The Extension of Structural Theory by Rivers and Kroeber- Essay

The structural theory of kinship was initiated by Morgan and others. Rivers reinterpreted Morgan. In USA Kroeber extended the kinship terminology. Both Rivers and Kroeber gave a new direction to the structural theory. For instance, though Rivers was an evolution list, he stressed on social organization.

His thesis was based on the British tradition. On the other hand, Kroeber was a culturologist, that is, his bias of kinship was culture-oriented. Rivers put Morgan’s theory of classificatory kinship system in a modified way.

He made two vital points: (1) kinship terminology is an important base for the under­standing of social relations, and (2) social system can be classified on the kinds of kinship.

Kroeber contested Rivers. He also put forth his argument on two points: (1) classificatory kinship is not a social organization and, there­fore, it cannot be made the basis of classifying the societies; and (2) kinship terminology does not refer to social institutions.

According to Kroeber, the origin and nature of kinship terminology is basically psy­chological and it should be used in this context only. In the beginning Rivers contradicted Kroeber but at a later stage his application of ge­nealogical method revealed that kinship terminology is related to social system.

Therefore, in any analysis of social organization, kin­ship should be given an important place.

The debate on kinship which developed between Kroeber and Rivers characterized the beginning of the 20th century. During this part of the century, the American social anthropologists were not in­terested in kinship studies.

In Europe, particularly England, Radcliffe-Brown made a breakthrough in the study of kinship. He comes out with a series of lectures on social structure.

Though Rad­cliffe-Brown did not accept the theoretical position taken by Rivers in developing kinship terminology, at a later stage, he developed his the­ory based on that of Rivers. The basic contribution of Radcliffe-

Brown is that he established a logical relationship between genealogy and kinship relations. He analyzed the descent groups and in doing so he was much influenced by Rivers.

Levi-Strauss and Radcliffe-Brown were poles apart in the develop­ment of kinship terminology. The differentials are vital: Levi-Strauss, who was a structuralist, was influenced by linguistic anthropologists. He talked about the forms which were universally found in mankind.

Radcliffe-Brown, on the other hand, was a functionalist. He estab­lished that in each social structure there are genealogical relations. In other words, the relations between father and son, grandfather and grandson are genealogical. The society gives recognition to these kin­ship ties on occasions of birth, marriage, death and festivals.

Malinowski has also contributed substantially to the development of kinship terminology. His approach was also oriented to social structure. His specialty is that he looked at the society from the point of view of biology and psychology.

Gulckman very rightly criticizes Malinowski on the argument that the latter over-looked the contribu­tions of the individual in the system. System is important, but individual is also equally important.

The functionalists, namely, Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski, along with their disciples, promoted the kinship theory on the basis of social structure.

Among the followers of Radcliffe-Brown and Mali­nowski, mention may be made of Fred Eggan also. The kinship theory based on social structure was further developed by Kathleen Gough who worked among the Nayars of South India.

The kinship terminology developed by Kroeber, Rivers, Radcliffe-Brown and Malinowski can be summarized into four substantial points:

(1) It takes a long time for a change in kinship system from one stage to another. Despite changes in different directions, the basic as­pects of kinship remain the same.

(2) In order to bring about a change in a kinship system, it is essential to manage a change in the nuclear family. This is possible when the nuclear family takes to marriage outside the group of en­dogamy and affects biological and cultural changes.

For instance, kinship terminology would change after sometime if a matriar­chal family changes to patriarchal type of family.

(3) Kinship systems do not diffuse among the neighbours. The changes in the system only come through the family. In other words, it is very difficult to generate change in kinship terminol­ogy only by accepting another social system.

(4) When a social system undergoes change due to exogenous factors, after generations, the social structure of the system also changes.

A radical change in the study of kinship system has come about in the US and the European continent. Earlier, social anthropologists normally studied other cultures and societies. For them, the study of other cultures-cultures other than their own-was social anthropol­ogy.

For instance, if an American studied Indian family, it is social anthropology and if an Indian studied American family it was social anthropology. Such an approach to social anthropology has under­gone radical change.

Now, anthropologists are also studying their own culture. For instance, Raymond Firth got his fieldwork done though his students in his own society.

Again, G.C. Homans, an American social anthropologist, asked his student David M. Schneider to study the industrial community of America.

These studies brought out an important finding: When we move from one community to an­other, there is a change in kinship terminology. The reason for this change is that in America kinship behaviour is influenced by the indi­vidual values.

For instance, in the US, the elderly people use the first name of the younger people and not the term meant for a particular kin. Homans and Schneider have drawn out several similar changes in the US communities in the development of kinship terminology.

However, it must be observed that in the US there is no role of kin­ship as we have in India in the realm of politics, religion and economy. Schneider, who worked in parts of Chicago, concludes that kinship is nothing but a system of symbols. In collaboration with Raymond Firth he has made a comparative study of the kinship systems of Brit­ain and America.

Today, literature in social anthropology has cropped up in bulk. From Morgan, Levi-Strauss and Rivers to Firth, Homans and Schneider, efforts have been made to comprehend kinship from differ­ent perspectives-evolutionary, structural, functional and social organization.

During the last five decades, social anthropologists have brought out some classical works in the field of kinship. Besides the anthropologists mentioned above, Evans-Pritchard studied Nuer, Nadel studied the Nupe and Fortes studies the Tallensy. In this con­nection, it must be stressed that Fortes made a classical study on the kinship system found among the African tribes.

We have already men­tioned that Indian social set-up has not been studied with any depth except by Iravati Karve, Kathleen Gough and Louis Dumont. Some work, however, has also been done by T.N. Madan and A.C. Mayer.