17.

Kinship
Author(s): B. Malinowski
Source: Man, Vol. 30 (Feb., 1930), pp. 19-29
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2789869 .
Accessed: 22/08/2013 21:44

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
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.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
February,
1930.] MAN. [Nos.16-17.
by Nut,thesky-goddess, withthemwenttheprivilege ofthetree. It mightseem
that Isis, the goddessso prominent in latertimes,shouldhave takenoverthis
privilege,as sheusurpedso manyofHathor'sattributes, butin theOsiriansystem,
to whichshebelonged, it was to Osirishimself
thatthetreewas assigned.He was
thegreatorganizer ofirrigation and thusthegiveroffertilityto all greenthings-
oftenidentified, therefore, with the Nile-and the tree as symbolwas most
appropriate to him; it tooka specialform, theDed,originalancestor ofthemodern
iMaypole.Thiswas nottheonlyparticular sharedbythesetwosourcesoffertility;
as shewasprotectress oftheDead,so he becametheirLord.
As thenationalreligion grewweakfromthewearofages,fromtheinflow of
foreign elements and frominternal developments,the powerof local gods,which
in Egyptwas alwaysstrong, thoughusuallysubordinated in orthodox documents
to thegreatnationaldeities,waxeddoubtless evenstronger, as we knowwas the
case withpurelymagicelements ofEgyptianbeliefs,and theprivilege ofthetree,
primitive and deep-seated, spreadto all ofthem. Therefore, whenthelocal gods
werereplacedbylocalsaints,Christian and thenMohammedan, to them,too,was
allottedthesacredtree. G. D. HORNBLOWER.

Sociology. Malinowski.
Kinship. By Professor
B. Malinowski.
1.-MUST KINSHiP BE DEHUMANIZED BY MOCK-ALGEBRA
?
Much ink has flowedon the problemof blood-" blood" symbolizingin most
humanlanguages,and that not only European,the ties of kinship,that is the ties
derived from procreation. " Blood " almost became discoloured out of all
recognitionin the process. Yet blood will rebel against any tampering,and flow
its own way and keep its own colour. By whichfloridmetaphorI simplymean
that the extravagantlyconjecturaland bitterlycontroversialtheorizingwhichwe
have had on primitivekinshiphas completelyobscuredthe subject, and all but
blindedthe observersof actual primitivelife. ProfessorRadcliffe-Brown is all too
correctwhen he says " that theoriesof the formof conjecturalhistory,whether
"'evolutionary' or 'diffusionist'exerta veryperniciousinfluenceon the workof
"the fieldethnologist," and he givesa verysignificantexampleofthefact-blindness
to whichthis leads (MAN,1929,No. 35).
And these conjecturaltheorieson kinshiphave simplyfloodedanthropological
literaturefromthe timesof Bachofen,Morganand McLennan,to the recentrevival
in kinshipenthusiasm,headed by Rivers and his school,A. R. Radcliffe-Brown,
the late A. BernardDeacon, T. T. Barnard,Mrs.Hoernl6,Mrs. B. Z. Seligman,not
to mentionmyself,or the Californiankinship-trinity,Kroeber,Lowie and Gifford-
one and all influencedby the work of Rivers. With all this, the problemhas
remainedenshrinedin an esotericatmosphere. The handfulof us, the enrag&sor
initiatesof kinship,are preparedto wade throughthe sort of kinshipalgebra and
geometrywhich has gradualy developed; memorizelong lists of native words,
followup complicateddiagramsand formulke, sweatthroughdrydocuments,endure
long deductivearguments,as well as the pilingof hypothesisupon hypothesis.
The average anthropologist,however,somewhatmystified and perhapsa little
hostile,has remainedoutside the narrowring of devotees. He has his doubts
whetherthe effortneeded to masterthe bastard algebra of kinshipis reallyworth
while. He feels,that,afterall, kinshipis a matterof fleshand blood,the resultof
sexual passion and maternalaffection, of long intimatedaily life,and of a host of
personalintimateinterests. Can all this really be reduced to formulas, symbols,
perhapsequations? Is it sound,hopefullyto anticipate" that the time will come
" whenwe shall employsymbolsforthe different relationships . . . and many
[ 19 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 No. 17.] MAN. [February,1930.
p
partsofthe description ofthe social systemsofsavage tribeswillresemblea work
" on mathematicsin whichthe resultswill be expressedby symbols,in some cases
" even in the formof equations" ?*
A verypertinentquestionmightbe asked as to whetherwe shouldreallyget
nearer the familylife, the affectionsand tender cares, or again the dark and
mysteriousforceswhich the psycho-analystbanishes into the Unconsciousbut
whichoftenbreak out with dramaticviolence-whetherwe could come nearerto
this,the real core of kinship,by the mereuse of mock-algebra.Thereis no doubt
thatwhatevervalue the diagramsand equationsmighthave mustalwaysbe derived
fromthe sociologicaland psychologicalstudy of the intimatefacts of kinship,on
whichthe algebra should be based. The average common-sense anthropologist or
observerof savages feelsthat this personalapproach to kinshipis sadly lacking.
Thereis a vast gulfbetweenthe pseudo-mathematical treatmentof the too-learned
anthropologist and the real factsof savage life. Nor is thismerelythe feelingofthe
non-specialist.I mustfranklyconfessthat thereis not a singleaccountof kinship
in whichI do not findmyselfpuzzledby someofthisspuriouslyscientific and stilted
mathematization ofkinshipfactsand disappointedby the absenceof thoseintimate
data of familylife, full-bloodeddescriptionsof tribal and ceremonialactivities,
thoroughenumerations of the economicand legal characteristics of family,kindred
and clan, whichalone make kinshipa real fact to the reader.t
And when,afterall the floodsof ink on kinship,the average anthropologist
findsthat an authoritylike ProfessorWestermarckmaintainsthat most workon
classificatory terminologies " has been a source of errorratherthan knowledge";
when he findsthat A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, B. Malinowskiand BrenidaZ. Seligman
cannrotagree as to what they mean when they use the termskinship,descent,
unilateraland bilateral; when he discoversthat no sooner has Mrs. Seligman
restated the fundamentalconcept of classificatoryterminologiesthan she is
challengedin lettersto MAN; then he really feelsjustifiedin mistrustingall this
terriblyelaboratepseudo-mathematical apparatus and in discountingmost of the
labour whichmust have been spenlton it.
I believethat kinshipis reallythe mostdifficult subjectof social anthropology;
I believethat it has been approachedin a fundamentally wrongway; and I believe
that at presentan impassehas been reached. I am convinced,however,that there
is a way out of this impasse,and that some of the recentwork,notablythat of
A. R. Radcliffe-Brown, of Brenda Z. Seligmanand of the Californiantrinity,has
placed the problemon the correctfoundation. This has been done by a full
recognitionof the importanceof the familvand by the applicationof what is now
usually called the functionalmethod of anthropology-a method which consists
above all in the analysis of primitiveinstitutionsas they workat present,rather
than in the reconstruction of a hypotheticalpast.:
* W. H. R. Rivers, Melanesian Society, Vol. 1, p. 10.
t In a book on kinship which T am preparing I shall substantiate this indictmentin detail.
To mention only the very best field-work: can anyone really unravel Prof. R. Thurnwald's
diagrams and synoptics of kinship in his otherwise excellent Gemeinde der Banaro ? The
" kinship systems " of the Toda, Arunta, Ashanti, Ba Ila, of the Californians and Melanesians
amount to little more than incorrectlytranslated fragmentsof a vocabulary. All our data on
kinship are insufficientlinguistically and inadequate sociologically.
I I would like to mention Edward Westermarck and Ernest Grosse as the forerunnersin
matters of kinship of the modem movement. Perhaps the firstmonographic description of the
family,froman area where its very existence has been most contested, is my Family among the
Au8tralianAborigines(1913). In the same year thereappeared an excellent article on " Family,"
in Hastings' Encyclopcedia of Religion ond Ethics, written by E. N. Fallaize. More recentlv
Kroeber, in his Zuigi Kin and Clan, and Lowie in his field-workon the Crow Indians and in his
book on Primitive Society, have very strongly emphasized the functional point of view in
referenceto kinship. Quite lately, in her remarkable article on " Incest and Descent," in the
[ 20 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
February,
1930.] MAN. [No.17.
All this recent work is bound to lead us to the correct solution of the many more
or less superficial puzzles, as well as of the real and profound problems of kinship.
This work is still somewhat diffusedand chaotic, however, and there is the need
of a comprehensive contribution which will organize and systematically integrate
the results of the functional work, and correct a few mistakes still prevalent. In my
forthcoming book on kinship I am making an attempt at such a systematic
treatment. Here I propose to indicate in a preliminaryfashion some of its results.*
II.-THE FUNCTIONAL PROBLEM OF KINSH
It is unnecessary, perhaps, in addressing the readers of MAN, to labour the
point of kinshipremainingstill in an impasse. The several interesting
articlesin
the present periodical, as well as in the Journal,show how profoundlyeven the few
most devoted and nmostspiritually related specialists disagree with one another.t
As a member of the inner ring, I may say that whenever I meet Mrs. Seligman or
Dr. Lowie or discuss matters with Radcliffe-Brownor Kroeber, I become at once
aware that my partner does not understand anythingin the matter,and I end usually
with the feelingthat this also applies to myself. This refersalso to all our writings
on kinship, and is fully reciprocal.
The impasse is really due to the inheritanceoffalse problemsfromanthropological
tradition. We are still enmeshed in the question as to whetherkinship in its origins
was collective or individual, based on the family or the clan. This problem looms
very large in the writingsof the late W. H. R. Rivers,,of whom most of us in the
present generation are pupils by direct teaching or from the reading of his works.
Another false problem is that of the origins and significanceof classificatorysystems
of nomenclature. This problem, or any problem starting from the classificatory

J.R.A.I., Mrs. Seligman has definitelyannounced her conversion to the functionalpoint of view.
and her recognitionof the fundamentalimportance of the family. (Vol. LIX, p. 234.)
* The subject of kinship,and above all the fact that it invariablyoriginates in the family
was the starting point of my anthropological work. The book on 1'he Family among the
Australian Aborigines was begun in 1909 and published in 1913. I laid down therea numberof
principles and concretelyworked out some of my general ideas. These I was able more fullyto
substantiate in my subsequent work in the field and in the study. The development of my
views on kinship can be followed frommy firstfield-workon the Mailu, where my treatmentis
still largelyconventional and incorrectup to my article s.v. "Kinship " in the 14th edition of the
Encyclopaedia Britannica and my two volumes on sex in savage life. The list of my
contributionsfully or partially devoted to kinship follows
1. The Family among the Australian Aborigines. London, 1913.
2. " The Natives of Mailu," Transactions of the R. Soc. of S. Australia. Adelaide, 1915.
3. " The Psychology of Sex in Primitive Societies," Psyche, Oct., 1923.
4. "Psycho-Analysis and Anthropology," Psyche, Apr., 1924.
5. "Complex and Myth in Mother-right,"Psyche, Jan., 1925.
6. "Forschungen in einer mutterrechtlichenGemeinschaft,"Zeitschriftffir V6lkerpsychologie
und Soziologie, Mar., 1925.
7. "Address on Anthropology and Social Hygiene," Foundations o Social Hygiene.
London, 1926.
8. "Anthropology," article in Ency. Brit., additional volumes, 1926.
9. "The Anthropological Study of Sex," Verhandlungendes I. InternationlenKongresses
fiurSexualforschung. Berlin, 1926.
10. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London, 1926.
11. Sex and Repression in Savage Society. London, 1927. (Embodies 4 and 5.)
12. The Sexual Life of Savage$. London, 1929. (Embodies 3 and 6.)
13. "Kinship," art. in Ency. Brit., 14th Edn., 1929.
14. "Marriage," art. in Ency. Brit., 14th Edn., 1929.
15. "Social Anthropology," art. in Ency. Brit., 14th Edn., 1929 (revised version of 8.)
t Cf. J.R.A.I., Vol. LVIII, p. 533; and Vol. LIX, p. 231, articles by Mrs. B. Z. Seligman;
MAN, 1929, No. 35, by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown,and No. 148, by E. E. Evans-Pritchard; and
letters by Mrs. Seligman (1929, No. 84), by A. R. Radcliffe-Brown (1929, No. 157); and by
Lord Raglan (1930, No. 13).
[ 21 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
No. 17.] MAN. [February,1930.
nature of kinshipterminologies, must be spurious,because the plain fact is that
classificatoryterminologiesdo not existand nevercould have existed.* This sounds
like a paradox but is a meretruismwhichI proposeto develop later in another
article. Connectedwith the classificatory obsession,there was the rage for the
explanationof queer terms by anomalous marriages,which led to one or two
half-truthsbut also to half a dozen capital errors and misconceptions. The
conceptionof mother-right and father-right as successivestages or self-contained
entities,recentlyso well and convincinglystigmatizedby Radcliffe-Brown (MAN,
1929, 35), has been embodiedin yet anothermonumentof brilliantlyspeculative
erroneousness workon IrheMothers.
in Briffault's
The real troublein all thisis that we have been huntingfororiginsof kinship
beforewe had properlyunderstoodthe nature of kinship. We inquiredwhether
mother-right precededfather-right orviceversa,withoutallowingthefactsto convince
us, as theymust,that mother-right and father-rightare always indissolublybound
up with each other. Because we have profoundlymisunderstoodthe linguistic
natureof kinshipterms,we are able to make the monstrousmistakeof regarding
themas " survivals,"as petrifiedremainsof a previoussocial state. It is almost
ludicrouswith what naivit6 Morgan assumes throughouthis writingsthat the
terminologies of kinshipinvariablylag one whole" stage of development "-neither
morenorless-behind the sociologicalstatusin whichtheyare found; and yet that
they mirrorthe past sociologicalstatus perfectly.The mere logical circleof the
argumentis appalling. But even worseis the completemisconception of the nature
of kinshipterminologies which,in fact,are the most active and the most effective
expressionsofhumanrelationship, expressionswhichstartin earlychildhood,which
accompanyhumanintercourse throughout life,whichembodyall themostpersonal,
passionate,and intimatesentiments ofa man or woman.
The modernor functionalanthropologistproposes,therefore, to understand
what kinshipreallymeans to the native; he wishesto grasphow terminologies of
kinshipare used and what they express; he wishes to see clearlythe relations
betweenthe family,the clan and the tribe. But the more he studies all these
elementsof the problemand theirinter-relation, the moreclearlyhe realizesthat
we have to do herenot witha numberof isolatedentitiesbut withthe partsof an
organicallyconnectedwhole. In thefirstplace,thefamilyand theclan,forinstance,
which have hithertobeen regardedas domesticinstitutionsat various stages of
development, appear invariablytogether. That is, whilethe familyexistsin many
societiesalone, the clan neverreplacesit, but is foundas an additionalinstitution.
Again,thoughcertaintribesuse kinshiptermsin a widersense,theyalso use them
in the narrowersense,denotingthe actual membersof the family. Or, again, there
is no such thingas pure mother-right or father-right,only a legal over-emphasis
on one side ofkinship,accompaniedveryoftenby a strongemotional,at timeseven
customary, reactionagainstthisover-emphasis.And,in all communities, whatever
the legal systemmightbe, both lines are de factocountedand influencethe legal,
economic,religiousand emotionallife of the individual. It is, therefore, nothing
shortof nonsensicalto perform this sort of illegitimatepreliminary surgery,to cut
the organicallyconnectedelementsasunder,and " explain" them by placingthe
fragments on a diagramofimaginarydevelopment.The real problemis to findout
how theyare relatedto each other,and how theyfunction, that is, what part they
playrespectively withinthesociety,whatsocialneedstheysatisfy, and whatinfluence
theyexert.

* For the most recent, brief,clear and most erroneous statements concerning the nature
of classificatory terminologies, see the letter in MAN by Mr. J. D. Unwin (1929,
No. 124).
[ 22 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 1930.]
February, MAN [No.17.
To put it clearly,thoughcrudely,I should say that the familyis always the
domesticinstitutionpar excellence. It dominatesthe earlylife of the individual;
it controlsdomesticco-operation;it is the stage of earliestparental cares and
education. The clan, on the otherhand,is nevera domesticinstitution.Bonds of
clanshipdevelop much later in life,and, thoughthey develop out of the primary
kinshipof the family,this developmentis submittedto the one-sideddistortionof
matrilinialor patrilineallegal emphasis,and it functionsin an entirelydifferent
sphere of interests: legal, economic,above all, ceremonial. Once the functional
distinctionis made betweenthe two modes of grouping,the familyand the clan,
mostofthespuriousproblemsand fictitious explanationsdissolveintothespeculative
mistout of whichtheywereborn.
I shall have, however,to qualifyand make much more detailed the above
contention.Here I onlywishto pointout thatkinshippresentsreallyseveralfacets
corresponding to the various phases or stages of its developmentwithinthe life
historyof the individual. For kinshipis the phenomenonwhichbeginsearliestin
lifeand whichlasts longest,even,as thewordmother is usuallythe firstwordformed
and oftenthe last worduttered. Kinship,as it appears in the social horizonof a
developedadult tribesmanis the resultof a long processof extensionsand trans-
formations.It startsin earlylifewiththe physiologicaleventsof procreation;yet
even these are profoundly modifiedin human societyby culturalinfluences.The
originalties of kinship,whichI believe firmly -are invariablyindividual,later on
develop,multiplyand becomelargelycommunal.So that,at the end,the individual
findshimselfthe centreof a complexsystemof multipleties; a memberof several
groups: the family,always; the extendedhousehold,in many communities;the
local group,almost invariably; the clan, very often; and the tribe,withoutany
exception. I am convincedthat ifthestudyofkinshiptieshad beencarriedout in the
fieldalong the lifehistoryof the individual,if terminologies, legal systems,tribal
and householdarrangements had been studiedin processof developmentand not
merelyas fixedproducts-that we would have been completelyfreeof the whole
nightmareof spuriousproblemsand fantasticconjectures. It is almost an irony
in the historyofanthropology that the mostardentevolutionists as wellas the most
embitteredprophetsof the historicalmethodhave completelymisseddevelopment
and historyofkinshipin the one case in whichthisdevelopmentand historycan be
studiedempirically.*
III.-THE INITIAL SITUATIONOF KINSHIP
Wheneverwe become convincedthat a phenomenonmust be studied in its
development,ourattentionnaturallymustbecomefocussedon its origins,and let us
rememberthat here we are dealing,not with a fanciful,reconstructed evolution,
but withthe observabledevelopmentof kinshipin humanlifeand that origins here
mean simplythe wholeset ofinitialconditionswhichdeterminethe attitudesof the
actors in the kinship drama.
These actors are obviously three in number at the beginning-the
two parents and their offspring.And, at first sight, it might appear that
the drama itselfis of no real interest; for is it not merelythe physiological
processof conception,gestationand child-birth?In reality,however,the process
is never a merelyphysiologicalone in human societies. However primitivethe
community, pregnancyand child-birth
the factsofconception, are not leftto Nature
* My friend Mr. T. J. A. Yates suggests the adjective " biographical " as the simplest
description of the method of approach to kinship throughits study along the life-historyof the
individual. I shall speak in futureof the " biographical method " in order to definewhat might
be called sociological ontogeny. Mr. Yates is now engaged on a comparative study of the
functional correlationof mother-rightand father-right.
[ 23 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
No. 17.] MAN. [February,1930.
alone, but they are reinterpreted by culturaltradition: in everycommunitywe
have a theoryas to the nature and causes of conception; we have a systemof
customaryobservances,religious,magical or legal, whichdefinethe behaviourof
the mother,at timesalso of the father; we have, specifically, a numberof taboos
observedduringpregnancyby both parents.
Thus, even the biologicalfoundationof kinshipbecomesinvariablya cultural
and not merelya naturalfact. This unquestionablycorrectprinciplehas become
at the hands of some modern anthropologiststhe startingpoint for a new
reinterpretation of Morgan'shypothesisof a primitivecommunalmarriage. Rivers,
the most conspicuousmodernsupporterof Morgan'stheories,is fullyaware that
group-marriageimplies group-parenthood. Yet group-parenthood, above all
group-motherhood, seemsto be an almostunthinkablehypothesis. As such it has
beenin factridiculedby AndrewLang, E. Westermarck and N. W. Thomas. Rivers,
however,followingin this the brilliantsuggestionsof Durkheim,Dargun, and
Kohler,arguesthat, since culturalinfluencescan modifymaternityin everyother
respect,it can transformit even froman individualmotherhoodinto a sort of
sociologicalgroup-motherhood. This writer,and a numberof his followers, notably
Mr. Briffault, would lead us to believethat what I like to call the initialsituation
of kinshipis not individualbut communal.
I have adduced these very recent hypothesesabout the initial situationof
kinshipin orderto show that its study,farfrombeingan obviousand superfluous.
statementof a physiologicalfact,raises a numberof sociologicalquestions,even of
controversial points. With all this,the studyof real empiricalfactsseemsto show
that the communalinterpretation of the initial situationis definitelyerroneous.
I can but anticipateherethe fullpresentationof my argument,and say that while
I recognizethat kinship,even in its origins,is a culturalratherthan a biological
fact, this culturallydefinedkinshipis, I maintain,invariablyindividual. All the
primitivetheoriesof procreation,thoughthey are a mixtureof animisticbeliefs
and crudeempiricalobservations, invariablydefineparenthoodas an individualbond.
The taboos of pregnancy,the ritesobservedat certainstages of gestation,customs
ofthecouvadetype,ceremonial seclusionof motherand child,all theseindividualize
the relationshipbetweenthe actual parentsand theiroffspring.
While mostof thesefactsreferto the individualtie betweenmotherand child,
a numberof them,such as the couvade,the taboos kept by the pregnantwoman's.
husband, his economic contributionstowards pregnancyceremonies,culturally
definepaternity, and at the same timeindividualizethisrelationship.Thereis one
fact, however,of paramountimportanceas regardspaternity,a generalizationso
cogent,so universallyvalid, that it has, to my knowledge,been almostcompletely
overlooked,as it so oftenhappens to the " obvious." This generalizationI have
called,in someofmypreviouswritings, the PrincipleofLegitimacy.* This principle
declaresthat,in all humansocieties,a fatheris regardedby law, customand morals
as an indispensableelementoftheprocreativegroup. The womanhas to be married
beforeshe is allowedlegitimately to conceive,or else a subsequentmarriageor an
act of adoptiongivesthe childfulltribalor civilstatus. Otherwisethe childof the
unmarriedmotheris definitely stigmatizedby an inferiorand anomalousposition
in society. This is as true of the polyandrousTodas (wherethe childhas, in fact,
to be sociologicallyassignedto one fatheramong the several husbands); of the
matrilinealMelanesians,of primitivepeoplesin Australia,in NorthAmerica,and
in Africa,as ofmonogamousand ChristianEurope. The principleoflegitimacy works

* Cf. article on the " Psychology of Sex in Primitive Societies," P8yche,Oct., 1923; Sex
and Repremsion(1927), Part IV; Chapter VII of the Sexual Life of Savages; Article on
Kinship in Ency. Brit. 1929. Cf. also The Family (1913), Chapters V and VI.
[ 24 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 February,1930.1 MAN. [No. 17.
at timesin indirect ways,buton thewholethelaw whichdemandsmarriage as the
preliminary to familyseemsto be universal.
I believethata correctinductive surveyof all the evidenceat our disposal
wouldlead us to theanswerthattheinitialsituation ofkinshipis a compound of
biologicaland culturalelements, orratherthatit consistsofthefactsofindividual
procreation culturallyreinterpreted; thateveryhumanbeingstartshissociological
careerwithinthe smallfamilygroup,and that whateverkinshipmightbecome
lateroninlife,it is alwaysindividual kinship
at first.Atthesametimethisgeneral
statement givesus onlythe broadoutlinesof the initialsituation;thisbecomes
fromtheoutsetdeeplymodified by suchelements as maternal orpaternalcounting
of kinship, matrilocal or patrilocal
residence,
therelativepositionofhusbandand
wifein a community, lengthoflactation,typesofseclusion and taboos. The study
of the initialsituation, far-from beingtriteand insignificant,is a richfieldof
sociologicalinvestigation,and a fieldon whichtheanthropologist and themodern
psychologist meetin common interest.
IV.-THE PROCESS OF EXTENSION IN KiNsHIp
Withtheconclusion thatindividual parenthood, defined by culturalas wellas
biological forces,formsinvariably the initialsituationof kinship, the foundations
ofa correct theory havebeenlaid. But thetaskis notyetcomplete.WhatI have
namedtheinitialsituation is important in its influence
on laterlife. Parenthood
interests the sociologistsnot onlyin itself,whetheras an exhibition of human
tenderness or as an exampleofthe culturaltransformation ofinstinct, butrather
in that it is the startingpointof mostothersociological relationships and the
prototype of the characteristic socialattitudesof a community.It is, therefore,
the processes of the extension of kinshipfromits extremely simplebeginnings in
plainparenthood, to itsmanifold ramificationsandcomplexities inadultmembership
oftribe,clan and localgroup,which,in myopinion, forms therealsubject-matter
ofthestudyofkinship.It is inthestudyoftheseprocesses thatthetruerelationship
betweenclan and family, betweenclassificatory systemsand individualattitudes,
between thesociological and thebiological elements ofkinship, can be discovered.
Most of the mistakeswere due to the followingfalse argument: all
kinshipis biological;the cohesionof a clan is basedon kinship;ergo,clanship
has a directbiological basis. Thisconclusion has ledto suchcapitalhowlers as that
"the clanmarries theclanand begetstheclan"; that" theclan,likethefamily,
is a reproductive group"; and that" a domestic group,otherthanthefamily "
is theenvironment ofprimitive childhood. Theperpetrators of theseand similar
are no lesseranthropologists thanFison,Spencerand Gillen,Briffault, and Rivers.
All thisnonsensecouldneverhave obsessedsomeof the clearestmindsin
anthropology, had thestudyoftheinitialsituationbeenmadethe starting point,
and thestudyofsubsequent processes ofextension themaintheme, ofsocialanthro-
pology.Forthe" origins oftheclansystem " arenotto be foundin somenebulous
past by imaginary speculations.Theyhappennowadaysunder our veryeyes.
Anyreasonably intelligentand unprejudiced anthropologist who workswithina
tribewithclanorganization can see themtakingplace.
I have,myself, witnessed the" origins oftheclan" inMelanesia, andI thinkthat
evenfromthisone experience I am able to drawa universally valid conclusion,
or at leasta generalization whichoughtto be universally tested. Especiallysince
all thefragmentary evidencefromotherareas fitsperfectly wellintothescheme
basedon Melanesian facts.
The processby whichclanshipand otherformsof communal kinshipdevelop
out oftheinitialsituation is in realitynoteasy to graspor to define.The main
difficultyconsistsin the factthatit is a lengthyand interrupted process; that
[ 25 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
No. 17.] MAN. [February,1930.
its threads are many, and that the pattern can only be discovered after an
integration of detailed and intimate observations over a lengthy period of time.
And so far,it has been the custom of competent sociologists to pay only flyingvisits
to savage tribes, for which practice the euphemism of " survey-work" has been
invented. While the long-residence amateur was unable to see the wood for
the trees.
But there is one definite source of difficulty. This is the fact that in the
biographical development of kinship we have a two-fold process, or rather two
correlated processes, one, roughly, of consolidation and extension of family ties,
the other a process in which the family is over-ridden,in which kinship is submitted
to a process of one-sided distortion,and in which the group or communal character
of human relations, is definitely emphasized at the expense of the individual
character.
I shall proceed to amplify this statement, but I want to mention here that
this duality of kinship growth has given rise to most of the misconceptions, above
all to the quarrel as to whetherprimitivekinship is communal or individual, whether
it is essentially bilateral or unilateral.*
Kinship in primitive communities has invariably the individual aspect, it has
in most cases also the communal one. Each aspect is the result of a differentprocess,
it is formed by differenteducational mechanisms, and it has its own function to
fulfil. The real scientificattitude is, not to quarrel as to which of the two actually
existing phases of kinship has a moral right or a logical justification for its existence
but to study their relation to each other.

V.-THE CONSOLIDATION AND THE ONE-SIDED DISTORTION O KINSHIP

Let me firstoutline brieflythe process of consolidation of the family. For it

must be remembered that, clan or no clan, the individual's own family remains a
stable unit throughout his lifetime. The parents, in most societies, not only educate
and materiallv equip the child, but they also watch over his adolescence, control his
marriage, become the tender and solicitous grandparents of his children and in their
old age often rely on his help. Thus the early bonds of kinship which start in the
initial situation, persist throughout life. But they undergo a long process which,
on the one hand, as we have said, is one of consolidation, and on the other one of
partial underminingand dissolution.
The consolidation in its early phases starts with the physiological dependence
of the infant upon his parents, which shades into the early training of impulses, and
that again passes into education. With education there are associated already
certain ivider sociological implications of parenthood. The child has to be educated
in certain arts and crafts, and this implies that he will inherit the occupations, the
tools, the lands or hunting-groundsof his father or his mother's brother. Education
again, embraces the training in tribal traditions, but tribal traditions refer to social
organization, to the role which the child will play in society, and this the child
usually takes over fromhis father or his mother's brother.
Thus, already, at the phase of education, kinship may either simply and
directly confirmthe father's role in the family, or, in matrilineal societies, it may
partly disrupt the family by introducingan outsider as the man in power.
At the same time the dependence of the child upon the household varies to a
considerable extent in differentsocieties. He or she may either remain as an inmate
in the parents' house, sleeping, eating and spending most of his time there: or else
the child moves somewhere else, becomes influenced by other people, and fornms

* Cf. for instance the interesting correspondence between Nh[ls.Seligman and Professor
Radcliffe-Brownin MAN, 1929, Nos. 84 and 157.
[ 26 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
February,1930.] MAN. [No. 17h
new bonds. In communities wherethereare ceremoniesofinitiationthe sociological
functionof such customsconsistsoftenin divorcingthe childfromthe family,above
all frommaternalinfluences,and in makinghim aware of his unilateralbonds of
clanship,especiallywith his male clansmen. This is obviouslyan influenceof a
disruptiveratherthan a consolidating characterso faras the familyis concerned.
When it comes to adolescenceand sexiuallife,thereis an enormousvarietyof
configurations but usually sexualityremovesthe boy or girl fromthe familyand
throughthe rules of exogamymakes him or her aware of theirparticipationin the
clan. At marriage,on the otherhand, the own fatherand mother,at timessome
othernearrelative,alwaysindividual,comeintoprominence.The foundingof a new
householdmeansto a largeextenta finaldetachmentfromtheparentalone. But the
parents,whetherof the husbandor the wife,reaffirm the relationshipby the already
mentionedfact of grandparenthood. Finally,in old age, new duties definethe
relationshipbetween an adult man and his decrepitfatheror mother. Thus,
throughoutall the varietieswhichwe findscatteredover the globe,in main outline
we findthat the individualrelationof offspring to parents,develops,receivesseveral
shocksand diminutions,becomesreaffirmed again, but always remainsone of the
dominant sentimentsin human life, manifestingitself in moral rules, in legal
obligations,in religiousritual. For,last not least,at death,parentor offspring alike
have to fulfilsome of the principalmortuaryduties and, in ancestor-cults-which,
in a moreor less pronouncedformare to be foundeverywhere-thespiritsof the
departedare always dependenton theirlineal descendants. The consolidationof
familyties, and of the concept of familyand household,manifestsitselfin the
extensionsof the earlykinshipattitudesto membersof otherhouseholds. Thus in
most primitivecommunities,whatever be their way of counting descent, the
householdsof the mother'ssisterand of the father'sbrotherplay a considerable
part and in manyways becomesubstitutehomesforthe child.
I have stressed,so far,the elementsofconsolidation, let me now musterthoseof
disruption. The actual weaning,the removalfromthe family,especiallyfromthe
mother'scontrol,outsideinfluences such as that of the mother'sbrother,at timesof
the father'ssister or brother,initiationand the formationof a new household-all
theseinfluences run counterto the originalties and militateagainstthe persistence
of parental bonds and influences. At the same time most of these disruptive
influences are not reallynegationsof kinship. They are ratherone-sideddistortions
of the originalparental relationship. Thus, the mother'sbrother,in matrilineal
societies,becomesthe nucleus of the matrilinealclan. The trainingin tribal law,
especiallyand dramaticallygiven at initiation,while it removesthe boy fromthe
exclusivetutelageofthefamily,imbueshimwithideas ofclan identityand solidarity.
Clan identitybecomes especially prominentin certainphases of tribal life.
Duringbig tribalgatherings, whetherforeconomicenterprise or war,or enjoyment,
the bonds of clanshipbecomeprominent, the familyalmostdisappears. Especially
is this the case in large religiousor magicalceremoniessuch as thosereportedfrom
CentralAustralia,Papua, Melanesia and the various districtsof North America.
On such occasionstheretakes place a recrystalization of the sociologicalstructure
withinthe community,which bringsvividlyto the minds of young and old the
realityof the clan system.
VI.-THE CLAN AND THE FAMILY
that the clan developsas a derivedsociologicalformof
We can see, therefore,
groupingby empiricalprocesseswhichcan be followedalong the lifehistoryof the
individual,whichalways take place later in life-full clanshiptaking hold of an
individualonly at maturity-and whichembracea type of interestsverydifferent
fromthose obtainingwithinthe family.
[ 27 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
No. 17.] MAN. 1930.
[February,
As I have tried to show elsewhere already there is something almost absurd in
the tendency of anthropologiststo treat the family and the clan as equivalent units
which can replace one another in the evolution of mankind.* The relation
between parents and child-that is, family relations-are based on procreation,
on the early physiological cares given by the parents to the child and on the innate
emotional attitudes which unite offspringand parents. These elements are never
found in clanship. This institution,on the other hand, is based on factorswhich are
quite alien to the family: on the identity of a totemic nature; on mythological
fictions of a unilateral common descent from an ancestor or an ancestress; and a
number of religious or magical duties and observances. It may be safely laid down
that the family, based on marriage, is the only domestic institution of mankind,
that is, the only institutionthe function of which is the procreation,the early cares
and the elementary training of the offspring. Kinship thus always rests on the
family and begins within the family. The clan is essentially a non-reproductive,
non-sexual and non-parental group, and it is never the primary source and basis
of kinship. But the clan always grows out of the family,forminground one of the
two parents by the exclusive legal emphasis on the one side of kinship, at times
backed by a one-sided reproductive theory. The functions of the clan are mostly
legal and ceremonial, at times also magical and economic.
Family and clan differthus profoundlyin origins,in the functionswhich they
fulfil,and in the nature of the bonds which unite their members. They differalso
in structure. The familyalways embraces the two principlesessential to procreation-
motherhood and fatherhood. The clan is based on the partial negation of one of
these principles. But the differencegoes farther. The family is self-contained as
regards its functions. The clan, by the very nature of its formation,is a dependent
and correlated unit. The body of actually recognized relatives in the widest, that is
classificatory,sense never consists of the clansmen alone. It embraces the own clans-
men-that is, kinsmen on the relevant side,-the clansmen of the irrelevant parent,
the clanspeople of the consort, and members of the other clans who take part in the
communal game of exchange of services, so characteristic of the tribes organized
on the basis of the clan. It is the tribe,as the body of conjoined and mutually related
clans, which at the classificatorylevel corresponds to the family. The sociological
equivalence of family and clan, which has played so much havoc with social
anthropology,is a misapprehensiondue to the omission of functionalanalysis and of
the biographical method in the study of kinship problems.

VII -CONCLUSIONS AND ANTICIPATIONS

I have started with a protest against the subordination of the flesh and blood
side of kinship to the formal,pseudo-mathematical treatment to which it has been
so often subjected. I have justified my criticismin a positive manner by showing
that there are fundamental problems of kinship which demand a great deal of first-
hand sociological observation and of theoretical analysis: problems which must
be solved even before we start kinship algebra. The initial situation, the principle
of legitimacy,the two correlatedprocesses of extension,the multiplicity of kinship
groupings-this is an extensive field for full-blooded sociological research in the
field and in the study. Through the biographical approach and the functional
analysis which I have advocated, most of these problems become transferredto the
realm of empirical research from that of hypothetical reconstruction.
There remain a number of questions, however, on which I was hardly able to
touch, above all the notorious puzzle of classificatoryterminologies. I have left
this latter question on one side on purpose: words grow out of life,and kinshipwords

* See B. Malinowski,article on " Kinship," in Ency. Brit., 14th Edn., 1929, esp. ? xxiii.

[ 28 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
February,1930.] MAN. [Nos. 17-18.
are nothing else but counters or labels for social relations. Even as, sociologically,
kinship is a compound and complex network of ties, so every native nomenclature
consists of several layers or systems of kinship designations. One system is used
only to the parents and members of the household. Another stratum of kinship
appellations is extended to the next nearest circle of relatives, the mother's sister
and brother, the father's brother and sister, their offspringand the grandparents.
Yet another type of kinship words applies to the wider relatives of the immediate
neighbourhood. Finally there are kinship words used in a truly classificatorysense,
based partly but never completely on the distinctionsof clanship. The sounds used
in these differentsenses are the same, but the uses, that is the meanings, are distinct.
Each use, moreover, the individual, the extended, the local and the classificatory,
are differentiatedby phonetic distinctions,however slight, by fixed circumlocutions,
aiid by contextual indices.* It is only through the extraordinaryincompetence of
the linguistic treatment in kinship terminologies that the compound character of
primitive terminologies has, so far, been completely overlooked. " Classificatory
"terminologies" really do not exist, as I have said already. But I shall have to return
to this question once more.
After that, it will be possible for me to criticize directly the logical game of
kinship algebra from Morgan and IFohler to Rivers and Mrs. B. Z. Seligman; and
to show, within which limits this game is legitimate and where it becomes spurious.
There remain one or two questions: the definitionof kinship and descent, on which
I have been recently criticized by A. R. Radcliffe-Brownin the present periodical;
the nature of kinship extensions, where I have to deal with the strictures of my
friendE. E. Evans-Pritchard (also in MAN); the nature of the functional treatment
of kinship, where I have drawn some kindly, but I think irrelevant,criticismfrom
Lord Raglan in the last number of MAN. B. MALINOWSKI.

India: Mummification. Levin.

Mummification and Cremation in India. By MaryLevin.
PART I.
The " Satapatha Brahmana,"an earlyIndian commentary on Vedic ritual,has
preservedthe record of certainfuneralrites formerlypractisedin India. This
recordis containedin the sixth kanda of the " Brahmana,"whichdeals withthe
ritualof theFireAltar. The buildingof the FireAltarwas carriedout in India with
very elaborate ceremonial. It was performedby the priests,and the object of
raisingit was to obtainimmortalityforthekingor someotherpersonofimportance.
Throughoutthe ritualthispersonis spokenof as the " sacrificer," who is, therefore,
one forwhoma Fire Altaris beingbuilt. We are toldin the sixthkanda whatkind
offuneralwas to be accordedto the " sacrificer."
If the sacrificer
dies beforethe ceremonyof raisingthe altar is complete,the
"Brahmana " lays it dowmthat his dead body is to be treatedin the following
manner: " Now, in the firstplace, he cleanseshim of all foul matter,and causes
" the foul matterto settle on this earth. For indeed fromthat intestineof his,
" filledwithfoulmatter,whenit is burnta jackal is produced,hence he removes
" it. . .. Having washed him out inside, he anointshim withghee, and thus
makes it (the body) sacrificially
pure.
" He theninsertsseven chipsof gold in the seven seatsof hisvital airs; forgold
is lightand lightis immortality;he thus bestowslightand immortality upon him.
"Having then built a pile forhim in the midstof his firesand spread out a
black antelopeskin,withthe hairyside upwards,and the neck part towardsthe
* Some points here briefly touched upon will be found elaborated in Chapter xvi,
Section 6, of my Sexual Life of Savages, and in my Memoir on " The Problem of Meaning in
Primitive Languages" in Ogden and Richards's Meaning of Meaning.
[ 29 ]

This content downloaded from 199.17.89.23 on Thu, 22 Aug 2013 21:44:33 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions