotiated reciprocity forms an important aspect of Ari stotle ' s N icomachean Ethics and consequently of his views regarding
fami l y ties . Ari stot le (Book \' . 5 , 1 1 3 2- 1 1 3 3) notes :
It is by proportionate requi t al that the city holds togethe r . Men seek to ret urn either e v il for evil . . . or good for good-and if they cannot do so there is no exchange , but it i s by exchange that the y hold together . . . . If it had not been po ssib le for reciprocity to be . . . effected , there would h ave bee n no associati on of the parties . That demand holds things together as a single unit i s shown by t he fact th at \\'hen men do not need one another , i . e . , when neithe r needs the
othe r or one doe s not need the oth e r , they do not e xchange . . . . Vle do not all ow a man to rule , but rational principle , because a man behaves thus in hi s ow n i n tere st s and becom es a tyrant [ \\'hereas the ru le of rec i p roc ity produces
stable re lationship s based on j ustice . ]
26 Ari stotle cons iders the family as a locus of intensified justice . He reg ards the (Book VIII , 1 2, 1 1 62) . ' ' Identifying family tie s as a c ategory of friendship , he indic ates that ' ' the demands of justice . . . seem to increase with the intensity of the friendship
oikos as . .earl ier and more necessary than the city
(B ook VIII , 9, 1 1 60) . " (Compare with Fortes , 1 969 , pp . 2 1 9-- 249 , on axiom of amity in kinship) . Not that Aristotle equates friendship with egalitari anism� instead , he views the hou sehold as a friendship among persons of unequal status-for the sons , the household constitution is a monarchy ; for the wife an ari stocracy; and for brothers a timocracy . But above al l justice is funda mental to household structure : The friendship between a king and his subjects depends on an excess of benefits
con ferred . . . . Such too is the friendship of a father,
though this exceeds
the
other in the greatne ss of the benefits c onferre d ; for he is responsible for the
e xi stence of his children , which is thought the greatest good . and for the ir nurture and u pb rin g in g . These thi ngs are ascribed to ancestors as well . Further ,
by
nature ,
descendant s.
.
a
fat h e r
tends
to
rule
ov er
his
so n s ,
ancestor
o ve r
. . These friendships imply superiority of one party over the
other , wh ich is why ancestors
are
honored (Aristotle , B ook Vlli , 1 1 , 1 1 6 1 ) .
The emphasis upon generational differentiation of obligations in the family � which Aristotle ap plies in his discussion of just fam ili a l relationships , finds expression in the intestacy laws of Athens . These l aws folio\\' the same prin ciples as those of the Mishnnh with regard to priorities . The order of succession in intestacy laws of classical Athens is as follo\\l·s : I . ' 'First in order of succession came the legitimate sons . . . . Rights of succession of descendants did not . . . run out after the third generation , but the line of heirs continued theoretically ad infinitum (Harri son , 1 968 , pp . 1 3� 1 3 1 ) . u 2. ' 'If a man died leaving behind him no sons but only a daughter or daughters . . . . the dau gh ters became heiresses (Harrison , 1 968 , p . 132) . � · 3 . ' 'If a father had a claim upon his son for maintenance in his old age , a fortiori he had a claim upon the sons 's property if the son died first . . . . A man 's heir might be hi s paternal or even his maternal uncle; and it would seem irrational that these relatives should succeed to the exclusion of his father ( Harri son , 1 968 , pp . 1 39- 1 4 1 ) . " 4 . .. 'There were two terms which were used to embrace relatives other than ascendants or descendants . There were anchisteia and syngeneia . The former of these was the narrow er and the more technical . It denoted all those who were rel ated to the deceased , whether on the father 's or the mother'' s side , down to and including sons of cousins (i . e . , first cousins once removed) , or possibly down to and including second cousins . . . . For the l aw of succes sion it determined the l imit of relatives of the deceased 's father who were entitled before relatives of his mother could come in ; a father 's frrst cous in
27
�a�
o c
remo \'ed ( possi bly a father 's second cousin) would take befo re an y the other hand had no ve 00 the mother 's side . T he tenn syngeneia on
re h res t ri c t i ve sue
use and would apply to relatives beyond this limit . Th u s all . " e1a , but not aI I syngene1a were anch z�·te1a chisteia were syngen an . • W i thi n the anchisteia there was a fixed order of rel at i v e s entitled to father 's side , and then , i f there was no representative of any · ucceed on the the se c las ses on hi s side , succession passed to re lati v e s on the mother ' s order. Anyone in a nearer group excluded all those more side i n the sam e in the same group shared equally ; if one in a di stantly related , w hile thos e le aving chil dre n , those ch i ldren took his group had predece �sed the de ( ) brothers of the deceased by sh are in equal portton s . . . . Thts 1s t he order: I c the same father and their des endants without limit ; sharing was per stirpes [i . e . , the share of a deceased heir goes to his children] ; (2) sisters of the deceased by the same father and t he ir descendants without limit , also sharing per stirpes; (3) patern al uncle s , thei r children , and grandchildren; (4) paternal aunts , their chi ldren and grandchildren ; there wou ld come next (4a) paternal gre at-unc le s with thei r children and grandchildren and (4b ) paternal great aunts with their children and grandch ildren; (5) brothers of the deceased by the same mother; (6) sisters by the same mother, both with descendants ·
·
·
�f
c.u i�
without limit; ( 7) maternal uncles; (8) maternal aunts , in both cases with their
children and grandchildren . . . . This exhaused the
ste ia . If there were
an chi
no relatives within the anchisteia the law simply uses for the next entitled
the vague phrase •the nearest on the father 's side ' (Harri s on , 1 968 , pp . 1 43146) . ' '
ROME AND THE CIVIL LA"T MODEL
The Civil Law model is rooted in the history of ancient Rome . Befo re the fou nding of the Roman Republic , the Patrician s , essenti ally "tribal " heads , pro vi ded the go verni ng elite . The Senate itsel f was a body of these Patricians . The n , as the economic base of Roman society e xpanded , the power of the Plebi an masses increased (Mommsen , 1 905 , I , p. 342- 7 ) . In about 45 0 B . C . � it the cre ation of the Republic , the Twelve Table s were produced , an d the dt st 1nctio n between Patricians and Plebians \vas reduced . The po wer of the Ple b i an s was extended , and five years after the issuance of the T wel ve Tables ,
��
marri ages betwee n Plebian and Patrician families could be validly contracte. d
��ommsen,
1 905 , I , p. 37 1 ; Heitland, 1 923 , I , p . 95 , Sec . 1 2 1 ) . The broad e nm g of t he body politic w eakened those official policie s whi ch required strong centri peta l kinship ties as a basis for sustainin g the social order .
The c ult ural context of the Roman Repub l ic differed in si gnificant \\'ay s from th at of the Greeks . Although the Greek gods were regarded as person s , Ro man deities \\'ere more abstract (Radin , 1 9 1 5 ) . This d ifference became
28
e s pec i a l l y important
v.-ith the g rowth of Roman i mpe-rialism . I n their con que sts � the Romans h ad to face problems abo ut the dom ains of the deities i n \\'ays fa r different from those of the Greeks . Since Greek wars i n v o l v e d subjugation of autonomous s tat es, conquest did no t demand a ch an g e i n the jurisdiction of the go d s . Rom an imperial i sm , however , necess it ated an ex pan sio n of the pro v inc e of the Roman go ds -a un iversal ization of au tho ri t y and the i m po rt ati o n of the gods of the conquered peo p le s into Rome (Rad in � 1 9 1 5 , pp . 44-46) . There "'·as t h u s a clo se connection betv.reen universal i stic re l i gious dom ai ns o f the gods a nd the imperialism of Roman s oc i e t y . The uni versal ism in re- l i gi o n and political s phere extended to the Roma n farnily . PlJ l ria pot£�sras refers not mere ly to the head of a ho usehol d , rathe r it extends to ' "the c h i ld re n of the sons and m o re re mote descen dants t h rou g h males .. withou t any l i mi t other than t hat im po sed by the s pan of hum an l ife (Jol o\\'icz .. 1 967 p . 1 1 8 ) . The pateifalnilills-the o l de s t male ancestor h ad compl ete co ntro l ove r the pri v ate. l i ves of h i s une n1 ancipated descendants but l acked j uri sdict ion o ver the i r c i v i l (pub l ic) l i ves . �1 arried females were now go ve rned by another paterJiunilias . Throu gh i t s connec t ion w ith the e xtensiveness of power. the agnatic grou p be can1e the sig n i ficant entity i n Roman ki n ship . hTwo pe opl e are re la t ed agnati cally if they are. in the patria potes ra.l· of the sa me man � or i f t h e re i s some c ommon an ces t or i n \\'hose pov.'er they v.· o u ld both be if he v.·ere alive (Jolowicz , 1 967 , p . 1 22) . " The relevance of this agn ati c group for main ta i nin g collateral ties is suggested by laws govern ing i ntes t ac y in the XII Table s , c ompil ed around 450 B . C . (Jolow i c z , 1 967 , pp . 4-- 5 ) . The major di fference betv-.·een the A th e n ia n and R om an models for co m p uti n g kin sh i p di stances l ie s in the d eg ree t o "'· h ich they d i sti n g u i sh betwee-n line al and co l late ra l re l ati ves . The Athenian m odel re gard s direct- l i ne relativ es as pri mary l i nk s to Ego and cons iders col l ateral relatives o n l y as seco ndary ex t e nsio n s of l i neal kin . The R o m an model , howe.ver, gi ves equ a l \\'ei g ht to both 1 i neal and co l l atera l descent . The agna t i c group , re fe rri ng to persons rel ated to eac h other t h ro u g h males , attac h e s greater importance to col lateral relative s than does the oikos of Athe ns or the " ' hou s e ' ' of the Jews . The inte st ac y laYlS in the XJJ Tables p ro vide for the fo ll o Yling order of �
succes sion:
� '
1 . · �If a m an di e s i ntestate the ftrSt people entitled to succeed to his estate are hi s sui heredes , al l those in his patria pote!itas or manu.-. L i . e . , in hand] ( Jolowic z , 1 967 , p . 1 23 ) . � · A c cordi ng to Watson ( 1 97 1 , p . 1 7 6 ) , dAll sui � male or femal e , \\o·ho were chil dren of the deceased , and his wife in manu . to ok equal shares. ' ' Grandchi l dren , however , were c ap abl e o f inheriti ng o n l y by representation . 2 . hFailing sui heredes the s ucce ss ion goes to the ne are st agnate or ag nates , if there are sev e ral in the same degree (Jo lowicz, 1 967, pp . 1 231 24) . "
29
'In default of agnates the succession went to the gentiles [i . e . , members f the gens ] . . . . The rights of the gens were anterior to those of the agWe do not know whether the gens took as a corporation or es o . use of the \\,.ord gentiles suggests , they took as individual s betb er, as the p o 1 24 0 S ee also Watson , 1 97 1 , pp . 1 78-- 1 8 2) . " o l o wi c z , 1 967 . Si nce two indi vidu al s are agnatically related to eac h other to the e xtent that they derive from a common paterfamilias-who may be dead-this fact for determining t he agnatus proximus . The gener c an be u sed as the basis 3.
•
:a. �
0
0
at ional distance betvieen the person and the common ancestor determ i ne s the relati ve dilu tion of the ancestor 's potestas as co mpared with the powe.r of mo re im mediate ance stors , who have a greater degree of ' - n a tur al relation
ship. , .. (See San d ars , 1 8 74 , p . 274) . The degree of " natural re l at ion shi p " implies that an ancestor 's spirit of genius is d i ss i pated at a regu lar rate for
each generation of distance from h i m . Hence , if one i nterprets k ins hip prox imity in terms of the me an degree of distance. from
a
paterfamilias ,
the
common ancestor, the measurement distance i n the X I I Tables seem to flo\\' from the concept of patria pote s tas .
The com p u t ation o f kinsh i p di stances fo und i n the X I I Tables v.'as , Yiith slight modification , taken over i n the Justini an In stitute s at about 530 A . D .
The maj or changes i ntroduced by Ju stinian pertain to the exten sion of the rights and inheritance to cognati , i . e . , person s re lated through fem ale as we.ll
as m a le rel atives . By th i s time , the ge ns had decl ined as a v i abl e kinship
enti ty , and with this dec l ine , the agnatic group lessened in significance . The order of succession described in Book 3 , Title 6 , of
the Institute s , � 'Of The
Degree s of Cog natio n ' " (De Gradibus Cognation is ) are the eq uivalent of
those described in the Napoleonic Code and to
those followed in subsequent
applications of modem c ivil law .
CANOS LAW �IODEL : CHURCH AND ST..t\TE
Unlike the Parentela Orders and Civ il Law models , which emerged through
the explication of laws go verning succession to property , the Canon Law was developed to govern marital relati on ships . Some of the assump
�del
tion s that gu ided the canonists in their refinement of the model had been stated earl ier in S t . Augustine ' s City of God ( Book , VX , Ch . 1 6) . Here Aug u sti ne described marri age as a basis for e xpandi ng the boundaries of
g roup so l idarity . Augustine ( 1 966 , V . 4 , pp . 503- 505 ) wrote :
For love was accorded its due importance [in choosing marriage partners outside
the family] so that men , for whom hannony \'�'as useful and honourable , might be bound by ties of various relationships . 1be underlying purpose [of marrying nonrelat ives] was that one man should not compri se many relationships in his
o�� self but that these connections should be severall y distributed among in dlv td uals and in this way serve to weld social life more securely by coveri ng
30 i n their multiplicity a multiplicity of people . . . . [ I n the beginning , Eve was compelled to
be]
both mother-i n-law and mother to her children of either sex .
But if these relationships had involved two women , one
as
mother and another
as mother-in-law, the bond of social affection would have embraced a wider
circ le . . . . And thus the soci al bond would not be restricted to a small circle ,
but \\'ould extend most v.·idely to embrace a greater number of people through the abundant ties of kinship.
August i n e explained consanguineous marriage as resu lti ng from demographic in suffic i ency , emphasizing the virtues of prohibiting such marri ages . Several centurie s later, in the 1 2th ce ntury , Gratian formulated a connection between consanguineous marriage and the nature of the community . Speci fically , he distinguished between the function of m arriage for Jews and for Christians . Gratian indicated that : God commanded the Hebrev.·s to i nterm arry [ among relatives] bec ause the
salv ation of man was realized in the pure Jew ish race .
.
. . Chri st changed the
nature of God 's people by spreading the faith beyond the bounds of the He
bre�·s . Faith , not blood , was to be the criterion for me mbersh ip in the chosen
peop le . . . . In h i s discussion of consanguineous m arri ages , [ Gratian] argued
that such marri ages were no longer permitted because purity of b lood no longer served as the foundati on of the community ( Chodorow ,
1 972,
p.
74) .
As Grati an sugge sted , the c onc eption of community in the 1 2th century seems to have involved the idea that mechanisms more inclusive than kinship are req u i red to cement relationshi ps in society . Between the ninth and the 1 3th century , E u rope had un d ergon e profound changes . There was a slow shift in the basis for social structure from exchange of personal service to the les s personal uses of property and money . This period saw the growth of trade centers and c ities as pol iti c al entities; the di ssipation of the vassalage and manorial s ystems; the emergence of the state ' 'as an entity that was auton omous, independent, self-sufficient and lived on its own norms (Ullmann , 1 975 , p . 247) "; and the proliferation of universities (Maranda , 1 974 , pp. 25- 4 1) . These movements stimulated efforts toward centralization by both the state an d by the Church . Both of them strove to create una concordia ex diversitate--concord from di ve rs i ty (Ullmann , 1 975 , p . 248) . To create this unity , they had to appeal to n on - fami l ial motivations for community . Both the Church and st ate aimed to unify as large a populace as possible under their jurisdiction , and they were thereby stimulated to s tand ard i ze and codify laws governing social relations . Following Pauline doctrine , the Church v-·as de signated as an organic , concrete union of bel ievers, organized ' 'in accordance with its underly i ng purpose or aim , its •finis ' or 'telos . ' ' ' Canon law was supposed to provide a mechanism for dovetailing the various elements into a coherent corpus . In formulating canon law , ' 'The writers
31
nated by the concept of the universal Church as constituting an were domi d extensi vely (Ullm ann , nic entity " an they app lied organic analogies 3 The Canon Law model emerged in its modem fonn out PP · 442- 44 ) . of th is conte xt. Unli ke o ld Germanic law, v,rhich regarded kinship as analogous to the hu man body , can on law used the analogy of a tree . The line of descent was the trunk of the tree , and distances between tv.'O relati ves cons idered to be like were detennined by the number of generations they w·ere removed from a co mmon line. of descent. By analogy, they were the branches . This analogy had appe ared earlier in different gui ses . Isidore of Seville ' 'held that the son and daughter were to constitute the trunk , and the grandson and granddaugh ter were to be the first branch (Smith, 1 940 , p. 25) . " People were to be seen as related when their genealogical connection extended through the sixth degree; in other words , cousinship w as the basis for detennining kinship distances-Ego 's grandchildren (by different children) are first cousins to each other, the great-grandchildren are second cousins , and so on . As John of Orleans later ruled , ' 'Beyond the sixth degree the ties of kin ship [are] conceived as being , in a sense , di ssipated , to be gathered up again by mar riage, whereupon the cycle [is] repeated (Smith, 1 940 , p . 27) . ' ' Isidore 's tree analogy was i ncorporated into later versions of the canon la\11· , including the compilation by Gratian in the 1 2th century . During the 1 2th century , the concept of cousinage came into use in France (�laranda , 1 974 , p. 63) and eventually was extended to include " "rel ati ves in general . ' ' By the 1 3th century , the term genealogie had already taken on its modern anthropoliogical meaning (Maranda, 1 974 , p. 67) . The degree of cou si n ship was refined further by Bernard of Pavia in about 1 1 90 in his scheme for computing kinship distance. . · �where the l ine s of descent from a comm on ancestor were unequal , the longer line \\'as to be considered the determinative factor (Smith , 1 940 , p. 3 3 ) . ' · Apparentl y for Bernard , the reasoning w as that , gi ven the common ances tor as the core or the trunk in a line of descent, the person farther removed in degree from the ancestor extinguished the relationship to the ancestor and therefore to the other person . For example, let us assume the follo\\'ing situ ati on: one relative A is four degrees removed from an ancestor C (i . e . , A is a great- great-grandchild of C ) . A second relative B is eight degrees re m ove.d fro m this same ancestor C . Since a relationship is considered to be di ssipated after the sixth degree , following Isidore of Seville, and the second relative B is eight degree s distance from the common ancestor C , then the re lationship between the two ' 'relative s , · , A and 8 , should be considered as di ssipated . If both A and B had been within the range of . . kinship � ' to the co mmon ancestor, then they Vw'ould have been kinsmen to one another havin g fallen with the cousin ship range despite their belongi ng to different ge ne rations . As it i s , since one of them is no longer regarded as a kinsman
���.
32
of the c ommo n ancestor , the two persons , A and B , cannot be re l at ed to e ach other. In about 1 280 , John de Deo comp leted the model in canon law with his . . Tree of Consanguinity , " whereby the counting of degrees began with , Ego s chi ldren rather than grandchildren: c hildren were one degree di stant , grandc hi ldren two degree s , and so on . By th i s time , p rohib ition of consan gu i neou s marri age had been restricted by the Fourth Lateran Council to re l ati onshi p s w i th i n the fo urth degree of di stance (S m i th , 1 940, pp . 3 3- 34) . IDSTORICAL CONTEXTS COMPARED
The his tori c al s e tt i ng s in v,rhich t he Civil Law , Parentela Orders , and Canon Lav..- ki nship m ode l s emerged differ co n s i de rab l y from one another. Despite
superficial sim ilarities , the societies in which they d eve l oped d i ve rged in re l i gi o u s c onc e ptions , political structure , and ki nship organization . The Ro
man Rep u blic , as a c om prom i se between Patricians and Plebians , emphasized d i stin ct ion between private (familial) and publ i c (civ i l ) domains . (See Hueb ner , 1 968 , V . 4, p. 719) . In contrast to Roman socie ty , both in an c ie nt Judaic and c lassical A theni an societies , fam il y and kinsh ip units themselves c onsti tuted the basic entities in t he state; there was con seq uently no sharp se p arati on among Hebrews and Athenians between family , gove rnme nt , and re l i gi on : they were all intertwined . Rather, patrimonial segments had to develop s trong reciprocities intern a lly in order to maintain thei r ide ntity as w el l as to ne goti ate agreements with other segments for continued coexistence . As for the l aw of the Church , canon law itself emerged in the late Medieval period as a respon se to the growth and centralization of the state . The social con ditio n , which favore d the dev e lopmen t of l arge corporate e nti ties-w ith e ac h at tempting to carve out an au t onomo u s domain of l aw s and authority-acted to subdue the power of the fam i ly to affec t the de stiny of its members . Instead , family an d kindred were pawns utili zed by Church and state to central i ze and ho moge nize their domains . The l arg e corporate entities became the basic mechanisms for continuity of social structure . Church writings o ften appl ied org anic analogies i n describing soci al re alit y . Metaphorically , in ho mo geni z i n g the societ y , ki nship became a tree with spreading branches , its ' 'fruits ' • s u pply in g the person n el for the l arger and more stable corporate entities . In A t he nian and Judaic social structure s , k i ns h ip prov ided the mech anism
by which patri monial segments were pe rpetu ated , and the ki n sh i p models which were app l i ed in c alc u lati ng ki nsh i p d i stan c e emphas i ze d the di stinc t i o ns bet wee n a scendi ng and descending gen e rat io n s . In Rome , the fam i l y fonn ed an i n te gral , but s ubord in ate , part in the persistence of civil s oc i e ty , a nd the model of computing kinship di stances stre ssed the h ierarchical dis tances from a common ancestor . In canon law� the fam ily was socially un-
33
.
nt
as c ompared with the Church and state in providing for the co n insti tu tional structures , and k inship ties were seen onl y as a 110 off fro m a line of descent. As a m e taph or for social struc tu re , bran c · was · ; at . s e s sentially con tractu a1 &10r the anc aent J ev..-s a nd A thentans IOnship y,ra of hierarchal power rel atio nsh i p s for the Romans; and , for the e pression branches of n i sts . it was an organism , a growing tree th at spread the The differen t models thus imply a range of roles for the family to stence of society-from social con ti nu i ty through fam ily and lay in the persi the irrelevance of corporate family and kinship bonds nsh ip ex ten din g to r the pers i sten c e of social structure .
���aof � ng
·
·
�; :faith . � fo
SUI\1MARY
The dep i c t ion of
the historical roots of the kinshi p computational model s associated with major religious and civil legal systems suggests that these models vary with the social structures they symbol ize . People whose vie\\·s of kinship appro ximat e the Parentela Orders model have tended to see the continuity of social structure as rooted primarily in corporate aspects of family and kinship . They apparently visualize the glue of society as consi sting of a network of co trac t s (or al l iances ) . The obl igat i ons ge nerated in these t co ntrac s serve to weld the special interests of the various segments of the society into a stable network of social relations . In history , Jewi sh l aw seems to express this conceptio n of kinship . People who regard and kinship in ways con sistent with the Civ il Code model of genealogical distance tend to see society as per s isti ng through two separate spheres-the public and the p riv ate . The core of the public sphere is the civil society ; the c ore of the private sphere is fam y and kinship . The persistence of cohesiveness in society rests upon accommodation be tween these tYiO spheres of influence and pov.·er. Historically , this conception of social structure emerged with the development of the Roman Republic and, as time went on , the Empire . In the past , people who have shaped family and kinship relations on the basis of the Canon Law model appear to find the basis for the continuity of soci al structure in overarching institutions , notably the C atholi c Church , as coordinating the lives of members of the community . While personal ties amo ng family and ki n may be very strong , these are not seen as the roots of continuity of the social order . Instead , organic analogies are appl ied to ex press the mechanisms that coordinate actions of the ind ividuals in the soc iety and give form to networks of social relationships .
n
family
il
Kinship Classification and Social Context
The review of the historical settings in which the kinship models in legal codes emerged lends support to the view that t here are on l y l i mited way s of symbolizing kinship structure s as they re late to the larger soci ety . In t he hi story of Western civilization , (a) the Parentela Orders model of kinship priorities d evelo ped in a soc ial setting that fostere d an em ph as is upon the perpetuati on of the - 'house , ' ' along with the development of centripetal kin ship norms; (b) the Civil Law model arose in a social se tti n g in which an effort wa s made to m aintai n a balance between - 'family · ' and civil s oc iety ; and (c) the Canon Law mode l was developed in a social setting in wh ich the perpe.t uati on of the " fam i ly " was considered as subordinate to the perpetuation of major corporate groups , s u c h as the Church or S tate . But if there is a correspondence between ki n s h i p model and historical origin s , then it seems plausible to spec u late that the underl y i ng dimensions in the models somehow expre ss symbolically the character of the genera l social struc ture . If this i somo rphi s m between kinship model and ge neral so cial structure exists , then it is also reasonable to ex pect that in contemporary society people who conceptu alize ge ne al ogic al ties ac c ording to a particular model are integrated into the larger soc iety in ways which parallel that model . This chapter presents a general statement regarding kinsh i p orientations as spati al metaphors of social s truc t ure . First, it e xp l ores pre vi o us applications of s pati al metaphors . Afterwards , it deal s spec ifically with kinship orienta tions as spatial met ap hors .
METAPHORS OF SOCIAL SPACE
For some time , p syc hol og i sts have s tud i ed the organ i zati on of sensory impressions . For ex ampl e , Gestalt psychologists (such as Kohler , 1 947 , p . 1 99) co nc lude that ' 'sensory org ani zatio n appears as a primary fact which ari ses from the el e ment ary d y n ami cs of the nervous system . " They al so suggest that ' 'the experiences of the various sense modal ities are loc al ized in a com mon space bec ause we have l earned in early childhood how they
35
y correlated " or because of "dyn amic reasons . " At any rate , s t be spati al l s e ns ory facts do appear i n one space , the space i n which al so t he v i su a l obj ects and the ' isual self are located (Kohler, 1 947 , p . 2 1 5 ) . "
�; 11
:
.
The org anization of sensory facts , however . doe s n ot occur 10 a soctal are given to these sensory i mpre s sio ns and their character c uu m . Names .
va
ned by others with Vw'hom a child i n terac t s . As long as the i stic s are defi org ani z ati on of perceptio ns pertains to phys ical things , there is a high p rob abi lity of ac c urate communication with re gard to objects in the e nv i ronment .
A p rob le m in co m mun icatio n with others ( or in th i nki n g about a matter) emerges when the top i c is no longer a physical thing but an idea or some other intan gible event: How should a h ypothe t ic a l individual describe to someone else the c haracteri stic s of a phenomenon that is not a physical thing in a way wh ic h \\'ill maximize the probability of accurate communication ? Ac curacy requires the individual to use words that are u nders tood by the other . Insofar \\'ords describi ng se n so ry have a high prob abi lity of accurate commun ication , their metaphorical appl ication in the case of intan gible events (as o pposed to physical thi ngs) would describe these events in terms read i l y understood by the other individuals . We would anticipate then that t ateme nts w h ic h are i ntended to de sc ribe intangible events accurately tend to u se many sen sory metaphors (e specially spatial and visual imagery) .
as
facts
s
There
i s agreem e nt that
social rel ation shi p s consti tute
a
sign ificant are a of
i ntangible e vent s . This being the case , w·e expect sensory metaphors to
abound in the language used in e v e ry day life and in the social science s . Just
as
Kurt Lewin ( 1 93 6) found the
metap hor of psychological
space to be v al u
able in the study of ps ych ic al phenomena , the metaphor of social s p ac e has been fruitful in the analysis of social phenomena . The concept ion that phy s ical and social space are isomorphic leads Levi-Strauss ( 1 966 , p. 1 68) to suggest that ' 'space is a soc iety of named places , just as pe opl e are l andmarks with in the group . Places and in div i du a l s al ike are d es i gn ated by proper name s , which can be substituted for each o ther in many circumstance s com mon to man y societies. ' ' As subject matter for investigation , folk mode l s of soci al s pace may supply vehicles for understanding the deve lopment and main te n anc e of social stru c t ure s (e . g . ) alternati ve proc ed ures for com p uti ng kin ship di st ance) . The concept of soc i al d istance represents a w i despread application of the soci al space me t aph or in the social science s . The.re has been , however, dis agre ement over meanings given to the idea of ' ' di st a nce . ' ' For Pitirim So rokin ( 1 95 9 , p . 6) , social distance i mp l ie s that: Human beings , who
are
members of the same social groups and who within
each of these groups have the same function ,
are
in
an
identical social position .
Men who differ in t he se respects from eac h other have different social positions .
The
greater the resemblence of the positions of the different me n , the nearer
36
they
are toward
each other
in social space .
The greater and
more numerous
are
their differe nces in these respects , the greate.r is the social distance bet�·een them .
For Emory S . B ogardus ( 1 959) , ho we ver , the e xpre ssion social distance grows out of common-sense usage and draws upon such terms a s intimate re l at i on s , feeling distant, feel i ng near, or feel i ng far away . Bogardus ( 1 95 9 , p. 7) defines soc ial distance as "the degree of sy mp athetic understandin g that function s between person and person, between person and group , and between group and group . Sympathy refers to feeling reactions of a favorably res pons i ve type , and un ders t anding involves that kno wledg e of a person which also leads to favorabl y re spons ive beh avior . ' ' McFarland ( 1 973) refers to S orok in 's co ncepti on of social distance as em bodying the notion of c ate go ric al similarity , whereby i nd i v i d ual s or groups who are similar in attributes de s i gna t i n g soc ial po s i t i o n are "close " ; in con trast , M cF arl an d refers to Bogardu s ' conception as re l y i ng upon deg ree of probability of s y mpat het ic interaction . The con ceptual distinction between categoric al similarity and degree of pro babili t y has i m ponan t consequence s for the anal y si s of soc ial re l ations . The measurement o f social distance ac cording to the Sorokin conception i n vo l ves the c l as sification of i nd iv idu a ls or g rou ps in such nominal c ate go ri e s as occupat i on , income , education , eth n i c ity , and so on . Ho we ve r, the measurement of social distanc e s , according to the Bogardu s c on ceptio n, involves a gradien t of interactions accordi ng to i mpl ie d ' ' sy mpat heti c understanding • '-intermarri age , commensal i sm , de g rees of residential propinquity , gradations of do ing business togeth er , and the like . The difference in meaning of s oc i al distance between Sorokin and B og ardu s thus l e ads to d ivergent understandings abou t hoy,r social relation s hips evolve . For Sorokin , similar social posi tions generate similar economic , pol itic al , and social i ntere sts , and t herefore in a h igh l y diverse society s oc ial nearness promotes the development of facti on s with special intere sts . For B ogard u s , sympat hetic und erstanding transcends group boundaries, and so cial ne arne s s promotes the establishment of a cohe s i ve order and good will across po p u latio n seg ment s . The distinction be t\\'een c ate goric al and gradient represen tation s of social space is not re stric ted to the measurement of social distance . A similar dis tinction extends throu gh a wide range of social phenomen a and , in eac h case , leads to o pposi n g conce ptio ns about the c haracter o f soc ial existence . For example , in d esc ribin g the growth pattern s of cities , the B urges s concentric c irc le h ypot he si s and t he Hoyt sector hy po t hesi s lead to d ifferent i nterpre tations of the proce ss of urban de ve lo pme n t (B urgess , 1 97 3 ; Hoyt , 1 933) . Like the Bo gardu s co nception of social distance , the Burgess concentric circle hypothe s i s seems to fall into a cl a ss of s pati al metaphors involvi ng a grad ie nt; l ike the Sorokin co ncepti on , the Hoy t sector hypothesis falls into
37
iff
f
hors that emphasize d ering values or diverse bounded 1 ss of metap an d yiel d a series of nom i nal categories . I will describe these two a regtons s patial metaphors 1n greater detcu·1 below . l asse s o f aJ metaphors , l ike Burgess ' concentric-circle model , c The frr st class of spati i en sion of core versus periphery , intimacy versus remoteness , sts on a d m som e other characterization of a gradient . The use of gradients for de i in soc i ology . In their ad i ribi ng soc ial relationsh ps has had a long tr it on mitive classi fi cat i on, Durkhe im and M auss (in Parsons et al . , f an aly sis o pri ! 96 1 ) i ndicate that primit i ve societies based thei r systems of classification
c. a
·
� �
u pon such grad ations:
The frrst c lasses of things v.·ere classes of men , into which these things \\'ere integrated . . . phrateries were the frrst ge nera; the clans , the frrst spec ies . Th ings were supposed to be integral parts of the society , and it was their place in society that determined their place in nature . . . . It is a fact of common observation that the things included in genera
are
generally imagined as located
in a sort of ideal mi lieu , the space dimen sions of which are more or less c learly
defined . It is certainly not Vlithout reason that concepts and their relationships have so often been represented by c ircles--co ncentric or excentric , outside or inside one another, etc . (Durkheim and Mau ss , in Parsons et al . , 196 1 , p . 1066) .
The assumpt i ons made by Edward Shils ( 1 975) about the nature o f society constitute a coherent statement about the ex i stence of a gradient , extend ing
from core to periphery , as expressing a basic dimension in social life . For S hil s , i t i s the length of the gradient that describes the degree of integration of the society : the longer the gradient, the greater is that chance that new centers will emerge , which will , in tum , ac t to increase the size of the gradient further . According to Sh i ls ' exposition :
I . ' ·An human collectivities have a tendencv toward closure into selfcontai nment. They seek th ro ugh their authorities to establ ish and ma i ntain a certai n iden tity , to define their boundaries , and to protect their integrity ( S h il s , 1 975 , p . 45 ) . " '• 2 . The main factors which e stabli sh and maintai n a society are a central authority , c onsensus , and territorial boundedness . . . . Every society , seen macro soc i ologically , may be interpreted as a center and a peri p hery . T he ce nter con sists of those insti tutions (and roles) which exercise authority whethe r it be economic , governmental , political , mil itary-and o f those w h i ch cre ate and diffuse cultural symbo ls-rel i g i ou s , literary , etc .-through churches , schools , publishing houses , etc . The periphery consists of those .
strata
or
sectors of the soc iety which are the recipients of commands and of beliefs whic h they do not themselves create or cause to be diffused, and f o those who are lower in the distribution or allocation of re\\·ards , dignities, fac il i tie s , etc . (Shils , 1 975 , p . 37 and 39) . "
38
3 . . .The existence of a central value sy stem re sts , in a fu n d amental w ay , on the need which human bei ngs have for incorporation into someth in g w h ich transce nds an d tran sfi gure s their conc rete individual e xistence . They have a need to be in contact w ith symbol s of an orde r which is larger in i ts dime n s i ons than their O\\'D bodies and more central in t he 'ultimate ' structure of re ali ty than is their rout i ne everyday life (Shils , 1 97 5 , p . 7 ) . " Moreover � ' 'This central value system i s the cen tral zone of the society It is cen tral because of its in ti m ate connection with what the soci ety holds to be sacred; it is central because it i s espoused by the rul ing authorities of the society ( Shils , 1 97 5 , p . 4) . " 4 . . .All territorially extensive soc i eti e s tend to have a spati al center as well , which is, or is t hou ght to be, the seat of the central i nstitutional and cu l tural systems (Shi l s , 1 975 , p . 39) . " 5 . ' "Integrated societ ies in Vlhich the authoritative institutional and cultural systems are "·ell established can become civil soc ieties with a wide diffu sion of the virtues requ ired for the effective prac ti ce of c iti zen sh i p . They become so where closure around the ce nter is accompanied by the approximation o f center and periphery . Thi s is th e pat h which h a s been followed over the past century and a half in Western Europe , th e United State s , and Australia , and to a lesser extent by Japan and C anada. In these countries, the mutual ex change between center and periphery , and the he ig htened se nse of affin i ty which attends this i n terc hange , have brought larger proportions of the pop ulati on into the center and obliterated to some extent the bo u ndary which has in the past separated center from periphery ( S hi l s , 1 97 5 , pp . 46-47 ) . " .
The second class of metaphors of soc i al spac e , l ike Hoy t s sector model '
in urban growth , refers to qu al i t at i ve differences in the struc ture of soci al relation ships . Like the gradient metaphor, the second metaphor of social space has had a long history of appl ication i n the soc ial sc ience s . It too appears in the analysis by Durkheim and Mauss of pri mit ive class ificatio n scheme s . They write (in Parsons et al . , 1 96 1 , p . 1 067): \\'hat i s here concei ved as perfectly homogeneous is represented elsev.·here as
essentially heterogeneous . For us, space is formed of identical parts, inter
changeable one v..· ith the other . We have see n , hov.,-ever, that for many peoples
space is profoundly differe ntiated, depend ing upon the region considered . Thi s
is because each region h as its own affective val ue.. Under the influence of
v arious sentiments , a particular region of space is referred back
rel i gious principl e; in consequence , it is endowed Ylith virtues \\'hich distinguish it from any other reg ion .
to
a specific
.. ui
.
generis ,
The dist i n cti on between the gradient and c at ego ri cal met aph or s of social
kin ship organization . Dual ki nship o rg an izat io n i s gene ral l y characterized by the pre sence of moieties that d ivide a society into tw o maj or kin groups . Levi- Strauss ( 1 963 , pp . 1 3 2space appears in Levi-S trau ss ' discu ssi on of dual
39
shows a correspondence between the spatial l ayout of villages and the g an ization of moieties . In societies with moieties , villages tend to be laid
1 63)
C:t that they are divided physically along an axis into two parts , which SS designates as diametric dualism . Sometimes these villages also �vil-S traU mmon with other societies which are not divided into moieties) (in so
co disp ay of concentric circles , u sually with a core and a periphery differen a layou t ti ated according to function or residential use . Levi -Strauss emphasizes the i n te rplay of these layouts in structuring social relationships; however .. it may be equ al ly i mportant to stress their distinctiveness as illu strating the two
metapho rs of social space . 1n con centric patterning , the core of the village , according to Levi-Strau ss ,
is ord inari ly reserved for communal functions such as ceremonial acti vities , danci ng , burial , or the living quarters for ch iefs or unmarri ed men . The pe riphery holds the individual clans, the homes of marr ied couples , and the
work areas . On the other hand , di ametric structure s signify categorical dis tinctions in social rel ationships and responsibilities . Levi-Strau ss suggests
that frequently � 'the opposition between moieties expresses a more subtle di alectic " in function . Dualistic structure appears to present not mere-ly a di chotomy in social categories but also an opposition: warfare and policing \·ersus the arts of peace and arbitration , continuity versus disconti nuity . In this manner, the diametric structure of dual kinship appears to expres s the barriers , the boundaries , and the conflicting valences described in topological psychology . The diametric structure seems to represent another instance of the c ategorical metaphor of social space , in which a line of demarcation acts as a basis for partitioning the space .
In contrast to users of gradient models , those scholars w ho apply a cate
gorical conception of social space take as a starting point an initial state of conflict among collectivities--a battle of group against group . In his work on kins hip , for example, Levi -Strauss begins with an original state of hordes
in confl ict and proposes that social structures greater than the nuclear family
e merged as a result of the incest taboo and of the rec iprocities developed and elaborated between groups through marital exchange . From the begi nning , accordi ng to the structural position , community life was based on political
alli ance s of groups real izing their speci al interests in reciprocities established Wit h othe r groups . In the categorical conception of social space , thus , one as su mes as a starting point the predom inance of special intere sts of different groups .
The no min al-category metaphor of social space thus implies that rel ation . hi s ps in the family e merge as an entity only insofar as obligations-reci proc it i es-within the family coalesce . The categorical representation suggests th t the family affects the collective destiny of its members in competition � W ith simi lar collectiv ities for wealth , power, means of grace , or other scarce gOOds .
40
It may be advisable to summarize at this point . The previous discussion of
soc ial space metaphors and their appare nt implications for the analysis of social relationships may be stated as follows:
l . Soc ial space metaphors derive their util ity from the gre ater effectivene ss
of words pertaining directly to sensory i mpressi on s (especially visual im
agery) than of more abstract terms to communicate ac c urately the descripti on
of social relationships . 2 . The application of spatial metaphors suggests an isomorphism between physic al and social space , which may exist as explicit ' 'translations ' ' in cl assific ation scheme s of social space . 3 . Two kinds of spatial metaphors appear to be applied generally ; a gra dient co nception of social spac e and a nominal-category conception of soc i al space .
4 . The grad ient c onception of soc ial relationsh ips i mplies a soc ial space consisting of
a
core and periphery , with c oncentric circ le s denoting degrees
of remoteness; the categorical conception of social relationsh ips implie s
a
social space con sisting of a set of regions (defined as categorie s of bounded areas) , with a l i ne of demarcation (rather than a single point) as a basi s for generating the model .
5 . These social space metaphors seem to apply to a large variety of social phenomena and , as Durkheim , Mauss , Levi-Strauss , and others have sug gested , to express some basic elements in ways soci eties (or social groups) are organ i zed . 6 . The two metaphors funher imply a difference in the way social rela tionships develop: the gradient-metaphor rests upon the assumption of tend encies toward consensus or common concern as the basis for social structure ;
the categ ori c al metap hor assumes that factionali sm or group conflict over special interests is at the root of social structure .
7 . Given the differences in assumptions about the development of social relationships , the two metaphors presuppose opposing resolutions to disorder in society . The grad ient representation presupposes a strengthening of con
sensus with regard to the common w el fare ; the categorical model presupposes
an accommodation by the oppo sing faction s .
KINSHIP MODELS AS METAPHORS OF SOCIAL STRUCTURE Ki nship models seem
to symbolize the relationship between the social whole and its parts in terms of space . In discu s si ng kinshi p ties , people often refer to Hthe proximity of relatives , • ' "di stantly related persons , " "intimate kin, , or ucousins who are far removed . " David Sch neider ( 1 968 , pp . 72- 7 3 ) propo se s that there are three different meanings of di stance in Ameri can ki nship: physical distance , socio-emotional distance , and genealogical dis
tance . Wh i le these three meanings are not necessarily rel ated , they seem to
41
ted . The co nnec ti on between kinship and the concept of di stance .orrel a be c ests that the ki nsh ip models in leg al code s can indeed be reg arded as . sugg phors of soc tal structure . ta me al ti Hen ry M organ ' s seminal work , co nce ptions of geneasi nce Lewi s l ic al strocrure have been regarded as synonymous with patterns of kinship Using a l inguistic model , anthropologists seek to determine
s�ver C::mencl ature. mantic domains , which are supposed to yield a system of soci al c l assifi ��ion based on roles , statuses , and group membershi p . Anal ysis of k i nship n
tenns h as indeed produced n umerou s insights pertaining to fami ly and k inship
i cularly in n on i nd ustri al societies . These insi ghts refer pri m ari ly struc tu re , part to the sem antic dimensions underl ying a tab le of organization of kinship
relationshi ps . The tables of organization vary in the ways they partition rel ati ve s accordi ng to co n s a ng uin i ty versus affinity , lineal ity versus c.ollateral i ty , the d i stinction between a scending and descending generations , bifurca
tion versu s mer ger by relative 's gender, and so on (Murdock , 1 949) . Anthro po logists have uncovered numerous correlations between kinship ter minology and table of organ i z ati on . In modern society , the relatively high degree of social stratification , oc
cupational differentiation , religious and ethnic diversity , freq uent contact with foreigners , and variations in domestic life sty les all i nteract to sustain a
broad spectrum of kinship tables of org a nizatio n . Still , despite the heter
ogeneity of ki ns hi p tables of organization and their supporting ideologie s , virtually everyone in the society learns a c ommon set o f k i n terms (of the dominant language spoken) . C on seq ue ntl y , even with a com mon kinship terminology , people often do not agree about what constitutes an pprop riate table of kinship org an iz at i o n . For in s tance , some people include in- law s and distant cou si ns in thei r · "k i n universe , ' ' while others do not (Schneider and Cottrell , 1 97 5) . Thi s l ack of association between table of kinship organi zation and term s for de sig nati ng re latives suggests that in contemporary society a supplemen t ary c riterio n is needed to handle the tasks which term i n ol ogy ordinarily acco m plishes in noni ndustrial societies . While people may differ in tables of �rganiz ation , they still need a vocabulary to describe priorities of duties and nght s w ith re spect to their · "kin universe . " S i nce contemporary societie s do not gen erally have formall y-organized descent groups in which membership Wou ld define these priorities , another means must be devi sed to serve th i s
a
purpose .
Sc h nei der and Cottre l l (1 975 , p . 92) propose that "one of the fundame ntal fe ature s ' ' of the structure of the Ame ric an kin universe is the di vi sion of
�7l ative s
uin
to those who are 'close ' and those are are 'distant . ' " In fact , th e gre ater the genealogical distance , the more important nongenealogical and n onkin sh i p con siderations become , the more choice Ego has over whether
to
inc lude or e xc lude [the rel ative] from his kin univer se and whether to
42
transmit [the relative] to his children (Schneider and Cottrel l , 1975, p . 96). '' Sheila Klatzky (n . d . , p. 84) also has found that genealogical distance is associated with the structure of kinship relations-in that ·'there i s a greater element of choice in contacts with genealogically more distant relatives.'' Likewise , Litwak ( l960a) has shown that the closer the genealogical tie , the less apt is geographical distance to diminish contact , mutual aid , or se nti mental bond . (See also Rosenberg and Anspach, 1 973; Adams , 1968.) The tie between social structure and conception of genealogical space pre supposes that the societies in "·hich the kinship models in legal codes "V1'ere first developed exhibited many of the complexities found in modem society. Jewish soci al structure, classical Greece , and the Roman Republic all sho\\' these complexities . Indeed , the presence of laws of succession presumes an elaborate system of property institutions, whereby individuals (or individual families) can accumulate weal th and resources. Each of these societies held urban centers , with a high degree of soci al stratification and with foreign residents interspersed among the population . In each society , there was also conside.rable contact with various other ethnic and/or rel igious groups . Canon law itself was explicitly established to create a unity out of the diversity of European customs and traditions . So there was much heterogeneity in these societies with respect to social and economic hierarchy , diversity of family norms, range of c itizens h ip rights , and so on . The broad ranges of population characteristics in these societies perhaps encouraged the metaphorical use of the concept of social distance (especi ally in the sense in which Sorokin used the term) to describe similarities in property interest by various groupings. Since property interests were generally connected with the family or kin group , it apparently was reasonable to apply the concept of distance to the measurement of genealogical relatedne ss . Despite their considerable complexity , the societies in which the legal models originated in no vt'ay even approximate the size and heterogeneity of modem society . These older societies were still h omogeneous enough for the particular kinship models impl ied in legal codes to serve their special needs for social continuity . The heightened complexity of modem , urban society (as suggested by the discussion in the introductory chapter), however, is capable of accommodating the full range of conceptions of genealogical space found in the legal codes of the Hebrews, ancient Athens , the Roman Twelve Tables, and Catholic canon law. The variations in conception of genealog ical distance found in the studies reviewed above, associated as they are with socia1 characteristics, may well be expressions of the models which appear in legal cod es-Parentela Orders, Civil Law , Genetic , and Canon La\v . The discussion of metaphors of social space leads to the speculation that the kinship models applied in legal codes fall on a continuum . At one extreme is the Canon Law model , which expresses the concentric-circ le conception of space , implying consensus or common concern as a basis for social struc-
43 At the other extreme is the. Parentel a Orders model , which yields a set unded cl asses , implying that an accommodation by special interests lies the root of social o rder. Specific i mp l ic ati on s of this sy m bo l i zat i on are
�t�� tha:� people who conceptualize kinship ties in accord ance with the Parentela
Orders model regard their partic-i pation in segmental groups ( perhaps deri v ing ethnic , or some other special interest) as more significant for from re l igi ous , in universalistic associations and social continuity than their involvement move me nts in the civil society . 2. People who conceptualize kins hip tie.s in acc ordance with the Civil Lavl model regard social continuity as deri vi n g most effectiv e l y from a balan ce of parti cipat ion in segmental, special interest groups and in universalistic associations and mov emen t s in civil society . 3. Pe opl e who conceptualize kin sh ip ties in accordance with the Geneti c (or shared chromosome) model or the Canon Law model re gard social con tinuity as deriving more effectively from participation in universalistic as soc i ati ons , institutions , and movements in civil society than f ro m segmental
groups .
Two investigations h ave been undertaken in which adherence to a particular
kinshi p model is related to place in the co mmunity . In part, both studies dealt with the ex tent to wh i ch participation in a segmental, re l i gi ous c ommu nity that is, Judai sm and Christian sectarianism-is associated with conception of genealogical space in tenns of the prioritie s of the Parentel a Orders model . In the first study , based on a sample of 248 students at Arizona State Uni versity, Je�·s and Christian sectarian s showed the greatest conformity to the. Parentela Orders model; denominational Prote stants were next; and Catholics and athei s ts exhibited least conformity to this model (Farbe r, 1977). In the seco nd stud y , based on 182 Jews l iv i ng in the Kansas City met ropol itan area, persons indicating a high degree of conform ity to the Parentela Orders model had the foll owing characteristics: (a) most often Orthodox in upbringing , next Conservative, and least often Refonn; (b) born in rather than m i grated to Kansas City; (c) live in areas of Kansas City with a relatively high concen tratio n of Jewish popu lati on ; (d) more acti\'e than the ir own p aren ts in Jewish activities; and (e) di sapprove of intermarri age with non-Jews F ( arber, 1979). The fi ndi ng s of both studies are hence c o nsisten t with the p revio u s discussion regardi ng the relationship betv.'een organization of gene a l og ic al space as ex pres sin g an ideolo gy regarding the role of the family in social continuity, Whereby a segmental co mmu nity-i n this case, religious--translates its con cerns abo ut c ontinuity into a sy stem of priorities in genealogical space . For ex a ple m , the centripetal family ideo logy of Ju dai s m expresses this concern about c on tin uity through the ve hicle of the Parente I a Orders model, and among Jews. it is those who are most involved in Je�·ish communal life who organ i ze the ir kin universe in terms of this model.
44 Since the tY.'O past studies are based on atypical populations (university students and Jews in Kansas City ) , the q ue stion may be asked: To what extent does the relationship between social structure and kinship orientation appear in data generated from a more representative sample? The analysis that fol lows is addressed to this question .
Cognitive Kinship Maps:
A Serendipitous Finding
Briefly , the previous chapters in this monograph proposed that the computational measures for deter mining priorities in intestacy and for defming certain kinds of con sanguineous marri ages as "'inces tuous�
9
in I aYi produce orderings
of consanguines that c an be regarded metaphorically as cogn itive kinship map s . Historical analysis indicates that the kind of measure adopted in lav.' is related to the character of the social structure . In his rigorou s analysis of such measure s , John Atkins ( 1974) described in particular the Canon Lav.· Civil Lay; computational models and their homologues . He indicates that, although the homologues may be ' 6h i storical l y distingui shable'' from these measures , they ''create exactly the same ordering of consangu ines {Atkins, 1974, p. 13)." Unexpectedly, this study has unvei led an ordering
and
of consanguines that has not appeared among any of the previou s measures (including those described by Atkins ( 1974)), and the analy sis in this chapter
will focus upon thi s serend ipitous fmding .
FORMAL AND POPULAR CONCEYI'S OF KINSHIP
Althoug h an analysis of the formal measures of genealogical proximities may prov ide numerous insights into the character of kinsh ip in different societies, the questi on recurs : Do these formal models of genealogic al proximities rep
resen t in any w ay the kinds of kinship maps that people carry around in their own m inds? If these models do represent distillations of popu l ar conceptions of kin ship , then in a population one should be able to find some degree of assoc iat ion betv.'een cognitive confonnity to a model and variou s soci al and cu ltural c harac te.ri stics . Pi lot studie s (Farber , 1977; 1979) on limited popu l ati o ns h ave indic ated that there is indeed a relationship between conformity
� ka_ nship models and predictable characteristics in religion , ferti lity , migra
hon, and edu cation . The w idespread presence of a previously unknown model i n the Phoenix
�pulat io n ha s important implications for the understanding of middle-clas s kinship structure. Consequently, the c hapter also incl udes the resul ts of a compo nenti al analysis that uncovers the cognitive dimens ions shaping the
46
new model-as well as the other models under investigation . This type of analysis clarifies the inte-rrelationships among the various models (Atkins, 1974) and it should expedite. interpretations of the Phoenix study findings in the chapters that follow . In the Phoenix study , individuals were classified by kinship mapping ori entation on the basis of their responses to questions penaining to prioriti es in intestacy law . The technique was as follows: I. The respondents were presented with a serie s of paired comparisons of relatives for whom the four models-Parentela Orders , Civil Code , Ge. netics , and Canon Law�iffer in genealogical remoteness . 2. The instruc-tions to the respondents were:
Next , 'Ne have a few questions about inheritance lav.·s . When someone dies without leaving a v.'il l , the la'W·s says that the estate goes to the nearest relatives . The law then tries to follow what most people look upon as their nearest relatives .
Suppose you had to v.·rite a law for Arizona to decide which relati vcs should have a greater claim to the estate when a person dies without leaving a will .
Categories of relatives are listed on this form. These pairs were chosen because they stand for different ways of figuri n g which relatives are closer.
For each pair of relatives , please check the kind of relative who should have a greater claim to the estate-when there is no \\rill .
3. The respondents were then asked to assign priorities in nine pairs
of
consanguineous relatives. The list included parents , children, brothers and sisters , grandchildren , first cousins, aunts and uncles, nieces and neph ews , grandnieces and grandnephev,'s, and grandparents . For each pair, the respondents \\'ere given three choices . For example: Comparing brother�· and sisters �·ith grandchildren:
( ) Brothers and sisters should have a greater c.Iaim.
( ) Both should have an equal claim.
( ) Grandchildren should have a greater clai m . In th e comparison between brothers and sisters and grandchildren, the choice of brothers and sisters would be appropriate for the Canon Lav-.' and Genetic models; "equal claim" would be appropriate for the Civ il Lav,r model; and grandchildren would be the appropriate response for the Parentela Orders model .
Nieces and nephews
First cousins versus niece�\ and
versus
Parents versus children
Brothers and sisters versus parents
grandchildren
Brothers and sisters
uncle�
First cousin� vemus aunts and
grandnephew�
First cousins verso�\ grandnieces and
nephews
grandparents
Children
Purents
Grandchildren
Aunts and uncles
grandnephews
Grandnieces and
Nieces and nephews
Nieces and nephews versus
nephews
Niece� and nephews
GrandparentR
Parentela orders
Aunts and uncles versus nieces and
uncles
Grandparents venus aunts and
intestacy question
Kin types compared in
Equal claim Equal claim
Equal claim
Brothers and sisters
Aunts and uncles
Equal claim
Niec� and nephews
F..qua) claim
Equal clain1
Equal claitn
Parents
Equal claim
Aunts and Uncles
Equal clain1
Nieces and nephews
Grandparents
Equal claim
Grandparents
Genetic model
Clasaily Respondents by Kinship Model
Civil law
TABLE 4-1. Patterns of Answen to Intestacy Questions Used to
Equal claim
Equal claim
Brothers and sisters
!:.qual claim
First cousins
Equal claim
Equal claim
Equal claim
Equal claim
--
Canon law
'-J
�
48 4. Each respondent was then classified according to the kinship model to which a majority of answers corresponded . The response patterns used to classify each person by kinship mapping orientation are shown in Table 4- 1 . When there was no majority for any one model, the person was assigned to a residual category. (See Farber, 1977 and 1 979.) AN AMERICAN STRATEGY
In an ideal world, all participants in a social survey would provide responses consistent with the investigators" expectations. In a study of kinship models by which people organize priorities among relatives, all respondents would dutifully provide answers that would permit classification in one of the pre detennined categories of kinship orientation. Spec ificall y , each respondent would produce a pattern of responses that could be classified unambiguously as conforming to an identifiable model-Parentela Orders , Civil Law , Ge netics , or Canon Law . But, the world is not totally predictable-and not all respondents conduct themsel ves as if they were using the investigator� s re search design as a script. In this study , responding to the questions on pre ferred priorities in intestacy law , 17 percent of the sample produced patterns of answers that fell into a residual category . The large number of cases that did not correspond to any of the kinship models under examination evokes the questions: Do sizeable segments of the population conceptualize priorities among relatives in an idiosyncratic fash ion? Or has the investigation omitted a widely-applied kinship model from consideration? Supporting the interpretation of residual category cases as idiosyncratic is my experience that many persons say that, in responding to the questions, they are drawing from their own personal experiences with kin. This argument, however, is specious since most people , even when they conform closely to an existing model , are unaware of their rationale . A Serendipitous Model
In orde.r to determine whether many of the residual-category cases actu al ly conform to a coherent pattern , I examined the modal responses to the indi vidual questions on priorities in intestacy laYl . The pattern of modal responses in the residual category appears in Table 4-2. A clue to the organizing prin ciple of this pattern is suggested by the fact that, with one exception (that of cousins versus nieces and nephews) , the kin types in the modal categories are always in an older generation than are the types with which they are compared. That is, grandparents are given priority over aunts and uncles� parents over children , and so on . The next step in the anal ysis of the residual cateogry is to find a compu-
49 LE 4-l. Modal Responses to Intestacy Questions for Cases Falling into 1AB Residual Category of Kinship Ct.sifications Percentage of cases
types com�ared in Kin O intestacY questiO
Grandparents
falling into modal
Modal kin type
versus aunts and
category a
Grandparents
53.8
Aunts and uncles
78.8
Grandparents
78.8
First
Nieces and nephews
41.7
rust cousins versus grandnieces and
First cousins
75.8
Aunts and uncles
56.1
Brothers and sisters
60.6
uncles uncles versus nieces and • un1s and ·""' nepbews s versus Nieces and nephew grandpareuts . cousins versus rueces and nepbews
grandnephews
First cousins versus aunts and
uncles Brothers and sisters versus grande hi ldren Brothers and sisters "iersus parents Parents versus children a
Number
of cases
classified as
Residual
52.3
Parents
49.2
Parents =
132.
tational formula that y ields the pattern of priorities suggested by the modal re sponse s. The computational model that fits the patte rn is: D = (n + I )i + j, where D refers to priority rank; j as before is the number of generations bet\\·een EGO and the ne arest ance stor in common Vlith a collateral relative; n is th e number of generations betYleen EGO and the m os t re-mote ance stor (i.e., the largestj) to be con sidered in a set o f the computations; and i i s the number of generati ons between the nearest common ancestor and the collat eral relative. In com putatio ns involving lineal rather th an collateral rel at iv e s , j alone is used for EGO' s direct ancestors , and (n + 1) i by itself is used for EGo's descendants. Thi s co mputati onal model produces the configuration of kin types in Table 4-3 .
Comparison
There �odel
with Parentela Orders }fodel
is so me similarity between Parentel a Orders and the sere nd i p i to us yi el ded by the residual-category analysis. Both model s depend upon
differenti
ati ng ancestral l ines from lines of desc ent , and both m odel s provide for un iqu e ra nkings of distance for each kin type . D i ffere nces , however ,
a�pear whe n the patte of priorities in Table 4-3 is compared with that Yt�lded by the Parentela Orders model. As noted earl ier, while the compu rn
talto nal formula for the se re ndipitou s model is D
=
(n
�
I) i + j, the formul a
50 4-3. Ranking of Distances from Ego According to Model Based on Modal Responses in Residual Category (Standard American
TABLE
Kinship Modelf
Order in
Order in
line of descent {i) 0
3
2
Ego (Q)b
Great-grandchildren (9)
(Ji
+
sisters (4) and nephews
Nieces
Grandnieces and
First cousins (8)
j) .
the appropriate formula ror the Parentela Orde�
distances in the Parenlela Orders model is
(1) Children (2) Grandchildren (3) Great-grandchildren (4) Parents
(7)
grandnephews ( 10)
.. Rmkill@ of distance from Ego.
these kin types,
Grandparents (2) Aunts and uncles (5)
Parents (1)
Brothers and
Grandchildren (6)
" Computational fonnula is Note: For
generations (j)
0
Children (3)
2
asce nding
as
follows:
(5_) Brothers and sisters (6) Nieces and nephews (7) Grandllieces and gnndoepbews
model is: (I + 4j).
Ranking i) ; if the rel ati v e is in a descending generation , then (i >j) . If j is greater, then let S = 1 ; if i is greater , let S = - I ; and if i = j , then S = 0. Furthermore , let the quantity ( I + S)/2 = A . l In the transformation , as in the formula [i + (m + 1 )j ] , l et m refer to the largest i in the set of rel ati ves for whom the comput ations are being performed . The derived formu l a for Parentela Orders is a modificatio n of the Civi l Law transfonnation (G + 2R): G(Am + 1) + R(m + 2) , or GAm + G + Rm + 2R, or (G + 2R) + m( GA + R) . The trans formation of the Parentela Orders fonnula into the orthoganal gene rati onal- collateral form hence produce s a second component [m (GA + R] in additio n to the dimensions in the Civil Lav.' scheme (G + 2R) . The
major elem ent in thi s second component (apart from m ) is the in c orporation �f generation al ascendance versus desce ndancy vis-a-vis Ego into the model
(I. e . ,
A for ascending ge nerati o ns
=
I ; A for descen di n g ge nerat i on s = 0) .
62
The transformation of the Standard American formula [(n + l ) i + j] i s comparable to that of Parentela Orders . The o nly difference pertai ns to the s y mb ol s A and m . For the Standard American translation , let the q ua nti ty ( 1 - S)/2 = D . Then D will = 1 when i is l arger than j , and D will === 0 when i is smaller; in addi t i on , let n refer to the largest } in the set of re l at i ve s for whom the co mpu tation s are being performed . The transformed v e rsion of the Standard American model is as follows :
(G
+
2R)
+
n (GD
+
R) .
The co mponents for the Standard American model thereby resemble those for the Parentela Orders model . Both cons i st of the Civil Law co mpon en t and a unique factor . Distinctions refer primarily to the re vers a l in treatment of ascending and descend in g generations in the fonnulae. The i mpac t of the u niqu e components in the Standard American an d P ar entela Orders model s upon c l ass ificati on of kin i s indicated in Table 4- 9 . This table separate s the contributions o f the C iv il La\\' com ponent and the unique Parentela Orders and Standard American com ponents in producing priority rankings . The Parentela Orders c omponents are di s cus se d first , and afte tvlard s those for the Standard American model . A rev iew of the components of the Parentela Orders priorit y scores in Table 4-9 d i scl ose s that , with the effect of the Civi l Law deg ree removed , the remaining compo nent derives directly from a hierarchy of Parentel a Or ders (P) . The latter com P.Onen t , m (AG + R), can also be e x pres sed in terms of j. S inc e R is zero for a direct a nce s tor, and since A = 1 in ascending generations , any parente l a class can be identified by (G + 1 ) . But inasmuch as [R = 0, G = j] refers to a direct ancestor , a parentela class can also be identified by U + 1 ) . As the verbal description in introductory chapter attests , the ordering of any p arente l a P thereby depen ds upon the ge nerati ons of Ego 's direct ancestor, who is then ' "head ' ' of that parti c u l ar descent line . In the table, the unique component scores for a de scen t line are the same as that
for i t s ' 'head . ' ' Within a p arente l a clas s , only the Civil Law c ompone n t
varies . A feVto' illustrations from Table 4-9 may clarify the re l ation sh ip betv.'een the. Civil Law and P arentel a Orders components . For great-great grandparents , G = 4 and R = 0. The Civil Law component, G + 2R , produces a sco re of 4, and ( since here m = 3) the Parentel a Orders component , m (AG + R) , y i el ds a sco re of 1 2 . The total priority rank i ng i s (4 + 1 2) o r 1 6 . Rem ov i n g the effect of m , we find that 1 2/3 = 4, and (AG + 1 ) = 5 , which tel ls us th at the great-great g randparent s are at the head of the fifth parentela set . Looking down the unique-component co l u m n , we find that, like the great-
largest j
B�ausc the largest i
c Because the
b
-
=
(G)
2 2
n -
4.
is an absolute number whereas
4 (Great-great-grandparents) .
that
-I
-2 0
1 1
(G• ) =
3
I I
(SG). in which S
3 4 4 5
2
4
2 3 5
3 2 1 I
4
1
0 -I
2R)
(3)
+
2 I
(0
Civil 1aw component
0 1
0 0 0 0 0
0
( 2)
(R)
removal
Collateral
-3 3
-2
3 2 I -1
4
( 1)
3 (Oreat-grand�hildren) . m = 3 .
" (G•) diffen from (G) in descending generations.
First cousin 's child
Grand niece First cousin
Niece
Sibl ing
Great-great -aunt Great aunt Aunt
Parents Children Grandchildren Great-grandchildren
Grandparents
Great-grandparents
-
Great-great-grandparents
Relatives
-- -
Generation (U•)a
==
Unique
+I
S
II
10
9 5 6 7
17 13
2 J
1
==
0 for
0
-
.
R))c
collateral senerations ,
8 12 R 12
4 4
4
12
14
8
4
0 0
0
16 12 8 4
+
(6)
(n(OO
component
Unique
and S
16
=
12 17
II
7 6
8
9
IS
3 2 I s 10
4
-
1 for
(3) + (6) = (7)
ranking
Total priority
Standard american
(3) +(4)= (5)
Total
priority ranking
ror ascendina generations,
6 3 3 3 6 6
12 9
0
0
3 0
6
12 9
(4)
component (m(AG + R)b
.. .
Parentela orders
TABLE 4-9. Priority Kankings for Various Relatives Yielded by Parentela Orders and Standard American Models, with Scores Jlecomposed into Civil Law and Unique Components
0\ w
64
great grandparents , the great-great aunt also has a component score of 1 2 . Her Parentela Orders component score ( 1 2) i s obtained by the figures [ 3(3 + 1)], where m = 3, A = 1, G = 3, and R = 1 . Since the great-great au �t is a descendant from the great-great grandparents , she is indeed a me m ber of the fifth parentela and differs from the grandparents only in the. Civil La\\' component of her priority score .. 5 instead of 4. In Table 4-9 , members of the second parentela, with the pare nts as ' 'heads , " inc lude siblings , nieces, and grandnieces-al l of whom have a 3 in the Parentela Orders component column . For the parents , (AG + 1 ) = 2 , and for th e remaining members o f this set, (AG + R + 1 ) = 2 . Note th at for relatives in descending generations (R + 1 ) is equivalent to parentela membership, 2. Again, variations among total priority rankings within a given parentela class issue only from the Civil Lav.' component . The Parentela Order component thus expl icitly c lassifies kin according to the descent lines from Ego and his ancestors: (a) Ego 's own line of descen dants , (b) Ego ' s parents � line of descendants (except for Ego 's ov.'n line) , (c) Ego 's grandparents line of descendants (except for Ego 's parents � line) , (d) and so on . As noted earlier, these classes are based on ) , the remoteness of direct-l ine ance stors from Ego . The Standard American component has a somev.'hat different effect upon the establishment of classes of kin in the measurement of coll ateral ity . Th is component categorizes kin on the basis of i, the remotene ss of descendants from Ego and Ego 's ancestral l ine . For example, in Table 4-9 , the unique component wei ght for all of Ego 's direct ancestors is zero ; the weight for the children of Ego and each ancestor is 4 (since n = 4) , and this category includes Ego 's great-grandparents ' child (i .e. , Ego 's great aunt) , his grand parents ' child (who is his aunt) , his parents " children ( i . e . , Ego 's own sib lings) , and Ego �s own children . For grandchildren of Ego 's ancestral line . the weight i n Table 4-9 i s 8 , and the line 's great-grandchildren are assig n ed a 12. Hence , the Standard American component is defmed by the number o f
generations between Ego 's line af antecedants and c ategories of progeny children , grandchildren , gre.at-grandchildren--using universalism-Catholics and those with no religious preference-are overrepresented in the Genetic and Canon Law classification. These findings are gene rally similar to those of other studies involving university students (Farber, 1977) or a Jewish community (Farber,
1 979). My interpretation is that the findings do confmn the proposition that
degree of pluralism in religious ideology is associated with type of kinship orientation.
It might be argued that it is the religious label, rather than ideology, that
is responsible for these variations. However, such an argument fails to deal with the fact that Jews tend to be overrepresented in the pattern of collaterality
found in Jewish sources (e. g .• the ML�hnah) and Catholics appear more often than do other religionists in the mode of collaterality described in the Canon Law of the Church. Nor does this argument consider the detai l that Western religions in general are explicit in their judgments regarding family life and
that, in particular, sectarian-like groups (such as the Monnons) organize appropriate family relationships in terms of the model appearing in the Pen tat euch. Hence, although these findings may not convince those persons who are ske ptical about the influence of religious ideology on kinship mapping,
neither would they sway anyone from the conclusion that ideological content has an effect on these maps.
Religi on appears to be augmented by minority-group status in structuring kinship maps. The analysis indicates that, when other variables are taken into ac count, income is less powerful than minority-group status (as Mexican
�merican.
black, or American Indian) in the patterning of kinship orienta lions. This find ing suggests that membership in a racial minority group carries
96
with it experi en ce s of oppression which may generate a communalist tion-and a Ge netic or Canon Law kinship p erspec ti ve .
posj ..
Socioeconomic Status
As for socioeconomic characteristics the-mselves, the pattern of overrepre sentation in the findings is that (a) there is a tenden cy for persons in profes sional and managerial families to fall into the Standard American classifi cation; (b) persons in the midd le socioeconomic category (i.e. , clerical, sales, and craft occupations) are more often found in the Civil Law grouping; and (c) those in blue-collar families cluster more than anticipated in the Genetic and Canon Law pattern. The re sul ts on the Parentela Orders pattern sho·w the confounding influence of religion and ethnicity. (When the respondents are cl assifie d by family income or by educational level, the resul ts are similar to those based on occupation .) This configuration of find ings for socioeconomic characteristics contradicts the expectation in the Schneider and Smith ( 1973) formulation , name ly, that the middle class emphasizes the unity of the nuclear fami ly to a greate r extent than does the lowe r class. Instead, the middle-class respondents-profes sionals, managers, and administrators-stress line of descent at the expense of nuclear family ties, partic ul arly the ancestral line in the Standard American mode l . It is clearly the blue-collar respondents who, in h ol di ng Genetic or Canon Law persPective s , give priority to nuclear fami ly members over other kin. One mi ght argue that the blue -collar respondents place much value on the coherence of the nuc lear family because of the fragility of such ties in the lowe r class. However, other findings in this study, such as those pertaining to the Srole i ndex of anomia ( S role , 1956; Miller, 1977, pp . 375-377), fail to support thi s argument. 1 Ap pare ntl y aside from economic ad versity , people who regard social ties as fragile also displ ay other attributes of an alienat ed Weltanschauung-a sense of po werless ness , pessimism about the future state of soc ie ty , and a lack of trust in others . These elem en ts are tapped in the Srole index. As Table 5-11 indi cate s , the anomia attributes are more prevalent among people in lower than at higher socioeconomic levels, minority groups, low educational level , inc ome less than $10,000, and persons in blu e-col lar families. The fmdings on socioeconomic char acteristi c s of persons with high ano mia scores support the Schneider position; but other findings seem even more important for the resolution of the issue . Table 5- 11 al so shows that ( e x cept for persons Ylith a grad uate school education, with no religious pref erence, and with incomes over $25,000) people with Genetic and Canon La,�· mappings have a higher than average score on the anomia i ndex regardless of rel igion, minori ty-group status, educational level, family income, or oc cupation of the male co-head of the household . Indeed, for all social char-
97 anomia score in (with the few exceptions noted above), the mean cteristics of any of the Genetic and Canon Law category is actuall y the highest ions. It is the consistent tendency for persons with a Canon kinship orientat ardless LaW o r Genetic orientation to have a high score on the Srole scale, reg in the interpretation of ial char acteristics , that seems to be significant
�e
of soc
the find ings. and the Canon Lav.' (or Ge ne ti c ) orientation Both the Srole Anomia Sc.ale al vehicle s for social continuity are t he major eco i mply that (a) the princip the society rathe r than ic, poli tical, and religio us corporate structures in
nom
TABLE 5-11. Mean Scores on Srole ''Anomia'' Scale for Respondents in Genetic and Canon Law Category of Kimhip Orientation, by Social Characteristicsa Mean sc ores on srole ··anomia·· scale
Persons
in
genetic and canon law categor}·
Total sample
Jewish
2.11
1.30
�otestant
2.30
Catholic
2.02
1.15 1 . 77
Social characteristics Religion
No religious preference
Minority-group status Nonminority
Mexican Americans
Other (Black, American Indian, Orienta])
and
N 54
387
189
1.60
1.63
1.69 3.00
1.49
590
2.64
80
3.00
2 . 89
46
3.18
2.64
104
2.09
1.92
245
75
Educational level �01 a high school graduate
High School graduate Some College
1.73 0.56
Some graduate work
Family income in 1977
UDder $10,000 $10,000 to $24.999 S25,()()() or over
2.61 2.08
1.16
1 . 25
65
2.25
1 14
1.82 1.16
Occupat ional status of male co-head of household Professional, managerial, and
1.44
administrative Clerical, sales, and crafts
2.05
Blue collar a A
bigh
score denotes
2.89 a
high degree of
.. anomia.··
303
1.08
1.25 1.87 2.34
387 200
268
213
139
98
family and kinship and (b) everyone ought to have ample chance to participate
in these structures. An individual with a high score has a view of the world such that (a) life chances generally are diminishing; (b) the dimness of the future suggests that one should not bring additional children into the world· '
(c) the larger social forces are so overwhelming that one cannot pl an ahead effectively; (d) one cannot place trust in others; and (e) government 'NiH not
be forthcoming with realistic solutions. By implication, though, one ought to be able to do these things; the larger forces and the major corporate structures ought to facilitate life chances, provide an optimistic setting for a fulfilling family life, and be truly adaptive in the face of social problems and crises. The perception of failure by the larger social structure to deal effec
tively with problems permeating the society leaves high scorer on the '·anomia'� index with only- a·-fragile institution to deal v.'i�ne 's nuclear family.
Social �lobility
The connection between kinship orientation and striving for achieveme nt is revealed in the analysis pertaining to intergenerational social mobility. These
findings indicate that Parentela Orders and, in particular, the Standard Amer
ican model are associated with upward mobility and restraint on downward movement. At this point in the analysis, one cannot determine whether the kinship pattern resulted from the intergenerational mobility or whether some thing in the individual ,s family of orientation \\'as responsible for this move ment. The premise that kinship mappings represent more extensive ideolo gies, that may be transmitted from one generation to the next, leads me to the latter interpretation. The significance of the Standard American model for upward social mo bility and restraint on downward mobility suggests a tantilizing interpretation of the relationship between kinship orientation and achievement motivation. Since the Standard American map emphasizes a sense of closeness to relatives in ascending generations, one can interpret this finding (in a fanciful way)
to mean that achieving individuals regard their place. in society as reflecting
the "inherent" worthiness of their family line-surely their ancestors and hopefully their progeny. Such an orientation would also lead people who are currently of loYl socioeconomic status to ''prove'' the worthiness of their line by inducing a high degree of achievement motivation in their children. Car rying this interpretation further, one might even consider the Standard Amer ican model as a �'survival'' of the Puritan doctrine of the predestined Elect� whose Earthly success signaled their fated Eternal Salvation and set them apart from the mass of the society. But, of course, such an interpretation cannot be tested empirically.
99
Grandparents and Kinship �lapping the conclusion that European heritage The findings on grandparents confirm . (but only in conjunction \vith religion) has a bearing on kinship mapp i ng Distance from European roots seems to have most affected assimilation of Jev.'s in to the Standard American system and touched Catholics least. Still, Catholics with European grandparents tend to provide Parentela Orders map
pings, while those with non- European grandparents are more concentrated in the Genetic and Canon-LaYl category (and not in the Standard American
pattern). Together these findings make a strong case for regarding European tradition, functioning together with religion and minority-group status, as an
element which shapes kinship orientation. Viewed collectively, the fmdings on familiarity with grandparents and conformity to the Standard American model do not support the hypothesis that kinship mapping derives primarily from factors pertaining to relatives as-persons. Rather, the findings indicate that birthplace and childhood fa miliarity with grandparents are dependent upon ideological factors to deter mine the ways they affect kinship mapping.
\'ariations:
Fundamental
or Superficial?
The thrust of the findings is that variations in patterns of collaterality in American kinship appear to represent ideological differences associated �·ith
position in the social structure rather than superficial elaborations of differ
ences in personal attributes. But, the issue is not whether the configurations
of attributes that define relatives as persons are alone important in influencing
interaction between kin. Certainly, interaction with s pecific kin is influenced
by personal characteristics apart from relatedness-gender, age, common interests, personal resources, religious labels, pleasantness, and so on. But
a formulation that emphasizes these attributes as the primary basis for col
laterality does not explain why individuals whose relatives have similar con figurations of attributes exhibit diff erent patterns of collaterality (or vice vers a). Rather the issue is whether patterns of collaterality imply, in addition to personal proclivities, a series of ideologies that serves to organize rela
tionships with family and kin. True, one's perceptions of relativ es as persons may incorporate whatever else these relatives are (apart from their being
biologically related), but the grounds for these perceptions, it seems, depend upon th e kinds of assumptions about the nature of kinship and its relationship the g eneral social structure. My view is that these grounds are expressed
�0
In
terms of k i nship models that have emerged in the historical process . Schneider and I reach different conclusions with regard to the significance of vari ations in collaterality. Why? Sch ne i der ' s position is that these varia-
100 tions are superficial man ifestations stemming primarily from the fact that people i n modem societies participate in several social domains , "'·hile my position is that these variations in collateral ity themselves involve funda mental ideological distinctions . Perhaps a major source of this difference l ies in the methods we use to analyze kinship distances. Schneider relies heavily upon the genealogical method of collecting data on kinship ties. Because of the huge financial i nvestment, laboriousness , and time expenditure required to construct reliable and ''complete'' genealog ies, Schneider·s analyses are necessarily restricted to a relatively small number of genealogies. Much of Schneider's work is based upon 43 genealogies gathered in 1961- 1 963, supplemented by extensive i nterviews with 47 cou
ples, several women , and 99 children and their mothers (Schneider , 1968� Schneider and Cottrell , 1975) . In addition , the analysis of lower-c lass kinship by Schneider and Smith (1973) is based on "59 Afro-American , Southern White , and Spani sh-American families liv ing in Chicago (of which 40 pro vided relatively full information) . '' The interviews covered a wide range of topics dealing with kinshi p , occupation, and status domains , but in addition they included a rdJlge of factual informati on of a genealogical nature. The amou nt of detailed information in these interviews and genealogies is im mense .
The richness of materials in Schneider's studies must reveal an extensive amount of variation (within the same genealogy) in the perception of social distance among relatives of equal genetic relatedness . The extent of this variation within genealogies undoubtedly has evoked questions by Schnei der regarding the reasons why an individual would make these distinctions. A reasonable response to the se questions (which Schneider provides) is that the individual perceives relatives as persons, whose genetic relatedness is but one facet of their configuration of personal and social attributes. From this point, it is only a short step to conclude that , since social relationships are reciprocal , individual respondents differ (i . e., variations bern·een genealogies occur) because of the di versity of individuals' own role configurations . For Schneider, the respondent too is a person whose non-kinship attributes influ ence his interaction v.·ith relatives. Thus , Schneider"s conceptions regarding the character of collaterality in American society seems to be tied to a par ticular mode of data collection which permi ts ample observation of within case vari ations , but \\'hich is limited in the extent to wh ich it allo"'·s the observation of regularities between groups in a highly heterogeneous society. l\.1y own method is intended to discount variations within individual ge nealogies and to focus instead upon general patterns of collaterality in a large diverse population. For example, my technique for classifying respondents by kinship orientation requires only that a majority of responses correspond to a given pattern . The procedure thereby rests on the assumption that vari-
101
gene alo gies are irrel evant in a ss es si n g an overal l pattern for an ations within d individual. Consequently , by i gno ring details of geneal og ie s , I can etermine
whether
reg u lari ties
occur in a differentiated population, and I then ascribe l ogic al factors. Whereas the focus o f Sch neider·s these reg u laritie s to ideo anal ys is is upon "the relative" (or, to use his term, Alter), the focus of my anal ys i s is upon the ind ivid ual (i.e., Ego) and the organization of ties w ith
relativ e s .
The di fference between S ch neider s and my conceptio n of collaterality in American k insh i p appears to be analogous to a controversy occuring in the '
field of l ingu istic s . Some l i nguists believe that the various regional, socio economic, and ethnic variatio ns in the use of English represent d i a lectal deviations from Standard E ng l ish ; others regard some of this diversity as
repre sentin g distinct systems , each \\ ith its o\\l·n rationale and set of usage rules, so that Standard English is but one of sev eral suc h systems. In looking at collaterality, S chneid er seems to take the "dialect" position, while I hold '
the "system s'' position .
NOTE
1Carr ( 1971) reports a study sh ow ing that the Srole index is affected by tendencies of blac ks
of low socioeconomic status to ac quiesce to any statement in an inter\'iew. Carr's criticism, however, is not appl ic ab le in t his investigation.
1. First, unl ike his sample, Phoeni x respondents of lower occ upation , education, and income
levels do not overwhelmingly tend to agree wi th the Srole it em s . In the Carr sample. the rat io of responses in the high catego ri es (4,5) as compared with those in the low cate gori es (0, 1) is
19.3 for blacks at the lower end of socioeconomic scale. The Phoenix investigati on . however� shows little such skewness in responses toward acquiescence. In the Phoenix study, the ratio of
high to low score s for persons with less than four years of high school is I. 04; t he ratio for
persons with family incomes under $10,000 i s .67; and the ratio of respondents from blue-collar
families is 0.8 1 . Blacks and Mexican American s indicate a slight skewness toward agreement.
(For blacks, the ratio
IS
I. 79 and for Mexican Americans 1.25.) But this degree of skewness
cannot be interpreted as indicating that the S ro le index measures acquiescence rather than a fonn of disillusionment with society.
2 . A sec ond reason for rejecting the acqui e scence vi ew is that the findings on the re lationship
between anomia and ki n sh ip orientation persist e ven when such "'ariables a� re li gion , minority group status, educational level, family income. or occupational statu s are hel d constant statis tically· Similarly, when Lenski and Leggett ( 1960) remo ve effects of acquiescence from their sample, the rank order of percentages of persons in various socioeconomic catego ri e s who agree with a Srole item rem ains unchanged.
3. A third basis for rejecting the acquiescence position is that in a ater chapter ( Table 7-4) tbe associati on between anomia and kinship orientation is sustained when the respondent's own score on anomi a is compared with his estimate of his spouse's answers lo the Srole questions.
l
This comparison is made by the individual, and many distinctions be t wee n self and spouse occur � all socioeconomic levels. It thus appears that individual s in the Phoenix study have little diffic ulty in discri minating betw ee n anomie reaclions of self and other.
102 In summary, three reasons for rejecting the Carr position have been put forth: (a) the lack of skewness toward acquiscence among low socioeconomic status respondents; (b) the persistence of statistical relationships e,·en when socioeconomic variables are held constant; and (c) abilitv of individuals at all socioeconomic levels to distinguish between anomia in one's self as co � pared to spouse. The findings pertaining to the Srole index thereby argue against the Carr interpretation that it represents an acquiescence scale rather than a sense of disillusionment or anomia.
The findings in the previous chapter indicate that kinship orientations are as sociated with religious tenets and socioeconomic status. Insofar as conceptions of kinship represent ideo log ical po sitions, one would antici pate that they tend to be transmitted from one generation to the next in family lines, from parents to chil dren . Accordingly, families of persons with dif ferent kinds of kinshi p orientation should differ in important ways from one another. Diverse kin ship orientations should thus reveal particular character istics not only about the res pondents themselves but also about their parents and siblings. Here I shall di scu ss the relationship between kinship orientatio n and attri butes of the respo ndent s ' parental family. The frrst section sets forth a series of basic propositions regarding this relations hip ; it refers to the ideologic al aspects of factionalism and communalism. Su cceedin g sections deal with fmdings pertaining to respondents' parents and si bli ng s , and the y involve such characteristic s as preva lence of divorce, religious en dog amy , age at marriage, maternal e mployment , and fertility patterns.
Family
of Orientation
IDEOLOGICAL ASPECTS OF FACTIONALISM
AND COMMUNALISM
As the earlier chapters have proposed, charac teris tic s as sociated with kinship orientation s seem to be derived from the social positions of population seg
ments and, ultimately, from the general social structure itself. This section deals with the ideo logical content of factionalist versus communal structures in society , particularly as this content refers to marriage and family ties.
Earl ier chapters distingui sh betYleen s oci al structures giving priority to special interests of a single group-factional i sm-and those giving priority to c om mon interests of all grou ps in a society-communalism. Factionalism implie s a situati on in which special interest groups are vying for su periority over other groups for econom ic, politic al , or religiou s " good s "-that is, ac cess to wealth, to power, or to eternal or secular salvation. Since faction alist polity re fers to organization aimed at procuring or m ain t aining superi ority, it s pre.sence may be regar ded as a mechanism for stratifying a societ y .
1 04
Factions are, after all, a means for the gathering of forces and of mobilizing members for conflict or competition. Insofar as factionalism in kinsh ip or ganization involves this pulling inward and engaging the obligation and/or loyalty of members, it seem appropriate to call this type of kinship organi zation centripetal. Communalism, on the other hand, implies a situation in which special interests are subordinated to common concerns. In stateless societies these common concerns may well emerge from economic interdependence or the presence of a common enemy. In societies with more highly developed gov ernmental institutions, other common interests may exist as well-the pres ence of a universal religion (as opposed to sects and denominations), nation alism (as opposed to subnational "ethnic" identities), centralized political bureaucracy (Weber, 196 1, p. 5 1), values of political, social and economic -equality, and so on. For example, Max Weber repons that in medieval Eu rope, the Church �'strove to abolish the rights of the clan in inheritance so that it might retain land willed to it. The common concerns would best be served if members of kin groups were to be d ispersed throughout the society. In this manner, the maximum number of social networks would be created to scatter the loyalties and obligations of any individual as widely as possible. Under the conditions of communalism, major forces would exist to minimize property-based familial ties and to expel family members outward; it thus seems appropriate to regard this kind of kinship associated with communalism as centrifugal. As a consequence, those kinship systems that are oriented toward the dispersal of human property throughout the society (as a matter of common interest to all kinship units) stimulate the homogenization of society and bolster the development of communal regimes. Because of an orientation toward status maintenance in an indefinite future, kinship systems that tend to emphasize saving (i.e., centripetal systems) involve long-range perspec tives, establishment of mechanisms for stabilizing obligations, and a redun dancy of family roles. Hov•ever, because of an orientation toward immediate psychological and physical comfort of the mass of the population, other systems which stress distribution of people and their property throughout the society (i.e., centrifugal systems) involve short-range perspectives, use of mechanisms for maximizing cross-pressures, and a minimum of jural kinship obligations. Many observers have noted the ''fit'' bet\\·een the decline of the signifi cance of the extended family and the rise of modem urbanized industrial society. This fit is attributed to ease of mobility and the reduction of obli gations which might impede individual destiny (Goode, 1 963: Burgess, Locke, and Thomes, 1963). Still, even in societies that ideological ly uphold communal norms in family organization, there may be strong motivations among those groups vying for power to adopt centripetal norms. Although '·
1 05
elites i n the United States around 1800 were not constituted as competing formal c.orporate entitie s , they organized themselves i nto collections of fam f ing political factions, pooling resources, intermarrying with one il ies, onn another, and creating almost separate soci al worlds (Farber, 1 972). Indeed, in the abse nce of constraints on familial accumulation of resources , one \vou ld anticipate that rival elites v.'ould favor centripetal norms of kinship f or them selves (but perhaps not for others). Cen tripetal and centrifugal tendencies in kinship seem to generate kinship no rms that are related to the ki nsh ip models under investigation. In the case of ce ntripe tal kinship this re lationship appears to occur in the following way:
1. When members of a speci al-interest group, at some time in its history,
reach a consensus that its continued existence (or position in society) as an ident ifiab le entity (or as '-successful'') i s threatened by the incursion of other groups- who wou ld 'ioraid its members or " .. reduce'� its pos ition in soc i ety-the members v.'ill resort to the strategy of mobilizing the group to resist '·
this incursion. 2. If the threat persists, this mobil ization stimulates the group to organize itself
in
a centripetal manner, that is, to create sharply defined boundaries
between it and other groups and to draw its members inward.
3. The mobilization fostered by threats to the long-run integrity of the
special-interest group also requires a high degree of compliance (both coer cive and voluntary) by the members to promote its en ds .
4. As a fundamental institution that enables the. group to persist as an
identifiable entity (or to perpetuate its position in society) over generations, kinship too is governed by rules emphasizing centripetal tendencies.
S. The mobil ization of centripetal ki nship groups to draw me mbers inward \l;ould encourage strong collective efforts to mai ntain finn group boundaries and to sustain famil y stabi l ity.
6. Consequently , groups characterized by socioeconomic , religious, or
other speci al interests that depend for their perpetuation upon centripetality
in kinship would, over a series of generations , adopt fam ily and marriage norms that foster thi s inward movement. Such n orms would include endo gamy , reluctance to resort to divorce, high priority given to the maternal ro le , and speci al meani ngs appl ied to fertil ity.
7. Since Standard American and particularly Parentela Orders kinship mode l s appear to represent centripetal approaches to kinship organization, the norms specified above should be more pronounced among persons hold ing the se orientations than they are among people with C i vii Lav.' , Genetic, or Cano n Law orientat ions. Co mplementing this set of statements on centripetal kinship norms is an other set showing how communal ism as an ideology is associ ated with cen trifu gal kinship nonns: When people regard any special-i nterest group as functi onal ly equiva-
l.
1 06
lent to other groups in the soc iety ., they have little stake in the perpetuation
of any given soc ial entity . (But where any particular group is cons id e red indispe nsible for everyone 's benefit, e . g . , the Catholic comm unity , the a i m
is gene rally to u niversalize that commun ity , to identify it \\'ith the com m on
good . )
2 . I ns t e ad , people. consider it to be imponant that spec i al i ntere st s o f
d i ffere n t groups be subordinated to the com mon good and that the po \\-· e r of
the se speci al - i n terest g rou ps be elimi nated .
3 . Th e po\\'Cr of special-interest grou ps is mi n i m i zed if i n d i vi d u al s
are.
p l aced u nder cross-pre ssure s as mu c h as pos s i b l e . \Vi t h confl ic t i ng loyalti e s ,
peop le are. le ss l i kely to b e mobilized to g i ve priority to a s pe c i al i nterest . 4 . C ro ss-pressure s are
maxin1ized \l.t'he n bou ndaries bet\\'ee n g rou p s
vague and there arc stro n g centrifu gal te nde ncies in grou p organ i zation .
are
5 . i\.s a fundame ntal i n s t i t u t i on in a soc ie ty � kin shi p al s o would be go v e rn e d by ce ntrifugal ru le� that stress th e creation o f a s man y ne t works a n1ong
fant i l ie s as possible .
the perpetu al i on of spec i al -interest groups , w h i le at t h e s a me time , it \-..· ouJd maxin1ize the n u n1 ber of i nd i v id ual rel ati v e s \\'ith w hom personal tie s ( and 6 . The diffu se ne s s of ce ntri fug al kin ship net\vorks Vlould min in1 i ze
pe rs on a l demands ) c a n b e sustai ned . 7 . Consequently ,
families c h aracte r i z ed by c e n t ri fu g al ki nship n o nn s
,-,.·o u l d emphasize personal ties in do me s t i c
re-lation sh ips . I n the i r atte nti ve ness
to per s on a l q ualities in d o m e stic relatio ns , these famil ies V.'ould be inc l ine-d to be tol erant about departures from e ndog amy , d ec is i o n s to divorce , the
pe.rfonn ance of the maternal role , and rate s of fertility .
8 . S i nce Geneti c and especially Canon L,av.' kinsh ip models appear to
represent c e ntrifugal perspecti ve s in k i n s hi p organ ization , the norms l isted above s hould be prevalent among pe rsons \\'ith t he se kinship orientations .
The succeeding sections of this c ha p ter are devoted to te sti n g the rel ati on
ship be t ween kinship orientat ions and norms associated v.'ith cen tripetal ver sus ce ntrifug al tendencie s .
KINSHIP ORIENT ATION AND DIVORCE
Soc ial scientists have noted that prevalence of divorce is related to the Y�· ays
soc ietie s are organized . Using the Human Relations Area Files , Ackennan
( 1963) has shown that divorce rates are consistently low in those bil ateral
soc ietie s where there is community endogamy and frrst-cousin marri a ge and in those unilineal societies in which the lev irate is present. In addition , Mu r
reports that in societies permitting frrst-cousin marriag e , rela tionship s between cousins are seldom fonnal; similarly , in unilineal socie tie s
dock ( 1970)
with levirate or with sororal marri age , brothers- in-law and sisters-in -law te nd
1 07
to
be i nformal in interaction . This tendency toward infonnal it y (and often
sexual l ice nse)
im p l i es a sense. of closeness amon g these rel atives . N o ti n g
that societies display ing a high degree of factionalism also tend to be char acte rized by community endogamy , fi rst -cousi n m arri age , or the lev irate , arber ( 1 975) found th at soc ieties Vlith fac t i o nal re gi mes al so t e nd to have F to w d i v orce rates , while societies �·ith communal regimes have h igh divorce
rates . Fin ally , cross-cultural research on indu stri al societies i n d ic ates that div orce rates are inverse ly related to soc ioec on om i c status (Goode , 1 962 ) . Given this array of fi n d i n g s on the rel ati o ns hip between soc i al structure and
divorce in societies with v a ry i n g de g re es of complex ity , it seems reasonable
to e xpec t that kinship orientation-wh ich al so appears to be assoc iated with locus in the social structu re-i s related to divorce . Insofar as ki nship orien tation has an i deo l og i c a l basi s , its i m p act should be felt throughout the re spo n de nts · fam i l ie s-n ot only in the p aren t a l gen eration but al so amo ng brothers and sisters . Table 6- 1 present s data on the. prevalenc e of divorce among the respondents · parents , by kins h ip orientati on and by t he re l igion in wh ic h t h e respondent s \Vere rai sed . The table indicates that for the diffe re n t rel igiou s groups , p rev al e nce of d i vorce i s lowest among parents of Jewi sh respond en ts and next lowest among Protestants and Cath olics , and divorce i s mo st v.'idespread among parents of persons raised in
secular home s . When kinship orientation is taken into account for each re
ligious group , the results are. as foll ows:
1 . W h i l e Je w i sh re sponde nts with divorced p are n t s are u nderrepresented
in the Pare n tel a Orders c lassification , they are fairly h igh in the remaining categ ories of ki nship o ri en t at ion , al th ou gh sti l l lo\\' in compari son w i t h the ·
other rei igious groups .
2 . Protestants w i th di fferen t k i n s h i p orientations sho w little variati o n i n
pre v ale nce of p are n t al divorce : there i s , hov.'ever , a s l i g h t tendency for di vorce amon g parents to be o verrep re se nted in the Gen e t i c and C anon Law c at egory .
3 . For C athol ic s , d i v orce occ urs l east ofte n among fat he rs and mothers of perso ns in the Parentela Order s c lass and mo s t frequently amon g those in the Civ il Law , Ge netic , and C anon Law categori e s . Table 6- 1 al so pre sents information on prev al ence of d i vorce among re spo ndents " parents for different socioeconomic groups . Jn the tab le, persons are cl as s ifi ed by t he i r father 's occupation prior to the adulthood of t he respon de n ts. Co ns iste nt y,rith other investigations , the data sho � a clearcut rela ·
tion sh i p between socioeconomic status and divorce : fathers and mothers in the professi onal , managerial , and admini strative c lass are least l ikely to di vorce , wh ile the blue-collar parents are the most i nc lined. But �·ithin soci o econom ic s trata , kinship orientations still differ in prevalence of marital di sruption. For all three strata, divorce is w i de spread in the Genetic and
1 08
TABLE
6-l.
Prevalence of Divorce among Respondents' Parents , by Kinship Orientation, Religion in Which Respondent ��as Raised , and Father's Occupation Parentela
Standard
orders
american
Genetic
Civil law
or
canon law
Total
Religion in which respo ndent was raised No rei igious
preference (%)
N
Jewish (%) N
30 .0
33.3
20
15
6 . 71'
15
Protestant (%)
22 . 4
Catholic (%) N
1 S . 8b
N
67
22 1 8 .8
20. 0h
K
Entire sample (% ) N .. Ratio of cell h
1 97
21 .3
89
percentage
26 . 2a
72
84
26. 73
420
25 .0
2 1. 9
44
20 1
1 6 .7H
1 5 .4a
1 3.4
39
2 46
30
23 . 1
42 23.7
35
1 08
27. 5
37
91
37
1 9 .0
1 9. 5
1 26
3 33
2 1 .6
to total percentage is 1 . 2 is .8
38
24.3b
1 16
or
or
54
20.8
29. 7
Ratio of cell percentage to total percentage
11. 1
17
Father 's occ upation while respondent was growing up Professional, managerial , or administrative (%) 1 2 .4 1 1 .5 N 52 1 13 Clerical , sales , or craft (%) N B lue collar (%)
35
1 1 .8
1 3 .68
38
3 1 .4
28 . 3 " 46 3 5 . 38 51
27 . 7� 141
2 1 .2
23 . 8 227
29. 2 2 16 2 1. 4
7 16
over.
under.
Canon Law c ate go ry ,
and except for the blue-collar group, it is le a st prevalent i n the Parentela Orders category . The overall p attern of pre valence of divorce among the respondents par ents is generally repe ated in the next generat i on . Table 6-2 reports the per centage of respondents ' siblings \\'ith previous marri age s . (Some of the sc s ibl in gs have rem arried; others have re mai ned as divorced persons.) The percentage of previously married brothers and s iste rs is lo west in the Parentel a Orders category ( 1 9 . 8 percent as compared with 1 9 . 0 perce nt for thei r par ents ) , and it i s highest for s i bl i n gs of persons fall ing into the Gene t i c and Canon Law c lass ( 27 . 2 percent as compared w ith 27 . 7 percent for parents) . The per ce ntages for sibl ings of persons with S t and ard American and Civil La\\' orientations are intermed i ate . Thu s , as anticipated , both parents and sib I ings of pers on s with a Parentela Orders orie n tation show the highest degree of marital stabil ity , and families of individuals in the Genetic and '
1 09 TABLE 6-2. Kinship Orientation and Percentage of Respondents' SlbUngs with Previous Marriages (Whether or not Currently Married) Respondent s '
s iblings Pc.rcent with previous marri ages
Total number of siblings ii
Parentela orders
Standard american
Civil law
Genetic or canon law
1 9. 8
2 1 .9
24 . 7
308
'1:1 . 2
67 5
247
298
Inc lude s siblings born before 1 96 1 for siblin gs groups of si x or fe\\'er brothers and sisters . For each size of group up to the point, there are at least 20 families; tbe N decreases rapidly for larger sized sibling . ups gro •
tbe sibling
Can on LaY.' classification have the greatest propen sity toward marital break up . These tendencies still persist even when the considerable effects of religion and socioeconomic status are taken into account .
KINSHIP ORIENTATION AND RELIGIOUS ENDOG Af\iiY Rules govern ing religious and ethnic endogamy can be regarded as extensions of those covering kinship endogamy . Of particular interest in European his tory are the Jewish stet/ and German kinship arrangements , in that both systems applied the Parentela Orders procedure in detennining collaterality . Both Jewish stetl and the old German kinship structure involved a highly
integrated bilateral kindred-the Jewish mishpokheh and the Gennan maegth or magschaft . (See Huebner , 1 968 , v . 4 , p . 587 . ) Signi ficantly , both Jewish and old German systems had rules of preferential marriage with close rela
tives . Early German law permitted marri ages between any kindred outside the nuclear family , and evidently , 'so-called endogamous marri ages seem to have been the rule; that is , marri ages between members of the same sib (Hu ebner� v . 4 , p . 594 and 604) . ' ' In Jewish stet/ kinship , cou sin marriage \\'as also widespread and stron g bonds were maintai ned between co- pare nts in -l aw , w ho were often times siblings . There is , hence , some basis for spec ul at ing that Parentela Orders kinship orientation is associated with endoga mous rules of marri age . 4>
Tab le 6-3 presents data regarding the extent to which the parents of persons With different ki nship orientations married acro ss boundaries of maj or reli giou s group s-Judaism . Protes tantism , Catholicism, or secularism . The table efers to the religions in v,rhich the parents had been raised : it does not take Into ac cou nt premari tal or postmarital conversions . Even though the data may
�
�nceal some conversions , they still reveal considerable variation in religious
Intermarri age by kinship orientation . Si nce the prevalence of i ntermarri ages among Jewish parents is lov..· (below ten percent) , Table 6-3 describes only the extent of intermarri age for women
1 10 reared as Prote stan ts or Catholics . For respondents ' mothers raised as Pro. testants, intermarriage is con s iderab l y less widespread among parents of per.. sons in the Parentela Orders
and Standard American categories than
of t hose
in the Civil Law , Genetic , or Canon Law classes . For those whose mothe rs h ad been reared as Catholi c s , however , only persons with a Parentela Orde rs
orientation consiste ntl y come from hom es in which both parent� h ad been raised as C atho l ic . Similarly , for the entire s ampl e , the Parentel a Orders c ategory stands out as e xh ibiting re li g ious e ndog amy among parents of respo nd ent s . The re l ations h i p between kinship orientation and rel igious
ho mogene ity of fam i l ie s is particularly c le ar when the relig i on of the respo nd en t s brothers .and si sters is examined. T ab l e 6-4 shows t h e percentages of respondents w hose siblings are all in the same re lig i on The table excludes persons who are only children or who have ju st one sibl ing . The table doe s not take i n to account , however, shifts in rel igious id enti ty that have occurred among sib lings during the ir adulthood. Still, if re l i g ious ideology is a strong detenninant of kinship orientation , then religious homogeneity among sibl ings does sug gest the stubborn pers iste nce of ki ns hi p orientation as a fami l y attribute even after th e married children have established the i r own homes . For th i s analysis, the d i versit y among Protestant denominations is seen as representing some what divergent k i ns hip i de ol og i e s , and when siblings appear in two or more Protestant ca te gori es ba si c al ly different in doctrine (i . e . , Re fonnat ion Era , Pieti stic , Neofundamentalist , or Mormon) , they are classified as be i ng het e rge neous in relig i on Table 6-4 i nd icate s that rel ig i ous homogeneity amon g sibl ings is highe st '
.
.
among Jewish respondents , next among Cath olics , then Prote stants , and low
est among sec u laris t s . The fin d ings on kinship orientation is as follows: I . For persons with at l east one sibling with no rel ig iou s preference , hom-
TABLE 6-3. Percent of Respondents' Parents Who Intermarried Across Religious Groups, By Kinship Orientationc
Religion in which
Parentela
orders
american
Total sample (41 )
14. 8h
26 . 0
1 08
27 3
mother was
raised
N
Mother raised as
N
Prote stant (% )
Mother raised as Catholic (%)
N
a
Ratio of cell percentllge to
b Ratio
of
cell
percentage to
20.011
24. 1
Genetic
or
canon law
Total
27 .7
27 . 3
24 .6
101
1 32
614
3 1 .�
32.43
26 . 4
law
158
64
71
348
9.7"
26 . 3 H
25 . 9-'
22.7
22 . 5
31
76
27
percentaae
is 1 . 2
is .8
or
or
44
178
o"·er.
under.
lnlennmiagc � refers to marriage between persons raised Protestant, Catholic , or sec u lar (i.e. � n o religious preference) .
r.
Civil
55
Total percentaae Total
Standard
in differeat major relirious groups--Je wi sh .
11 1 ABLE 6-4. Kinship Orientation aud Percentage of Respondents Whose T Siblings Are all in the Same Religion Percentage of fami lies in which respondents ' siblings are all in same religionc Religion of at least one siblin g No
preference (%)
Parentela orders
Standard american
Civil l aw
Genetic or canon law
Total
so .oa
S l .S•
22 . 2h
2l . lb
40. 0
14
N
Jewish ( % ) �
52 . 9 51
N Cathol ic (-I ) N
Ratio or cel l pcrcentaJe to
of cell percentage
:1
Ratio
Eu:ludes
d
to
1 04
total percen&age total percen&age
7 1 .4
68 .2
72 . 9
59. 1
252
is 1 . 2
is .8
ss
44
28
75 61 .5
30
65 . 4
28
54. 6
51
70 .7
75
85.7
58 8 .
1 38
19
d
45 .511
57.2
86. 7"
N All religious groups (% )
c
9
d
23
Protestanf! (%)
a
33 91 .3
88
295
1 77
46 . 5 11
58.9
1 13
5 57
or over.
or
under.
families in wbicb respondenl is only child or bas onl)' one sibling.
Fewer than S cases. locluded in computatioas for tolal perceatages .
" Categories of Prolestant denominalions \\!"hen siblings as
beiD!
appe• in two or more
in different
religions .
arc
Reformation
Era., Pietistic,
Protestant cate:Bories (or
as
Neofuodameotalist, and Mormon .
Jews, noae , or Catholics) ., they
arc
class ified
ogeneity among brothers and sisters i s greater among Parentela Orders and Standard American respondents than among those in the Civil Law , Genetic , or Canon Law categories . 2 . Among Jews , religious homogeneity among sibl ings is high regardless of kinship orientation . Yet , the percentage i s slightly higher among persons in the combined Parentela Orders and Standard American category than among the fe\\' individuals in the remaining classifications . 3. Protestants reveal most sibl ing homogeneity with re spect to religion in those kinship categories most often associated with Protestantism-the Stand ard American and Civil Law models . Like the other religious groups , though, Pro testants show least homogeneity in the Genetic and Canon Law classifi c ation . 4 . Unl ike Protestants , Cathol ics in the Parentela Orders category are most homogen eous but, like Protestants , Catholics in the Genetic and Canon Law cl ass ind icate greatest diversity in siblings � religion . "Wnen all religious groups are combined , the results are quite clear: Par entela Orders category i s highe st in percentage of homogeneous sibling grou ps , and the Genetic and Canon Law class the lowest . Therefore , the fin din gs on the religious homogeneity among siblings , like those on parental e ndogam y , are consistent wi th the characterization of Parentela Orders kin -
1 12
s hip orientation as ce n tripetal and Genetic and Canon La\\' perspecti v e s centrifug al .
as
KINSHIP ORIENTATION AND AGE AT MARRIAGE which mark transitions in life cyc l e appe ars to reflec t modes of insitutional p artici p ation . Traditionally , marriage has rep resen ted
The timing
of events
one of the most · significant transitions in a person 's life , and the signi fic ance
depends upon its relationship to other status changes that occur in the l ife co u rse Historical analysis suggests that age at marri age is rel ated to social c on straint s on the dec i sion to marry . People have be come of age at marriage
.
relati vely more free to marry
accordi ng
' '
to pre ference
[ and
t i mi ng ]
because
structure conditions impose fewer obstacles to matrimony than was once the ca se (t\1odell , Furstenberg , and S trong , 1978 , p . S 1 29) . " In recen t decade s , social co nd i tions indeed , seem
to
' ·pose fev.'er i mpedime nts t o arranging the
l ife course ad l i b ( Model l , Furstenberg ,
re su l t , ' 'The basis for
'
and S trong 1 978 , .
p . S l 47) . , . .�s a
de ci s i on · about marri age ti mi ng has ch an g e d
from in v o luntary to preferent i al , from a structurally
vidually determined basis
S l 33) . ' �
(Model l , Furstenberg ,
c o ns trai ned and S trong
to
,
.
.
.
an indi
1978 , p .
Given the n orm of free mari tal choice , in the absence of social c on strain ts ,
there i s
little reason to del ay marri age once the right spouse has bee n found .
I ns ofar as ce ntripeta l ki n sh ip sys tems general l y pl ace gre ater c on stra ints upon
life-course transitions th a n d o ce ntri f ug a l s ystems , one w ou l d anti c ipate that
t hese constraints would opera te in marri age as we l l . Prev ious analyses in this c hap ter h a ve alre ad y i ndicated a lo \ve r prev al ence of divorce and greater degree of rel ig i o u s homogamy among parents and sibl ings of persons in the Parentela Orders category . One would expect then the app l ic at ion of re straint also in e nteri ng marri age On the other hand , given the empha s is in C an on Law ori e ntations to create new t i e s to other kinship groups , Canon La\�· persons would be encouraged to marry early . Conseq uently , the Phoenix d at a .
shou ld reveal that parents of persons in the Pare ntel a Orders category are hi ghe st in age at marri age and parents of those in the Genetic and Canon La\�· c las s are the lowest .
Table 6-5 describe s the rel ati on sh i p betvieen kin s hi p orientations and me dian age of mothers at the ti me they married the re spon dent s ' fathers . In the table , two control variab les are i ntroduced : rel igion in \Vhich
the
re spon dents
v..·ere raised an d their fathers ' occ upation at that time . C onsistent with the findi ngs of other studies , the data indicate that Je\vish respondents ' pare nt� tend to marry late and Protestants e arly and that more persons in professio na1 . m a nagerial and admini strative positi ons g ene ra l l y del ay marriage t h a n do ,
those i n bl ue collar j ob s .
1 13 4BLE 6-5. Kinship Orientation and �tedian Age at Marriage of T.. Respondent's M other , by Religion i n Whi£h Respondent \\'as Raised and Father's Occupation Parentela
Standard
orders
american
Civil law
Genetic or canon law
Total
R eligion in which respondent was rai � No religiou s preference (yrs . )
N Jewish (yrs . )
N Protestant (yrs . ) N
Catholic (yrs .) N
20. 8
20 . 0
19
14
22 .0
14
23 .7
25 . 5
20. 5 33 2 1 .3
9
22
8
20.5
1 9. 9
18.9
1 9.6
62
1 82
19. 3
67
375
22 .6
20 . 5
20. 3
20. 1
20. 8
35
78
26
35
1 74
2 1 .4
Father �s occupation at time when re spondent Professional , managerial or 22.2 administrative (yrs . )
was
64
2 1 .3
2 1 .0
20. 6
Clerical, sales or craft (yrs.)
111
2 1 .5
2 1 .0
40
36
Blue collar (�Ts .)
20.0
20. 1
34
83
Entire sam pie (_yrs . )
2 1 .4
1 17
N N
N
33
53
growing up
49
N
23 . 3
10 1
20. 1
20. 7
35
42
1 9. 9
18.9
20 . 9
20.4
20. 3
305
1 03
1 25
27
43
236
20. 8
21 1
1 9. 8
1 87
The ge neral pattern of re su lts in Table 6-5 is that , de sp i te minor variations
in different rel ig io u s an d soc ioeconomic groups , mothers in the Pare ntela
O rders category have the h ig h est median age at m arri ag e , and tho se in the Genetic and Canon La�· c lassification have the lo west m edi an age . Among religious groups , thi s tendency is clearest for Pro tes t ants and Cathol ic s �
among socioeconom ic groups , this tenden cy is s harpe st for both t he top
(professional , manageri al , and administrative) and the bottom (b l ue -co ll ar)
categories . The Jewi sh mo ther s , who marry late anyway, show l itt l e syste.m
at ic v ariation ki n s hip orientation on age at m arriage . But, de sp i te this de via tion , as a v.'hole , the data for m others support the c onte ntio n that persons With a Pare ntela Orders o ri ent at ion will te nd to be c o ns trai ned to marry late , While per sons with a G e net ic or Canon Law orientation Y�·ill be free (and perh a ps encouraged ) to marry early . The dat a for fat he r s are somev.'hat more ambiguous than those for mothers . Table 6-6 pre sents the median age at marri age for the respo ndents , fathers .
Li ke th e prev ious t ab le , this one al so appl ies re l igio n and father ' s occupation as c ontrol variable s . As in the ca se of mothers , Jewish fathers are ol de st at
1 14
marri age and Protestant fathers the youngest, bu t whereas the profess i onal � managerial , and admini strative fathers have the highest med ian age , it i s the middle-range wh ite-collar workers (rather than blue-collar workers) w ho hav e
the lowest median . This shift in pattern of of findings results from the l ar ge age discrepancy betv.•een hu sband and wife in the blue-collar class ( i . e . , a median difference of over 5 years) .
A review of the general configuration of the data in Table 6-6 reveal s th at ,
whereas the median age for fathers of Parentela Orders respondents ten ds to be high ( as expected) , no definiti ve pattern emerges for the remaining kinsh ip
orientations . The complexity of the findings suggests that numero us co n strai nts have impinged upon the marital decision of the fathers of the re spon
dents to affect age at marri age . Since many of these men had been married in the years between 1935 and 1 95 5 , their l ife course seems to hav e been compl icated by famil ial , occupational , and educational adaptations ari sing
from World War II and the Kore an conflict . (Unfortunately , data were not
collected for age at marriage of respondents ' siblings . )
TABLE 6-6. Kinship Orientation and Median
Parentela orders
Standard
american
Marriage of which Respondent Was
Age at
Respondent' s Father, by Religion in Raised and Father's Occupation
Civil
Jaw
Genetic or canon law
Total
Religion in which respondent was raised No religi ous
23 . 0
preference (yrs . )
I'
25 .0
Jewish (yrs . )
N
Protestant (yrs.) N
Catholic (yrs . ) N
16
27 .7
27 . 0
26.0 14
26 . 5
24.0 30 27 . 0
8
9
52
23 . 3
23. 1
23.0
23.4
171
63
56
347
14
21
24 . 9 57 25 . 8
24. 5
23 .0
24. 7
24 . 7
31
74
24
30
1 59
23 . 8
23.9
24 . 9
Father 's occupation at time when respondent was growing up Professional , managerial administrative (yrs . ) N
Clerical , sales or
craft (yrs . )
s Blue collar (yrs .) N Entire sample ( yrs� N
or
25 . 9
24 . 8
49
1 08
39
36
23 . 8
22 . 9
24. 0
23 . 2
31
96
34
39
24 . 3
24 .0
23.3
24 . 7
27
73
2SJ)
26
23.9
'2 3 . 7
1 07
286
100
38
24 .0 115
232
23. 1 200
24.0
1 64
1 15
1}1E l\1A TERNAL ROLE AND
FERTILIT\p
fhe. mobi lization of family ties to promote the i nteres ts of the fam ily sugges ts that the m atern al role in centripetal kin groups differs considerably from th at al groups. Insofar as family members can be regarded as "asse ts , " in centrifug ticipate that with centripe tal organ ization , the maternal role one wou ld an wou ld be oriented to w ard m ax im i zing the � ' worth ' ' of each member . The inves tment in human capital among fam i lies and kin o rg anized centripetally m ay lead to hi g h fe rtil i ty rates and certai nly to speci al efforts by mothers to
instil in the ir c hi ldren values and sk ills that would facilitate ,; 'success ' ' in later vears. S i nce a strong c o m mitme nt to the maternal role is time consuming, it �ems l ikely that mothers in centripetal sy stem s would be less apt to work outside the home than mothers in c ent rifug al systems . (See H il l 1 977) . I n terms of kinship models , one would expect that in families organ i zed on the basis of the Parente l a Orders model , mothers would be employed less fre quently than would mothers in families organi zed on the basis of the Ge neti c ,
or Canon Law model . This section is d i v id ed into tv.'o parts . The first part pertains to employ me n t of the respo nde nt s ' mothers during the child rearing years; the second deal s with level s of fertil i t y .
Maternal Employment
Table 6-7 displays pe.rcentages of moth ers who had been employed while the respondents were growing up . The working arran gements had been quite di ve rse: some of th e s e mothers had \\'Orked full-time , others part-time ; some had held a job co ntinuously , others sporadic al ly . Because it would be difficult to ac commodate the large vari ation in pat tern s of Ylo rk , the table refers merely to emp lo me nt at any time prior to t he re sponden fs adulthood . Perusal of y Tab le 6- 7 re vea ls that the major determinant in maternal e mployme nt i s the nu mber of chil dren in th e family; the larger the number of c h i ld ren , the less l ikely is the mother to work . Whereas over half of the mothers w i th only ch ildren had been emp loye d outside the home , only a fourth worked when there were four or more chi l dren . Ho wev er , when the number of children is taken into account. Table 6-7 indic ates that fewer mothers of persons in the Parentela Or ders c atego ry we re empl o y e d while the respondent was gro w i ng up than were mothers in the o ther c atego ri es . By way of contrast, in families with fou r or more children , mothe rs of persons in the Standard American classification tended to be emp lo yed m ore of te .n than did other mothers . In general , though , the data
reve al only that mothe rs of respond ent s in the Parente l a Orders c atego ry are less i nc line d than others to work wh ile their children are growing up. At least
116 TABLE 6-7. Kinship Orientation, Mothers Who Had Been Emp loyed W h U e Respondents Were Growing Up, and Number or Respondent's Siblings Percent of mothers employed while respondents were growing up
Number of respondent 's siblings
Parentela
Standard
Civil
orders
american
law
51.5 33 38.7
63 . 7 11
Responde nt only child (%)
45 . Sb
One to
37. 1
N N
three ( %)
70
Foor or more (%) All families (%)
b
Ratio of cell
percentJlle
to
30. 0"
83 37 . 8
1 26
N Ratio of cell
217
1 3 . 3b 45 29.Jh
N
;t
11
tolal
percc nlage is 1 . 2
perce.-age ro tocal percentqe is .8
33 3
40.8 76
27.6
29 39. 5 1 16
Genetic or canon law
Tota]
63 . 7 II 37 .0
57 .6
73
28 .6 56 36 . 4 1 40
66 38 . .5 436
25 . 8
213 36 . 5 715
or more .
or
under .
in this respect, the find ings support the spec u l at i on that comm itme nt to the mate rn a l role is associated with c entripetal tendenc ies in kinship orientation .
Patterns of
Fertility
Table 6-8 describes the fertility of t he respondents ' parents . This t ab le takes
into account the re l igion in v,rhich the responden t was raised , the occupation of the father at the time that the respondent was growing up, and the respon dent 's kin sh i p orientation . In order to avoid fertility histories complicated by d i vo rce and widowhood , the table includes only ful l siblings of the res pon dent.
Both re l i g ion and paternal occupation influence fert i l ity rates . The ra nk
ordering by rel ig ion shows Catholics with the highe st me an (3 .42 sib l in gs o f the respondent) , Protestants next ( 3 .09) , seculari sts third (2 . 69) , and Je.vt's last ( 1 . 59) . This ranking is con si stent w ith the larg e number of ferti l ity studies over the past generat ion (e . g . , Freedman et al. , 1 959; Rainwater, 1 960) . Fi nd ings by father 's oc c upati on also follow a famil iar p atte rn , with b lue col lar parents highest (3 . 40) , clerical , sa l e s , and craft wo rkers next ( 2 . 76) . and pro fe ss i on al , managerial, and ad min i strat i v e workers lowest (2 . 5 6). Thus , the findings ind ic at e that the parents o f the respondents are not atyp ic al in the ir ferti l ity h i s tory .
117 'fABLE 6-8. Kinship Orientation and Mean Number of FuU SibHngs of the Respondent , by Religion in Wbich Respondent Was Raised and by Father's Ocrupation8 Mean nu mber of full siblings
which . Religi on in
�ot was nu� or
Parentela
faJ)ler 's occupatton
orders
Religi on No religious prefere nce
Standard
Ci vil
american
law
2 . 5 5 ('
Jewish
N Protestant
1 . 36
15
22
3 . 25
2 . 63
2 . 79
3 . 26
1 96
72
3 . 19
3 . 50
38
90
30
2 . 73
2 . 35
N
35
15
2 .20h 67
N Catholic
Total
2 . 69
2 . 87r:
20
N
Genetic or canon law
1 . 59
1 . 35C
S4
17
4 .43
3 . 09
3 . 98
3 . 42
44
202
2 . 79
2 . 74
2 . 56
409
74
Father's occu pation
Professional , managerial or administrative
Clerical, sales or craft
52
l l6
42
38
248
3 .06
2 . 39
2 . 94
2 . 76
1 08
38
46
227
Blue coDar
35
3 .26
3 . 86
3.1 1
3 .03
3 . 40
37
35
Enlire sam ple N
3 13
99
3 . 92
2 . 69
2 . 87
326
1 14
N
N
N
• Falher's occu pation at tbe time during respoadeat 's cbildhood.
.
1 22
that respondent was "growilll
up.
hilf\est mean for each rei igious or socioecoaomic group is i o
b
The
r
Categories
combi.aed because N i n either
category is under 1 0 .
"
51
222
3 . 97
1 38
Excludes c.ses where
fatber
had died
ilalics .
Whether one scans the fertil ity data in Table 6-8 by religion or by socio economic level , three regularities are apparent:
1 . Parents of persons in the Standard American category generally have the fe we st chi ldren regardless of religious or socioeconomic status . 2 . Ex ce pt for Catho lics , "Ylithin each religiou s o r socioeconomic grouping , fathe rs and mothers of individuals in the Parental Orders category have a higher mean fertility than does that grouping as a whole.
3 · Parent s of people classified as Genetic or Canon Lav.' generally have the larg est number of chi ldren of any kinship orientati on .
The tendencies in fertil ity clearly indicate that. at least in the parental generatio n. kinship orientation is associ ated with c hild-beari ng . The overall Pattern for the enti re sample reveals the proclivity of the Standard American
1 18 parents to limit the number of c h ildren ; the Parentela Orders fath e rs a d
mothers to be above average in chi ldbearing; and the pare n ts of perso n s a
Genetic
or Canon Law to be h i ghe st in child p rodu cti on
.
w�
When the fe rti l ity of the re spondents ' sib l in g s are e xamined i n T ab le 6. 9 some difference s by gener at i on emerge. Whereas the parents of Ge neti c
and
Cano n Law re spondents are highly prolific , the fertility of their childre n
(other than the respondent) shows a marked dec line relative to the oth er ki nship orientations . This drop is most dramatic among sibl ings of respo n
..
as
Catholics and among those whose parents are in th e l ower socioeconomic levels . This shift mirrors the findings of rec e nt feni lity stud-
dents raised
TABLE 6-9. Kinship Orientation and Mean
Number of SibHngs' and by
Religion in Which Responden t Was Raised Fatber's Occupationa
Children by
Mean number of siblings ' children
Religion in which
respondent was raised
Parentela
or father 's occupation
Standard
orders
american
3 .28b
2.53 51
Geneti c or
Civi l law
canon law
Religion
No rel igious preference Nt
7d
2 . /3 29
Jewish
N
associational ' • position taken by Herberg ( 1 960) and by Glazer and Moynihan ( 1 974) opposes that of Lenski . Whereas Lenski see s ethnic survival as a consequence of a balance between associational and communal elements , the associational proponents suggest that the persistence of Jewish and other ethnic groups depends more upon religious and/or secul ar collective action than upon the peculiar functionality o f the family and other communal institutions . This position leads to the expectation that degree of com mitment to J udaism and its familial concomitants rests primarily upon participation in fonnal , specialized structures--extent of synagogue attend ance and ritual observance and membership in Jewish organizations (e .g . • B 'nai B 'rith, Hadassah , Organization for Rehabilitation through Training) . Andrew Greeley ( 1 976) made a comparable distinction vlith regard to Cath olics--ecclesi astical Catholicism versus communal Cathol ici sm. Although Greeley 's dichotomy is stated in political tenns-the sources of leadership and authority in Catholic praxi�ssentially it too re sts upon asse ssing the role of associations in the persistence of Catholicism as an identifiable col lectivity , despite its considerable ethnic diversity in America . Ecc lesiastical Catholicism refers to the influence of Church institutions on the I i ves of people , that i s , the impact of the organized church and the various institutions under its control (Greeley , 1976 , p . 2) By contrast, communal Catholicis m refers to " 'other pow er centers withi n the collectivity that have an independ ent influence of th eir own , not necessarily in opposition to the religious institution but distinct and se parate fro m it (Greeley , 1 976, p . I 04) . ' � These must grasp
206
" 'the consi derable heterogeneity of family structures , role expectatio n s , and values concerning intimate behaviour that can be found among the di v erse communities that constitute our society . ' ' Further light on this dichotomy is shed by a study of Jews living i n K ans as
City in 1 976 . That analysis discloses two patterns of participation in the Jewish community . One segment of the community participates ass oci ati on all y-by fonnal and ritual means and reliance on formal institutio nal arrange
ments for its involvement . This group , which shows the greatest i nclination toward membership in Jewish organization s , synagogue (or temple) atte-nd ance , and ritual observation , tends to conform to kinship model s that di sre gard line of descent in partitioning of relatives ( i . e . , Genetic and Canon Law models) . There i s , however, another segment that parti cipates comm unally . Th i s secon d group consi sts of people who tend to be more active in Jev;i sh
matters than their parents , live in Jewi sh areas of the city , di sapprove of
religious intermarri age , and are concerned v.'ith the persistence of Jev.'ish
identity . The communally oriented Jews conform more often to the Parentel a Orders model (Farber , 1 979) . The connection found between kinsh ip model and communal (as opposed to associational) ties to the Jewish community , it seems, can be generalized
to Catholics and Protestants as well . Both Lenski (1963) and Gree ley ( 1 976 )
suggest that Catholics convey many communal ties in organizing their daily
live s . Indeed , Greeley ( 1976) proposes that , despite the official theoretical position , as skeptici sm about Church teachings grows , Catholics are becom ing increasingly communally oriented in their approach to social ethics . There are , therefore , two questions to be asked about communal-versus-associa tional ties: (a) Do American Catholics continue to show greater communal
inc linations than. Protestants do (and les s than Jews)? (b) What role. does
kinship orientation play in associational-versus-communal organization?
Drawing from the Kansas City findings cited above , let us assume that the
Parentela Orders model expresses a communal mode of organization . The regression analysis in the Phoenix study indicates that in a general population the Civil LaYl model is associated with associational ties . (See Appendix A) . Then for any partic ular religion , the extent to which the proportion of respon
dents in the Parentela Orders category outweighs the proportion in the Civ il
Law category describe s the degree to which that religious group can be
depicted as communal in its kinship organization . A computation based on
Table 5- l shows that the ratio of Parentela-Orders to Civi i -Lav.' respondents for the various rel igious groups is as follows : Jewish Catholic Neofundamental ist Protestant sects
1. 75
1 . 37 1 . 33
207
Reformation Era. Protestant denominations
0 . 77
Pieti stic Protestant denominations
0 .83
Monnon (Latter Day Saints)
0. 3 7
The dependence among Protestant denominations upon formal institutional ties for their coherence as social entities is apparent in the list of ratios above . Except for the sectarian s , who set themselves apart communally , Protestants , as in Lenski 's earlier analysis, remain associational in orientation . Moreo\'er, whi le Catholic s appear to be highly communal in outlook , Jews are even more. so . Table 9-3 summarizes the data presented in previous chapters pertaining to kinship characteristics relevant to the communal-associational disti nction . Presumably , a communal orientation rests upon kinship relations that (a) inhibit divorce ; (b) foster religious unity in the family; and (c) encourage frequent contact with close kin . The table disclo ses that , for both the respon dents and their parents, kinship characteristics expressing communal ism are general ly most prevalent among Jew s , next among Cathol ics , and least prev alent among Protestants . Moreover, within religious groups , persons i n the Parentela Orders category display more evidence of communalism than do those with a Civi l Law orientation . The data therefore offer support for the ' 'stickiness ' ' of kinship sources of communal organization among re ligiou s groups in American society . The tenacity of kinship ideologies that foster autonomous group identities seems to complement socioeconomic character istics in structuring religious col lectivities .
COMPONENTS � MEASURES OF COLLATERALITY
In the past , analysis of kinship tenninology has provided anthropo logists V.'ith numerous insights into the mechanics of social structure . Nevertheless , when they have sought to apply conventional linguistic procedures to American kinship , they have fac-e d two major problems; 1 . Past research and speculation have indicated that changes in kinsh ip nomenc lature occur long after other modifications have taken place in nonns governing kinship ties (Naroll , 1 970) . In those soci eties in v.'h ich changes in social structure accrue slowly , the study of kinship terms offers many cl ues to the factors that give the society its form. In modem , rapidly-changing society like the United States , however, tenns may l ag far behind current family an d kinship usages . Consequently , an analysis of American kin ship terminology per se may reveal more abou t the fam i ly and kinship structure of ' •our foun d in g fathe rs � ' than it might abou t contemporary arrangements . For e xample , in thei r analyse s , several an thropologists have concluded that
2 08
Table 9-3.
Communai-Assodational Dlsdncdon , by Orientation or Respondents
Family and kinship characteristics and
Source
kinship orientation
table
6- 1
Summary or Family and Kinship Characteristics
·
Religion and
Kinship
Catholic
Protestant
Prevalence of divorced parents of respondents a
Parentela orders (%)
7-6
Jewish
Relevant for
Civil law (%)
6.7
1 5 .8
22 .4
1 1 . 8b
26 . 7
20. 8
74 . 1
69 . 3
64.9
9.7
22. 7
Percent of respondents now in their f1rst marri age (i .e. , neither rem arried or curre ntly d ivorced)
( %)
6-3
Parents who intermarried across religious groupsrted
Is respondent now divorced ? Number of chi ldren
(+) ( -)
7-6 7- 1 5
Confmns Confmns
• The following variables did not yield any Beta coefficienh of .OS or over: (a) Family iocome iD 19n; (b) Size or community in which respondent was raised; (c) Wu respondent raised in Arizona'?; (d) Respondent's religion is Catholic ; (e) How well respondent knew Mother 's Father while growing up; (f) How well respondent kaew Mother's Mother while growing up; and (g) Nathily of Father's Father.
Whereas the analyses based on Tables , 5-5 and 5-6 yields the conclusion that income outweighs minority-group status in affecting kinship orientations , the regres sio n analysis demands the reverse judgment . Family and Kin of Orientation
As shov.'n in Table A- 1 , the regression coefficients for items referring to parents , siblings , and grandparents indicate that:
2 20 I . When interactions among variables are taken into account, nati v ity of patern al g nmd father and hav i ng kno wn maternal grandpare nts are inconse qu en t i al for the dev e lopmen t of kin shi p orien tati ons . 2 . The co mp ari son s in Tabl e A-2 shoYl that the reg ress i o n a nal ysi s tends to c on firm the tabular interpretations of the role o f the fam ily of orientati on in the deve lopment of kinship i deo logy . In addition to su pporting the per vasive findings that n u m ber of siblings is associated with ki n sh ip ori e nt ati on , the regre ss i on findi ngs also reveal negative weights for p atern al kin in Par en te l a Orders ( in contrast to Standard American kinship ) and a strong female skew in kin ti es in the Ge ne ti c and Canon Law model s .
�If and Family of Procreation
The Beta weights in Table A- 1 c l ari fy the fol lowing tendencies about the respondents and their fami l i es of procre ati on :
I . Pare nte l a Orders and Standard American model s , with one e xception , do not have an y reg re ss ion coe ffic ien ts ex c eedi n g . 05 among items pertaining to fami lies of p roc reati on . 2 . The Civil Law model is characterized not on ly by high marital stability but also by frequent church attendance (thou gh no t rel igios i ty ) . 3 . The data on Genetic-Canon Law e mph as i ze the prec ari ou snes s of marri age in these ori entatio ns . 4. Table A-2 indicates that the family-of-procreation in terpretati ons based on the tables in the text are g enerally confrrmed . CONCLUSIONS Overall , the data provided in Tables A- I and A-2 strongly buttress the inter pretations i n the text . Moreov er , the fi nding s of the regres s i on analyses tend to clarify some of the ambigu iti e s of the tables that report perce ntages . For e xample , in contrast to the tables , the regre s sion equations show that (a) mi nority-group status is more salient than income in infl uenc.ing kinship ori entation ; (b) Civil Law ori en tatio n is ex pre ssi ve of associational tendenc ie s in rei i g ion ; and (c) there m ay be some resentment of the frequent contact among Genetic-Canon Lav..· res ponden t s \vith their mothers .
Perh aps t he majo r contribution of the regression an al y se s is re vealed in the distribution of B etas of . 05 or o ver among the different c ategories of inde pendent variables . In Table A-3 , the Beta coeffients display ed in Table A- I are c l a ssi fi ed as either Social and Dem ograph i c ( S D) or Family Variables (F) (which i nc l u de s the items pertain i n g t o fam il y of o ri en t at ion and to family of proc reat ion) . The bottom row of Table A-3 p re sents ratios of the nu mber of ' 'high ' ' Betas in the Social and Demographic category to those in the
22 1
Table A-3.
Coefllcients .OS or Over for Variables Classified Demographic Background or as Family Variables, by
Number or Beta as
Social and
Kinship Orientation
Standard american
Civil
Genetic or
orders
law
canon law
6
7
4
3
3
s
5
11
2 .00
1 .40
. 80
. 27
Parentela Classification of variables
Soci al and demographic (SD)
Family variablesy (_F)
Ratio 8
(SD)/(F)
Includes \'Miables classified as FamiJy
aDd Kia of Orientation
and
as
Self and
Family of Proc�ation.
Gamma = . 5 1
Family V ariabl e s category [(SD)/(F)] . As one proceeds along the col um ns from Parentela Orders to Gene tic Canon Law , the size of t he ratios decreases regu larl y . My interpretation is that this decrease expres ses a shift in the comparative influence of pluralistic (in contrast to universalistic) ideologies . Parentela Orders and Standard American models reveal effects on ki nship -
org ani zat ion derived fro m class-membership in the larger institutional struc ture of soc iety (e . g . , religion , socioeconomic grouping) , whereas the more Ego-centered kinship orientations are shaped by a communal outlook and they stress the character of familial interactions . Th u s , the overall pattern of Betas provides additional support for the theoretical po s i ti on taken here .
Appendix B Method of Data Collection Morris Axelrod and Edward A . Greenberg
This appendix describes the method by which the data were collected for the Phoenix kinship study . In order to limit the population to those person s for
whom the questions were most me an ingful in terms of the immediacy of their experience , the target group consisted of residents of Phoenix , Arizona , who had been marri ed and who �·ere now between the ages of 1 8 and 45 . These restrictions were instituted ( l ) to preclude asking elderly respondents abou t their parental household during adolescence and (2) to avoid querying persons about marri age and family norms when they had never been married . The 772-case sample , yielding the data upon which the anal ysis is based , consi sts of two components-a probability sample of Phoenix and a supple mentary sample of Jewish hou seholds . The frrst part of this appendix de scribes the technique by which the probability sample was sel ected . The sample frame consi sted of all households within the city limits of Phoenix that ( I) are served by a telephone and ( 2) contain at l east one permane nt re sident , between 1 8 and 45 years of age , inclusive , Ylho is either no w or has once been married . Respondents were selected in two steps : First , a random-digit-dialing (RDD) te lephoning procedure was applied to screen for eligible households . Next , with in each hou sehold that contained at least one person eligible for a hou sehold interv iew , a respondent was randoml y selected from among all eligible persons . Since the probability sample would yield too few cases for ethnic and religious comparative analysis of Jewish house _ holds , it was decided to augment the sample with cases dra'-'·n from an available list of Jevlish households . Telephone screening procedures simi lar to those used for the probability sample were followed to select cases for the supplement. The second part of the appendix depicts the procedure for se lecting respondents in the Je wish supplementary sample. The final section discusses the field procedures applied in the telephone screening and hou sehold interviews . It touche s on the variety of interviewing techniques , requ ired to el icit the data for analysis , and presents an enumer ation of topics included in the questionnaires .
223 PHOENIX PROBABILITY SAMPLE
To eliminate ineligible persons , we screened potential respondents by tele ph one before inve sting heavily in hou sehold interv iew s . Acc o rding to the U . S . Cen sus , 84 percent of Phoenix hou seho lds are served by at least one te l ephone (United States B ure au of the Census , 1 970); so the biasing effects of non-subscribership are assumed to be minimal . (Cf. Tuchfarber and Klec ka , 1 976. ) A ddi ti o nal l y , the use of random-digit-dialing (ROD) alloY�·s us to reach unlisted and unpublished as well as listed tele p hone numbers .
The telephone informant at each randoml y selected number was asked several Telephone Contact Quest ion s to determine whether the number served a re sidence in Phoenix . If the telephone number was associated with a Phoe nix residence , a Telephone Screening Interv iew was u sed to ascertai n the
c om po s it io n of the ho use ho ld and the eligibility of the house ho l d for incl usi on in the final sample . In addition , several attitudinal items of curren t interest were inc luded in the telephone interview . These served to gain the cooper ation of the informant , establish rapport , and prov ide some topical data about the community . The fol l owing sections report the sample selection proc edure and the anal y s i s of re sponse rates .
Sample Selection Procedure The te l eph one sampling procedure was based on a design s ugge sted by Waks berg ( 1 976) and elaborated on by Groves ( 1 977) . This technique cons ists of dividing the entire list of po s sib le telephone numbers in a c ommu n i ty into clu sters , choosing a sam ple of clusters , and then determining which of these
clusters are likely to contain h ou seho lds with specified characteristic s . If the first number called in a clu ster is eligible, chances are that the cl uster contains a greater-than-average proportion of eligible households , and that c l u ster is retained in the sampl ing frame . The probabi l i ty that a clu ster is kept in the sample is directly propo rtional to the number of e l i g ib le households in that cluster (Waksberg , 1 976). The procedure thus raise s the percentage of pro ductive calls above that yielded by a simple random sample . The c l us ter tec hnique was applied in the fo ll o wing manner: for Phoenix , the total hypothesized telephone coverage was divided into cluste.rs of I00 n umbers each . Particular clusters were then selected for in c l us i on in the sample as a result of a call to a single randomly selected telephone number in each cluster . If the number reached was as sig ned to a residence in Phoeni x , the entire clu ster was considered to be in the sample and n additional numbers within the cluster �·ere called . (In th i s study , n = 5.) If any of these were non-sample , they were replaced by other numbers from the same cluster until
2 24 n e l ig i b le
h ou se hol ds are identified . The s pec i fic steps in the selection of the sample are graphic all y presented in Figure B- 1 an d are detailed below . Step 1 . Determining the range
of telephone numbers . The c ity of Phoenix 63 different prefiXe s (the frrst three digits of the
is served by telephones with telephone numbers) . These i nclude 46 prefiXe s specifically design ated as Phoenix prefixes an d 1 7 prefixe s that joi n tly serve Phoenix and neighboring communities . If e very number for each of these prefi.Xes were in use , there would be 1 0 ,000 numbers for e ach prefix (e .g . , 555-0000 through 555-9999) . Thus , there are 63 x 1 0 ,000 = 630 ,000 pos sible Phoenix telephone numbers .
Of co urse , not all of these numbers are i n service . In addition , many of the W?rki n g numbers are as signe d to telephones outside the Phoenix city limits or to non-residenti al teleph o n es . Step 2 . Division into clusters . The next step in the telephone survey was
to detennine which of the 630 ,000 pos si ble numbers are l ike ly to be both in
Phoenix and residential . Each "bank " of 1 0 ,000 numbers was di vided into 100 groups , or clusters , of 1 00 nu mbers each . The nu mbers 555-0000 through 55 5-0099 constitute one such cl uster , as do the numbers 55 5-0 1 00 through 555-0 1 99 , and so on . T here are 6300 c l u sters of 1 00 numbers each in our popul at i on of tel epho ne numbers . Step 3 . Selection
of
cluster sample . We w ro te
computer program to generate a random number from each cluster. That number was d esign ated the ' 'primary · ' nu m ber for its c luster . At random , 2750 of the 6300 primary numbers were selected for contact. If, on the basis of the Telephone Contact Question s , a primary number w a s found to be both in Phoenix and residential . the cluster was i nc lu ded in our sample . If the pri m ary number was ascertained to be not i n service , out of Phoe ni x , or non-residential , the entire cluster Vlas droppe d from the s ampl e . a
Step 4 . Contacting primary numbers . The primary numbers were u se d
onl y to detenn i ne whether a cluster remained in or was excluded from the sample (via the Telephone Contact Questions) . Telephone Screening Inter views were not taken at the primary numbers . The 2750 selected primary numbers were called d uring a seven-week peri od from October to December , 1 977 . Of these , 975 primary numbers (35 . 5 pe rcent ) were in Phoenix and residential ; 1 775 numbers (64 . 5 percent) were non-residenti al , not in service , or outside Phoenix city limits . Step 5 .
Selection of numbers for Telephone Screening Interviews .
We es
timated that about half of Phoenix households would contain a respo nd e nt
225
Step
Retained
1 . Prefixes servi ng PHX Numbers per prefix
Numbers serving PHX
2.
Numbers per cluster
Clusters in PHX
3 . Clusters screened
4.
In-Sample clusters
(ln = PHX , residential)
S . Clusters selected for
Telephone Scree ning
Eliminated
63
X 1 0,000
630,000 + 1 00 6,300
� - ---l
2 .750
3 ,550
(43 . 7�)
(56. 3%)
� - -- �
97S
(35 . 5 %)
1 , 775
Non-Sample clusters
(64. 5%)
� - - -1
406 (4 1 . 6%)
Unused clusters
569
( 58 . 4%)
Unused cl usters
Interviews Telephone numbers selected for contact
in each cluster
6.
x5
Telephone sample n
2,030
Com pleted interviews
1 ,826
7 . Households containing an eligible respondent
� - - -,
(90. 0%)
204
( 1 0 . 0%)
�-- - �
916
(50 . 2� )
907
(48 . 8%)
�- --1
8.
Address ascertained
868
(94.8%) 9. Selection of a respondent in each household
I 0. Completed Household Interviews
Figure 8-1.
Non-lnterv ie\lf· s
4S
Households co ntaining
no el igible res pondent
Addres s not ascertai ned
(5 . 2%)
868
�---
716
( 8 2. S% )
1 52
Non-Interviews
( 1 7 . 5%)
Disposition of cases in selection of Phoenix probability sample
226
eligible for a Household Interviev.· ( i . e . , 45 or under and ever-married) . Our proje ct ed sample size was 800. Allov.'ing for nonre sponse in both te l ep hone sc reen i ng and household interviewing , we felt it necessary to scree n about 2000 telephone numbers . We decided to take Telephone Screening Interviews at five ' 'secondary ' � numbers selected from each cluster retained in the sample . We t here fore needed to select about 400 clusters from the 975 clusters (from Step 4) to yield 2000 numbers for screening . In fact, 406 clusters were s elected , for a sample of 5 x 406 = 2030 telephone numbers serving residences in Phoenix . Step 6. Telephone Screen ing Interviews . A total of 1 826 Telep hone
Screening Interviews were taken from N ov ember, 1 977 through May , 1 978 , w �en a 90.0 percent response rate was achieved. Duri ng this period , another 1 844 numbers were ascertained to be non- working , non-residential , or outside the Phoenix city limits . Each of these 1 844 nu mbe rs was replaced v.·ith a randomly chosen number from the same cluster. Step 7. Determining eligibility for home inten·iew . In order to determine
whether a family member was eligible for inclusion in the Household Inter view sample , we asked the telephone informant during the Telephone Screen ing Interview to report the household com pos iti on by age , sex , marital status , and relationship to the informant. If the ho u sehold contained a person be twee n 1 8 and 45 who was ever marri e d , it was considered eligible for a household interview . Of the 1 826 hou seholds at which a Telepone Screening Interv iew vlas taken , 9 1 6 contained at least one eligible respondent. The remai ning 9 1 0 households contained only persons who were over 45 years of age or who had never been marri ed. Step 8 .
Ascertaining address of eligible
Step 9 .
Selection of respondent .
households . If
a
ho u sehold con
tained a person eligible for a Household Interview , the telephone informant was a ske d to provide a name and an address to which a letter outlining the project and requesting an interview could be sent . Addresses were. obtained for 868 of the 9 1 6 eligible households (or 94 . 8 percent) . A few informants declined to divulge their names, but they were willing to provide an address to which a letter could be sent . The next step was to select
respondent randomly from among e l igibl e persons in each of the 868 households for which we had an address . The procedure used was developed by Kish ( 1 949) . According to this technique , for every household , eligible adults of each sex are numbered in o rde r of decreasing age . A series of 1 2 selection tab les is used to designate a respondent in e ach h ou sehol d , so that every eligible adult a
227
i n each household has an equal chance of being chosen . At the beginning , one table i s chosen at random , and the tables are then used in sequence with each succeeding household . Step 10. Interviel1-'ing the respondents . After the selection of respondents , the cases were assigned to household interviewers . The interviewers were not pennitted to substitute other household members for designated respondents; instead , they were instructed to make as many callbacks or appointments as feasible within the field period in order to complete. the interv iew with the respondent-designate . The last page of the Telephone Screening Interview served as the cover sheet for the household questionnaire . It contained a listing of household membe rs (including the designation of the sel ected respondent) , the surn ame of the family (i f given) , the telephone nu mber , and address . When each completed interview was received , the cover sheet was removed from the household questionnaire in order to ensure confidenti ality of the interviews . Of the 868 households for which we had an address , household interviews were completed at 7 1 6 . Response Analysis
Response rates to the Telephone Screen ing Interviews and household inter views are summari zed in Table B - 1 . The response rate for the probability sample is a product of three stages in the interv iew i ng procedure . The first factor affecting the response rate was the sample loss due to failure to obtain a telephone screening interview . It is obviously not possibl e to determine whether those persons who declined at this point were eligible for a household i nterview . The Telephone Sc reen in g Interview (T) response rate is: T
C om pleted Interviews
=
=
Completed Interviews + Non-Intervie.w s
1 826
2030
- =
90 0% ·
The second factor affecting the response rate was the ability to obtain an
address of househ olds found to hold an eligible respondent. The addres s (A) response rate among households containing an eligible respondent is: Households with addresses
868
94 8% 916 El i gible households The final factor governing the response rate was the res pond e nt ' s decision to take part in the Household Interview . This decision can be evaluated on the basis of two different denominators: (a) households for which addresses are known (Ht) and (b) households with eligible respondents (H2) . A
= - =
·
228
is:
The response rate for households for which addres ses were obtaine d ( H a ) H. _
Completed Household Interviews
=
Households with addresses
7 1 6 = 82 S % 868 ·
The eligible Household Interview response rate (H2) equals the num ber of household interv ie w s completed divided by the number of household s in the sample that contain eligible persons , that i s : Completed Ho usehol Interviews 2 H = . Households wtth elig1ble persons
�
=
716
=
916
78 . 2%
An overall , adj usted Household Interv iew response rate incorporates the response rate for H ousehold Interviews and the response rate for the Tele-
Table B-1. Suney Response Analysis
Probability sample
Stage
Stage 1 :
Response category Sample
Jewish supplemenl
II :
Stage 1:
Stage II:
Telephone
Household
screeni ng
interviews
Telephone
scree ning
Household interviews
2030
916
425
58
(91 6)
(7 1 6)
(58)
(49)b
n
Interviews
Eligible for household interviewsa
Ineligible for household
interviews
Total
Non-interviews Non-sample Response rate.. •
( 1 1 8)
(9 1 0) 1 826 204 J 844d
200
one persoo
between the ages oi l S
49 9
149
. 7 82
.900
Households conrailli.Jll • least
1 76 1 00:
716
.63 8
. 845
aod. 45 BDd �\'er married .
taken io l he Jewish household supplemeatary sam ple were disoova-ed to be non-- J ewish. were used to replace non-interviews aad were combined with tbe 7 16 inten·iews from tbe probllbility sample to increase the number of cues to 723 ror analysis The seven added cases �·ere excluded from the computation of response rates. " Se-.·en inraviews
These seveo
.
phase of the study i��eluded 44 households Vw·hich were found to be eligible ror a addition . tbece were 86 for wbicb eligibility was not ascertained (EN A). It is assu med that the proportioo of non-sample households to sample househo lds is tbc same for ENA cases as for the �maiDder of lhe sample . Thus , 3' percent of the EN As (30 households) were cormdered 10 be DOn- sample and were added to die lmown non-sample c.ses (30 + 1 1 9 1 49) . Similarly, 6S percent of lhe ENAs (56 boliSeholds) were treated as non-inlerviews and were .sc:ted to the actual non-irder'Yiews (44 + 56 100) . Sillce moe t of the EN A.s are probably in facl DOD-sample , the non-illlerv icw estimate is a conscr.·ative one .
c
Non·iaten·iews for
this
household interview. lo
=
=
d In the random-dqpl dialinB sampling procedure,
Pboeni Jt aad'or oon-rcsidential) is replaced by r
Response rate
a
a
telepbooe
number claaifJed
as
non-sample
new randomly-selected number from
Completed iaten•iews . Completed ioterviews + Non-i ater.'te\\' S
.
the same
(i .e. ,
outside
cluster.
229
phone Screening Interviews . The adj usted Household Interview response rate ,
which take s into account telephone screening non- interviews , withholding addresses, and house hold non-interviews is the product of the Telephone Screening Interview respon se rate (T) and the eligible Household In terv i ew response rate (H2) , or: T X H2
=
90 .0
X
78 . 2
=
70 . 3 %
JEWISH SUPPLEMENTARY SAMPLE
Previous analysis has shown a relationship between the Pare ntela Orders model and Judai sm (Farber, 1 977) . For this reason , it w as considered des ir abl e to select a supplementary samp l e of Jewi sh respondent s to be inter viewed . This supplemen t was necessary to augment the smal l proportion of interv ie\\ S '-''ith Jews in Phoen i x yielded by the t e lephone probability sampl e (approximately 2 percent) . The probability sample produced fev.·er than 20 Jewish households , too few for analy sis . We elected to supplement the prob ability sample by s el ec ting Jewish households from available lists . The response analy sis for the Je wi sh Supplementary S am ple is described in Tab l e B - 1 . We began v;ith a li s t of 425 names of potentially eligible households ( i . e . , containing at least one Jewish , ever-marri ed perso n bet ween the ages of 1 8 and 45) . Telephone numbers were available for some of the names on the list � but not al l . For those whose telephone numbers \\'ere not prov i ded , other sources (in particular, the Phoenix Telephone Di rectory) were used to a sc ertai n the n um ber when possible . For the S upp le me ntary Sample , telephone numbers '-'·ere ob tained for 3 39 of the original list of 425 households . These numbers were te l epho ned and the Te lephone Screening Interview w as administered . Of the 3 3 9 numbers , Te l ephone Screening I nterv iews were completed for 1 76 . One hundred of these num bers yielded non-intervie\\'S (refusals , incomplete interviews , ad dre s s not ascertained , etc . ) , and 1 49 numbers were found to serve non sampl e households (outside Phoenix , non-residential , or no n J ewish ) . Of the com pleted Telephone Screen ing I nterviews , 58 yield ed households that contained at least one eligible respondent who met the age , marital status , and religiou s criteria . Household interviews were taken at 49 of the 58 eligible h ou se ho l d s (or 84 . 5 percent) . Although the Jewi sh Supplemen tary S ample was selected on the basis of availabil ity , it is believ ed to be reasonably representative of the kn own Je\\·ish community . An additional adj ustment was made to the set of completed Household Intervie w s after the data collection for the supplementary sampl e w as com pleted . Seven interviews taken at households selected from this sample frame did not contain an eligible Jewish respondent . These intervie ws were taken with responden ts w ho we re in most respects s imilar to the Phoe n ix prob ab ili ty '
-
-
230
sample with respect to religion , marital history , family size, and other ch ar acteristics . These interviews were retained as replacements for non- interv i e\\·s in the probability household sample . In summary , the final set of comp leted household interviews consists of: Probability S ample Jewish Supplementary Sample Non-Jewi sh from supplementary sample Total Intervie\v
7 16 49 7
772
FIELD PROCEDURES
The interviewing for the Phoenix kinship study was done in two major stages : (a) Telephone Screening Interviews v-·ere conducted with a sample of Phoenix households selected by random digit di aling ; (b) face-to-face intervie�·s were conducted with selected eligi ble respondents in their homes . H ou se ho l d in terviewing took place from January throu gh July , 1 978 . On the average , the interviewing staff consisted of about 20 persons at any one time . Because the telephone i nterviewing was done on our premis·e s , we had close , continuous contact bet\lleen project staff and interviewers . Th is contac.t extended interviewer instruction i nformally on a regular basis after the in itial training periods , and it pennined the interviewers to gain a heightened un derstanding of the total project . As a result , they were well equipped for the subsequent household interviewing . The fonn s used in the household interviews were intended to elicit infor mation in a variety of areas , and several techniques were applied . The house hold questionnaire was rather complex in that it used charts , self-admini stered , forms , " 'map games , .. and many sets of questions that were contingent upon marital statu� , number of children , number of siblings , and so on . For the most part , however, the interview consisted of a straightforward face-to-face oral administration of a questionnaire , with the interv iewer recording the responses on the form. The orally administered sectton s pertained to materiaJ on the following : a. Respondent 's and spouse ' s children-vital statistics, religion , reside nce � and marital and parental status . b . The respondent 's brothers and sisters-vital statistics .. rel igion , and mari tal and parental history . c . Teen age values-a series of questions aimed at ascertaining the role ex pectation s in the respondent �s family of orientation . d . The respondent 's parents-vital statistics , marital history , relig ious back round , educational and occupational backroun d .
23 1
e . Views about family and society-41uestions on topics relevant to family relationships ( including views on abortion , unmarried couples living to gether , obligations to relatives , religion and the family , and comparative loyally to home versus work) and the Srole Anomia scale . The respon dent 's speculations about the spouse ' s views were also solicited . f. Respondent 's and spouse 's background-demographic information and marital histories . A second series of questions was included in a self-adminis tered written
fonn on closeness of kin . Responses to these questions were used to clas sify respondents according to kinship orientation . This form also referred to ac quaintanceship with relati ves prior to adulthood . A third segment of the interview involved a card-sorting technique . In this segment , the respondent pl aced cards , on which were written specific rela tives , on maps to indicate where kin w ere born and where they no�· live . In another series of card sorts , the respondent showed how much contact there i s with these relatives and how much contact is desired . The Household Interviews averaged about an hour i n length . De spite the apparent complexity , we were able to develop a questionnaire form that was virtually self-guiding for the interviewer and proved to be effective in eliciting the necessary information with l ittle error or confusion .
References Ackerman, Charles 1 963
Affil iations: Structural Dete rm in ants of Differenti al Di vorce Rates . A m e ri
can Journa l of Sociology 69 : 1 3- 20 .
�.\dams, Bert N . 1 968 1 970
Kinship in A n Urban Setting . C hicago : Markham .
Isolation, Fu nctio n , and Beyond : American Kinship in the l 96o ·s . Journal
of Marriage and the Family 32: 57S- 597 .
Alsop, Stewart 1 968
The New American Family-1 1 : I t \\'asn �t Born Yes te rd ay . Sarurday ning Post 24 1
,
issue 1 5 , J u ly 27 .
Eve
Altheim, Franz 1 93 8
A History of Romnn Religion . London: Methuen and Company .
Anderson, 1\lichael 1 97 1
Family Structure in �Vineteenth Century Lancashire . New York: Cambridge Uni versity Press .
Aristotle 1 942
The Student' s
Oxford Ari.�totle . Edited by
W . D . Ross . New York: Oxford
University Pres s . Vol . V , Ethics .
Arizona 1 975
A rizona Revi.\·ed StaJutes . St. Paul:
�rest Publishi ng Company . (Pocket Sup
plement , 1 979) .
Atkins, John 1 974
R.
On the Fund amental Consangui neal Numbers and The ir Structural Basi s .
American Ethnologist I : 1 - 3 1 .
Augustine 1 966
The
City of God Againsr the Pagans . Cambridge , Massachusetts : Harvard
University Press . Vol . 4 .
Babchuk, Nicholas
1 965
Primary Friends and Kin : A Study of the Associations of Middle-Class
Coupl e s . Social ForceJ 43: 483-- 493 .
Bahr, Howard 1976
M.
The Kinship Role . In Ivan F. Nye , ed . , Role Structure and Analysis of the Fan1ily . Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publ ications . Pp . 6 1 - 79 .
2 34 Beale ,
Howard
1 964
K.
Fami ly Culture a nd Genealogy . In Edward N . Saveth , ed . , A merica n His tory and the Social Sciences . Nevl York: Free Press .
Blau , Peter 1 964
Exclulnge and Po�'er in Social L{(e . New York: \\'iley .
Bogardus, Emory 1 959
S.
Social Distance . Los Angeles: Pub l i s hed by author_.
Brown, Cecil H. 1 97 4 Ps ychologica1 , Semantic , and Structural Aspects of American Eng I ish Kin s h ip Terms . A merican Ethnologist I : 4 1 5- 436 . 1 976 An Examinati on of the Ordinary Use of American English Kin Terms and K in Te.nn Bo u nd Fonn s : · �semantics " as Necessary Meaning . A nthropo /igica/ Linguistics 1 8 : 1 29- 1 56.
Buchler, Ira R. and Henry A. Selby 1 968
Kinship and Social Organ ization . New York: Macmillan .
Burgess , Ernest W. 1 973
On Community . Family, arul Delinquency . Chicago: Uni versity of Chicago Press .
Burgess, Ernest W. , Haney J . Locke, and Mary Margaret Thomes 1 963 The Fam ily : From Institution to Companionship . New York: American Book Co . Burgess , Ernest W. and Leonard S. CoUreU 1 939
Predicting Suceess or Failure in Marriage New York: Prentice Hal l .
Burgess , Ernest W . 1 953
Engagement and Marriage . New York: Lippincott .
Burr , Wesley 1 973
and Paul WaDin
R.
Theory Co nstr uction and the Sociology of the Family . New York : \\'iley .
CampbeD, Bruce L . and Eugene E. CampbeU 1 976
The Mormon Famil y . In Charles H. Mindel and Robert W. Habenstei n �
eds . , Ethnic Families in America . New York : Elsevier. Pp . 379- 4 1 2 .
Carr,
Lestie G .
1 97 1
The Srole Items and Acq uiescence . A merican Sociological RevieK' 36 : 2 8 i293 .
Casson , Ronald W. 1 973
An Equivalence Rul e Analysis of Ameri c an Kin ship Terminolog y . Anthro·
polog ica l Linguistics 15: 1 89- 202 .
Chodorow, Stanley 1 972
Ch ristian Political Theory and Church Poli tics in the �'fid-TMle/fth Century.
Berkeley and Los Angeles : Universily of Cal i fornia Press .
Church Educational S)'stem 1 976
Achieving a Celestial J\1arriage . Salt Lake C ity: Department of Se min aries
and Institutes of Rel igion , Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints .
23 5
Coser, Lewis 1 974
Greedy Institu tions: Patterns of
Press .
l..lndi�·ided
Commirment . New York : Free
Craig, Daniel 1 979
Immortal ity through Kinship : The Vertical Transmission of S ubs tance and Symbol ic Estate . American Anth ropologist 8 1 : 94-- 96 .
Cruz-Coke, Ricardo 197 7
�A. Genetic Refonn o f the C iv i l Law Computation of the Degrees of Rela
ti onsh i p in Fami l ies. Social Biology 24: 93- 99 .
Danby , Herbert (translator) 1 933
The Mi.-.hnah . f'ew York: Oxford U n iv ers i ty Press .
Dizzard , Jan 1 968
Soc ial Change in rhe Fan1ily . Chic ago : Comm unity and Fami l y Study Ce n ter , Cniversity of C h ic ago .
Durkheim, Emile 1 91 5
Elementary Forms of Religious
Durkheim, E mile an d Marcel Mauss 1 96 1
Soci al Structure and the Structure of Thought . In Talcott Parsons , Edw ard Shils. Kaspar Naegele , and Jessee R . Pitts , eds . , Theories o.l Society . New York : Free Press .
Ehrenberg, Victor 1 946
Life. New York : Macmillan .
A spects of the
Pp.
A ncient
1 065- 1 068 .
World. Nev.· York: Will iam S alloch .
Eisenstadt , Shmuel N . 1 977
Soci o logical Theory and an Analysi s of the Dynamics of Civil izations and of Revolutions . Daedalus 1 06 : 59- 7 8 . (Discoveries and Interpretat ions : S tudies in Contemporary Scholarship , Volume II . )
Ekeh, Peter 1 975
Social
Excha11ge Theory and rhe T"'o Sociological Traditions . Cambridge �
�1assach usetts: Harvard University Press .
Epstein , Isadore ( ed.) 1 935
The Babylonian Talmud . London : Soncino Press . Volume 2 .
Farber, Bernard 1 964 1 97 1 1 972
1 973
Family : Organiwtion and In teraction . San Franci sco: Chand]er. Kinship and
ClaJ�i:
A Midtvestern Study. Kew York: Basic Books .
Guardians of Virtue: Salem Families in 1800. Nev.,· York: B asic Books .
Family and Kins hip in ��odern SO£'iety. Glenview. Dlinois : Scott, Fores-
man .
1 97 5
B il ateral Ki nship: Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization . Jour
nal o.f Marriage and the
1977
Family 37:
Social Context, Kinship !\�lappi ng , and Family Norms . Journal of Marri age
and the Family 39: 227- 240 .
1 979
87 1 - 888 .
K i n ship Mapping Among Jews In A M idv.·estem City . Social Forces 57: 1 1 07- 1 1 23 .
236 Farber, Bernard , Charles H . 1\olindel , and Bernard Lazenvitz
1 976
The Jewish �A.merican Family . In Charles H. Mindel and Robert w· . Ha benstein . eds . , Ethnic Families ;, Amen'ca . New York : El sevie-r. Pp. 347378 .
Feng, Han-yi 1 937
The Chinese Kinship. Ha rva rd Journal of Asiatic Studies 2: 1 4 1 - 2 74 .
Firth , Raymond 1 956
TK'O Studies
of Kinship
in London . London : Athlone Press .
Fortes, Meyer
1 969
Kinship and the Social Order. Chicago: .4Jdine .
Fox, Robin �
1 967
Kinship and .�arriage . Baltimore: Pengui n .
Freedman , Ronald , Paul K. \\belpton, and Arthur A. Campbell
1 959
Family Pllln ning, Sterility . and Population
Hi l l .
Grol�'th . New York: MacG raw
Glazer, Nathan and Dan iel P . 1\foynihan 1 974
Why Ethnicity . Commentary 58: 33- 39 .
Glick, Paul C .
1 979
The Future of the American Family . Current Population
Studies . Series P-2 3 , No . 7 8 . U . S . Bureau of the Census .
Reports : Special
Glock, Charles V. and Rodney Stark 1 965
Religion and Society in Tension . Chicago: Rand McNally .
Gluckman, Joel
1 976
R.
Intestate Success ion in New Jersey: Does It Confonn tations? Columbia Journal
Goffman, Erving
1 956
Presentation
of the
of La'"'·
To
Popular Expec
and Social Problems 1 2: 253- 294 .
Self in Everyday Life . Edinburgh: Social Sciences Cen
ter , University of Ed i nbu rgh
.
Goode , \Vill iam J. 1 960
A Theory of Role Strai n. American Sociological Re1"iew 25 : 483-496 .
1 962
Marital Satisfaction and Instability : A Cross-culrural Class Analysis of Di vorce Rates . International Social Science Jou,;,al 1 4 : 307- 526 .
1 963
World Revolution and Family Patterns . New York.: Free Press .
1976
Production and
Good�·, Jack
Reproduction .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
Gordon, Michael 1 977
Primary-Group Differentiation in Urban Ireland . Social Forces 55 : 743-752.
Greeley, Andrew
1 976 1 977
M.
The Communa l Carholic . A Persona/ .Manifesto . New York: Seabury Press . The A merican Catholic . A Social Portrait . New York : Basic Books .
23 7 Groves, R . M. 1977
An Empirical Compari son of T\\'0 Telephone Sample Design s. Unpublished
report of the Survey Research Center of the Univers ity of M ich igan , 1 977 .
Harrison, Alick R. W. 1 968
The Law Press .
of A thens, Fam ily
and Property . New York: Oxford Uni vers ity
Haskins, George Lee 1960
Law and A uth o rity in Early J\fassachusetts . New York: �tacmillan.
Health Resources Administration 1 974
Teenagers : Marriages , Divorces , Parenthood , and Mortal ity . Vital a1ui
Healrh Statistics . Series 2 1 men t Pri nting Office.
, Number 23 .
Washington , D . C . : U . S . Govern
Heitland, W . E . 1923
The
Roman Republic . Cambridge , Eng la nd:
Cambridge Cniversity Press .
Herberg , \\?ill 1960
Protestant, Catholic, }eYt/ . Ne w York: Anchor.
Hertz, J . H . (eel.) 1 960
The Pentateuch and Haftorahs . London: Soncino Press . Second Edition .
HiD , Daniel 1 977
Labor Force Participation Decisions of \Vives. In Greg Du ncan and James
N. Morgan , eds . , Five Thousand American Families - Patterns of Ec on om ic
Progress , Volume V. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research , University
of Michigan.
Horst, Paul (ed . ) 1 94 1
The Prediction
searc h Council .
of
Personal A djustment . New York : S oc i al S cience Re
Ho�·t, Homer 1 933
One Hundred Years
C hi cago Press .
of Land
Values
in
Chicago . Chi cago : C ni v ersi ty of
Huebner, Rudolf 1 968
A History of Germanic Private La�1--· . New York : Augustus �1 . Kelley Pub lishers . (Published originaUy in 1 9 1 8 . )
JotTe, Natalie F. 1 949
The Dynamics of Benefice htmo ng Easl European Jews . Social Force.s 27 : &
238- 247 .
Johnson, E.L.
1 969
An Introduction to the So viet Legal System . London: pan y .
l\1ethuen and Com
Jolowicz, H.F. 1 967 Historical Introduction t o the Study of Roman La»' . Eng land: Cambridge University Press .
Cambri dge ,
238 Kerckhoff, Alan C .
Nuclear and Extended Family Relationships: A Normati ve and Behavi ond Analysis . In Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Strieb , eds . , Social Structure and
1 965
the Family: Generational Relati(}ns . Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey : Pren
tice-Hall . Pp . 93- 1 1 2 .
Kish, L .
A Procedure for O bj ecti v e Response Sel ecti on within the Household .
1 949
na/
of the A merican Statistical Ass(}ciatio!J 44: 38� 387 .
lor� r
Klatzky , Sheila R.
n .d.
Pattern.\·
of Contact
'rvith Relatives . \\'ashington , D .C . : American Sociolog
ical Association .
Kohler, Wolfgang �
1 947
Gej·talt Psychology . New York: Li veright .
Laumann, Edward
ri ll . 1 97 3
Bonds
of Pluralism :
�ev.· 'r"ork: W iley .
Leichter, 1 956
0.
Prestige und As:�ociarion in an Urban Community . New York: Bobbs - �1er
1 966
Hope J .
The Form and Substan£·e of lirban Social JVern•orks .
and William E. MitcheU
Kinship and Ca.se K'ork. �ew York : P ussell S age Foundation .
Ge rha rd E. 1 963 The Religiort.\'
..
Lenski ,
Factor . New York : Doubleday .
Lenski , Gerhard E . and 1 960
John C . Leggett
Caste , Class , and Deference in the Re searc h Interview . A merican Journal
of SocitJ!ogy 65 : 463- 46 7 .
u,·i-Strau� , Claude 1 963
Structural A nth ropology . New York : Basic Books .
1 969
The Elementary Structures of Kinship . B oston : Beacon Pres s .
1 966
The Savage Mind . Chi c ag o : Uni'f·ersily of Chic a go Press .
Lewin, Kurt 1 936
Pri11ciples of Topological Psychology . New York : McGraw- Hill .
Lewis , Oscar 1 967
Further Observations on the Folk-Urban Continuum and Urbanization , \\'ith
Special Reference to Mexico Ci ty . Cited in Ell iot Liebow , Tally' s Corner .
pp . 204- 205 .
Liebow, EUiot 1 967
Tally' s Corner. Bo ston: Little . Brown .
Litwak, Eugene 1 960a Geographi c M obi l ity and Extended Family Cohe s ion American Sociolog .
ical Re viehl 2 5 : 3 85- 394 .
1 960b Occupational Mobility and Extended Family Co he s i o n Amen·can Sociolog .
ical Rel-·iew 25: 9- 2 1 .
239
1 965
Extended Ki n Relations in an Indu strial Democratic S oc iety . In Et hel Shanas
and Gordo n F. Streib , eds . , Social Structure and the Family: Generationa/
Re la tions . Englewood Cl iffs , Ne\\' Jersey : Prentice-Hall . Pp . 290- 32 5 .
Locke, Harvey J . 1 95 1
Predicting
Adjusunent
in Marriage: A Cotnparison of
a
Dit-·orced and a
Happily Married Group . New York: Holt.
Lopata, Helena Znaniec:ki 1 973
Widtnvhood in an America1J City . Cambri dge , Massachusetts : Schenkm an (General Learning Press) .
�tabnonides, l\1oses 1 963
1 967
The Guide of rhe Perplexed. Chicago: University of Ch ic ago Press .
J\fi.shneh Torah . New York: H ebre v.· Publish in g Company .
�taranda, Pierre 1 974
French Kinship, Structure and History . The Hague: Mou ton .
1\tcFarland , David D . and Dan iel J. Brol'·n 1 973 Social Di sta nce as a Met ric : A Systematic Introduction to Smallest Space
Analysis . In Edv.·ard 0. Lauman n , ed . , Bonds of Pluralisnz : The Fonn and
Substance of Urban Social 1Venvorlcr . �e \\' York : ( Appendix A).
\\ri ley . Pp . 2 1 3-25 3
Mlller, Delbert C. 1 977
Handbook of Research Design and Social Mea ... urement. Ne"'· York : David :f\,fcKay .
Model, Otto 1 964
Testamentsrecht. Berlin: C . H . Beck �she Verlagsbuchhandlung.
ModeU, John, Frank F. Furstenberg and Douglas Strong 1 97 8
The Timi ng of Marri age in the Transition to �"-dulthood: Conti n u i ty and
Change , 1 8� 1975 . In Jo h n Demos and Sarane S pence Boocock , eds Turning Poin u . Chicago: American Jourool of Sociology, S l 2a- S I 50 .
. •
Supplement 84:
Mommsen , Theodor 1 905
The History of RonJe. f\ew York: Charles Scribner 's Sons .
Morgan, D .H.J . 1 975
Socia l Theory and the FanJily. London: Routle dge & Kegan Pau l .
1 87 1
Systems of Con.\·anguin ity aru/ Affinity of the Hunum Family . Washi ngton �
1\torgan, Lewis Henry
D . C . : Smithsonian I nstitution .
Murdock , George Peter
New York:
1 949
Social Structure .
1 970
Cross -sex Patterns of Ki n Behavior. Ethnology 9: 3 5 9- 368 .
Naroll , Raoul 1 970
�1acmillan.
\\'hat Have \\'e Learned from Cross-Cu ltural S urveys'] American A nth ro
pologi!�t 1 2 : 1 227- 1 288 .
240
Needham , Rodney 1 974
Remarks and Inventions: Skeptical Essays about Kinship . Londo n : Tavi stock
Publications .
Paige, Jeffery l\1. 1 974
Kinship and Pol ity in Stateless Societies. American Journal of 80: 30 1 - 320 .
Sociology
Parsons, Talcott 1 949
The Social Structure of the Family . I n Ruth Nanda Anshen, ed . , The Family:
Its Function and Destiny. New York: 1 954
The Ki nship
ed . ,
Harper. Pp. 24 1 - 274 . System of the Contemporary United State s . In Talcott
1 77- 1 96 .
and lJarriage . Ne\\' York: Oxford
L"niversity
RadclitTe-Brown , A.R. and Dar)'ll Forde 1 950
African System s of Kinship
Parson s,
Pp.
Es.rays in Sociological Theory . New York : Free Pre ss .
Press .
Radin, Max 1915
The Jews Among the Greeks and Romans . Philadelph ia: Jewish Publication Society of America .
Rainwater, Lee
Poor
Get Children . Chicago: Quadrangle Books .
1 960
A nd the
1 960
The Extended Kinship System in The American Middle Class . Ph . D dis
Reiss, Paul J.
se rtati on ,
Rbeinstein, Max 1 955
The Law
tion) .
Harvard Uni versity .
of Decedents• Estates . Indianapolis: Bobbs Merrill
Romney , A. KirnbaU and Ro)' 1 964
(Second
edi
G . D' Andrade
Cogni tive Aspects of English Kin Terms . American Anthropologist 66: 1 4Cr 1 70 .
Rosenberg , George S . and Donald F. Anspach 1 973
Jtlorking Class
Rosenfeld, Jeffrey P. 1 974
Kinship.
Lexington , Massachusetts: Lexington Books .
.. Inheritance: ..A Sex-Related System of Exchange . In Rose Laub Coser, ed . ,
The Family, Its Structures and Functions . Ne�· York.: St . Martin 's
Pp.
Press .
400- 4 1 1 .
SabUns, 1\farshaJI 1 965
On the Sociology of Primitive Exchange . In Michael Banton , ed . , The Relevance of Models for Social Anthropology. Nev.' York: Frederick
A.
Praeger . Pp . 1 39- 236 .
Sandars, Thomas Collett 1 874
The Institutes of Justinian . London: Long lllaJlS , Green (Fifth
Sanday , Peggy R. 1 968
The · ·Psychological Real i ty " of America� Engl i sh Kinship
Edition) .
Terms: An
formation-Processing Approach . American Anthropologist 70 : 508- 52 3 .
In
24 1 Saveth, Edward N .
1963
The American Patrician Class : A Field of Research . A me rica n Quarterly 1 5 (Summer Supplement) : 235- 252 .
Schlesinger, Benjamin 1 974
The Jew i s h Famil y and Religion . Journal of Comparative Fam ily Studies 5 : 27- 36 .
Schneider, David 1 968
M.
A merican
Kinship:
Cultural
A
Account .
Cliffs ,
Englewood
New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall .
Schneider , David
1 975
M.
and Calvert B.
CottreU
The American Kin Universe : A Genealogical Study . Ch i cago : Department of Anthropology , Uni vers ity of Chi c ago .
Schneider, David 1\1 . and Raymond T. Smith 1 973
Class Differences and Sex Roles in American Kinship and Family Structure . Englewood Cliffs New Jersey: Prentice-Hall . ,
Schulz, Fritz 1 95 1
Classical Roman LaK' . London: Oxford at the Claredon Press .
Selden, John 1 636
De Sui:cessionibus in Bona Defuncti! ad Legis Ebraeorum . London : Richard
B i shop . 1 640
.�'aturali
Ju re
De
Gentium ,
et
Juxta
Ebraeorum .
Disciplinam
London: Richard Bishop.
Shennan , C .Bezalel •
1 964
Demographic and Soc ial Aspects. In Oscar I . Janov.lsky , ed
. ,
The A merican
Jew : A Reappraisal. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Soci e ty
Shils, Edward 1 97 5
Center
and Periphery,
Chicago Press .
.
Pp . 27- 5 2 .
Essays i n Macrosociology. Chicago : Universi ty of
Simmel, Georg 191 1
How Is Society Possible? American JourtUJl of Sociology 1 6 : 372- 3 9 1 .
Simon , Rita J., William Rau, and 1 980
Mary
Louis FeUows
Property Distributi on at Death . Social
Skolnick, Arlene S . and J erome H. Skolnick 1 97 1
Family
1 97 6
The
Smelser, Neil J . Hall
in
Transition . Boston: Little , Brov.rn .
Sociology oj· Economic
S mith, Charles Edward 1 940
Attitudes about Forces 58: 1 263- 1 27 1 .
Public Versus Statutory Choice of Heirs: A Study of Public
Papal
Enforcemen t
of
Life . Englewood Cliffs , New Jersey : Prentice
Som e
...Medie1-·al
A-1arriage
La ws .
Baton
Rouge: Lou isiana State Uni versity Press . ( R e i ssued in 1 972 by Kennikat Press, !\ew York . )
242
Sorokin , Pitirim A . 1 959
Social
and Cultural Mobility . New York: Free Press .
Srole , Leo
Soci al Integration and Certain Coroll aries : An Exp l orat ory Study . A merican
1 956
Sociological Re�';e..,tt· 2 1 : 709- 7 1 6 .
Staples, IWI
Robert
The BUick Family , Essays and
Stone, Lal\Tence
Studies . Belmont , C alifornia:
Wadsworth
The Ri se of the Nuclear Fam i ly in Early �1odem England : The Patriarc h al
1 97 5
State .
In
Charles
E.
Rosenberg ,
ed . ,
The
Fam ily
Philadelphia: Un i vers i ty of Pennsylvania Press. Pp. 1 3-- 5 7 .
in
Hi... tory .
S ussman , Marvin B.
Re l ations h ip s of Adult Children with their Parents in the U nited States . In
1 965
Ethel Shanas and Gordon F. Streib, eds . . Social Structure and the Family : Generational Relations . Engle\llood Cli ffs , New Jersey: Prentice-Hall . Pp .
62- 92 .
S ussman , l\1arvin B .
and Lee G .
Burc:hinal
1 962a Kin Family Network : Unheralded Structure in C urrent Conceptional izations
of Family Functioning . J.,larriage and Family Living 24: 23 1 - 240. 1 962 b Parental Aid
to
Married Children: Implications for Fami ly Function ing .
Journal of J\larriage and the Family 24: 3 20-- 332 .
S ussman , Mar,yin B . , Judith N . Cates, and 1 970
David T.
S mith
Th e Family and Inheritance . New York : Russell Sage Foundation .
Swanson, Guy E. 1 96 7 1 969
R eligio n and Regime. Ann Arbor: Uni vers it y of �1ichigan Press .
Rules oj· Descent: Studies in the
Sociology
of Parentage . Anthropological
Papers, No . 3 9 . Ann Arbor: !vluseum of Anthropology , University of .[\lfich tgan .
Tedeschi , 1 966
Guido
Studies in Israeli Private La""· · Jerusalem: Kiryat Sepher . Lewis
Terman, 1 938
Psychological Factors in Marital Happiness . N�w York: McGraw-Hill .
Tucbfarber, A. J . and 1 976
KIMka, W .R.
Random Digit Dialing : Lowering the Cost of Victimization Surveys . Wash ington , D . C . : The Po li ce Foundation .
LTUmann, 1 955
Walter
The Gro""'·th of Papal Government in the Middle Ages .
Ithaca, New
York : Corne ll University Press .
1 975
Lat-.l and Politics in the Middle Ages . Ithaca, New York: Cornel l University
Press .
243 United States Bureau of the Census. 1 970
Census
of Housing :
Vol . 1 , Hous ing Characteristics for States , Cities, and
Counties , Part 4, Arizona . Washington , D .C . : U . S . Government Pri nting Offi ce . \Vaksberg, J. 1 976
Sampling Methods for Random Digit Dialing. Unpubl ished report . Rock
ville , Maryland: Westat , Inc .
Wallace, Anthony F C and John R. Atkins .
1 960
.
1be Meaning of Kinship Terms .
Waller, Willard and Reuben Hill 1 95 1
Anthropologist 62: 58- 80.
The Family. New York: Dryden .
\\'atson , Alan 1 97 1
American
The Lal1l
of Succession
in the Later Roman Republic . London: Oxford at
the Cl arendon Pres s .
\\'eber, Max 1 96 1
General EcononJ ic History. New York : Coll ier Books .
\\'eigert , Andrew J . and Ross Hastings 1 977
Identi ty Loss , Family , and Social Cbange . 82 : I 1 7 1 - I 1 8 5 .
A merican
Journal
of SocioloRY
W"'estofl', Charles F . and Nonnan Ryder I fT77
The Co n tracepti ve Revolution . Princeton , Ne w Jersey: Princeton University Press .
\\'exler, Kenneth N. 1 972
and A . Kimball Romney
Individual Vari ations in Cognitive Structures . In A . Kimball Romney ,
Roger N . Shepard , and Sara Beth Nerlove , eds . , Multidimensional Scaling (Vol . 2 , Applicarion.f) . �ew York: Seminar Press . Pp . 73-92 .
Winch, Robert F. 1 974
S om e Observations on Extended Familism in the United States . In Robert
F. Winch and Graham B . Spanier, eds . , Selected Studie.� in Marriage and
1 977
the Family .
New York: Holt , Rinehart, and Winston .
Familial Organizarion,
Wypyski, Eugene M. 1 976
A
Pp .
1 47- 1 60 .
Quest for Determinants . New York :
Free Press .
The Law ofInheritance in All Fifty States . Dobbs Ferry , New York : Oce ana .
Index
A Ackerman, Charles. I 06 Adams, Bert N., 42, 83, 87, 1 56, 1 62, 1 74. 1 79, 1 83, 1 88 Affinity, 2, 4 1 Agnatic group, 2Pr-29
Alienated collectives, I 5
Alsop, Stewa� 55 American Indian respondents, 80.. 8 J
A mity, axiom of. 26, 1 58- 1 59, 1 67, 1 68- 1 69..
1 75, 1 96 Anderson, M ichael, 1 5 7, 1 60 Anomia ( Srole index), 96-98, 1 0 1 - 1 02 Anspach, Donald F., 42, 1 88 Aristotle� 25-26 Artificial family ties, 1 2 1 Assimilation into American society, 89-94, 99
7, 45, 46, Augustine ( City Q( God), 2�30 Atkins, John R. , 3, 5,
59, 67, 2 1 0
B
Babchuk, Nicholas, 1 67 Bahr, Howard M., 1 56
Beale, Howard K., 55 Bernard of Pavia, 3 1 Black respondents, n, 80, 82
Blau, Peter, 1 57, 1 60
•stood" a nd genealogical d i stance , 1 0, 1 5 Bogardus, Emory, 36 Brown, CcciJ H. , 208, 209 Brown, Daniel J., 36
Buchler, Ira R . , 59
Burchinal, Lee G. , I 56, 1 98
Burgess. E rnest V.'., 36, 37, 1 04, 1 29 Burr, Wesley R . , 83
Canon Law model centrifugal tendencies, 1 05- 1 06
exchange norms, I (]()a 1 6 1 permanent availa bility, 202-205 social setting, 1 7- 1 8, 20, 29-33, 34, 43, 70. 1 93. See also Collaterality models Carr, Leslie G., 1 0 1 Casson , Ronald W . , 208 Cat� Judith N., 59 Cath olic Church, 1 2
canon law, 30..32, 33, 42, 70, 95
Catholics, 7S-76, 8 1 , 95� 1 93- 1 94 contact with relatives, 68 � 1 70 divorce, I 07
familiarity with gra ndpa rents. 92-93. 94. 99
levels, 77-78
fertility, 1 1 (,.1 1 9. 1 4&- 1 53 i ncome
occupations, 84 religious e ndoga my, 72. 1 1 0, 1 27- 1 28 siblings' religion, I I ().. I l l
Ccntnlization of culture.. 1 5- 1 7
Centrifugal kinship tendencies. I 04- 1 06. I 54,
1 93- 1 94
age at marriage. 1 1 2, I 34- 1 36 common interests. 106, 1 1 9
marriage and
legal family model, 1 2 1
Ca mpbell, Bruce L., 73-74 Ca mpbell. Eugene E. , 73-74
family nonns. I OS
age at marriage, 1 1 2, 1 34- 1 35
marriage and
maternal role, I 1 5, 1 4 1 - 1 45
natural family model, 1 2 1 privacy, 1 25 special interests. 1 05, I 1 9
Child ren and collaterality. 1 44- 1 4 5 adoption, 1 39
c
fa mily norms, I 06
maternal role, l i S, 1 4 1 - 1 45 Centripetal kinship te ndencies� 1 6. 1 03- 1 05. 1 93
ages of children. I 39- 1 40, 204 mari taJ status of grown children, 1 40 maternal employment. 1 42 residence of children, 1 39
246 Chodorow. Stanley. 30
Ch urch Educational System. 74
Ci vil Law m ode l , 209-2 1 0 accom modation o f dass con flicts, I 59- I 60 social setting. 1 7. 27-29. 32-33. 34, 43, 70, 1 93. See a/:io Collaterality models
Collateral removal, 59-M Collaterality (definition), Preface, 1 -3, 1 00 Collaterality in Ia•;, 2- 1 0, 20, 42, .57-5&. 2 1 2 Collaterality models age and se" of res pond ents , 1 36- 1 38, 1 42- 1 44 age at marria� 1 1 2- 1 1 3, 1 34- 1 3 5 componential analysis, 60-67, 1 90-- 1 92 contact with relatives, 1 74- 1 85 description. 7- 1 2, 4849 disillusionment, �98 distribution in Phoeni� 50-5 1 , 56-51 familiarity with grandparents, 90-94 incom e, 77-82 interest in kin, 1 67- 1 69 marital residence� 1 63- 1 66 measures, 9 . 1 2. 46-50, 1 9 1 minorities, 77-82, 96 occup ations , 8� 96-98 religion, 72-76 religious endogamy, 126- 1 28 social mobility, 87-89, 98 social structure, 1 7-1 8, 40-43, I OS- I 06, 1 70, 1 92- 1 96 socioec ono mic status, 84-86, �97, 1 92 spatial metaphors, 42-43. See abo Canon Law, Civil Law, Gcneti� Parentela
Orders, and Standard American models Communal stateless societies, 1 3
Communal welfare (com mon interests, common welfare), 1 3- 1 4, 1 8 communalism, I 03- 1 04 gradient conception of social space, 39-40 kinship, l 06, 1 70 religion. 7 1 Componential analysis, 58-66, 1 90- 1 92, 1 96, 207-2 1 0 Consa nguineous marriage, 2 1 , 29-30. 1 09 Consa nguinity, 2-3, 4 1 Coparents-in-law, 1 09 Core a nd periphery in social structure, I � I S Corporateness in family and kinship. 1 66. 1 93- 1 96 collaterality models, 1 30, 1 32, 1 35, 1 45, 1 96 privacy, 1 23- 1 25� I 54 social exchange, 22, 24, I 57- 1 62, 1 82 Coscr, Lewis� 1 57, 1 59 Cottrell Calvert B. , 4 1 -42, 68, 7 1-72, 1 00, I 56. 1 79. 1 88 Cottrell. Leonard S. , 1 29 Cousinship, 3 1 , 54 Craig, Da niel. 1 5 5, 2 1 2 Cruz-C o ke . Ricardo. 10, I I
D
Danby, Herbert, 24 o·Andrade, Roy G., 59
De Gradibus Cog111lf ionis, 29
DisiDusio nmcnt with spo use, 1 3� 1 32
Divorce, 1 0� 1 06, 204
age at marriage, 1 34
collaterality, 1 07- 1 08, 1 20, 1 32- 1 3 5 Dizard, Jan, 1 29 Durkheim, Emile D., 3 7-38, 40, 7 1
E Ec ono mic depressi o n, 1 3 7
Ehrenberg. Victor, 24-25
Eisenstadt. Sh muel N 1 2- 1 4. 1 7 E ke� Peter, 1 82 Englis h ki nsh ip, 54 , 1 60 English law, 8- 1 0 Epstein, Isadore, 24 Ethnicity, 16, 1 8, 68, 75, 79. 82. 94, 1 04, 209, 212 .•
F
Fa ctionalis � 1 3- 1 4, 1 6, I OJ- I 06, I 07, 1 70. See
also Pluralism, S peci al interests
Family capitalism, S4
Family history and oral tradition, S> S6
Family life cycle, 1 37- 1 40, 1 44- 1 45 Family policy , I I , 57-58, 2 1 2-2 1 3 Family, symbolic aspects, SS, 1 54, 1 66, 1 68- 1 69
Farber, Bernard. pa.uim Fellows, Mary Louise, 58 Feng. Han-yi, 3
Fertility and collateraJity, 1 05- 1 06, 1 1 6- 1 1 9. 1 46- 1 53 close relatives of respondents.. 1 1 7- 1 1 9, 1 46- 1 48 project io ns by respondents, 1 49- 1 53 Firt� Raymond, 55 Forde, Daryl� 1 95 Fortes, Meyer, 1 57- 1 58, 1 67 Fox. Robin, 202 French kinship, 54 Furstenberg; Fra nk F. , 1 1 2
G
Generational distinctions in com ponents of
Genealogical distance, 4 1 -42, 68-70
models, 58� I
Genetic model centrifugal tendencies.. I 05- 1 06 �ociaJ setting. 1 8, 20-2 1 . 1 93. See also Collat eralit y m ode ls German kinship (J'Jogschafr), 1 09 Gestalt psychology, 34-35
247 Glazer, Nathan, 205 Glick, Paul, 2 1 1
conflicting kin ties, 1 59 divorce, 1 06
Glock, Charles Y., 1 25 Gl uckma � Joel R., 58
familiarity \\ith grandparents, 92-94
Goffina� Erving, 1 57, 1 6 1
fertility, 1 1 6, 147- 1 48
Goldber& Arthur, 1 2 3 Goode. Willia m J 83, 1 04, I S9
income levels. 78-79. 82
Gordon, M ichael , 83
models of collaterality, 43. n-73, 76, 95 occupations. 84
.•
Goody, Jack, 2 1
Gratia� 30
Greece, classical peri od, 1 2, 22. 2�27, 42. 70 At hens, 20, 2 1 , 24, 3 2, 42
intest acy Ia w, 26-27
significance of contracts, 2S
Greeley, And rew M . , 1 9.3- 1 94, 20S-206 G roves.. R. M. , 223
H
Harrison. Alick R . Yl., 25 . 26-27 Haskins .. George Lee , 1 2 1 - 1 22
H ast ings, Roa, 55
Health Resources Administration, 1 34 H eirs i n wills. 58
H eitland, V.'. E., 20., 27 H eJvetians, 4, 5
Heroerg. Will, 205 Hereditary associations, 54 He rtz, J. H 22 Hillt Da niel . I I S Hill, Re u ben , 1 29 Homans, George, 1 S H orst , Paul, 1 29 H o� Homer.. 36 .•
H uebner, Rud olf. S, 32, I 09
1
Idealization in courtship. 1 29 Imperial regimes, 1 3- 1 4 I mpression management, 1 6 1
I ntestacy laws,
Arizona, 6 Ceylon , 8
Georgia. 9 Israel. 6 J'i a poleonic Code. 8
familism, 68, 1 94
kin contact, 1 79
law, 6, 22-24, 33\ 82, 94
religious endogam y, 72, 1 09- 1 1 1 . 1 27- 1 28
siblings' religion, I J 1
j/etl life, I 09
J offe, Natalie F., 1 74 John de Deo, 32
John of Orleans, 3 1
Johnson, E. L., 20 Jolowicz, H. F., 28. 29
Justinian Code, 29 K
Kerckholf9 Alan C., 1 99 Kin contact, 204
distance9 83, 1 62, 1 70-1 7 1 . I 74, 1 79, 1 85 fertility. I 5 2 forced contact, 1 82- 1 85 increased contact desired� 1 74- 1 8 1 iso l ated nuclear family, 1 56 rcfuseni ks. 1 72- 1 73
sex d iffe rences.. 1 79- 1 8S
Kin universe, 4 1 , 68
Kinship continuity.. 23
American kinship, l , 69-7 1 , 99- 1 0 I . l 9S- 1 96
dimensions, 3, 4 1
and house hold family, I S4- 1 5S, I 56
kins hip grid, 1 87- 1 89
middle class � 1 97-20 1
nomenclature, 2, 4 1.. 54, 58, 1 95, 207-2 1 0. See
also Centrifugal kinship te ndenci�. Cen tripetal kinship tend enci es , and Collateral ity models
Kinship ties
confticting commitments, 1 58- 1 60 family roots , 1 68- 1 (I)
impressi on management, 1 6 1
R oma � 28-29
interest in, 1 66
West Germany, 6, 3 1
market no rm s. 1 60- 1 6 1 , 1 75
U nion of So uth Africa, 8
I nterviewing and questionnaires, 229-23 1 Isidore of Seville, 3 1
Israel, a ncient, 1 2, 22, 32-33, 42. 70 modem Jaw, 6
J Jews, 2 1 , 1 09. 1 94 concept of Covenant, 22
marital residence, 1 62- 1 66
norm of generosity, 1 57- 1 .58, 1 7 S
propinquity , 1 63
trust and obligation, 1 67- 1 68 types of social exchange, 1 57, 1 74, 1 86. See
al.w Intestacy law
Kish , Leslie, 227
Klatzky, Sheila R., 42, 66. 83, 1 62, 1 74. 1 88 Klecka, W. R., 223 K ohler, Wolfgang, 34-35
248 Mommsen. Tbeodor , 21
L
Laumann, Edward 0., 1 6, 1 67
Law
colonia� 1 2 1 - 1 22
contemporary, 1 23- I 24
Wenttadr VS. Baird, family, 1 2 1 - 1 25, 1 S4
1 24
Gruwo/d vs. Connecticut, 1 23- 1 25 PlanMd Parenthood of .�issoW'i vs. Danforth, 1 24- 1 25 Roe
vs.
R-'ade. 1 24
l .azerwitz., Bernard, 94
Leggett. John C. . I 0 I Leichter H ope J . , 1 59, 1 82 Lensk� Gerhard E., I 0 I , 205, 206 LePJay, Frederic. 1 97 Levi-Strauss, Claude, 23, 35. 3 8- 39, 40, 1 58 Lewin, K urt, 35 Lewis. Oscar. 56 L.iebow. Ell iolt, 56 ..
200
42, 83,
� Napoleonic Code, 8,
29
Narol� Raoul, 207 N atural farn ily mode� 1 2 1 - 1 2S, 1 35-1 36, 1 54 T\eedham, Rodney, 1 95 , 2 1 2 1\ew Engla nd, family roots, 54, 1 2 1 - 1 22 -
Legal-family model, 1 2 1 - 1 25. 1 3 � 1 36, 1 54
Li twak, Eugene.
Morgan, D. H. J., 1 6, 1 56 Morgan, Lewis Henry, 2-3, 4, 5, 4 1 � onnn oos , 73-74, 76, 95 Moynihan, Da niel P., 205 M urdock, Gerse Peter, 3. 4 1 , S9, 1 88
1 67,
1 88.
1 97, 1 98- 1 99.
Nicomachean ethi� 25-26
Nonrnarita1 c oh abi tati o n, 1 43-145
0 Oikos, 22, 24-25 Oriental respo nde n ts 80, 82 ,
p
L oc ke, Harvey J . , 1 04, 1 29
Paige. Jeffel')· M . , 1 3- 1 4, 1 7
Locke, John. 1 22
Pare ntage., degree of, 10. Se� also Genetic model
L o pata. H e le na Znaniecki, 1 56
Parentela Orders model
centripetal tende ncies , I OS norm of generosity, 1 58
1\1
social sett iq, 1 7- 1 8, 2 1 -27, 32-3 3. 34. 43,
M a imonides, M oses, 22, 23
49-50, 70. 1 92 Set also Collaterality models
M a randa. Pierre. 30, 3 1 , 54 M a rital roles. 1 4 1 - 1 45
Pa rs ons, Talcott, 37, 38, 1 83, 1 97- 1 98 ' 200.
�larriagc age at marriage, 1 1 2- 1 1 4, 1 34- 1 35, 204 e nd ogamy, 1 0� 1 07, 1 � 1 1 1 , 1 20, 1 26- 1 27 Judaic and Athenian svstems 2 1 legal i n terpretations, I 23- 1 2 5 ' levirate and sororate, I 07 mate selection and adj ustment, 1 29 remarriage and fertility. 1 5 1 . See also Consangui neous marriage M ate rnal role. 1 05., 1 06. l i S. 1 42. 145 employment 1 1 5, 1 42. 145 fertility projecti ons� 1 50 MalBS, !darcel. 37, 38, 40 McFarland, Da\oid D., 36 Mexican American respondents, 75-76, 80-82 Middleman minorities. 1 6 Miller, Delbert C . , 96 Mindel. Charles H ., 94 Minorities, 1 6, 52, 53, 66, 77-83, 95-96 97, ..
2 1 2, 2 1 4, 220
.�ishnah, 23, 24, 26, 95, 1 94
.Mishpokheh. 22, 1 09, 1 92, 195
Mitchell \\'illiam E., 1 59, 1 82
..
.
202, 203
Paterfamilias, 28 29 ..
Patrim onial regimes, 1 4, 32
Permanent availabi litv 202-205 Pluralism, 1 7, 20 1 ,
Xil'. See also Factionalism
Privacy., corporate and individual, 1 23, 1 25
Protestantism, 1 3, 5 1-54, 70
Protestants, 43, S I , 75, 80, 95
chW"Ch attendance, 1 25- 1 26. 2 1 0
divorce. 1 07
familiarity ¥tith grandparen� 92-93, 94
fertility, 1 1 6, 149
i ncome, 77-78
Neofundamentalists,
occupations, 84
72.
7S, 76, 82, 9S
religious endogamy, 109- 1 10, 1 27- 1 28
siblings' religion, I I 0-1 1 1
Public interests, 1 6- 1 7
Q
Questionnaire� 229-23 1
..
M odel, Otto. 6
M odelL John. 1 1 2
M oieties, J9
R
Radcliffe-Brown., A R., 1 95 Radin, Ma � 23, 27, 28
249 Social exchange. 1 57, 1 75 . Se� also Reciprocity
Ra ndom digit dialing, 223 Ra u. \Villiam, 58 Reiss, Paul J
.•
1 36
Reciprocity, 22, 25, 59� 1 57- 1 58, 160-1 6 1 � 1 7 5 Reformation, Protestant , 1 3
Regressio n analysis, 8 1-82, 2 1 4-22 1
Relatives as persons, ff}, 90, 92, 99- 1 00
genealogical technique, I 00- 1 0 I
Religion, 7 1 -76, 95, 1 97. 204
Social space categorical represe ntation, 35-36, 38-40, 1 92 concentric circle models,. 36, 37. 39, 1 92
core and periphery, 37-38, 39 gradient representation, 37-39, 40 metaphors, 34-40 special interests, 38-39 Socioecono mic status age and sex differences , 1 3 8, 144
age at marriage, 1 1 3
church attendance, 1 25- 1 26
age at maniage, 1 1 3- 1 1 4
fertility, 1 1 6- 1 1 7, 1 47- 1 48, 1 49
kin contac4 1 70
divorce� I 07 fertility, 1 1 6, 148, 1 49- 1 50
divorce, 107, 1 3 1 - 1 33 familiarity v.itb grandparents, 9 1 -92
sociaJ mobility, 87-89. See also Collaterality models
intermarriage� 1 26- 1 28 irreligiosity of spo ._, 1 30- 1 32
kin contact, 1 70, 1 79- 1 80
Sorokin. Pitirim A.,
occupations, 84-86
siblings, I I 0- 1 1 1 . See also Catholics, Jews, M ormons� and Protestants
Religi ous groups, associational versus communal tendencies, 75, 76, 205-2()7
Residence (ncolocality� virilocality, utrolocality�
Srole, Leo, 96
35-361
42
Standard A merica n model, 70. 98, 99. 1 96- 1 97. 200.20 1 centripetal tenden cies 105 ,
comparison with Parentela Orders model, 49-SO
middle class fertility, 147, 1 48- 1 49
uxorilocality), 162- 1 66 Response rates, 229
nativity of parents and grandparents, 5 1 .
Rheinstein, Max, 8- 1 0
Roman Republic, 7, 1:1, 32-33, 42, 70, 1 58, 21 0.
See also Twelve Tables Romney, A. Kimbal� 59, 209, 2 1 0
9 1 -94
norm of generosity. IS8 social characteristics, �52, 66 social placement. 56 source, 1 20 See also CoDaterality models Staples. Robert, n, 82 .
Rosenberg. George S., 42. 1 88 Rosenfeld, Jeffery P., S4-S5
Stark, Rodney, 1 25
Stone, La wrencc, 54
Ryder, Sorman, 1 1 9
Strong. Douglas, 1 1 2
Sun·eys on collaterality.
s
Arizona State University, 43, 72
Sablins, Marshall, 1 86 Sample selection procedure, 223-227, �2 3 1
SandaB, Thomas Collett, 19
Kansas City, 43 . 72, .206, 2 1 1 Phoenix, 2, .56-51. 222-23 1
Suss man, M arvin B. , S8, 156. 1 98
Sanday, Peggy R., 209
Swanson, Guy E . , 1 2- 1 4, 17, 7 1
Sa \ldh, Edward :'1 . , S5
Schlesinger, Benjamin, f8
Schneider, David M., 1 0, 40, 4 1 -42, 68, 69, 7 1-72,
77, 82, 96, 100- 1 0 1 , 1 2 1 , 1 5 6, 1 79, 1 83 , 1 88, 1 9S, 1 97, 199, 208 "Second Treatise of Civil Govern ment 1 22 Secular immortality, 21 1 -2 1 2 Selby, Henry A., 59 Selden, John. 5-6, 20 Shared chromosomes a nd kinship distance, I 0- 1 1 . Sn tllso Genetic model Sherman, C. Bezalel, 79 Shils, Edward, 1 4- I S, 1 7, 37-38 Si mon, Rita James. S8 Smelser, Neil J., 83 Smilh, Charles Edward, 20, 3 1 -32 Smilh, David T. , S9 Smith, Raymond T., t/J, Tl, 82, 96, 1 00. 200 Social distance, 3S-36, 40 .•
T
Tedeschi, Guido, 6
Terman, Lewis, 1 29
Thomes, Mary Margaret, 1 04
�Tree of Consanguinity� 3 1 -32 Tuchfarber, A. J., 223 Twelve Tables, 20, 27, 28-29, 42,. 70, 1 59, 2 1 0 ..
u
U Uman Walter, 7, )).3 1 U nited States Census, 82, 223 U niversalism, 18.,. 1 93. See also Communal welfare
w
Waksberg.. J., 223 Wallace, Anthony F. C., 59 2 1 0 ,.
250 Waller, WillarcL 1 29 Wallin, Pa ul, 1 29 \\tar, 1 14, 1 37 Watson, Ala� 28. 29 Weber, Max. 104
Weigart, Andrew J. , 55 Westoff, Charles F.� 1 1 9 \\'exler, Kennet h N . , 59., 209, 2 1 0 \\'inch, Robert F. , 68-69, 198- 1 99., 205 Wypyski, Eugene M 6 .•