CI'IER

I
_{ :,bstantivism,
Antisubstantivism,
and
:-:rti - antis
ubstantivism
-;net
Carsten

i
I
i
i
Ihis
essayexplores
the uses ofthe
term
sul
eratureonkinship.rbegin*itr,tn.uu-.'iti'*:;'i:#r,,":.::i:*ii,ll.
The very
breadth
of this=seman,u
"-"tr,',
suggest,
has been
centrar
to the
rruitfulness
of anaryses-
of kinship
,rr", i"*
emproyed
the term.
And this is
amply
attested
to elsewhere
in this ,"i"_",
,n"re
,ub.tun..
i, ,rr"a
,., orrfy
to refer
to brood (see
weston)
urra otnoioa,yfluids
but also to information lHelmreich),
rivers
and railways
(F..;;;
::::"'ff
l;,'il*,i,T",","-.:";:;,:;,",:;;,:',::i:T:'1"?::'"',il,.1;
r1'tic.rigor
", ",,
..J;;lllT;
",'j.llle
probrems
-
o*'',i".ii L".',r,"
u,u-
The Oxford
English
Dictionarylrrrj
n.r, twenty_three
separate
meanings
for substance
covering
thre"
frr;;g;.
;r.r",
*,n*"
meanings
crearryover_
.i1ffii:,lT:r:"",;.:li*::*",:"T,"#*e,ess,therear.,J--.iipo.,un,
tinct
thing;
that
which
underlies
on"rro_"rru"ure
or essence;
a separate
dis-
-*".i1 of which
a physical
thing
consistr,
,h.t
-ut"t
or subject
matrer;
rhe
animal
body
part
o, o.gur,
any corporea,
_ur,
-u""t
or tissue
composing
an
posedtoupp"u.u,,..".**1,";_;;;I;,;l#,.,,".,il::il,:f"ii.,""1;
and the consistency
of a fluid.
, nr*
r"^".r.0 p.,
,o-.
of the oED,s
long
list
ot meanings
-
rhose
rhar, ir seems
," ;., ;;;; rerevance
for an examinarion of the uses to which
substance
n"r 01",
nr,
li ,rr. u.rrt.oporogicar
srudy
of
kinship'
The oEDt
list ofmeanin*
;i;;rther reduced
ro four
broader
categories:
vitar part
or esence;
separate
distinct
thing;
that
which
under-
lies phenomena;
and corporeal
matter.
AII of
some
bearing
oo ur,t .opor"*,.",
rri"..;;;;;Jl,".::::1ffiilffi"iil:
Janet
Carsten
utility of substance as a term is due in large measure to the very breadth of
the meanings that I have delineated.
This ambiguity emerges clearly in David Schneider's deployment of sub-
stance in American Kinship: A Cultural Account (lq8o)
'
In tracing the passage
ofsubstance, from Schneider's original application ofit in 1968 in the analy-
sis of American kinship, to India, and from India to Melanesia, I attempt to
highlight some of these discrepancies of meaning. It would be quite impos-
sible to present a thorough examination of all the uses to which substance has
been put. I have selected a few of the more prominent instances in order to
make explicit the analytic work that is being done. It should be clear that I
am more interested in what substance does than what it ls. I focus on how
substance has been employed in the analysis of kinship, rather than on what
it means within any one particular culture' This is part of a larger project
to study critically what kinship itself does for anthropologists
(see Carsten
zooo).
This chapter offers a critique
"from within." The work that I discuss here
has been highly influential and fruitful in the analysis of kinship and per-
sonhood over the past twenty years. Substance has undoubtedly been "good
to think with," yet partly because of a lingering dissatisfaction with my own
use of substance in the study of Malay kinship, it seemed worth exploring
its ambiguities. Finally, therefore, I turn to my own study of Malay related-
ness to see whether "making things explicit" actually achieves an advance on
previous ways of understanding indigenous relatedness.
suBIICE llt rlERl(11 l(lllHlP
Schneider was one ofthe first anthropologists to use substance as an analytic
term in relation to kinship. As is well-known, Schneider argues that
"rela-
tives" are defined by "blood," and that "the blood relationship, as it is defined
in American kinship, is formulated in concrete, biogenetic terms" (r98o, z3).
Each parent contributes halfofthe biogenetic substance oftheir child.
"The
blood relationship is thus a relationship of substance, of shared biogenetic
material" (25). Schneider notes two crucial properties of such relationships.
First, blood endures and cannot be terminated: blood relationships cannot
be lost or severed. Even if parents disown their children, or siblings cease to
communicate, the biological relationship remains unaltered. Blood relatives
remain blood relatives. Second, "kinship is whatever the biogenetic relation-
3o
ship is. Ifscience discovers no
is what kinship is and n'as all d
the time" (23).
Schneider's analYtic stntt
substance-also rendered a
blood relatives are'related' bYt
of a particular heredin'. Each
(24). Blood is the symbol fort
able in this rendering oi-rm
stance are quite unexplored a
a whole book on American m
Weston demonstrates the odr
comparing two highly specific
tory when the sYmbolic
irneg
The links between blood andr
discourses about blood tratr
blood drive for Bettv Shabz
potential scope ofan anthrog
Further, Schneider's shift I
words, the relationship betw
ized) is also unexamined It i
heredity, or substance, i nd i
that recent scientific and
Pop
nents of heredity har-e bm
1
shift from blood to heredit-v, a
less than self-evident. Ir th i
there is something u'or *sd
Jeanette
Edwards's obrssw
transferred from mother to d
context. Her informants sPm
in an artificial womb in thelC
to its mother or her feelings
Somebody somernerel
acts to what,vou're ffi
heartbeat is faster- It ood
then, through the
Plaa
chewitts on the $u' lik? r
rdth
of
rf sub-
assage
analy-
npt to
npos-
:e has
ler to
rhat
I
how
ryhat
oject
:sten
here
per-
ood
)wn
,irg
ed-
on
Sub st antiv ism, Anti sub stantiv
ism
ship is' Ifscience
discovers
newfacts
about
biogenetic
relationship,
then that
ilffij:?rlp
is and was all uto,g,
uttr'ough
it may not have o""l uro*,,
u,
Schneider's
analytic
stategy,
then,
moves
between
blood
and biogenetic iubstance-also
rendered
as*lnatural
..rU.,ur.".,,
Hence
he writes,
.,Two
:lood
relatives
are
.related,
Uy tf,. a.t tfrut tf
-
a p arti c ur ar h e re ditv. Each h as
"
",,jihlffi
ffi:,:i;-. ffJ}::r.:T
.+)' B100d
is the symbor
for biogenetic
substance (24).
Butwhat
is remark_ able in this rendering
of Americaln
il;;;
that brood
and biogenetic
sub- :iiance
are quite
unexplored
as symbols
-
one courd,
after
an, eas,y
imagine a rrore
book
on American
notions
of bro;;.
Elsewhere
in this vorume,
Kath
I'\ston
demonstrates
the potentil
r.uitn
trr.rs
of such
a line
of inquiry
by comparing
two highly
specific
and politically
charged
..moments,,
in u.s. his_ iorv
when
the symboric
imagery
or rrurrrr"
of brood
is vividly
eraborated.
The links
between
blood
and ra.., urrd rt..or,ru.,
Weston
sketches
between discourses
about
blood
transfers
in u rror."i.,
blood
drive r.. u.*/r*r"
bazz in
99or, uu.l,
t in r93os'
rural
Georgia
and a
potenriar
..op"
or u,, anthroporogy
"r
ur""J#a1ill.*#m::::tive
or the
Further,
Schneider,s
shifr fro
Utooa
to i
rrords,
the relarionship
between
,rr. ,y_
LTH:T,:::ii_*H;:;:
ized)
is also unexamined.
It ir, fo,
"r;;;1.,
no, u, all clear
that biogeneric
heredity,
or substance,
is not itself
a rr_ior'r,
A;;";r*...
,i,,rr
r" that recent
scientific
and popurar
air.u.r.
i, which
the biogenetic
compo- nents
of heredity
have b,een
particularly
prominent
have
made
schneider,s
shift from
blood
to heredity,
nd from .;"*,
less than ,"lf-.r,id"rrt.lf
rfr", i, th. .rr;,;;;
J,i; ::r#;:H:T:r:ifi:;
there
is something
worth
studying
here.
/eanette Edwardst
observatio
from
northwest
England
about
what is transferred
from
mothe
cont exr. Her i n ro rm an,]
;Tli:1J:T;-l.t".i"*nt
a are s uggestive
in th i s
in an ardficiat
*o-ui,
tr,.laboratory.
s,;il;;t;T::H::#::;:j
to its mother
or her feelings.
somebody
somewhere
must be creating
this artificiar
womb.
A baby re-
;::1flIi:f,:fe
feeling_if
your hrtbeat
is fasrer
then
the babyr
rhen,throusr;;;i?,.,:1""::ff
fi::'ff::ltl":,:;nT*::
chewitts
on the bus' like cravings
"t
air...rt
times-vegetables,
sweets,
tic
la-
ed
l).
1e
ic
s.
)t
o
:s
31
Janet
Carsten
alcoholwhateverittakestomakeababy.Itwillhavenofeelingsbecause
no feelings are going through it'
(Edwards t9g2' 59)
The image of a baby born without feelings because it was never connected
to maternal emotion, never received the effects of maternal cravings
in the
formofapacketofcrisps,oraglassofbeer,indicatessomethingratherdiffer-
entfromscientifrcdiscourseonbiogeneticheredity.Itisbeyondthescopeof
the present essay to explore the meanings of blood and biogenetic substance
in American culture. As charis Thompson
(this volume) shows through her
analysis ofpractices
and discourses
in infertility clinics,
"biological" kinship
canbeconfiguredinaremarkablenumberofways,ascantheconnectionsthat
are made between
..social,,
and
..biological,,
kinship. Her conclusion that there
isno..uniquetemplate,,forbiologicalkinshipimpliesthattherelationshipbe-
tweenbloodandbiogeneticsubstanceislessstraightforwardthanSchneider
appears to assume.
ichneider,s
analysis also asserts that American kinship is a product of two
elements:relationshipasnaturalsubstanceandrelationshipascodeforcon-
duct. These elements are themselves derived from the two major orders of
American culture: the order of nature and that of law
(Schneider r98o' z9)'
Certainrelationshipsexistbyvirtueofnaturealone_forexample,thenatu.
ralorillegitimatechild.Others,likehusbandandwife'arerelativesinlaw
alone.Thethirdclassofrelativesarethosedefinedbyblood.Theseinclude
father, mother, brother, sister, son, and daughter' as well as aunt' uncle' niece'
nephew, grandparent,
grandchild,
cousin' and so on' These derive from both
nature and law, substance and code. schneider's
analysis thus not only sug-
gests the combinatory
power of substance and code in the category of so-
called blood relations ut also posits obvious' strong boundaries between
substanceandcode,andthetwoculturalordersfromwhichtheyarederived:
natureandlawEachcanbeclearlydefined,andlegitimacyisderivedeither
fromoneortheother,orfrombothtogether_butonecanattributeaSPectS
to either one domain or the other' As Schneider himself puts it'
ItisafundamentalpremiseoftheAmericankinshipSystemthatblood
isasubstanceandthatthisisquitedistinctfromthekindofrelationship
orcodeforconductwhichpersonswhosharethatsubstance,blood,are
supposedtohave.Itispreciselyonisdistinctionbetweenrelationship
as substance and relationship as code
for
conduct that the classification
of relatives in nature, relatives in law' and those who are related in both
nature and in law, the blood relatives, rests' . . .
[T]hese
two elements'
32
substance and code fbr or
or they can occur in cod
It is this seeminglY unProbl'eu
and that of law, and benreen r
question here.
I have alreadY cited a case fr
tion between substance
and
q
maternal cravings for crisPc o
My questioning comes
rrith o
ain and the United States in m
of the mixed ethnic setting of
scribes how young Sikhs' FID
andwhites in Souall emPber
and often in the absence of I
claims to cousinshiP lbr a rzri
are kin and kin who are tria
incidence of nature and choitl
underscores. Cousins are sfi
but distant enough to requir:
the boundaries betn'een
the I
ties to Weston's dePiction ofg
coming-out stories stress
tlrt
kinship that are suPPosed
tol
informants emPhas ize the eod
perience of kinshiP that inrol
the terms of the dominaut &
as those of kinshiP. Once agP
"muddle" the distinaion
ha
lenges the traditional anthrol
while Marilyn Strathern hasu
plain
"the faa at there ahn
made the foundation of rda
nd this point is amPh wha
discourses about biologY at
I would not clairn tha r
kinship in Schneider's rerns
discuss their material in tcrt
d
Sub st antv i sm, Anti sub st antiv i sm
substance and code for conduct, are quite distinct. Each can occur arone
or they can occur in combination. (rggo, gr)
-r
is this seemingly
unproblematic
distinction
between the order of nature
=nd
that oflaw, and between naturar substance and code for conduct, that I
:uestion here.
I have already cited a case from northwest
Engrand that makes the distinc-
-ion between
substance and code-between
a biorogical
basis for heredityand
=aternal
cravings for crisps or chewitts on a bus-rather
difficult to draw.
i''r'questioning
comes with other recent ethnographic
examples from Brit_
:'in and the united states in mind. The first is from Gerd Baumann,s
portrait
-'f the mixed ethnic setting of the London suburb of southa[. Baumann
de-
';ribes
how young Sikhs, Hindus, and Musrims, as we, as Afro-caribbeans,
and whites in southa[ emphasize "cousin"
rerations
to a remarkable
degree-
:nd often in the absence of specific genearogical
ties.
young
people make
'-laims
to cousinship
for a variety of reasons, saying "cousins
are friends who
:re kin and kin who are friends,' (Baumann
rysS, zl+).It is precisely the co_
iacidence
of nature and choice in the discourse about cousins that Baumann
rnderscores.
cousins are sufficientry
rerated to owe soridarity
to each other,
:ut distant enough to require a voruntaristic
input. This expricit blurring o
rhe boundaries
between the natural and sociar orders bears some similari_
iies to weston's depiction of gay American kinship ideology (r99r,
r99) . Gay
;oming-out
stories stress the traumatic experience
of disruption
to bonds of
kinship that are supposed to be about "diffuse
enduring solidarity.,,weston,s
informants
emphasize
the enduring
quarities of friendship in the fce of an ex_
perience ofkinship that involves the severance of "biorolicar,,ties.
Reversing
rhe terms of the dominant
discourse of kinship, ties that rast are here defined
as those of kinship. once again, this discourse suggests an explicit attempr to
''muddle"
the distinction
between two culturar
..r. w"rtr-, openly chal_
lenges the traditional
anthropologicar
ascription of one set of ties as
.,ictive,,,
r'hile
Marilyn Strathern has underrined
how the critique of gay kinship makes
plain "the
fact that there always was a choice as to whether or not bi,orogy is
made the foundation
of relationships,, (1993,
196, cited in Hayden
rygS, +S).
-{nd this point is amply substantiated
by Thompson's
ethnography
oiit.,'uy
discourses
about biology are deployed in inferiility
clinics (this
volume).
I would not claim that these exampres rule out the possibilit y o{ anaryzng
kinship in schneider's
terms-indeed,
both Baumann
and weston fruitfuly
discuss their material in terms of schneider's
anarysis. But such cases do, I
rf
e
r
l
t
JJ
Janet Carsten
think, indicate that the categorical separation, or even opposition, of the two
orders, and of substance and code, is worthy of further examination. That
much remains to be said about substance, and the relationship between sub-
stance and code, is all the more critical when one begins to trace what hap-
pened to substance when it was transferred from American kinship to India.
For the relationship between substance and code was very much at issue when
anthropologists compared India to the United States, or
..the
West.,,
SUBSIAlICE IlI IIIDIA
on the one hand, it seems as though the promise of substance as an analytic
term lies to a considerable extent in its flexibility, which can be attributed to
its multiple meanings in English. on the other hand, the separation or oppo-
sition of substance and code, which schneider proposes, imposes a startling
rigidityon the analysis of kinship undertaken in these terms. This rigiditybe-
comes clear when one looks at the way substance came to be understood in
the context of Indian notions of kinship and personhood. what is perhaps
even more significant is that both the flexible and rigid aspects of substance
as an analytic term remain quite implicit and unexplored.
The ethnosociological model of India offered by McKim Marriott, Ronald
Inden, R. w. Nicholas, and others explicitly fo[ows the logic of Schneider,s
analysis and utilizes the same terms. on the first page of an article titled
"Toward
an Ethnosociology of South Asian caste systems," Marriott and In-
den write, "The
aims of this chapter are inspired by the results of a cultural
style of analysis exemplified in schneider's book American Kinship"
e977,
zz7). similarly, in "Hindu
Transactions: Diversitywithout Dualism," Marriott
(t'976, .,o) proposes a model of Indian transaction and personhood that spe-
cifically refers to schneider's model. what these authors assert, however, is a
radical opposition between American understandings (Marriott
1976, :Lro)
_
or "Western" or "Euro-American"
ones (Marriott
and Inden
ry77,
zzg)
_
and.
those of Indian actors.
Instead of the dual categories of nature and raw, substance and code,
that schneider postulates, Indian thinking displays a "systematic
monism,,
(Marriott
1976, ro9)- Here code and substance are inseparable- a point that
Marriott emphasizes by using the forms "code-substance"
or
.,substance-
code"
Q976,,o). Bodily substance and code for conduct are not only insepa-
rable, they are also malleable: 'Actions
enjoined by these embodied codes are
thought of as transforming the substances in which theyare embodied,, (Mar-
34
riott and Inden r9;,. ::! . I
transactions (for examp1.. ...:
transler oImoral and ]r-: :
-'
transmits these quaii::c: :
-*
physical aspects ol'sir.- ..-
trveen physical and n:i-:'::
This, of course, had p:, :'.
-.-.:
and caste, and parti;.
'a:..
--
boundaries (see IIarr:.' .- ,:.:
The ethnosociolor-.::. ::...
to make sense of a rr-ic. :.:--
on a number oi cou:.:' -...
:\'5tematize
(see,
t'oi- ;...:1.1.:
r-9-82). Anthont G,',' : :: .
sisient and coherent r-.. :- -
,,i marked divergenc..- :.:.
sociological accouni ,:: :
.o
'
ir rrhich it can be u..:
-
:
'
;rt cofltXts in rhi;:. .- : .i
:r,uth sia have p:,';
--.
: ::-
:ersonhood. inciuc.:.
...-
{
::c separateli de:'i','--
-.. J.
:..at dualisnr is n,.: . .-.:- ::
:iiurn to belor,'. t-.:-. .:----i
.^.:redivergenir':e',.- : :
--
s:udies.r
\lore serious. t;rt-:t:
-i
'
:;:'.\een Indian .:.i .--: . -
---
--::egolies.
This :a;-:
-
::,: ''
=:,.ut
rhe pcr:r': .-:'. ::-
--.
::-a:rtains Lha: ::-. :r-- =..j
: ::entalism. In ::: -
--
:.-*-
'
-\yr i-flake< i 1--: -: . r':
.'.
crlern du:-i.:: :: : .. : .'
'
'::i
strul are ira:i: ::--:,aa
I :3J rriinr:.-.::.-.- :-.
-:---
t*--:" ald ;Lr:1>il::,r :
--:i
i-::
?a::r- tr'.'..:-. i:.
-,-:
i--,.ni i
lanet
Carsten
accord with the quite robust and stable sense of self " of his own acquain-
tances, and second, that it is difficult to see how they would square with the
notion of the equivalence of members of the same caste:
How, one wonders, could such equivalence be sustained in a world in
which eachactor's substance-code is endlessly modified and transformed
by the myriad exchanges in which heis uniquel\ involved? How, indeed,
could anybody ever decide with whom, and on what terms, to interact?
(1989,
494)'
Noting the radical implications of such a contrast in ideas about the
Person
between the west and India, Parry proposes a more complex model in which
the kind of ideas documented by the ethnosociologists coexist with another
strand of thought more familiar to westerners
-
one in which a degree of dual-
ism can be discerned. He also notes that Western ideology is not as thoroughly
dualistic as the ethnosociologists have assumed. He suggests, in other words,
that both monism and dualism are present in the West and India, and that to
miss this point is also to miss the role of monist ideas as an ideological buttress
to caste ranking in India.
These assertions are atl highly pertinent to my argument here' But before
leaving India, I want to return for a moment to the term substance.In the sec-
ond edition to American Knship, Schneider explicitly comments on the use
of the opposition between substance and code outside the American context.
He states unequivocallY,
I myself make only one limited claim for this opposition; it is an im-
portant part of American culture. I make no claims for its universality,
generality, or applicability anywhere else.
(r98o, rzo)
If the use of these terms by Indianist anthropologists is compared with the
original use made of it by Schneider, some striking anomalies emerge. While
Marriott insists on the hyphenated form substance-code to underline a con-
trast with the West, other writers in the same tradition simply employ sub-
stance whlle still emphasizing the same contrast
(see, for example, Daniel
1984). There is something rather odd, though, in using one term to refer to
two explicitly opposed sets of meanings. Schneider, as we saw, argues that
blood or natural substance is unalterable and indissoluble in the context of
American kinship. In India, it is precisely the mutability, fluidity, and trans-
formabilityof substance that underpins a contrasting set of notions about the
person and relations between
Persons
(see Daniel t984, z1)'
There are, however, dift-erenc
within a small grouP of seerningl
Barnett, for examPle, distinlkt
ciose to Schneider's
-
in contra-<t
example, Inden and Nichola-s
'rj
stance and code for condu.l are
=
are parLicularly relevant in a coc
not be reduced
"to bioloqr-or
t*.-' r
nism (innateness or
Partici*'-
t
olume devoted to the corn:aris
riage in India, kos Ostr.
I ina
differentiate how these terl!-i -rE
In fact, the use oi sub.:arct
approaches has Ied to a :ilr
these aPProaches all de=-e:
\onspecialists in the coo:P-<sr
given for finding all this l-'36n
become more serious
rn hen e i
qion
-
as we shall see rt'hei it'e n
in lvlelanesia.3
To sum uP, in e cornrar:-*--o
ines o[ substance are hc:nq :.ri;
e person. A clear coE:-]---trD
'
i-s therefore crucial. The ::;e
:ion to code for .o6J';;-
'":::Itt
data. Folloir'ing Parn"s a:i-!
:ion betu'een these rr.. . :i--
But another problemat-:
-':'et-
source: the multiPle Eli3--Jr-1<
r
reeinning o[ this chan:=:- i;h
that is, a
Person
or
--'*-r::;
:art
ron; and also corPtt:e: -::ie
-.odies are compotei ll---' --.tml
:reciselv the relatit':r ]<:-'t'3et
'
abilin' of persons. do'* :
'-':
:"i'*lu
i-s at issue. \lhere L1n ::= '-f,
natter of rrich i1 i. ;.--;':nrai
cqualn-
vith the
orld in
lormed
ndeed,
teract?
)erson
which
rother
Idual-
'ughly
iords,
hat to
:ttress
,efore
I Sec-
e use
rtext.
im-
rlity,
the
hile
:on-
;ub-
niel
rto
hat
to
ns-
the
Sub stantiv i sm, Anti sub stantiv ism
There
are, however,
differences
in the way substance
is deproyed
even
rr ithin a small group
of seemingry
like-minded
scholars
of south Asia. steve
Barnett,
for example,
distinguishes
his own use of substance
as remaining
'lose
to schneider's
-
in contrast
to the more curturally
specific
usages of, for
erample,
Inden and Nicholas
Gsz). According
to srnett,
biog;;etic
sub_
stance
and code for conduct
are not to be regarded
as universar
caltegories
but
are particularry
relevant
in a compariro,
of Irdiu and the west. They should
rot be reduced "to biorogyor
to monism
or to some simpre generative
mecha-
:rism (innateness
or particles)" (str,
Fruzetti,
and Barnett
rygz, zzg). rn a -;olume
devoted
to the comparison
of personhood,
kinship,
caste, and mar_
:iage in India'
kos str, Lina Fruzetti,
and Steve
gu.n.tt
are at pains to
dilerentiate
how these terms
are utilized:
In fact' the use of substance
and code in these very different
anarytical
approaches
has led-to
a number
of premature
attempts
to suggest that
these approaches
all derive from a single school,
e9gz, zzg)
\onspecialists
in the comprexities
of caste and kinship
in India
might be for_
-si\er
for finding
an this.somewhat
confusing.
And these confusions
are apt to
recome
more serious
when the comparative
focus switches
to yet u.roth"..._
sion
-
as we shan see when we turn io anthropological
writini
on substance
t l.elanesia.3
To sum up, in the comparison
of the West with India, different
understand_
-ngs of substance
are being posited
as underlying
quite different
notions
of
:ile person'
A crear recognition
of the analytic
significance
of using this term
:s therefore
crucial' The probrem
with substance
lies partly in the opposi-
lion to code for conduct,
which schneider
uses in his analysis
of American
'lata'.
Following parry's
argument,
it might be said that the strong demarca-
:ion between
these two orders fits neithe.
the Indian nor the western
case.
But another problematic
aspect
of using this term arises from quite a different
-iource: the multiple
meanings
of substance
in English that I sketched
at the
beginning
of this chapter.
substance,
as we saw, can denote a separate
thing
,
that is, a person
or body part); a vital part or essence
ofthat thing or per_
-'on;
and arso corporear
matter more genera,y,
the tissue or fluid of which
bodies
are composed.
This conflation
b"ecomes
particularry
critical
when it is
precisely
the relation
between
persons_the
di
ability
of persons,
flows of bodily fluiar, .*.t ur'j!:T:ilff
ffi:=:;
is at issue.
Where one term can mean the discrete
thing, its essence,
and the
matter of which it is composed,
the use of that term as an analytic
category
37
Janet
Carsten
is, at the very least, likely to be a confusing basis for achieving a compara-
tive understanding of the relations between personhood, essences, and bodily
matter.
SUBII{([ ITI ITIE 1T{ ESI
These issues are at the heart of analyses of kinship in terms of flows of sub-
stance in Melanesia. significantly, the migration of substance as an analytic
category to Melanesia is roughly contemPoraneous
with its appearance in
studies of India. But although the Indianists I cite above refer directly to
schneider,s work on American kinship, they make no mention of Melanesian
studies. Later commentators, however, note the connection. Arjun Appadurai
observes that Marriott's rendering of Indian ideas
"looks more Melanesian,
than say, Chinese"
(tgls,zss;cited in Spencer rggl)' In contrast' the examples
I will cite from Melanesia make more explicit reference to understandings of
substance in India than to Schneider's use of substance versus code'
Before examining the rather complex Melanesian examples in detail, it may
be helpful to signal in advance the direction of my argument. In tracing the
passage of substance from America to India, and from there to Melanesia, I
am struck by how the same term takes on quite dilTerent meanings. In the
Melanesian cases, not onlydo analysts drop the reference of substance to code,
which was central to Schneider's depiction of American kinship and retains a
presence in the analyses of India, but they describe substance itself as some-
thinginherenrlT
transmissible and malleable. In American kinship, Schneider
emphasizes the immutability of substance as well as its distinction from code.
It is the inseparability in lndia of substance and code that apparently confers
malleability. In Melanesia, in the instances I mention, what is stressed is the
..analogizing,,
capacity of substance
-
the way it can be substituted by detach-
able
..things,,
such as meat, women, or pearl shells. considerably
influenced
by depictions of personhood and substance in India' and in direct contrast
to America, what is not malleable
(that is, not analogized in a range of other
substances) and not transmitted comes to be described in Melanesia as, b7
deJinition,not substance. As we shall see, however, some of the analytic moves
involved in the development of this contention are more explicit than others'
My first example is taken from Roy wagner's discussion of "analogic kin-
ship';
(rlzz) among the Daribi. Wagner begins with the proposition that kin-
ship may be viewed as a process of differentiating
relational categories so as to
bring about a flow of relatedness among them' In other words' kinship does
:8
not begin tiom prior. g(:: i"
:r?Lttion oi sociaL[r'
iir:-:;'::
.-i human relationshi:: ;--. --
=is
vantage point. :::','.' :s
.
distinctions to ensu. i:,. :..
irgner rvrites,
The
"relational'
-::::
::
oi analoqic
"Ilt'-"'
'
-
----:i
flor is alral's |:la Ja:--tt
Sub st a nt i v istn, A nt i s tLb st u nt iv i sm
- ':'i-),1 pr10r'
genearogicarly
defined,
difference
but is itserabout
the
''ocia,y significant
difference
in a broad
context
where
arl kinds
:rlationships
can be considered
as anal0gous
to each
other. From
._: poinr,
the work
of kinship
is in the r
-:,
::,.,.
*" th e p ro p er "now
o r siml..r|1liffi
;;::
:j;:itfj
' :'=lational"
aspect
of kinship
is thus aiways
understandable
as a kind ,.
-.,,-,gic,.flow,,_tl
. : 1 *.ays,h.
.
",,:l','j#
:: ffi T,'#"tJ,
;::T.i
;Ti.
d," ;,;' ;;
"
.. Daribi
cot.rsider
mal.rr.ss
to be an effect
of semit_ral
fluid
and :,: .tn effect
of maternal
blood.
Both are n
. :..1ils
the mother,
ecessarv
to create
an em-
,',:
:ru;Jl*';:.".":i;:,lTH
fiI#?:T
lff
;l:
, :,nuity,,
(u,o)
rh.1;,H.'r"::':::.:'irt;,,,T[:::;.
m:: : : t:ion
and replenishment
of male substance.
While
wife givers
re_
'
1:' ing of women
and their subsequent
roctuction
as its own flolv
' '
-':stance,
the wife takers
percei*',,,.
n"
"f
lineal
substance
of the
- :
.r
ciS one of blood
or female
substance.
.
'-.;laims
that the giving
of rrale
and female
wealth
objects
at a be_ .:'.,-.
marriage
is not
..mereiy
symbolic,,
but the
,.r,erl
substance,,
of the
- --:rr'een a man and his wit
mother
,iur-r.
..rr,*l
to the relation
:: :.
-i gi'ers
ancl wit takers (6zS).
FIe .*pf oir* that a1er the presenta_
=' b.ide-price,
the bride is no io,rg".
.ffid
as rinked
to her naral
:'-,,ish
paternal
and maternal
substance
ut b
'
:::l sustan..
uy,i.
groo-.
.id.;;;;,
;;I"i#:[HJ:ffff:
,... ,rr*n
givers
are therefore
compensated
io. tt .i. perceived
loss of
:
- nls from
Wagner,s
analysis
deserve
emphasis:
the centrality
of ideas
: -.r:r.ce
to gender
differentiation,
, pro_i',.nt
theme
in subsequent
:.
-r,\Ielanesian
cultures
and one that i witt retutn
to below;
and his
'::iiir.rg
of "flows"
of substance
to connote
what rre cars
.,analogic
re-
.
--,:n understand
a kin. of analogy
to be ma,ifest
between
the givers
. ....kers
of souls,
women,
and pearlshells,
and this analogycan
indeed
39
lanet
Carsten
be said to relate them. Yet the terms of the interdict are such that this kind
ofanalogyisnotembodiedininternalsubstantial..flow,,,butinthekinds
of
..detached"
or "detachable" things
(souls, women, pearlshells) that are
beingpresentedandaccepted'Foritisthesedetachablethings,usedas
*rdioiorc in lieu of substantial
flow,
that are used socia\ to
"mark" and
confirm, to establish and substantiate, the setting up of parallel substan-
tial flows.
(6lr)
Wagner suggests that the analogies between bodily substance and particular
kinds of detachable male and female wealth objects allow for the creation of
analogous relationships between wife givers and wife takers' His use of sub-
stanc" is inextricably bound up with this capacity for analogy' Substance is
the kind of stuff that can be detached from persons, flows between people'
and creates the possibility for relationships founded on analogy. one might
say there is a play on the conflation of at least two meanings of substance here:
substance as corporeal matter and as opposed to form-in other words, the
content of relations.
wagner also notes that restrictions and distinctions in the exchange of de-
tached, partible objects recall the elaborate food restrictions at the core ofthe
caste system in India (although he cites Louis Dumont rather than the ethno-
sociologists of India whosework I have drawn on here). If the restrictions and
exchanges are observed, then the sociality and its analogies ofsubstanLial
flow
will follow. In this sense,
"the 'flow' of controlled analogy through exchange
is thus constitutive of the whole relational matrix"
(63r)'
Marilyn strathern's comparative analysis of Melanesian relationships and
substance n Th e G e n der of the Gift is cTeatly influenced by Wagner's appro ach
(see,forexample,strathernrgS8,zzS).StrathernalsoexplicitlydrawsonMar-
riott's model of the "dividual" person:
Farfrombeingregardedasuniqueentities,Melanesianpersonsareas
dividuallyastheyareindividuallyconceived.Theycontainageneralized
socialitywithin.Indeed,Personsarefrequentlyconstructedastheplural
andcompositesiteoftherelationshipsthatproducedthem.Thesingular
person can be imagined as social microcosm'
(1988' r3)
InthefootnotetothisPassage,Strathernquotesthefollowingpassagefrom
Marriott as
"Pertinent":
Persons-singleactors-arenotthoughtinSouthAsiatobe..indivi-
dual," that is, indivisible, bounded units, as they are in much of Western
40
social and psycholos.i;i
::
pears that
Persons
ari
Sr:^
or divisible. To er-ist. .l:r:;
Cuences. Thev must a]*l I
coded substances
-
sse!:
mav then reProdu;e -::
.':
rrhom thei' have orii=a:
-1+8)
.
-^le
others have con;t:-t::
l,l.lanesian and \\'esterr :.rs
:
---'
1997), I l\'ant to
-''--*i
:r:r. The quote hom \1::::;
:::::hern is concerned,
',:'h
i'
:
-;:ive
capaciil' oi suL's:;:.:e
In a chaPter on
"For:ns
"c
---.;
aonnections made i:
--
-e I
:::d, andherbrother :;::. :
:"-:rh the much-disputeC
;-c
-- -.rnection
rt'ith their cli'Jre
-:-.hr"iand
mothers a!'( r-\' :
:.:r(e. She asserts this
-: =:-
-:'.'hriand
assertion a'-
'."
--*
.:'astance as its motl:.e:-- ]'
l.'-,'inortski quotes the : -
-c-'
::: irtnt in her btrdr'. l::e:.
l:e mother makes :i.. -----c
=:--h
a stark contradi.--ii:-
!
.::.i!ghttorrtat,-| 13i1'.t"
: :-
-r
::nq hereT
tsa-sing her alternail';. r<:
-.'.
'-llcr'5 rr9-6 I acco:n:- ::-
-.J
the tetus rithh :l::-
Blrrod is .in.rp:r
--:.:
----:
.lren riho rr ill :- ::-
'i
:r, ire thousht r': ai t-qrj
;O:TIe5 rrom :::::i<-:-i :
Sub st antiy ism, Anti sub st antiv ism
, - ,'-ai and psychological theory as well as in common sense. Instead, it ap-
r:.:s that persons are generally thought by South Asians to be "dividual,,
::r'isibie. To exist, dividual persons absorb heterogeneous material in-
-:r1ces.
They must also give out from themselves particles of their own
--
:ed substances-essences, residues, or other active influences-that
:-.-.- then reproduce in others something of the nature of the persons in
,,;:trm
thel have originated. (Marriott
tg76, trt; cited in Strathern rggg,
-
-,. thers have concentrated on the contrast strathern paints between
: :.r.sian and Western personhood, gender, and society (see, for example,
r
-,-'.
1997), I want to focus particularly on aspects of her analysis of sub-
.
--=. The quote from Marriott provides a useful startingpoint. LikeWagner,
'
:::,-rn is concerned with flows of substance between people and the repro-
:
- -
,--.'. capacity of substances.
--- a chapter on "Forms
Which Propagate," Strathern discusses at length
' -
. : , nnections made in the Trobriands between a woman, her child, her hus-
:
-.:.
and her brother (1988, z3r-4o). Anthropologists have long been familiar
: :he much-disputed claim that Tiobriand fathers have no physiological
-
-:iiction
with their children. strathern has gone further in suggesting that
. :,:iand mothers are also not connected to their children by ties of sub-
--:--:e.
She asserts this in spite of Bronislaw Malinowski's insistence on the
-: --:iand
assertion that "without
doubt or reserve, . . . the child is of the same
-r:rance
as its mother" (Malinowski
t929,
3;
cited in Strathern r9gg, 235).
I :.-:norvski quotes the following Trobriand statements: "'The mother feeds
--..
:ntnt in her body. Then, when it comes out, she feeds it with her milk.,
, :: mother makes the child out of her blood' " (rgzS,
).
I am intrigued by
,-:: a stark contradiction. How does Strathern come to deny Malinowski's
,,::rqhtforward claim with such force? what work is the idea of substance
:: rng here?
Sasing her alternative rendering of the Trobriand material on Annette
',i:iner's
(1976)
account, Strathern suggests that a Trobriand woman does not
=-d
the fetus within her:
Blood is simply the counterp art arready in the mother of the spirit chil-
dren who will be brought her by matrilineal ancestral beings; it is not
to be thought of as food at all. Malinowski's error, if we can call it that,
comes from mistaking form for substance. (1988, 235)
47
Janet
Carsten
As we shall see, the relationship
between
form and substance
is crucial
to
Strathern
s argument'
A Trobriand
brother
and sister cannot
overtly exchange
with each other.
The sister produces
children'
the brother
produces
yams'
These are
"urrulogitully
tfi""f*'"
items that
"each must make the other
y\eld"
(45-36). The Utott'er
has an interest
in the production
of his sister's
children,
but since he cannot
interact
directly
with the sister' his harvest yams
go to her husband,
*t'o tht"
"opens the way"
(z:6) for the entry of the spirit
child at conception'
In other **d'' the crucial act of the husband
here is the
creation
of the woman
'
Uoay u' container
for a body that is distinct
from her
own. The brott"'
'
gin oiyums
tho' coerces
his sister's
husband
into creating
this separation
between
te mother
and child. It is the father's
activity,
rather
than his bodily emissions'
that have this effect'
The "work
' ' '
of molding
the
fetus . . . gives the child its bodily
form' as an extraneous
and partible
entity"
(zt6).
The activities
of molding
the fetus and, after birth, feeding
the child,
give
the child a form that is different
from its mother's'
and in this way separate
thechildfromitsmother.Thefetusisa..containedentitywithinthemother
. . . herself
composed
of dalablood,,
(47),and while the father creates
its ex-
ternalform,itsinternalformisdalablood-thatis'bloodofthematrilineal
subclan...Motherandchildarethusinternalandexternalhomologuesforone
another"
(237)' As I understand
it' it is this homologous
relationship-the
fact that substance
i'
"titt"'
transformed
food nor has it been exchanged-
thatisattherootofstratherrisassertionthat..Trobriandmotherandchild
are not connected
through
ties of substa nce"
(47)
'This'
however'
appears
to
be a very particular
inteipretation
of the meaning
of substance'
Crucially,
while the ita''
blood replicates
that of the mother
and the
mother's
brother,
themotherdoesnot"give"thisbloodtothefetusasthoughitwerefood'
any more than the brother
impregnates
his sister or sister and brother
exchange
gifts between
themselves'
And only most indirectly
does the
mother,s
brother
feed it; the feeding
is mediated
by the sister's
husband's
vitai act as nurturer'
It cannot be the case' then' that the fetus is an ex-
tensionofthemother,sbodilytissueandthatthemother..makes,,itin
this sense'
(238)'
StratherncontendsthatforTrobrianders,thefeedingandgrowingofchildren
arecontrastingactivities.ATrobriandfatherfeedsfood,whichisconsidered
as a form of
""aiuiit'g
wealth
item' to his child and his wife' but this food
does not contribute to internal s
yams, partly for his sister,
just as
and children are 'the same,' e h
directly feeding the sister's child" f
growth of the child is here a corlrr
and child-it is not mediated bYt
So, to return to the original qrx
just
why Strathern is suggesting

connected through ties oisubstan

stance must have two
ProPerties"u
account. One
ProPertY
oi substas
lines the link with Wagner's analY
and the second is the substirutah
Trobriandblood
is not analogz
smen, or food
(as it is elsenere
and this, as I understand
it' is wl
ttrr analogy is linked to a further
to form. As such, Strathern comn
'rvhere substance remains on the
tion
-
and "what is withh has no
on several meanings of substanc
tbrm, inner essence.
If one looks at this last transfu
some surprising twists are disertr
oisubstance that Schneider
Poifl
It is the crucial distinction
betrt
leable Indian versions oi bodilY:
the term substance-code
or cM
are less punctilious
in their usag
general, if largely implicit,
r'iewa
err,v of bodily substance
i5
nIl
the Trobriand material, in uft1
not substance, aPPears to make
From the
PersPective
of
'trtl
is seen as a keY
ProPern'of
blu
is not malleable could therefur
r{orth mentioning
that in its
P
stance to code seems to har-e h
to
rge
x5.
[er
:r's
JnS
irit
the
her
ing
her
the
t\-"
IYe
'ate
her
ex-
real
f,ne
e
t-
1d
sto
Sub stantiv i sm, Antisub st antiv i sm
,joes
not contribute to internal substance (z5r);
the mother's brother "grows,,
-'-ams,
partly for his sister, just as the sister "grows"
the child. But "since
yams
-nd children are 'the same,' the brother's yams cannot be conceptualized as
-li'ectly feeding the sisrer's child, for they are analogs of the child" (239). The
:-rowth of the child is here a consequence of the relationship between mother
:ad child
-
it is not mediated by the feeding or transmission of substance.a
so, to return to the original question, it is worth considering for a moment
'ust why strathern is suggesting that the Tiobriand mother and child are not
:onnected through ties ofsubstance. It would seem that in this version, sub-
.:ance must have two properties, which can both be linked to wagner's earlier
:.count. one property of substance is that it is transmitted
-
and this under-
--nes the link with wagner's analysis of "substantive
flows" between persons;
:rd the second is the substitutability or analogizing capacity of substance.
lrobriand blood is not analogized in a range of other substances, such as milk,
iemen' or food (as it is elsewhere in Melanesia; see strathern r9gg, z4o-6o),
and this, as I understand it, is what makes it not a substance. The capacity
:or analogy is linked to a further property of substance: that it gives content
:o tbrm. As such, strathern comments on paternal feeding in the Trobriands
''rvhere
substance remains on the surface"-that is, it is not an inner condi-
:ion-and "what is within has no substance" (z5r).
once again, there is a play
-rn
several meanings of substance: corporeal matter, substance as opposed to
iorm, inner essence.
If one looks at this last transformation of substance in comparative terms,
.ome surprising twists are discernible. I noted above that one of the properties
.-rf substance that Schneider points to in American Kinship is its immutability.
It is the crucial distinction between this version of substance and more mal-
.eable Indian versions of bodily substance that Marriott underlines by using
rhe term substance-code or coded substances. other writers on India, however,
are less punctilious in their usages and perhaps unwittingly contribute to a
general,
if largely implicit, view among anthropologists that an inherent prop-
erty of bodily substance is malleability. Hence, strathern's commentary on
rhe Tiobriand material, in which what is not transmittable and malleable is
rot substance, appears to make sense from an Indian point of view
From the perspective of American Kinship, though, in which immutability
is seen as a key property of blood, it might be thought surprising that what
is not malleable could therefore not be considered as substance. It is also
rrorth mentioning that in its passage to Melanesia, the relationship of sub-
stance to code seems to have been lost. This was perhaps predictable given
the
rod,
:her
the
rd's
ex-
.t in
Iren
:red
ood
43
lanet
Carsten
the nature of the larger arguments being made about Western versus non-
Western categories, which I discuss below. One effect of this, however, was
that substance itself came to encomPass an even less specific domain of mean-
ing than Schneider had originally delineated. Strathern's attempt to limit the
use of substance may perhaps be understood as a way of introducing greater
analytic rigor to a usage that had become highly unspeciflc. But it is also worth
noting that the emphasis placed on the
"analogizing capacity" of substance
in Melanesia, and on its flow between persons or persons and things, indi-
cated that substance was inherently relational whereas the dictionary defini-
tions with which I began this essay do not attribute a relational quality to sub-
stance. On the contrary, they refer to something more or less material within
which qualities or essences are located.s
IilE1]IEIA]I 1{D IilDIAII UBSTA]TCE tTD PERSO]IHOOD
(OITIPRED
Strathern's discussion of notions of substance is, of course, part of a wider
analysis of gender and personhood in Melanesia. The model she proposes is
broadly comparative: persons are
"partible" or
"dividual" in contrast to the
individuality of Western personhood. Partible persons are composite mo-
saics, composed of elements of female and male substance. Gender has to be
performed and elicited rather than, as in Western notions, being an inherent
property of personhood.
Cecilia nusby (rlOZ) provides an incisive comparison of these ideas with
Indian ones based on her own fieldwork in Kerala. In spite of some obvi-
ous similarities, Busby notes important divergences between the south Indian
and Melanesian cases. Briefly, she suggests that instead of partible
Persons,
composed of elements of male or female substance,
Persons
in Kerala are
Per-
meable and connected. I will explain her contrast between permeable and
partible persons shortly. Here, gender is essentialized rather than being per-
formed or elicited. And it resides, crucially, in what are perceived to be essen-
tially male and female substances-semen and male blood, or womb and
breast milk. The concerns and anxieties of her informants were thus expressed
over the proper separation and transmission of these substances, particularly
through marriage to the correct category of relative and through the birth
of children. The flow of female substance connects mothers to their children,
and the flow of male substance connects fathers to their children'
Busby highlights the distinction between an internally whole person with
tluid and permeable body boun
j;:-,
and partible person in Melanesia- I:r
.,ithin
the body, theybecome ir&:
cording to male and female suisl=
:cmale substances are comm():.'"- f,-i
Bodies are internallydivided in:.-r c.r:
.:able;it
must be made knort r:. , -e:
-i ). Hence, in Melanesia, ITlc:l rll.j
:r
Cer through specifickinds of irar-;
--r' contrast, gender is concernei
t.:
:rlv act in male or female \{ars- :aJ
:.,dily differences betteen I)1
1nr
These distinctions, as Busbr :r:'-'
::onships in Melanesia and one c-
-:at
in Melanesia, the bodr
"is
: n-
Sirsbv 1997, 273), whereas in s.'::l-- i:
.
. :rs
"always
refer to the perst ::
=.'
=itation
of persons rather tha: c,i:
:-.r
r.
Persons are both conne;:.i. -
::.tmselves
-
they are noi mi;r,: :-'=:
:ferently conceived:
"Subsia:-,le :
:.-.ia, but it is substance i e
'l-':n
- :iectif,ed as part of a perst'n" 3;
Clearll', this is not lrIlcr r I
:r';:able substance and \ [elan=:- a:
-:
all the examples I have
'j;;--
...u:abilitv and mutabihn-
-
es>i:-..
---ise
as instances of a kind : ;'--::
.:r c:scfl CeS, processes ol'.ie:=-:-=
:-:'..inq of florvs betreen perrr-;. -
:
:---ussion
(this
i'olume
r
r'j -\1
::-.
- :-rr mid- or late- trent i.::--,-.:.:':
-.-c it reca1ls, too, Parn"s e--:.: c:
--:
ris emphasis on conira-i:r-,'
=L
-.'-:s:.
\\-ith such contras:ir-c i---"=<
: \Ialar- bodilv substa;r...
Subst ant iv i s m, A nt i s u bsta nt iv i s m
rr
-.
: .::i permeable body boundaries in south Asia, and an internally divided
-- -
::::ible person in Melanesia. In India, transmitted substances merge and,
r
'
:
-
---- :ie body, they become indistinguishable;
bodies cannot be divided ac-
:
-
:r! io male and female substantive components. In Melanesia, male and
, -
'
. substances are commonly associated with different parts of the body.
I :-:. are internallydivided
into differentlygendered
parts, and gender is un-
,
.:
-=r :r must be made known, often in ritual performances (Busby
r99
7,27o_
-
---erce, in Melanesia, men and women may alternate their perceived gen-
: : :
--
:urugh specific kinds oftransactions with male or female things. In India,
i: - -
rr:ast, gender is concerned with bodily essences-men and women can
-
.; in male or female ways, respectively, and their activities arise out of
',
': --.- differences between men and women.
:ese distinctions, as Busby points out, are connected to a focus on rela-
::rDs in Melanesia and one on persons in south India. strathern argues
-:.
.: \Ielanesia, the body "is a microcosm of relations,, (r9gg,
r3t; cited in
:
':"-
--997,273),
whereas in south India, the flows of substances between per-
., alrrays refer to the persons from whom theyoriginated: theyare a mani-
:: :::on of persons rather than of the relationships they create" (Busby
1997,
--:
Persons are both connected through substantive flows and complete in
'
: .::selves
-
they are not microcosms of relations. And here substance itself is
-'
=1:ently conceived: "substance
may connect persons in India and in Mela-
-:":-:.
but it is substance as aflow
from
a person compared with substance
-
.;ti_tred as part of a person" (Busby
ry97,276).
--early,
this is not a matter of a simple opposition between western im-
-
-::.rle
substance and Melanesian or Indian mutability. It seems to me that
''-
the examples I have discussed, there are discernible elements of im-
-
-::rility
and mutability- essences and mixing. Indeed, one might consider
-
:i: as instances of a kind of cultural speculation on the effects of sediment-
-:
.-isences, processes of detachment and separation, and the merging and
=
':rng
of flows between people. This recalls Gillian Feeley-Harnik,s
sensitive
-,-':ussion
(this
volume) of Morgan's preoccupation with "the
channels of the
od," lvhich as she demonstates, was not rooted in biologyas schneider and
:-rer mid- or late-twentieth-century
analysts of kinship have understood it.
---c it recalls, too, Parry's earlier discussion of ideas about the body in India,
---: his emphasis on contrastive strands of thought within both India and the
"':st.
with such contrastive themes in mind, I now revisit my own material
::
-\lalay bodily substance.
45
Janet
Carsten
hIAY UBSIAlICE
In earlier work, I described conversations I had with Malay people on the
island of Langkawi about the relationship between food (particularly rice),
breast milk, and blood in the body (Carsten 7995;t9g7,to71o). Blood has a
central place in ideas about life itself and relatedness. I was told repeatedly
that people are both born with blood and acquire it through life in the form
of food, which is transformed into blood in the body. Death occurs when all
the blood leaves the body.
Blood is transformed food, as is breast milk. But breast milk is also under-
stood as converted blood, a kind of
"white
blood." And it has a special power
because it is thought to carry emotional as well as physical properties from
the mother. Indeed, mothers and their children are thought to be especially
closely connected because a child is fed on the mother's blood in the womb
and on her milk after birth. Those who eat the same food together in one
house also come to have blood in common, and this is one way in which foster
children and affines become connected to those they live with.
The status of semen in these ideas about convertibilityis somewhat unclear.
Some people told me that while the child gets blood from the mother, the
father's contribution, the seed, is 'just a drop" and less important. In some re-
spects, it appears that semen is viewed as another form of white blood, rather
like breast milk. Yet semen is also associated with bone-in particular, the
head, from where it originates, and the backbone, to which it makes its way
before conception can occur. In any case, what made a most vivid impres-
sion on me in these discussions was the centrality of ideas about blood to the
constitution of the body and relations of kinship. I was forever hearing about
illnesses in terms of imbalances in the blood; I was endlessly listening to com-
ments on the effects of different kinds of food on the blood, on the problems
of transfusions, on blood pressure, even on the proper color of blood. (My
own was regarded with approval as being healthily red.)
One theme that constantly recurred was convertibility. It was not just the
conversion of food, milk, and blood that concerned people but direct trans-
fers of blood as well. I have already mentioned a concern about transfusions.
Blood groups were much discussed, too, and generally blood group O was
thought to be particularly good because of its possibilities for transfer. Vam-
pire spirits are a well-known theme in Malay beliefs. Fears about the illicit
taking of blood were expressed in stories about one such spirit, Langsuir, who
is strongly attracted to postpartum women because of the smell of blood.
+6
Murderers, the illicit takers ol
suming their victim's blood-
As in the Indian and Mela.r
can also be linked to personh
the Malayperson could b sa
through life along with kin re*
There is also a sense in rrhich
both ideas about connectedns
sized in the form of siblingship
predates birth. Ideas about the
discourses about sickness, diryl
of the body. The boundednesu
bonds between siblings, boq
ship as partly a speculative pn
unboundedn ess, difference ar
it largely in terms of processes
It should be obvious *y I
out blood, and whv it seer
dnrah, N substance. Sstanc
\talay ideas about relatedness
essnce, necessary for li[e, as r
hlood, and breast milk. like o
meanings of substance: contd
challenged,I didn't thirk mrx
u'hen challenged, I simplv a
in keeping with e force oit
ro8).
Nevertheless, I ink it is r
,bfitv of substance to comrlr
"
not translating a Malay temt r
lilielv to be true of oer anth
tsee
Thomas r999). In tact, grr'
English, it seems r41s1 rrnlk
ia non-European languages
On the positive side, src
.rualities of blood in }alav ida
content. It also captured a t-xi
teristics and e acquisition ofi
Sub st ant iv ism, Antis ub s tantiy is m
-: : :. th illicit takers of life, can make themselves invincible bycon-
: :.eir victim's blood.
' -.
.
jre
Indian and Melanesian cases, Malay ideas about bodily substance
.., re linked to personhood. Like corporeal substance, the identity of
-
.'.' L,erson could be said to be partly given at birth and partly acquired
-.= -ite aiong with kin relations, which are likewise given and acquired.
:': .: clso a sense in which Malaypersonhood can be shown to express
-
r:i:S about connectedness and separateness. Connectedness is empha-
-
.re tbrm of siblingship, which through the existence of spirit siblings,
,. .. rirth. Ideas about the relative permeability of the body, revealed in
.
-:>:s
about sickness, display a considerable concern over the boundaries
'
: :,rd\'. The boundedness of individuals is qualified by the strength of
-
-
:
--:r\reen
siblings, both spiritual and actual. One might view Malay kin-
"
.: :artly a speculative process on the possibilities of boundedness and
.
--
ledness, difference and similarity, between persons. I have described
, : :. '.' in terms of processes of making similarity.
'
,.--,ruld be obvious why I could hardlyignore the extensive discourse
-'
: ood, and why it seemed tempting to render the Malay for blood,
=-.
substance. Substance seemed to capture the centrality of blood to
,
jeas
about relatedness. It nicely evoked the idea of blood as a vital
:
-';.
Decssry for lfe, as well as the stress on mutability between food,
-
:nd breast milk. Like other anthropologists, I could play on several
, -.-:s of substance: content, vital essence, corporeal matter. In truth, until
: -red, I didn't think much of the elision of blood and substance. And
-
--railenged, I simply added a note to the effect that this usage seemed
::::ng rvith the force of the Malay ideas I was portraying (Carsten 1997,
.' .rtheless, I think it is worth giving further consideration to the suit-
. ','
r-,i substance to convey Malay ideas about blood.
euite
simply, I was
'
,:rslating a Malay term when I used substance. I think the same is also
: .. be true of other anthropologists who have used the term elsewhere
, . , romas 1999). In fact, given the wide semantic domain of substance in
'
. ,.:r. it seems rather unlikely that an exact equivalent to it would be found
..-European languages.
: the positive side, substance apparently captured quite neatly certain
-
.-,::e s of blood in Malay ideas: mutability, transferability, vitality, essence,
:'-:-rt. It also captured a tension between the givenness of inherited charac-
.,:,;s and the acquisition of identity through life, which is a major theme in
47
Ianet
carsten
d and
the ideas
I was discussing'
Blood
wat
l"tll
g':*
at birth'
partly
acqure
mutable.
Crucially'
it pf
"yJ
'
kty
'olt
in the t,ransformation
o acquired
char-
acteristics
into
given
t;:''
;J;t*
versa'
lhroush
the postulated
relations
between
blood,
U"tr''
"'a
iti'g'
ntooa
did noi fit neatty
into the kind
of
analvtic
categories
that"hal"itt'
1"'*"f
to the analysis
of kinship
-
the given
and the acquired'
tnt it"i"*U"'
and
the'social'
substance'a:1:T:^:""*'
and nurture'
In fact' tt:;;;;t
used
to destabilize
these
dichotomtes'
USES
AilD BUSES
O SUBIIICE
It should
not be surprising
that
quite
lftf
shifts
in how the composition
of the body
o ptttt*t
*?y
tu"y
i*ptitutions
for personhood
and gender'
What
is notable
r"
"nlftt
ii*ature
t which
I have
referred
is that
the En-
glish term
"'ut'urrtt
uif arently
"u'ily
accommodates
a remarkable
range
of
indigenous
*tu'li"g''
it'cluding
bodily
matter'
essence'
and content
in oppo-
sition
to form'
as *"iil'
'rttttt'
i" degrees
of mutability
and
fluidity'
I
want
to return
f""
'o
th" unutytit
work
to which
substance
has been
put-
to what
substance
does
fot kinship'
This
work
of substance
bears
some
resemblance
to the analysis
of person-
hood
with whtth
ft ;;;;i;ely
connected'
athern
has recent
maintained
that the analytic
t'g;;;;t
f ptt'otthood
for anthropologists
in'the
r98os
lay in its capacity
to
"force the reconceptualization
of what
we might
mean
by kinship,
so that-it
o*n
into
the existing
assumptions
about
kinship'
provided
u
"t*
rot"'
"i
t*n*"
(1997' 8)
'
This is an effect
of the way person-
hood
drew
tog.tt
.r:*lrut
anthropologists
previously
distributed
in different
ways"
(8)
-Procreation'
reproduction'
and kinship
relations'
One
might
say something
r{r
ti'oifut
uUo*
'ob'tu"t"'
Like concepts
of
the person,
substance
toolJ
bt shown
to Ue t'igt'ty
variable
in different
cul-
tures.Thet*u*pft'iiuutU"to"eddemonstiatethatitwasimpossibleto
speak
of substance
without
bringing
together
a whole
range
of other
themes'
includingprocreation'relationsbetweenkin'bodies'personhood'gender'
andfeeding.Undoubtedly,thishascontributedtoacritiqueofthewaykin-
ship
has Utt'
to;i"'u'of
Uy untt"opot'ogi't'
But there
are also
some
dif-
ferencesbetweenthewaypersonhoodatt'oU*u"tthavebeenanall'tically
deployed'o"toftit"'"inta""ttofexplicitnessabouttheanalyticstatus
of the terms
u"U'
*n""as
the study
of th" pt"on'
from
its inception'
ex-
plicrtly
ai'tittgoi;'"d
'fttt*
u'a'
of
itt'o"t'ooa
analytically
(such as the
self and individual),
such dis:;-rct
of substance.
Indeed, I har-e :na
ior instance, between
bodilr
ma:
a key element in its fruitruln*'s
:
and their relationshiPs'
This has ineYitably
1ed to amir
as the oPening uP of fresh
Po'si-5
oi meanings itself that ha' ree:
iature of this range. In all e n'
:e said that conduct.
tedinr'
;r
:tav transform bodil1' subsia:un
:t-rtten
links between geolos-' '
lr
-.rologY
in the work of \orsail
rnention.
The usefulness
oi substan;e
s
:,r' erPress transformabilit'
To e
,";hich I began this piece, ht'''er i
''
-hough
theY include cortlr:ea
.:e;i)' malleabilitv'
transt+r=;
:
=ubstance.'Yet
these
Prole::
:'
-:1!i
achisY.d by substance
::r
li in the non-\Vestern
;;-'es
--.-
:t\-ev meanings
that, in st-c:e :
.:; Jictionarv defirition
o: :--'
:::-qest that it rvas doing a :3:
-:
suDstance to exPress m:;:al:-
:":i:lr-
Parts
befir-eeo
PSt-ts-
:'. er those
Persons'
ini:;::e:
.:--'r'sis of kinshiP,
ir i:-' :lrc
":,'l
chotomize
the biLriLri:;a
'
i."::Je and code' But in
-'c::lt
l--
-.-.:e.1
Processes
oi ci':-'''::iic
I
:
-
::-ains at anthroPolt-:i;;i
. 'l:-.-- seemed an aE\l:f :::i:e
:r:i*'e oi the breaJrr
': =<
.:'::;e could be usetl ittr ;!lai
-- '',.-sis
of kinship
r1. t'-c
48
Sub stant v ism, Anti sub stant iv ism
edand
:ed char-
relations
kind of
he given
',
nature
s.
't--'ard individuar),such
distinctions
have been
rather
impricit
in discussions
. i i irlstance.
Indeed,
I have
ied
to;;;
'
, : :tlstance,
b"tween
bodily
matter,
"rr.,t
not
a blurring
of distinctions
-
'
..
=r'stsrnsnr i" i; ;;,;;#*i:::
essences'
vital
parts,
and contenr-was
i--,:
eir ..,",,.rrl,flitfulness
for opening
up the
'tuay
orp.ns,
bodies,
rnis
has inevitabjyred
to ambiguity,
to the obscuring
of differences,
as we,
a, _:e opening
up offresh
p"rrib;;;;.
i*"ro
rugg.r,it
u.r,,r,or
rr,..urg"
.: ::eanings
itself
that has been
problematic;
rather,
it is the
unexamined :::.l:e_
o this range.
In utt tt
"
,o.r-W.ri.l
:-. ia:d
that
condr.ict,
feeding,
ru.,g
iriorl".t,ffiXl;,f,ff;,il::11
:-.,- p12n5fe1m
bodily
substance.
ifr.."
.o
.r ::.n rinks
u"rr."rl."i'_:l:.'r-ll::"
connections
nicely
evoke
those
for-
_
. ;
;$;
ff.? ff fl:?l,l,,1u
r; i:::
fi ;:-
l,;: i:,:il
;: *
rie
use[urness
osubstance
as an anarytic
term
has been partry
as a means
'
:1f rsS
transformability.
To rgui,
..,r.n
to the dictionary
definitions
with
,
:;n Ibegan
this piece,
ho*.rri
r, r, no1ui,
,- :,r ugh
they inctude
corp oreal
_";;;;,#:::kffi
;i: ;ll:::::;
:
:#::.+Jiry,
rransformability,
o. lautiorairy
as inherenr
properties
'
'':< achieved
,,
il:,[::;"ff"h|:::,ffiimportant
aspects
orthe
anarvtic
-: in the non_wesr..,
cases
menrio".,
;:::
ffif:i::rr*T..i.;..,"
- - :: ev meanings
that, in some
respe.tr,
ua" m
;:l'rr*:::l:..
it' u'" r' s'r"#;ldJ
-",^XTl:'*;
:::bstance,"";;;.",,":ffi
ffi:T1,Til:,#,',il;:;*i*:::*
:'-'crir-parts
between
persons,
and the capacityto
stand
for the rerations
be_
-'
r:en
those
persons,
indicates
a gap ,., ,i.'u*irrrc
vocaburary
of kinship.
The
"''rsis
of kinship,
in its mid-tive",tJ..rrr.y
forms,
tended
to separate
r
,,j ciichotom
ize thebiological
u.ra ,o.iuf
;;;
,t:..,ce
and code.
But lr a._"
"^-
,.'
ov!^rdr qumatns,
nature
and nurture,
sub_
--:red procerr",
or.oj.ll^",11".
**:'n
cases'
indigenous
ah.ourr",
r,tgh-
--,uin,,'".;1;;;,":{di":#l'i:f#;:;Hti,",,.:;"$:;;l
.il
i TI;1
11.1H'5;'il
il,[J
]. i.j::,::.,'
:, : :.h
p,"...,".1
p *, r y
.
:
-
ce courd
be used
. r*,.
ii,r.'il.'il
r:Hl--1'jl.-
r'.
:,,an
eousry,
sub_
-arr-sis
of kinship
was based.
And
this ,. orr. rorrtrg
practices
on which
the
ay of summing
up the way in
rosition
gender.
the En-
ange of
I oPpo-
idity. I
Put-
erson-
tained
: r98os
mean
nship,
lrson-
ferent
pts of
t cul-
rle to
3mes,
nder,
'kin-
: di
ically
tatus
t, eX-
s the
49
lanet
Carsten
which
substance
was deployed
in the analysis
of Melanesian
or Indian
ma-
What attracted
me about
substao
biood
was
PreciselY
the waY it caPt
unboundeness
of MalaY
Personho
teristics
that are acquired
into thost
Indian,
Melanesian
and even
Nord
considerable
amount
in common'
t
trences.
IOIES
It should
be obvious
that I have tom
and MarilYn
Strathern
(who generu
particulariy
inspiring'
Celia
Bu$'-'s
.t^riry *y understandings'
Jonathel
reink substance'
I am ven' grateful
and lonathan
Spencer
for thei-r
coo
, Outside
the Indian conte$'
e td
LTeation
beliefs
has been noted
bY
in reference
to Madagascar'
: ln tct, some of ParrY's
orrrr
rtoo
suggests PeoPle
contemPiate
ru1
oor,y
oo rot
Pointing
out c
tications
to substance
caused'
tor t
;an be redressed
bY other
er-eru&
rnodifrcations
-
say' that resultingt
caste-would
formerlv
har-e ied tl
an end to further
irteraction-
;
though,
from an external
lictit'
,t aPPears
that in fact the Chicag
\alott
emPhasized
his did-erxx'
s.t"ttc"-cds
di51incti66'
l":hid
xhneider's Pubiished
disar ou'al|
to Schneider'
I am indebted
tol
;Lrmmu[ication
trom ]taricrtt
o
+ Tonv Good,
in a
Personaltocoo
'siPon,
substance
is in ra--t ua
"n",.
ft'it
Point
highlight-r
rhe t
;aPacitl"
:
1 ; gratefiil
to Tonv G.o'J
l
. f *- grateful
to bo Tonr-
t3oor
terial.
But this anal)rtic
strategy
also
involved'
as.1ve
have seen'
setting
uP another
dichotomy
-
this time
""?
*n'"
the terms
that defined
kinship
but between
"the West"
and
"the
""t
'ttrid'al
non-Western Persons
in India
or Mela-
nesia couldb"
onno'"J
ti"W"'tt"'
individual;
substance
in India
or Mela-
nesia,
which
was fluid
"U-'"Oit"
to transformation'
could
be contrasted
to
substance
in the West'
which
was permanent
and immutable'
One purpose
of
this essay
has been
to
"'*
;8ainslt
sycfr a stLf
contrast
between
Western
and
non_western
.ut"gori..
rt lhe beginning
of this chapter
I suggested
that in
the context
of ki"'itip1"
S'itui"
or America'
Schneider's
original
opposition
betweensubstanceandcodeSeemsunnecessarilyrigidandrestrictive-inlight
of the material
i cited
from
Edwards'
Baumann'
u"d
W""ott'
as well
as that
of Thompson
""d "th;^i;1hi"'ol"-"'
These
examples
should
encourage
an investigation
not
just ofblood
as
"biogenetic
substance"
but also of the
relationship
U"tttt"'"b'tance
and code'
and the degree
to which
these
do-
mains
are clearly
distinguished
and
separate-in
other
words'
there
is a need
to interrogate
closely
the combinatory
power
of substance
and
code'
which
according
to Schneier'
*"'
"t
the heari
of the category
of "blood"
relative'
If the analyti.
uo.uooru.,
of kinship
apparently
lacked
a means
to express
mutabil
and *h;;;;;it'
tttm'
oiflws
between Pesons
or persons
and
things,
and substance
nea-tly
filled
that
g.aP' this may have
had more
to do
with
the particular
iOt'f
"t
tnt acafemi;
study
of kinship
than
with
Euro-
peanorAmerican'o*-ttot"'esaboutkinship'Theseparationofnature
from nurture,
,rr" ui.igr."Lfrom
the sociar,
substance
*r".:o.u:,
was cen-
tral to a particular
j;;;;"
in the anthropological
analysis
of kinship'
But it
remainstobeinvestigatedwhetherlocalpra.Iic.sanddiscoursesofkinship
in theWest Pti"il";";;tfu'utio"
of ese
elements
to the same
extent'
or
in the same
*uy'
u' did the midcentury
academic
discourse'
In this
volume'
signe
Howell
and charis
Thompson
tY*.:;;*"
in very different
ways
-
and
intheverydifferentcontextsoftransnationaladoptionandinfertilclin-
ics_theboundariesbetweenwhatis.o,,....d,ocialandwhatisbiological
arerarrromb"'"*';;;;il'lt::::,':]ii;iillS:*i:T';A:"m:
the elaboration
ofprocesses
ofconversrot
.r
^.^^
+L^"a intetested in the studl
ff,|Jt;:J:l;:P.;d_il
century,
perhaps
those
interested
in the studv
of kinship
in the west
";il;;;;;t
'"'
tn"
'ig"ificance
of Schneider's
lead
and will take
seriously
the mbinatory
potential
of these
elements'
5o
ma-
ther
'reen
.ela-
ela-
dto
eof
and
tin
ion
ght
hat
age
the
1o-
:ed
ich
e.
35S
nd
lo
o-
re
n-
it
Substantiv
ism, Anti sub stantiv i sm
\Vhat
attracted
me about substance
as a w
:iood
was
0...;;;;;;. way it captur"d
rh" .ilrlr1;:::'Jf;ffiT:Jt"l:
-:boundedness of Malaypr^orhood,
and the capacityto
transform
charac-
:::istics
that are acquired
into those
that are given. In these respects,
Marap
-:dian, Melanesian
and even North
Ameri.
dir.or.res
of kinship
have a
-t=.::r"rt.
amount
in common,
even as rhey reveal
some
quire subtle
dif_
r0Its
': shourd
be obvious
that I have found the works ofDavid
schneider,
Jonathan
parry,
'::d tr'{arilyn
strathern (wo
generousty
-"J"
"r"i.ure
to me unpubiished
materiar) :articularly
inspiring'
celia_Busbyt
.o-p-r,J.
..itique
has t,.t!.a
.rro.-.ty
to
--"ritv my understandings'
Jonathan spence,
has
"r.or.rg.d
me for severar years
to :':hink
substance'
I am very gratefur
to sarah Frankrin,
Tony Good, susan McKinnon, .:d
Jonathan Spencer
for tflir comments;;;;r.*
version
of this essav.
_- .rlside the Indian
contt
_::arionbeiiershaso".;:.;lsi?ffi
:iXl:H";,;,1'::i"r"r",ilTr#:i:ffi
;
.:- retrence
to Madagascar.
- -r::act,someofparry,sownworkonpriestsinBenares(forinstance,parryrggo,rgg5)
: _Sgests
people
contemplate
such problems
with co
..:m:::*,,"r*goutrhaiine,,",yday.on,.,ffi :fl il"-,r:H,ffi
:"*]
".eredresse.rr;"i':iifi
;:::,:;r;,Tfi
,;j;::IilXn**:i**
:'
-'iihcations
-say,
that resurtirrg
o* u *o-uot
u"rrg sex with someone
of a lower
.:.:;[iT*:?::1":,T:].d
to expulsion
rrom the ramly or death, u,,Jii*
p,,
'-- -:ough, from an external
view, the Indianists
seemed
closery lied
to schneider,
: :rpears
that in facr the Chicago
schooi was deeply.ivided.
In hi. 1u,". *.,,,rrr,
' l::iott
emphasized
his differences
wi,r, s.rr"".rt
"d
his opposition
to a universar
' -:-riance-code distinction,
which he urra.rr,ooii.r,neider
to espouse (in spite of : ---:neider's pubrished
disavowar).
Barnett
upp"u.,
to t uu. b."r-, more ciosely
aiigned
-'chneider' I am indebted
to Tony
"."it
.
-"irng
ava,able
to me a personal
-- ::nunication
from Marriott
on these polrt,
1r"" uiro Good zooo).
:r 66d' in a personar
communication,
suggests
that according
to the above de- ,;:t,:tion,
substance
is in fact transmitted,
but all at o;
. .-::,11.
p.i,, hi;l;;;.
the signincarrc;
;;;;:T;ffi#J"'ljif:#;
I
.:
s*,.3] ,o
}ly
Good for bringing
rhis to my attention.
.:: qratetul
to both Tony Good u,r sirun M.;;;
for this point.
ip
)r
e,
d
t-
il
o
r.
v
l
51
\
lanet
Carsten
REEREIICES
Appadurai,
Arjun' 1988' Is Homo
Hierarchicus?
American
Ethnologist
t5i745-61"
Barnard,
Alan,
"'a
antttor1y()()a'
984'
Research
Practices
in the Study of Kinship'
Lot-
-"i".*Ti::;;ll'J1."""
and Gold: Relational
Identitv
in a south
Indian caste'
Contributions
to Indian Sociology
tol.t13-56'
...
Baumann,
Ger d'r9g5'M"";;g;""lyethnicMilieu:
Kinship
andlnteraction
in aLon-
don Suburb' Journal
of t'lie oyal d"thropologi.cal
Institute
(n's') r:725-4r'
Bloch, Maurice
.,ggz' zu*":u;uoth
u" *i*hip
Theory'
social Anthropolog
r:r.9-
32.
Busby,
Cecilia. 1997' Permeable
and Partible
Persons:
A Comparative
Analysis
of Gender
and Body in s""rh r";;;;;;
lanesia. Journal
of the Royal Anthropological
[tstitute
.JL:1,;"'"firr.'n"
"'ottance
orKinship
and the Heat of the Hearth:
Feeding'
Per-
sonhood,
and nelateJnll;;;"r,
Marays
of
pulau
Langkawi.
American
Ethnologist
:::,;r::'i)'"'
of the Hearth:
rhe Process
of Kinship in a Matav
Fishing com-
-'!1;!"I*;$X'.:L1"1"';;.ures
of Retatedness:
New Approaches
to the studv of
Knship,edited
by Ia;;;
ut*tn'
camtridge:
Cambridge
University
Press'
Daniel,E.Vale,,,i"t''quo'fl'
idsigns:BeingaPersontheTarnilWay'Berkeley:University
#"ff]:ffi
:J*':r,
Explicit
co nnectio ns : Ethno graphic'"-q"Y
t".
)::tn-], ll'
England.
m r,,t'noo{i"
"i
"t1'1i''7'
*.*:','p
in the Age-of Assisted
c-onceptrcn'
edited
by Ieanette
gdivards et al' Manchester:
Manchester
University
Press'
Good, Anthony.
''rr''
'.'-"'*ole
Bridegroom:
A Comparatit'e
Study of Lrfe Crisis Rituals
in South Inia and Sri Lanka' Oxford:
Clarendon
Press'
zooo' Power and Fertility:
Divine Kinshio
in South India' In Culture'
Cteation'
and Procreation'
"d;;

M*ika
Bock and Aparna
Rao'
-oxford:
Berghn
Books'
Hayden,
corinne'';Hli;:";F:
u"d i""'ution:
Reformulating
Biologv
in
t".bian
Kinship'
Cultural
Anthropolog
to' no' r:4r-63'
rnden, Ronald,
"rd
dph;t;;.luo.ieTTknrhip
in Biiengali
culture.
chicago:
univers
#lr:1,:ii"::T"*'
reze' rhe sexuat Life of savages
in North-western
Metanesia'
London:
Routledge
and Kegan
Paul'
..r ,,-, n'.^Ii-a Tn '
Marriott,
McKi-''n,i''i'atioansactions:
Divers
without
Dualism'
ln'Transactnns
in Meaning,taitta
UfBt"te
Kapferer'
Philadelphia'
Pa': ISHI Publications'
Marriott,
McKim,
*iffi]"jr;-.
rsn.ro*uraan
Erhnosociology
of south Asian
caste Systems.
nrn)-r*wind:
changingldentitiesinsouthAsia,
editedbyKenneth
-:JIiHT.Iif;Tfi'il,ukkwar
vllnlmai:
ram. caste and Matriclan
Ideol-
ogy in Batticalt"'
;;t ;"*"'
ln Caste ldeology
and Interaction'
edited by Dennis
B'
.Cit"uy'
Cambridge:
Cambridge
University
Press'
52
str, kos, Lina Fruzetti, and Stec
KinshiP, Caste, and Marriage
in bl
Barnett. Cambridge: Harvard
Ldr
Parry, Ionathan.
r98o. Ghosts, Greed":
Funeral Priests. Mar
(n.s') ri:8&-l
rq85. Death and Digestiorurl
MortuarY Rtes. Man
(n's') zo:rz'
1989. The End o the BodY- l
edited by Michel Feher. NewYorL
>chneider, David IvI. rg8o. Americm '
versity of Chicago Press.
Spencer, Jonathan'
1995. Occidenrdi
tics and AnthroPologY
of Sou
fames
Carrier. Oxford: Odord Lln
Strathern, MarilYn. 1988. The Genb
1993. Weston, Kath, F amIb
no. r:195-96.
ry97.
MatllYn Strathern
on I
Thomas, PhiliP. 1999. No Subsram
Temanambondro
Parent-Child
I
Procreation, FertilitY, and Gra*la
.\thlone Press.
ilner, Roy. t977. Anatogic Kni;
12.
'rt eirer, Annett e B. rg7 6. Wbmea
{1
Exch ange. Austin: Universitr
of X
'!(r:ston,
Ka. r99r. Famili*
ll'e Ch
liniversity Press.
1995. Forever Is a Long Ti
ln N aturalizing P ow er : Flsa)s it fr
salio and Carol Delanel" Nen'Ys
1.
ip,Lon-
Sub st antiy i sm, Anti sub st antiv ism
':-r'
kos, Lina Fruzetti, and Steve Barnett. r9gz. concrusi on to concepts of
person:
:..:nship, Caste, and Marriage in India, editedby tikos str, Lina Fruzetti, and Sterre
rarnen. Cambridge: Harvard University
press.
:
--:'-'
jonathan.
r98o. Ghosts, Greed, and sin: The occupational Identity of the Benares
J:neral Priests. Man (n.s.)
r5:gg_rrr.
1985. Death and Digesrion: The symbolism of Food and Eating in North Indian
l.lLrrtuary
Rites. Man (n.s.)
20.672_3c..
1989' The End of the Body. In Fragments
for
a Historyt of the Body,
part
Two,
.:rted by Michel Feher. New
york:
Zone.
'---
-':ider,
David M. rg8o. American Kinship: A curtural Account. zd. ed,.chicago: uni-
=rsity
of Chicago
press.
:=.-:er'
Jonathan. rygS. occidentarism
in the East: The uses of the west in the
pori-
'-:s and Anthropology
of south Asia. In occidentarism: Images of the west, edited.by
-.:res
Carrier. Oxford: Oxford University
press_
"--iern,
Marilyn. 1988. The Gender of the ift.eerkerey: universityof
carifornia
press.
1993' weston' Kath, Familieswe choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. Man (n.s.)
28,
: ,.
t..t95_96.
t997' Marilyn strathern on Kinship (Interview).
EASA Newsretter 79:6-9.
-,::as,
Philip. 1999. No Substance, No Kinship?
procreation,
performativity,
and
-':nanambondro Parent-child
Relations. rn conceiving
persons:
Ethnograpthies
of
- *:';reation,
Fertility, and Growth, edited by
peter
Loizos and
patrick
Head"y. Lo,don,
.--:rlone
Press.
'=:r'
Roy' rg77. Anal,ogic Kinship: A Daribi Exampre. American Ethnorogist
4:64-
:
-:<r'
nnette B . t976. women of value, Men of Renown: New
perspectives
in Trobrand
::,::i1L1nge. Austin: University of Texas
press.
:': ,
-,n, Kath.
ryq. Families We Choose: Lesbians, Gays, Kinship. New
york:
Columbia
_-::r-ersity
press.
1995' Forever Is a Long Time: Romancing the Rear in Gay Kinship Ideorogies.
-- )iantralizing
power:
Essays in Feminist curturar Analysis, edited by sylvia
r.
yanagi-
..-o and Carol Delaney. New
york:
Routledge.
n Caste.
r a Lon-
),1:119-
Gender
'nstitute
ng, Per-
nologist
g Com-
nudy of
iversity
h-West
:eption,
Rituals
'eation,
Books.
logy in
versity
anesia,
actions
Asian
:nneth
ideol-
mis B.
53