Bernard Farber 1975 - Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization

Bilateral Kinship: Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization
Author(s): Bernard Farber

Source: Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 37, No. 4, Special Section: Macrosociology of
the Family (Nov., 1975), pp. 871-888
Published by: National Council on Family Relations
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/350839
Accessed: 24-05-2017 18:28 UTC
REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/350839?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council on Family Relations is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access
to Journal of Marriage and Family
This content downloaded from 170.210.200.9 on Wed, 24 May 2017 18:28:50 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Bilateral Kinship: Centripetal and Centrifugal
Types of Organization
BERNARD FARBER*
Arizona State University
In modern, as well as in traditional societies, kinship structures seem to pro

important functions in maintaining cohesion and differentiation of the various seg
ments of society. It is difficult, however, especially in modern bilateral societies, t
identify the precise means by which these functions are performed. These m
apparently involve not only relationships between families but also ties within
nuclear families themselves. This paper describes a typology which is intende
indicate the kinds of family and kinship structures associated with the conflic
requirements of cohesion and differentiation of broader social structures. The
section of the paper pursues the problem of the relationship between kinship
regime (or polity) along the lines established by Swanson (1967, 1969) and Pa
(1974). Then, on the basis of the findings described in that section, the pap
summarizes a series of definitions and presuppositions with regard to the kin
typology developed in this paper. Building upon these presuppositions, the se
section portrays theoretical patterns of kinship organization in the typology
reports on cross-cultural data pertinent to these patterns. Finally, the last sec
discusses somw implications of the typology for theories of family organization.
if the regime emphasizes the common
In attempting to throw light on the utilization
of kinship structures in society, Swanson
interests of the people and the need for
(1967, 1969) has investigated the relationship
domestic tranquility, Swanson suggests that
between polity (or regime) and rules
this of
emphasis evokes symbolism of the
descent. By polity or regime, Swanson refers
maternal role, and the society applies this
to that system of organization in a symbolism
society by adopting matrilineal rules of
which determines the mode of distribution of
descent. However, if the regime stresses the
power and economic goods. He includes both
special interests by different groups within its
societies with clearly-defined governmentsdomain, then factions develop, and the
and stateless societies. instrumental family role provides the basis
In his study of sixteenth-century Europe,
for symbolism; accordingly a society uses
Swanson (1967) found that "factional" polity
paternal symbolism when it adopts rules of
(i. e., based on factions within the society) was
patrilineal descent. Bilateral (or cognatic)
associated with the adoption of Protestant-
descent comes about when the maternal and
ism, whereas "communal" polity (i. e., based
parental symbolism (and forces) are in
on common interests of the total society) was
balance.
related to the retention of Catholicism. He The next step taken by Swanson is to make
then suggested that "the relative stressa inconnection between rules of descent and
Catholicism on female figures might entail a
socialization patterns. If rules of descent
symbolism in communal polities of the social
symbolize common interests and domestic
order as a kind of collective parent and tranquility,
the children should be socialized by
members of the society as 'children.' " Intraining
his them to participate in their society
analysis, Swanson assumes that in extending
with deftness in social interaction and a
family roles to society, the maternal strong commitment to the common interests
symbolism retains its emphasis on social- of the group. Swanson contrasts this
emotional functions, while the paternal
emphasis on social deftness with a stress upon
symbolism stresses instrumental functions. compliance with social demands without
(Cf Parsons and Bales, 1955.) Consequently, "wholehearted acceptance of those de-
mands." He therefore associates matriliny
*Department of Sociology, Arizona State University,
with participatory socialization and patriliny
Tempe, Arizona 85281.
November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 871
with coercive socialization. The form of accurately, uxorilocal) residence, his data
analysis
regime is thus mirrored in the life of the treats uxorilocal and all other
family. non-virilocal forms of residence as a single
In his critique of Swanson's analysis, Paige category. He apparently assumes that all
non-virilocal residence forms create cross-
(1974) points to possible weaknesses of
interpretation, particularly that pertaining to pressures for men in stateless societies. Still,
bilateral societies. In contrast to Swanson's one would expect that other kinds of
reinforcing pressures may compensate for
emphasis on the relative force of divergent
and communal interests among groups in thenon-virilocal residence norms. For example,
structuring of kinship, Paige places consider-first-cousin marriage, community endogamy,
and bilineal marital residence would all serve
able emphasis on different modes of handling
to reinforce special interests and provide a
divergent interests in a society. Paige suggests
basis for factional polity. Indeed, Paige
that, in bilateral societies especially, marital
residence is of crucial importance in relating(1974:318) himself notes in passing that in
family and kinship to polity. His argument iscognatic societies, while "residence clearly
based on the problems produced by plays a decisive role in determining the
conflicting loyalties (i.e., when people political structure. . . there is an equally
simultaneously owe allegiance to groups withstrong relationship between the presence of
any kind of lineage organization, whether
conflicting special interests). "Persons with
conflicting loyalties are prevented from bilateral or ambilineal, and the presence of
expressing firm support on any singlefactional polity."
position and consequently they are amenable The different options of interpretation
to compromise and deliberation. The pres-suggest that perhaps gender is not the crucial
variable in the association between kinship
ence of such cross-pressures acts to reduce
structure and regime. The relationship
conflict and cleavage between groups them-
selves" (Paige, 1974:304). Applied to kin- between gender and descent or between
gender and marital residence may itself
ship, Paige's point is that, as a general rule,
whereas matrilocal residence distributes derive from more general principles regard-
ing organization of kinship and polity.
related males throughout a society, patrilocal
residence concentrates males in a single As a starting point, let us examine the
community. Men in matrilocal societies areconnections between descent, marital resi-
thus under many cross-pressures, but men dence, and socialization of children. If
in patrilocal societies, by virtue of mutual kin Swanson's speculations are accurate, one
ties, reinforce one another in their pursuit of would expect that patrilineal societies will
special group-interests. In his analysis ofsocialize their male children in ways which
societies in Swanson's sample taken from thewould subordinate personal expression to
Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, 1967), Paige instrumental demands. Briefly, following
finds that in bilateral societies, virilocal Swanson's reasoning, patrilineal societies
residence, factionalism in regime, and theshould be strictest in childcaring, bilateral
societies
presence of functioning kinship groupings are next, and matrilineal societies the
most lenient in childrearing. Similarly,
indeed highly associated with one another.
And, although Paige makes no explicitassuming that cross-pressures require much
social skill in participatory politics, in
statements about patterns of socialization
associated with virilocal and matrilocal cognatic societies we expect much restrictive-
nessthat
residence, one would still anticipate in childrearing in virilocal societies and
much leniency
matrilocal residence requires more skills at in matrilocal (or uxorilocal)
and other societies. However, because of the
compromise and other social-emotional
various other influences related to kinds of
deftness than might be the case with virilocal
residence. kinship structures, the extent to which
suprafamily and/or supracommunity kinship
Yet, Paige's findings for bilateral kinship,
like those of Swanson's, are open to structures exist will be taken into account in
the analysis. In this way, the statistical
alternative interpretations. In the first place,
although Paige bases his argument about the interaction effects of variations in descent,
residence, and structure can be examined.
significance of residence on the comparison
between virilocal and matrilocal (or more As a test of the relative importance of
872 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975
descent, residence, and structure in fostering by comparing societies having extensive
leniency in childrearing, the societies listed in kinship groups with those having only
the Barry and Paxson (1971) sample from the minimal groups (while descent and residence
Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, 1967) were are held constant). In societies with
studied. The 186 societies in the sample are patrilineal descent (and patrilocality), the
coded for "the typical cultural practices for association between the presence of sibs and
male, middle-born children." (Barry and clans, whose "core membership normally
Paxson's ratings on "general indulgence" are comprises residents of more than one
concerned actually with leniency.) General community" (Murdock, 1967:49), and len-
indulgence in early childhood "was defined iency in early childrearing is sizeable
[by Barry and Paxson] primarily in terms of (gamma - .60). In bilateral societies with
absence of pressures and punishments. The virilocal residence, the presence of organized
highest scale scores would be found in kin groups has a more muted effect but still
societies where the young children are mostlyencourages leniency in childrearing (gamma
disregarded, because a high degree of = .20). However, when one turns to societies
affectionate attention is generally accompan- with non-virilocal residence rules (e.g.,
ied by some pressures and punishments"neolocality, matrilocality, or ambilocality),
(Barry and Paxson, 1971:486-487). The codesthe presence of organized kinship groups
published by Barry and Paxson are based onseems to have an opposite influence; it
a consensus arrived at by at least two coders. apparently stimulates restrictiveness in so-
(For problems in the use of the Ethnographic cialization of children. Although for bilateral
Atlas, see Naroll and Cohen, 1970.) societies with non-virilocality, the association
The relationships among descent, maritalbetween the presence of organized kinship
residence, and the presence of formally-
groups and restrictiveness is small (gamma
organized kinship structures are fairly = .15), for societies with matrilineal descent,
intricate. Indeed, in the bilateral societies inthe degree of association is very strong
the Barry-Paxson sample, as Paige's analysis(gamma = .88). Therefore, the data in
indicates, virilocality is associated with the Table 1 indicate that whereas organized
presence of formally-organized cognatic kin kinship structures mute restrictiveness in
groups (gamma = .35). In addition, virilo- early childrearing in virilocal societies, they
cality in these societies, as expected, shows apparently
a stimulate restrictive socialization
comparable relationship with restrictiveness in situations of non-virilocality. The findings
in early childrearing (i. e., presence of pres- are particularly pronounced in unilineal
sures and punishments) (gamma = .39). societies, where influences of descent and
Yet when the presence of formally-organized residence converge.
kin groups in cognatic societies is taken into How are these findings to be interpreted in
account, some interesting trends are re- the light of the Swanson and Paige studies?
vealed. As shown in Table 1, for cognatic First, they do indicate-as Swanson suggests
societies with ramages and quasi-lineages, -that, under certain circumstances, line of
the data manifest only a slight relationshipdescent is associated with leniency in child-
between virilocal residence and restrictiveness
rearing. However, the data are consistent
in early childrearing (gamma = .11). For with Swanson's predictions only for those
societies with ramages and quasi-lineages, societies without supracommunity clan struc-
between virilocality and restrictiveness is ture. The presence of clans introduces an
somewhat greater (gamma = .33). However, additional factor which per se reverses the
the connection between virilocality and trends in the data; exactly where male gender
restrictive childrearing is greatest where symbolism should be greatest, one finds a
kinship structures larger than the nuclear tendency toward leniency. One must con-
famlily are absent (gamma = .45). The data clude therefore that supracommunity kinship
in Table 1 thus suggest that instead of organization introduces a situation which
reinforcing the restricting effect of virilocality overrides the symbolism associated with the
on childrearing, the presence of organized familial sexual division of labor.
kin groups buffers this influence. Second, the data also provide partial
The impact of organized kinship groups on support for Paige's contention that virilo-
leniency in socialization is indicated further cality plays an important role in maintaining
factionalism by permitting relate
band together in cohesive groups
Cor
degree of association between the p
cognatic kinship structures and vi
o
according to these data, is far less
0)0 4)
o
in Paige's sample, and kinship s
a 0 :
seem to modify residence effects sig
0'
a In fact, this modification is sufficie
0 4-b
to suggest that virilocality is pr
4-~-4 4--C strategy of kinship organization
CA)Z, I I
consequently, organization rather
dence should be regarded as the
0 variable.
0)0)
CA
8-doc In fact, one can interpret the buffering

influence of cognatic kinship structures on
O o
u socialization as resulting from weaning the
z
0
0d ) children away from the nuclear family in
an oc cbO ca" order to integrate them into larger kinship
N
structures. In this connection, the Barry-
o
Paxson sample shows a substantial relation-
cl c,
U 4-1 -
d) C& k
ship between the presence of cognatic kinship
L,t oGm
0) structures and autonomy in early childhood
z o s (as indicated for virilocal societies in Table 2)
u
(gamma=.56). Here autonomy is defined
r-.
0) t .Ij 0) I
z
Ocz4-b-
as "the development of activities either alone
z or with the children's play group and thus
(the child's) becoming independent of the
Sr
C) C C caretakers of the infancy period" (Barry and
z
Paxson. 1971: 470). Since this variation by
a o oo
- k + +0) ~) 00
O c3 bo
degree of cognative kinship structure occurs
~ 'i)) ao+
2: 0t a
E' among societies classified as virilocal, one
cd *c C))
cannot attribute the relationship to residence
f40 )
C 1~0 rules alone; the kinship structures themselves
" z
LI~ g seem to be responsible.
O?( The findings on leniency and autonomy in
4,-4
* I
(1
z0 o
a0
socialization suggest that extensive kin group
C)
0 ek?(EC QQ 0)
structure itself is a response to the need for
Pi 0)
z
09
collective action. In such a situation, viri-
locality might be applied as a useful secon-
dary strategy to facilitate this action. (Cf.
Ember and Ember, 1971.) Hence, type of
rJ)] = -4 00 I
H~L .d m
polity may not stem from type of residence as
0)0Ia Paige implies, instead, as Swanson (1974)
fr-a
proposes, polity requirements may precede
H
rules of marital residence. If polity require-
*') 0
cO
ments do precede marital residence rules,
0) 00 W >D a then one should be able to delineate a set of
z interrelationships in kinship structure over
and above rules of marital residence which
would be related to factionalism versus
0 0)
commensalism (or communalism).
U
The major distinction made by Paige and
[-
by Swanson is that between giving priority to
special interests-factionalism-and giving
priority to common interests-communalism.
TABLE 2. MARITAL RESIDENCE, KINSHIP STRUCTURE, AND AUTONOMY FROM CARETAKERS IN
EARLY CHILDHOOD
Virilocal Residence Other Residence Rules
Presence of
Absence of Presence of Absence of Kindreds,
Degree of Cognatic Presence of Quasi Lineages Cognatic Quasi Lineages,
Autonomy Kin Groups Kindreds and Ramages Kin Groups or Ramages
High (4,5)* 1 3 3 1 2
Medium (3) 8 5 1 10 5
Low (1,2) 2 2 - 3 3
Note: Based on Barry an

and presence of cogna
*Codes refer to the fol
1-Autonomy is late (aft
2-Autonomy is late bu
3-Autonomy is fairly
4-Autonomy is fairly e
S---Autonomy is early
Factionalism abolish the rights of the clan in inheritance so

impl
special interest groups are vying for that it might retain land willed to it." The
superiority over other groups for access to common concerns would best be served if
power, wealth, or some other property. members of kin groups were to be dispersed
Since factionalist polity refers to organization throughout the society. In this manner, the
aimed at procuring or maintaining superior- maximum number of social networks would
ity, its presence may be regarded as a be created to scatter the loyalities and
mechanism for stratifying a society. Factions obligations of any individual as widely as
are, after all, a means for the gathering of possible. Under the conditions of communal-
forces and of mobilizing members for conflict isnj, major forces would exist to minimize
or competition. Insofar as factionalism in property-based familial ties and to expel
kinship organization involves this pulling family members outward; it thus seems
inward and engaging the obligation and/or appropriate to regard this kind of kinship
loyalty of members, it seems appropriate to associated with communalism as centrifugal.
call this type of kinship organization Swanson views kinship associated with
centripetal. Swanson (1969) and Paige (1974) communalism as emphasizing the symbolism
both hint at this kind of kinship organization of womanhood and motherhood; Paige
as a way of mobilizing men through either considers this type as associated with the
symbolic or ecological means. creation of numerous cross-pressures which
Communalism, on the other hand, implies would undercut the power and authority of
a situation in which special interests are men.
subordinated to common concerns. In Having distinguished between centr

stateless societies these common concerns and centrifugal types of kinship on th
may well emerge from economic interdepen- of their functions in structuring soc
dence or the presence of a common enemy. Inshall discuss putative characteristics o
types. It is first necessary, however, to p
societies with more highly developed govern-
mental institutions, other common interestssome assumptions and definitions per
to these systems.
may exist as well-the presence of a universal
religion (as opposed to sects and denomina-Definitions and assumptions applied
tions), nationalism (as opposed to subnation-
development of the centripetal-cent
al "ethnic" identities), political bureaucracy
kinship typology are briefly stated belo
basic conceptions are derived from an
(Weber, 1961:51), values of political, social
and economic equality, and so on. Foreconomic perspective. Persons are viewed, for
example, Max Weber (1961:51) reports that example, as the property of kinship units,
in medieval Europe, the Church "strove and to physical property is regarded -as an
extension of its owners. With members Catholic norms promote centrifugality and
considered as assets (or in some instances Jewish norms centripetality. In order to
scatter family ties "to widen the range of
deficits), the typology refers to tendencies in
kinship systems to accumulate property or to human sympathy and love," Canon law
disperse it. Assuming that "saving" or imposes broad impediments to marriage
accumulation of property is a hedge against among consanguineous and affinal relatives
status loss, kinship systems can be analyzed (Ayrinhac, 1946:179). In late medieval and
in terms of their orientation toward saving. A early modern Europe, Jewish family law was
kinship unit oriented toward ensuring the effective in maintaining centripetal norms in
security of its members should be organized Jewish communities. "Bound together by
in ways which would generate the develop- strong economic ties, outside animosity and a
ment of conduct appropriate to status sense of communal responsibility, and a
maintenance. Such kinship systems, aimed as profound feeling for tradition," each Jewish
they are toward the accumulation of community established a legal, corporate
property, stimulate the stratification of structure by which to survive (Farine,
society and support the development of 1973:16). Membership in the corporate unit
factional regimes. On the other hand, those was compulsory, and control by the legally-
kinship systems which are oriented toward constituted authority was pervasive. (See
the dispersal of property throughout Elazar the and Goldstein, 1972.)
society (as a matter of common interest to allYet, both centripetal and centrifugal
kinship units) stimulate the homogenization
kinship norms may emerge as well out of the
of society and bolster the development populace,
of sometimes despite the prevalent
communal regimes. Kinship systems which political ideology. Many observers have noted
tend to emphasize saving (i.e., centripetalthe "fit" between the decline of the signifi-
systems), because of their orientation toward
cance of the extended family and the rise of
status maintenance in an indefinite future,modern urbanized industrial society. The
involve long-range perspectives, establish-"fit" is attributed precisely to ease of
ment of mechanisms for stabilizing obliga- mobility and the reduction of obligations
tions, and a redundancy of family roles.
which might impede individual destiny
However, systems which stress distribution(Goode,
of 1963; Burgess, Locke, and Thomes,
property throughout the society (i. e., centrif-
1963). Still, even in societies which ideolog-
ugal systems), because of their orientation
ically uphold communal norms in family
toward immediate psychological and physical
organization (e. g., Keim, 1926), there may be
comfort of the mass of the population, involve
strong motivations for groups vying for power
short-range perspectives, use of mechanisms to adopt centripetal norms. Although
for maximizing cross-pressures, and a mini- competing elites in Revolutionary America
mum of kinship obligations. (Space limita- around 1800 were not constituted as formal
tions preclude an elaboration of these corporate entities, they organized themselves
assumptions.) into collections of families, forming political
Swanson and Paige offer opposing expla- factions, pooling resources, intermarrying
nations for the relationship between regime with one another, and creating almost
and kinship. Swanson proposes that the separate social worlds (Farber, 1972).
organization of the ruling bodies determinesIndeed, in the absence of constraints on
kinship structure, whereas Paige believes that familial accumulation of resources, one
the residential arrangements of the populacewould anticipate that rival elites would favor
are eventually formalized in kinship institu-centripetal norms of kinship for themselves
tions. Yet, the data on socialization referred (but perhaps not for others).
to in Table 1 lend partial support to bothCHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRIPETAL
Swanson and Paige. Thus, it seems that AND CENTRIFUGAL KINSHIP
pressures toward centripetality or toward ORGANIZATION
centrifugality may originate either in govern-
ing bodies or in the populace. Theoretical configurations of characteris
Numerous examples can be found to tics of centripetal and centrifugal cognat
sustain both explanations. As instances of kinship organization are presented in Tab
kinship structures derived from regime, 3. The configurations pertain to (a) marriag
TABLE 3. THEORETICAL CONFIGUARATIONS OF CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRIPETAL AND
CENTRIFUGAL ORGANIZATION IN BILATERAL KINSHIP SYSTEMS
Structural Arrangement Centripetal Form Centrifugal Form
Marriage
1. Marital selection Demes Community exogamy
2. Marital prohibitions a. First cousins permitted a. First- and sometimes second-
to marry cousins forbidden
b. Close affines forbidden b. Any affine permi
3. Stablity of marriage Low divorce rate (i.e., divorce High divorce rate
(Prevalence of divorce) low-rated strategy)
Residence
4. Marital status Near at least one set of parents Neolocal residence

5. Household composition Augumented households (i. e., Nuclear family favored
includes various relatives)
desirable
6. Migration (acceptability Low degree of migration High degree of migration
of diffusion of members) (Low value on migration) (No low value on migration)
7. Access to kin Close-knit networks valued Loose-knit networks preferred
Property Rights
8. Inheritance patterns Partible inheritance favored Nonfamilial inheritance favored
9. Role of generations in structuring Retention of generational Subordination of generation
familial relations influence throughout life-cycle to life-cycle stage
10. Type of reciprocity Generalized reciprocities Specific reciprocities
Symbolism of Kinship Nomenclature
11. Generational differentiation
a. Avuncular terms Generational terminology Lineal terminology
(Fa = FaBr = MoBr) (Fa FaBr = MoBr)
b. Grandchild vs. child terms Different roots Modifier added to "child"
(GrCh t Ch) (GrCh modified Ch)
c. Grandparent vs. parent terms Merging of direct ascending Modifier added
generations (Fa = GrFa) (GrFa modified Fa)
12. Cousin identification Identity of cousin with owns' Separate cousins from own
parents' sibling group parents' sibling group
(e.g., Geschwisterkind) (e.g., Eskimo or Hawaiian)
13. Affinal ties
a. Spouse's family Unique set of terms Same terms as nuclear
family with modifiers added
b. Co-parents-in-law Special terms No terms
(e.g., mekhutonim)
Relation to Community Structure
14. Stratification Use of family as a means Use of family to diffuse
for stratifying community power and wealth through-
(i. e., endeavor of the family out territory
is to heighten power and
wealth collectively)
15. Family ideology Single paradigm of Plurality of family
family followed paradigms prevalent
16. Relation to other institutions Family as a power base to Subordination of family
manipulate other institu- norms which may conflict
tions (e.g., government, with those of other institu-
church) tions (i. e., loss of the family
as a power base)
and divorce, (b) forms of residence, (c) allo-

kinship on the long-range perspectiv
stability of
cation of property rights, (d) symbolism of relationships, and accumul
kinship nomenclature, and (e) of relation to
relatives (according to the theoretical
community structure. This sectionassumptions),
presentsone would anticipate that
the findings from cross-cultural marriage
analyses and divorce norms in particular
bearing on these configurations. would reflect these tendencies. Several
Marriage and Divorce investigations have indicated a relationshi
between the maintenance of status positio
Given the general emphasis in centripetal
in society and the stability of marriage on themarital stability is another set showing how
basis of cross-cultural data (Goode, 1962). normative compliance (or socialization) is
Since that is the case, one would also associated with marital instability.
anticipate an association between faction- 1. Those political regimes which are
alism of regime and marital stability. characterized by a diffusion of policy-
The relationship between factionalism of making power tend to rely upon the
regime and rate of divorce can be derived normative compliance (or socialization)
from Swanson's (1969) discussion. As noted of the populace for maintaining order
earlier, Swanson distinguishes between fac- and stability.
tional societies, whose regimes rely primarily 2. In those societies depending upon
on social control or "coercive compliance" normative compliance for stability,
mechanisms, and communal societies, whose members of groups tend to be diffused
regimes depend more upon the manner of throughout the society, and the consen-
socializing the populace or "normative sus exists that special interests of
compliance." Although Swanson does not different groups are subordinated to the
deal with centripetal and centrifugal tenden- common good.
cies in kinship organization as such, never- 3. Group dispersion of the populace and
theless the connections among factionalism, emphasis on the common good tend to
centripetal kinship, and divorce rates are permit a wide variation in organization
suggested in the following set of statements: of groups and institutions throughout
1. Those political regimes which are the society so that boundaries between
characterized by a concentration of groups are vague, and there are strong
policy-making rely upon coercive com- centrifugal tendencies in group organi-
pliance (or social control) for main- zation.
taining order and stability. 4. The diffuseness and centrifugality per-
2. In those societies depending upon mitted by the consensus that special
coercive compliance for stability, the interests be subordinated to the com-
populace tends to organize itself into mon good results also in a high degree
special interest groups whose aims may of normative compliance throughout all
conflict with the common good (as per- social groups.
ceived by the central government). 5. As a fundamental institution in the
3. The threat of coercion tends to produce society, kinship too would be governed
a response in special-interest organiza- by rules emphasizing normative com-
tions to mobilize themselves in ways pliance.
which would be centripetal, that is, 6. The diffuseness in centrifugal kinship
create definite boundaries between groups in these societies, spreading
groups and draw members inward. members outward, would minimize
4. The mobilization created by threats to to maintain family stability as a
efforts
special interests also requires a high special interest.
degree of coercive compliance within 7. We would thus anticipate that those
special interest groups. societies which are characterized by
5. As a fundamental institution in the diffusion of policy-making power have
society, kinship would also be governed high divorce rates.
by rules emphasizing coercive com- The relationship between polity and
pliance. divorce is shown in Table 4 for twenty
6. The moblization of centripetal kinship societies that appeared in both Swanson's
groups in these societies, in drawing (1969, 1971) analysis and Ackerman's (1963)
members inward, would place strong study of correlates of divorce in non-Western
efforts to maintain family stability, per- societies. Both studies rely on samples from
haps even under the threat of coercion. the Human Relations Area Files. Since
7. We would thus anticipate that those Swanson had already classified each societ
societies which are characterized by by type of regime, and Ackerman had
autocratic power have low divorce rates. assessed divorce rates, their categorizations
Complementing the above set of statements are applied in constructing Table 4.
on the relationship between factionalism and According to the table, 7 of the 9 societies
with factional regimes have low divorce rates,The findings on divorce and factionalism
while only 2 of the 11 societies with evoke the question as to whether those
communal regimes have low rates of divorce. marriage rules associated with low divorce
A phi computed for Table 4 is .60. The highrates are also characteristic of factional
degree of association between regime andregimes. A supplementary review of the 20
divorce confirms the sets of statements made societies in Table 4 indicates that five of the
earlier with regard to political arrangement, nine factional societies also display commun-
marital stability, and centripetality of kinshipity endogamy, first-cousin marriage, or the
organization. levirate, whereas none of the other societies is
so characterized. Instead, all of the com-
TABLE 4. SWANSON'S CLASSIFICATION OF
munal societies are non-endogamous, pro-
REGIMES AND ACKERMAN'S ASSESSMENT OF
DIVORCE RATE, FOR 20 SOCIETIES
hibit first-cousin marriage, and do not permit
the levirate. Thus, factionalism of regime
Classification High Low appears to be associated with marriage rules
of Regimes Divorce Rate Divorce Rate which facilitate marital stability and monopo-
Factional* Mandan (2) Azande (7) listic marriage practices.
Omaha Aztec
Residence and Household
Inca
Kazak
Pawnee
According to the assumptions presented in
Tikopia
the previous section, the presence of factional
Zulu regimes should be related to clustering of
relatives in the household and in the
Communal* Bemba (9) Iban (2)
Comanche Koryak community. Accordingly, one would an
Cuna pate that in societies with factional regim
Fang married couple would tend to live near
Ifugao
parents of at least one of the spouse
Marquesians households would tend to be extended or at
Papago
Yao least augmented by relatives outside the
Zuni nuclear family, the tendency to emigrate from
the community would be low, and individuals
*Terms from Paige (1974).
would tend to retain a high degree of access to
While it is true that generally patrilinealtheir relatives. The characteristics of the 20
societies have lower divorce rates than cognatic societies in Swanson's sample tend
to corroborate statements about marital
matrilineal or bilateral societies, most of the
residence, augmented household composi-
factional regimes in Table 4 are classified by
Ackerman as bilateral (5 of 9) (with the tion, and tendency to live in relatively
remainder patrilineal), while 5 of the 11compact settlements rather than to live in
communal societies are bilateral, 3 are dispersed or migratory existences (Murdock,
patrilineal, and 3 matrilineal. Clearly, 1957,the 1967). (Note, however, that while the
data do not indicate a high association
findings are in the expected direction in each
instance, the degree of association is easily
between patrilineal descent and low divorce.
Ackerman (1963) has already shown within
that the range of sampling error, and hence
the specific distributions are not reported
divorce rates are consistently low in those
here.)
bilateral societies where there is community
endogamy and first-cousin marriage andAlthough
in the statistical results provide only
those unilineal societies in which the levirate
weak support, they are consistently in the
is present. In addition, Murdock (1970) anticipated direction, and cannot be disre-
garded. Consequently, it seems reasonable to
reports that in societies permitting first-
cousin marriage, relationships between seek
cous- additional confirmation in specific case
studies. For example, Bott's (1957) analysis
ins are seldom formal; similarly, in unilineal
of social networks in English families is
societies with levirate or sororal marriage,
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law tendsupportive
to be of this position. Her distinction
between close-knit and loose-knit networks is
informal in interaction. This tendency toward
indeed one which reveals connections among
informality (and often sexual license) implies
marital residence near parents, nonmigra-
a sense of closeness between these relatives.
tion, high access to kin, and the strong pull of in St. Felix differ from that in Tret, but so do
the kindred vis-a-vis nuclear family commit- patterns of migration. Cole suggests that the
ments. Her study also points out the different change in economic base rather than
perceptions of norms found in close-knit and something intrinsic in Tret family organiza-
loose-knit networks, with participation in a tion is apparently responsible for recent Tret
close-knit network leading to fewer cross- migration.
pressures and a greater tendency to delineate As for time perspective in kinship relations
group boundaries (by identifying particular in Tret and St. Felix, Cole (1973:778)
norms with a specific local area). remarks that:
John Cole's (1973) comparison of two In Tret the generalized pattern of labor exchange
communities in the Italian Alps sheds between particular households tends to be of long
additional light on the putative distinctive duration, often for the lifetime of the participants.
characteristics of centripetal and centrifugal Not so in St. Felix, where such generalized recipro-
city is restricted to the closest kinsmen and is
kinship. In one community, St. Felix, ties characteristically short-lived . . . While a Felixer
between kinsmen were weak and one "saw his
does not participate in an active [stable] social
own interests as best served by the network of collaterals and affines, as does a person
elimination or reduction of ties with super-
in Tret, he is involved from birth to death with a
numerary [relatives] who could claim a livingseries of formal organizations which socialize him
to community and ethnic norms.
from his land" (Cole, 1973: 774). Indepen-
dence from relatives was valued, and if oneBott's English and Cole's Austrian mater-
had to rely upon the assistance of relatives, he dealing as they do with contemporary
ials,
would "carefully calculate the value of their kinship ties, suggest that the kinds of residen-
assistance. . . and demand an equal return." tial and household characteristics which
In fact, Cole notes, "Brothers tend to avoid appear in factional versus communal regimes
each other, preferring to call on nonkinsmen in non-Western pastoral and horticultural
when assistance is required so that there will societies do have their counterparts in
be no question as to the reciprocal nature of modern European countries.
the exchange." In the other community,
Tret, visits, gift-giving, and mutual assis- Property Rights
tance were encouraged "to fortify the existing Ideally, centripetal kinship is oriented
sibling ties and to keep them functional." toward the accumulation of property rights
Even absent siblings "continued to maintain over generations, while centrifugal kinship is
ties to the village even when they had oriented toward redistribution of property
established fiscal independence" elsewhere. rights within each generation. Consequently,
"Because these siblings maintained ties to centripetal kinship should favor norms of
village brothers throughout their lives, their (a) partible inheritance, (b) the retention of
children also had ties to the village." parental influence even after children form
Tret and St. Felix differed in other ways as their own families of procreation, and
well. St. Felix had a higher proportion of(c) generalized obligations for kinsmen to
nuclear-family households, while Tret had assist one another throughout their lifetime.
more households involving sets of siblings. On the other hand, centrifugal kinship (in
Out-migration takes a more individualistic redistributing property) should favor (a) no
form for St. Felixites as compared with inheritance of property, (b) early emancipa-
Tretites. "When villagers from St. Felix do tion of children, and (c) a restriction of
seek urban employment, it is more often reciprocal relations among kin.
outside of Italy, in Switzerland or Germany,"
Although ideally centrifugal kinship
generally hoping to return with enough should not involve the transfer of any
money to buy an estate. For those from Tret, property from one generation to the next,
however, "the transition from rural to urban some agency must exist to handle assets after
life is easily made . . . . The social networks their owner has died. Possibly as a next-best
of virtually every household include relatives approach, one can concentrate all succession
who have moved to town in the past. in one heir and let the remainder of children
Migration into the urban setting is facilitated go propertyless. This procedure would
by these networks" (Cole, 1973:78). Thus, preclude squabbles over the deceased's assets
not only does the composition of households and would permit considerable flexibility in
the use of these assets. Conceptually, as As a consequence of the different social
succession, nonpartible inheritance simply origins of wage laborers, class relationships
implies that the heir is really the re-embodi- were affected in distinct ways according to
ment of the deceased person. Hence, mode of inheritance. Khera (1973:821-822)
centrifugal systems might indeed fall back states that:
upon nonpartible inheritance as a system of The almost antagonistic attitude which rural
transferring property from generation to industrial workers [now] show against peasants in
generation. Burgenland [where partible inheritance has
predominated] seems to be the result of their
Societies in the Ethnographic Atlas
former position as [a permanent class of] poorly
indicate relationships between kinship norms paid and insufficiently protected agricultural
and forms of inheritance in accordance with workers. On the other hand, in Upper Austria,
the centripetality-centrifugality typology.where agricultural laborers formerly had an
Goody (1969) has found, for example, that equally disadvantageous position [but where land
inheritance was undivided] no fissive tendencies
where property is devolved through women asalong occupational-political lines within villages
well as men, societies evidence, among otherare noticeable.
things, tendencies toward (a) communityKhera's analysis indicates, perhaps more
endogamy, (b) first-cousin marriage, andclearly than the others, the association
(c) a high degree of stratification in the
between centripetal kinship norms and the
society. creation of factions in social stratification.
The relationship between forms of inheri- This analysis, along with the others, points to
tance and kinship structure is also suggested a cluster of characteristics related to both
by several European analyses. Habakkuk factionalism and centripetal kinship-parti-
(1955) has found a connection between ble inheritance, generational differentiation
partible inheritance and a reluctance to of authority relationships, generalized reci-
emigrate from rural areas. The Cole analysis,procities, kin group and community endog-
alluded to in the preceding section, points out
amy, and population stability.
that Tret, in which familial ties were
reinforced by generalized reciprocities, was Syvmbolism of Kinship Nomenclature
characterized by partible inheritance; St. Students of kinship generally assume that
Felix, on the other hand, in which families
the logic of a kinship structure is expressed
practiced restricted reciprocities, followed symbolically
the in the nomenclature applied to
single-heir system. Both Habakkuk and Cole different relatives. (For example, see Brown,
attribute many of their findings to the
1974.) Most frequently studies are concerned,
influence of form of inheritance on family
however, with internal consistency of a single
and kinship ties. system and generally not with cross-cultural
The different effects of partible and analysis. Yet, for instance, one can compare
single-heir inheritance on social stratification societies which apply generational nomen-
and factionalism in regime are suggested in clature for uncles with those using lineal
an investigation by Khera (1973) of the nomenclature. In generational nomenclature,
Burgenland in Austria. Khera (1973:821-822) equivalent terms are used for Fa, MoBr,
points out that during the nineteenth century: and FaBr; in lineal nomenclature, although
. .. the specific mode of divided land inheritance the same term is applied for both maternal
in combination with consanguineal marriage and and paternal uncles, the word for uncle
joint household [both of which are associated with
centripetal kinship] prevented a sudden descent of
clearly differs from that for father. Both of
these kinds of uncle nomenclature are associ-
offspring of peasant families into lower strata. ...
Where undivided inheritance is the rule, [how- ated with cognatic kinship. The comparison
ever,] the social stratum of agricultural workers of generational and lineal avuncular termi-
consisted primarily of persons who were born into
peasant families. .. [and] if they remained at the
nology for several characteristics of societies
low level, it was considered to be principally their in the Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock, 1967) is
own fault. shown in Table 5. The table indicates the
Thus, consanguineal marriage, nuclear- tendency for generational nomenclature to be
family households, and nonpartible inheri- associated with (a) succession of hereditary
tance-components of centrifugal kinship- offices and (b) lack of financial consideration
sustained the family ties between peasants at marriage (which would be associated with
and laborers. community and consanguineal endogamy);
TABLE 5. SOCIETAL CHARACTERISTICS ASSOCIATED WITH GENERATIONAL AND LINEAL NOMEN-
CLATURES FOR UNCLES IN MURDOCK'S WORLD ETHNOGRAPHIC SAMPLE
Societal Generational Lineal

Characteristics Nomenclatures Nomenclatures Phi
Succession
Lineal (Patrilineal or matrilineal) 18 17
Nonhereditary (e.g., successors chosen by councils,
consensus, personal influence) 9 51 .39
Financial Consideration at Marriage
Yes (e.g., bride price, bride service, dowry,
gift exchange) 7 46
No 21 31 .31
Marital Residence
Neolocal 2 17
All others (patriloc
dulocal, avunculocal) 28 61 .15
Households
Nuclear family 9 39
Stem, lineal, or extended 12 22 .19
and to a lesser extent with (c) non-neolocal kindreds-the Jewish mishpokheh and the
marital residence and (d) the presence of
German maegth or magschaft. Huebner
stem, lineal, or extended households (as (1968, v. 4:587) likens the old German
opposed to nuclear family units). Since these
Grossfamilie to the Russian greater-family
characteristics appear to be associated with
and the Servian Zadruga. Second, both
centripetal kinship, further analysis seemsJewish and German systems had rules of
advisable. preferential marriage with close relatives.
The paragraphs that follow compareEarly German law permitted marriages
nomenclatures for close consanguineous kin between any kindred except parents and their
and affines as they are depicted in English,children, and evidently "so-called endoga-
French, German, Yiddish, and Russian mous marriages seem to have been the rule;
dictionaries. The German terminologythat ana- is, marriages between members of the
lyzed refers to modern (twentieth century) same sib" (Huebner, v. 4:594 and 604). In
rather than old (e.g., pre-nineteenth century)
Jewish-shtetl kinship, marriages within the
usage, and the Russian to pre-Revolution mishpokheh were encouraged, and cousins
nomenclature. Modern German is included preferred. (See Singer, 1928:27, for ration-
ale.) Third, in both old-German and
in the analysis because of its relatively recent
invention. English and French derive, in
Jewish-shtetl kinship, calculation of consan-
part, from the Roman system; in Roman
guineous relationships rests on the concept of
history, it may be noted, nuclear family
generations (as opposed to Canon-law and
organization replaced the extended family at
civil-law techniques for measuring kinship
a very early date (Anderson, 1956:10). distance).
(However, Yiddish and Russian nomencla- At this point, let us briefly sketch the
ture seem to derive from strong extended overall characteristics of the five sets of
family ties resembling those of centripetalconsanguineous and affinal terminologies. In
kinship, as described in previous sections English,
of French, and modern German
this paper.) (See Friedrich, 1964.) nomenclatures, the terms for consanguineous
If terminological similarities between kin apply (a) lineal uncle nomenclatures,
kinship systems are supposed to express i. e., a terminological separation of father
structural similarities, there should be from uncle (and mother from aunt), and
various analogous elements in Jewish-shtetl
(b) an extensive use of modifiers applied to
and old-German kinship arrangements. nuclear-family terms to describe all lineal
Several resemblances can indeed be noted. relatives outside the nuclear family. As for
First, both Jewish-shtetl and old-German affinal nomenclature in English, French, and
kinship included highly integrated bilateral
German, here again there is much reliance on
modifiers of nuclear-family terms, which follows: factional regimes emphasize the
denote the conception of the spouse's family special interests of different congeries of
as analogous to one's own family of families. Here, the family is used apparently
orientation. Yet, as Canon law stipulates, as a means for stratifying relationships
there are no direct bonds between members between factions, and the family is organized
of the two families other than those to heighten the power and wealth of its
established through the marriedmembers
couple acting in concert. Because families
(Canon 97). As a general trend, in are
English,
mobilized in centripetal kinship, they
French, and German, both consanguineous
must actively support a single set of norms
and affinal terminologies symbolize cen-toward sustaining the commitment
oriented
trifugal tendencies in handling kin. of members to modes of conduct which will
By way of contrast, Yiddish andenhance
Russian the welfare of the kin group as it
kinship nomenclatures generally signify
competesthe
with other kin groups in the society.
pulling together of family and kin. In so, the family (and the other kin
In doing
terminology for consanguineous kin, (a) in
groups) must promote a single family ide-
accordance with generational nomenclature,
ology which values such commitment. The
father and uncle form a linguisticutility
unity, of the family in a factional regime
(b) special terms for grandparent and would be especially great where kinship
grandchild set the parent-child relationship provided the "glue" which held the other
apart as a unique set of generational statuses, institutions of the society (e.g., government
and (c) the terminology for parents and and church) together.
grandparents suggests a highly-organized Communal regimes, however, stress the
division of labor in the family. (Comparison common interests of the population. Here,
of Yiddish and Russian cousin terms does the family is used to diffuse power and wealth
reveal, however, that powerful centrifugal
throughout the society. There is no reason to
marital forces do exist in Russian in its coerce individuals to conduct themselves
application of generational (Hawaiian)according
ter- to a single set of kinship and family
minology; in Yiddish, however, thenorms. lineal In fact, the very diversity of norm
(Eskimo) nomenclature, coupled with thecross-pressures and inhibits the
creates
special shvesterkind designation sets the
development of factions. This diversity also
first cousin off as a special relative.)prevents
With family-institution interests from
regard to affinal nomenclature, (a)dominating
both those of other institutions in the
Yiddish and Russian terms symbolize a society and reduces the power of kindreds to
strong bond between coparents-in-law andact collectively.
(b) both systems apply unique labels for each The contrast between the traditional
status in the spouse's family. Both YiddishChinese and Japanese family, as described b
and Russian affinal linguistic systems convey Marion Levy (1955), illustrates this relation
the idea that direct relationships of affinesship of kinship to regime. The nature of th
can exist over and above indirect ties through"fit" between family and government differe
the married couple. Consequently, one in imperial China and Japan; the traditiona
connotation of Yiddish and Russian nomen- Chinese bureaucracy was more pervasive than
clatures is that marriage unites lines that
of of the Japanese. "The immediate vita
descent rather than merely allying nuclear-
effect of the Republican revolution of 191
family units. was limited mainly to the disintegration of th
The general trends regarding kinship traditional system of central political control
nomenclatures in the five societies show too (Yang, 1959:3). Whereas the Chinese had
much consistency to be considered as clearly-defined ideal family organization
accidental. Instead, they seem to reflect twoLevy suggests, the Japanese family model
opposing models of kinship organization. were far more diverse. Although the concep
of filial piety, founded on Confucian
Relation to Social Structure
doctrine, was present in both countries, it was
The difference between centripetal and apparently more Chinese than Japanese. In
centrifugal kinship structures putatively Japan, historically, other social groups
became terminological extensions of the
derives, as stated earlier, from their special
functions in society. The reasoning is as family, resulting in a pushing outward-a
centrifugal movement-of family-like rela- live with foster parents, who are generally
tionships into economic and political spheres close relatives, from early childhood; others
(Dore, 1958:94). This blurring of boundaries become foster children upon the divorce or
between family and other institutions affected death of parents. In these ways, the
family interaction. In the Japanese family, widespread practice of fostering scatters
the frustrations of the outside world were children throughout the region. Yet, foster-
deflected into the household, and marital ing also serves centripetal functions by
relationships were damaged, with a conse-reinforcing "bonds between physically dis-
quent high divorce rate. With continued
persed kinsmen who may live in villages
modernization, in both China and Japan, we anywhere from two to two hundred miles
apart" (Goody, 1973:211). Goody (1973:308)
can anticipate an increasing deflection of the
outside hostilities and frustrations into the points out that the
home. Hsu (1963:260) suggests that . . . circulation of persons appears to lead to a
merging of norms in such a way as to stress the
... the Communist attempt to communize China
highest common denominator for the groups
. . . is simply the most extreme means to
involved. ... If a series of ethnic groups of widely
disengage the Chinese, once and for all, from
different customs are brought together in a state
their age-old centripetal attitude toward primary
system marked by frequent intermarriage, then
groups, so that they may be more easily propelled
the resulting tendency towards a merging of norms
into identification with and involvement in issues,
appears to facilitate a shift of the kinship system
personalities, and movements in the politically
dictated wider arena.
towards the "bilateral" pole.
In Japan, Dore (1948:114-115) reportsThus,

a in African as in Asian societies, the
connection
comparable disengagement from the family between type of political regime
and
and a decline in the practice of defining kinship structure seems apparent.
relationships in economic and political DISCUSSION
institutions in terms of family statuses.
Centrifugal tendencies in kinship appear in Since the characteristics of centripetal an
African as well as in Asian and Western centrifugal kinship are presented in Table 3
it seems unnecessary to summarize the
European societies. In her study of the Gonja
of northern Ghana, Esther Goody (1973) theoretical configurations of attributes again.
points out several centrifugal characteristics Although the data from the Ethnographic
of their family and kinship arrangement. Atlas are not unequivocal, they (along with
Gonja government has long been diffused the other materials) do present evidence of
locally; central government offices are the utility of perceiving cognatic kinship in
rotated, and individuals have dual citizen- terms of the centripetality-centrifugality
ships in the villages of both mother and typology. This discussion will cover topics
father. She describes Gonja kinship as based relating to (a) the relevance of the typology to
on "marriages contracted freely between modern kinship, (b) conflicting conceptions
[different] social groups as well as communi- of kinship in modern society as either
ties" (Goody, 1973:302). Although first disintegrating or undergoing revision, and
cousin marriage is permitted, it is generally (c) the implications of the typology for
avoided, and husbands and wives frequently making generalizations about family relation-
come from different ethnic backgrounds. ships.
Marital ties do not create family ties that last Relevance qf Typology
beyond the death of one of the spouses, and,
consequently, the levirate is not practiced. When I first began the analysis on which
The weakness of the marital bond is indicated this paper is based, my first impulse was to
further by the high rate of divorce among the dismiss centripetal kinship organization as a
Gonja. But centrifugal tendencies are relic of feudal and ghetto existence, which
apparent in other relationships as well. There
required strong kindreds. But then I observed
is a continued circulation of men, women, that norms relevant to centripetal kinship are
and children in the State of Gonja. Althoughstill applied in modern society in various
most children reside with their own families, ways, such as in German and Israeli intestacy
"during late childhood and adolescence manylaws or in family ties of middleman ethnic
children live with adults other than their own
groups (Tedeschi, 1966:242-246; Tavuchis,
parents'.' (Goody, 1973:181). Some children 1968; Bonanich, 1973). I then decided that
perhaps there are forces in industrial societies remain on the land, and the continuity of the
which do sustain this mode of organization. community is more secure. Apparently,
If one seeks for evidence of centripetal groups organized on the basis of centripetal
kinship in contemporary family life, one finds principles-since the destinies of the constit-
numerous examples. As Swanson (1967) uent members are closely intertwined-sur-
indicates, the factionalism connected with the vive or fail together.
emergence of Protestantism in Europe The distinction between centripetal and
required a different kind of socialization centrifugal kinship, it should be stressed, is
than that found under Catholic regimes. This not simply one between solidarity among
factionalism makes itself strongly felt in relatives versus isolation of nuclear families.
contemporary economic and political institu- On the one hand, relatives in kinship systems
tions. The emphasis on achievement motiva- organized on the basis of centrifugal
tion in middle-class families in industrial principles are often united by strong feelings
societies seems to have demanded some for their kinsmen. Among lower-class
aspects of family life consistent with American families, for example, one often
centripetal kinship structure (Mindel, forth- finds much loyalty to relatives and extensive
coming; Ramu, 1973; Farber, 1971; Tavu- mutual assistance. But, at least in my own
chis, 1968). Similarly, studies of political investigation (Farber, 1971), this sense of
socialization have shown that (consistent with loyalty was accomplished mainly on a
assumptions about centripetal kinship) chil- personal basis, and there were no general
dren from middle-class families are more rules related to marriage, residence, or
aware and more knowledgeable than lower- property rights aimed at sustaining collective
class children of political issues and party
action (ideally) in perpetuity. In fact, those
politics (Hess and Torney, 1967; Orum relatives
and who had moved upward were
Cohen, 1973; Orum, forthcoming). During regarded as "uppity" and were generally
the 1960's, the more politically active avoided. On the other hand, families in
students tended to come from families kinship structures based on centripetal
(frequently with middleman minority norms
back-may well delineate clear nuclear-
grounds) which held strong political family
convic-boundaries-as does the traditional
tions (Lipset, 1971). Although sporadic
Jewish family--and yet, through such
mechanisms as yikhus, permitting first-
political involvement by various minority
cousin marriage, maintaining mekhutonim
groups is possible without centripetal kinship
organization, I suggest that sustained, relationships, and so on, these families are
organized to sustain collective action. The
long-range involvement requires conformity
to some centripetal norms. Hence, there is between centripetal and centrifu-
distinction
little reason to anticipate that the compo-
gal kinship thus must refer to configurations
of obligations over and above (or sometimes
nents of centripetal kinship will completely
wither away in modern society. in place of) a sense of solidarity.
Certainly, there are some ironies connected
Modern Kinship: Distintegration or Revision
with the persistence of centipetal kinship.
Habbakuk (1956) points out that where Many observers see in the development of
partible inheritance was practiced inalternative
nine- forms of domestic life in modern
teenth century Europe, agriculturalists re-the decay of kinship as a significant
society
mained in their local areas but could not
institution. They regard the loss of influence
sustain sufficient production to increase of
their
kinship ties on personal destiny as evidence
capital; where single-heir inheritance wasofthe
this wasting away. Obviously, today it may
rule, however, the emigration of superfluous
be impossible for grandparents, uncles and
siblings and the ability to increase capital byand cousins to have a strong personal
aunts,
the heirs who remained stimulated general impact on individuals given the ever-increas-
economic development. A similar twist ing freedom in domestic arrangements, high
occurred in Tret and St. Felix (Cole, 1973). rates of mobility and migration, and plethora
In Tret, the presence of partible inheritance of competing leisure-time activities. Certain-
has made continued commitment to farming ly, if one views the function of kinship to be
unprofitable, and families tend to migrate to only that of placing an individual in the status
the city. In St. Felix, however, heirs generally hierarchy, its usefulness is abated.
However, one can perceive kinship as family sociology to the collation of findings of
having dual functions, (a) promoting specialstudies of the American family. The hope has
interests of members in the system of been that this collation will permit codifica-
stratification and (b) furthering the common tion and further the development of family
interests which wield the population into atheory. Yet, with the passage of time and with
coherent society. Given two competing sampling of different population segments,
functions of kinship, the principles whichone finds that the accumulated results of
meet the requirements of one function tend tostudies yield overall weak and/or contradic-
oppose those which are consistent with thetory tendencies. Usually the interpretations
other function. There are, accordingly, twogive to the feeble or conflicting findings
coexistent systems of kinship possible, eachare that they indicate (a) an increasing
with its own internally consistent structuredisorganization in family life, (b) an inade-
and its own justifications for conduct related quacy of concepts and of interpretation of
to marriage, residence, property rights,data by different investigators, and/or (c)
interaction between generations, ties tomuch chance variation in sampling. In fact,
affines, and the like. Because of the none of these interpretations may be true.
conflicting characteristics of these two Instead, the problem may be that the person
systems, people are forced to choose from collating the findings of different studies fails
among competing alternatives. If we assume to take into account variations of kinship
that in societies norms tend toward mutual context in time and social structure. If, as the
consistency, then any society will gravitateprevious paragraphs suggested, centripetal
toward one extreme or the other. and centrifugal kinship each has its own
If we assume that kinship has dual interlan logical arrangement, then in terms of
functions in social structure, then we can factor-analysis methodology, each method
should have its own factor structure. In
interpret changes occurring in modern society
as a movement from centripetal to centrifugal
addition, each system should be vulnerable to
norms. As the data in the Ethnographic Atlas a unique set of influences in historical
indicate, however, tendencies toward centri-
change. For example, centripetal kinship,
fugal systems are not restricted to industrialorganized for collective action in factional
societies. I would suspect, instead, that the
regimes, should be sensitive to factors which
building of nation-states, and efforts to
disrupt the system of stratification would be
redistribute assets (both persons and things)
changes which weaken control over endo-
both account for much of this shift to gamy, control over marital residence, author-
ity patterns, inheritance, and migration.
centrifugality in cognatic kinship. It is highly
unlikely, however, that this domination by
Centrifugal kinship, on the other hand,
centrifugal norms will become as strong in be more directly influenced by
would
the upper reaches of modern societies as it is and family crises which magnify the
personal
among lower socioeconomic segments of the
inadequacies of independent actions. The
population. (See Zeitlin et al., 1974.) same
Since
kinds of crises which could be handled
modern societies show much fluidity in within the family in centripetal systems then
policy, though, one can anticipate some become matters of public concern--violence,
movement back and forth regarding the emotional disturbance, delinquency, and so
predominance of centripetal and centrifugal on. In brief, it seems necessary to take into
tendencies. Hence, the position taken here account the dual functions of kinship if one is
opposes the views that either (a) kinship to develop valid theories with regard to (a) the
structure is slowly disintegrating in American internal workings of the family, (b) gender
society, starting with the urban poor and and generational relationships in modern
spreading like a cancer throughout the society, and/or (c) deviant family-related
society, or (b) lower-class kinship exists in a behavior.
highly disorganized state, or (c) changes in
domestic arrangements represent a demoral- REFERENCES
ization of American society. (Cf Farber,
1973.) Ackerman, Charles
1963 "Affiliations: structural determinants of differ-
Kinship Structure and Family Theory ential divorce rates." American Journal of
There has been much attention recently in Sociology 69:13-20.
Anderson, Robert T., II Habakkuk, H. J.
1956 "Changing kinship in Europe." Ph.D. disserta- 1955 "Family structure and economic change in
tion, University of California at Berkeley. nineteenth-century Europe." Journal of Eco-
Ayrinhac, H.A. (Rev. by P.J. Lydon) nomic History 15:1-12.
1946 Marriage Legislation in the New Code of Canon Hess, Robert and Judith Torney
Law. New York: Benzinger Brothers. 1967 The Development of Political Attitudes in
Barry, Herbert, III, and Leonora Paxson Children. Chicago:Aldine Publishing Co.
1971 "Infancy and early childhood: cross-cultural Hsu, Francis L. K.
codes 2." Ethnology 10:466-508. 1963 Clan, Caste, and Club. Princeton, N.J.:D. van
Bonanich, Edna Nostrand Company.
1973 "A theory of middleman minorities." Ameri- Huebner, Rudolf
can Sociological Review 38:583-594. 1968 A History of Germanic Private Law. New
Bott, Elizabeth York:Augustus M. Kelley Publishers. (Pub-
1957 Family and Social Network. London: Tavistock lished originally in 1918.)
Publications. Keim, Clarence R.
Brown, Cecil H. 1926 "Influence of primogeniture and entail in the
1974 "Psychological, semantic, and structural as- development of Virginia." Ph.D. dissertation,
pects of American English kinship terms." University of Chicago.
American Ethnologist 1:415-436. Khera, Sigrid
1973 "Social stratification and land inheritance
Burgess, Ernest W., Harvey J. Locke, and Mary M.
Thomes among Austrian peasants." American Anth-
1963 The Family, From Institution to Companion- ropologist 75:814-823.
ship. New York: American Book Co. Levy, Marion
Cole, John 1955 "Contrasting factors in the modernization of
1973 "Social process in the Italian Alps." American China and Japan." Pp. 515-521 in Simon
Kuznets, Wilbert E. Moore, and Joseph J.
Anthropologist 75:765-786.
Dore, R.P. Spengler (eds.), Economic Growth: Brazil,
India, Japan. Durham: Duke University Press.
1958 City Life in Japan: A Study of a Tokyo Ward.
Berkeley: University of California Press. Lipset, Seymour Martin
1971 Rebellion in the University. Boston:Little,
Elazar, Daniel J. and Stephen R. Goldstein Brown.
1972 "The legal status of the American Jewish Com-
Mindel, Charles H.
munity." American Jewish Year Book 73:3-94.
Ember, Melvin and Carol R. Ember Forthcoming "Kinship, reference groups, and the
symbolic family estate: implications for
1971 "The conditions favoring matrilocal versus
social mobility." International Journal
patrilocal residence." American Anthropolo-
of Sociology of the Family.
gist 73:571-594.
Farber, Bernard Murdock, George Peter
1957 "World ethnographic sample." American
1971 Kinship and Class: A Midwestern Study. New
York:Basic Books. Anthropologist 59:664-687.
1972 Guardians of Virtue: Salem Families in 1800. 1967 Ethnographic Atlas. Pittsburgh:University of
New York:Basic Books. Pittsburgh Press.
1970 "Cross-sex patterns of kin behavior." Ethnol-
1973 Family and Kinship in Modern Society. Glen-
view, Ill.:Scott Foresman. ogy 9:359-368.
Naroll, Raoul and Ronald Cohen (eds.)
Farine, Avidgdor 1970 A Handbook of Method in Cultural Anthro-
1973 "Charity and study societies in Europe of the
pology. New York:Columbia University Press.
sixteenth-eighteenth centuries." Jewish Quar-
terly Review 64:16-47 and 164-175. Orum, Anthony M.
Friedrich, Paul Forthcoming Political Socialization, An Introduc-
1964 "Semantic structure and social structure: an tion to Basic Themes and Inquiries.
instance from Russian." Pp. 131-166 in Ward Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:Prentice-Hall.
H. Goodenough (ed.), Explorations in Cultural Orum, Anthony M. and Robert S. Cohen
Anthropology. New York:McGraw-Hill. 1973 "The development of political orientations
Goode, William J. among black and white children." American
1962 "Marital satisfaction and instability: a cross- Sociological Review 38:62-74.
cultural class analysis of divorce rates." Inter- Paige, Jeffrey M.
national Social Science Journal 14:507-526. 1974 "Kinship and polity in stateless societies."
1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns. New American Journal of Sociology 80 (September):
York:Free Press. 301-320.
Goody, Esther N. Parsons, Talcott and Robert F. Bales

1955 Family, Socialization and Interaction Process.
1973 Contexts of Kinship, an Essay in the Family
New York:Free Press.
Sociology of the Gonja of Northern Ghana.
Cambridge:Cambridge University Press. Ramu, G. N.
Goody, Jack 1973 "Family structure and entrepreneurship: an
1969 "Inheritance, property, and marriage in Africa Indian case." Journal of Comparative Family
and Eurasia." Sociology 3:55-76. Studies 4:239-256.
Singer, Jacob among second-generation Greek Americans."
1928 Taboo in the Hebrew Scriptures. Chicago: Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University.
Open Court Publishing Company. Tedeschi, Guido
Swanson, Guy E. 1966 Studies in Israel Private Law. Jerusalem:
1967 Religion and Regime. Ann Arbor:University of Kiryat Sepher.
Michigan Press. Weber, Max
1969 Rules of Descent: Studies in the Sociology of 1961 General Economic History. New York:Collier
Books.
Parentage. Ann Arbor: Museum of Anthropol-
ogy, University of Michigan (Anthropological Yang, C. K.
Papers, No. 39). 1959 Chinese Communist Society: The Family and
1974 "Descent and polity: the meaning of Paige's the Village. Cambridge, Mass.:M.I.T. Press.
findings." American Journal of Sociology 80 Zeitlin, Maurice, Lynda Ann Ewen, and Richard Earl
(September): 321-328. Ratcliff
Tavuchis, Nicholas 1974 " 'New Princes' for old? The large corporation
1968 "An exploratory study of kinship and mobility and the capitalist class in Chile." American
Journal of Sociology 80:87-123.

Bernard Farber 1975 - Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bernard Farber 1975 - Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Bilateral Kinship: Centripetal and Centrifugal Types of Organization

Author(s): Bernard Farber

In modern, as well as in traditional societies, kinship structures seem to pro

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 871

872 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 873

8-doc In fact, one can interpret the buffering

874 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

Virilocal Residence Other Residence Rules

Note: Based on Barry an

Factionalism abolish the rights of the clan in inheritance so

subordinated to common concerns. In Having distinguished between centr

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 875

876 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

Structural Arrangement Centripetal Form Centrifugal Form

4. Marital status Near at least one set of parents Neolocal residence

and divorce, (b) forms of residence, (c) allo-

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 877

878 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 879

880 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 881

Societal Generational Lineal

882 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 883

In Japan, Dore (1948:114-115) reportsThus,

884 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 885

886 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

Goody, Esther N. Parsons, Talcott and Robert F. Bales

November 1975 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY 887

888 JOURNAL OF MARRIAGE AND THE FAMILY November 1975

Вам также может понравиться