WAGNER, Roy_Analogic Kinship a Daribi Example

8/10/2019 WAGNER, Roy_Analogic Kinship a Daribi Example

1/21

Analogic Kinship: A Daribi Example

Author(s): Roy WagnerSource: American Ethnologist, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Nov., 1977), pp. 623-642Published by: Blackwell Publishingon behalf of the American Anthropological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/643623.

Accessed: 04/07/2011 18:14

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at.http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black..

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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 [email protected].

Blackwell PublishingandAmerican Anthropological Associationare collaborating with JSTOR to digitize,

preserve and extend access toAmerican Ethnologist.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643623?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=blackhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/643623?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=anthrohttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=black


2/21


3/21

perceived

as an

expression

of inner

morality.

But

if

these distinctions

are

not

drawn,

or

drawn

improperly,

or

if

the

wrong

or

inappropriate

ones

are

made,

then the flow

of

similarity

will

appear

as

a kind

of

contagion,

a moral

degeneracy

spreading

from

one

kinsman

to

another. This

is what the celebrated

incest

taboo,

which

has been

identified

by

so

many

anxious classifiers

in so

many

diverse societies, seems to be all about. For incest-treating a mother or sister

as

a

wife

or lover or

treating

a

son or

brother as a

lover or

husband-is

a

morally

undesirable

flow of

similarity.

The

relational

aspect

of

kinship

is thus

always

understandable as

a kind

of

analogic

flow -that

is

what we

mean

by

being

related,

and this

flow is

always

the

consequence

of kin

differentiation. Western middle-class

society,

which takes

responsibility

for

relating

in

a deliberate

sense,

perceives

differentiation as

something

innate.

Thus

for

Western

ideology,

a

proper

flow

results

from the

conscious and

deliberate

performance

of

legitimate relating :

making

a

legitimate

marriage

between

compatible people,

maintaining

and

adjusting

interpersonal

relationships,

learning

to like one's affines,

doing

one's relational

duty

to kinsmen.

And the

inappropriate

flow

of

incest is seen

by

Westerners

as

going

against

nature,

an

abrogation

of

natural

differentiation that

allegedly

brings

about

disastrous

natural

consequences.

For Western

society,

appropriate

flow

is

defined

and

promoted by

natural

differentiation,

and

the task

of the individual and

of

society

is that of

comprehending

this natural fact

and

accommodating

our

actions to

its

precepts.

We draw the creative distinctions

by

perceiving

them

in

nature,

and we

perceive

the

consequent

flow as

a

potential

for

right

or

wrong

performance.

Others

perceive

the flow of

relationship

as

a

given

that

prompts

appropriate

differentiation.

But in

both

cases the flow

of

relationship,

and

ultimately

lineality-analogy

across

the

generations-is integrally

linked to differentiation.

Lineality

is not

a

separate, political

consideration,

a

matter of

group

recruitment,

but

is

always

an

aspect

of a

totality

that includes

differentiation

as

well.

The

creativity

of

kinship

in

the

West is centered on

an act of

collective

joining,

the

marrying

of

two

people,

for it

is from

this act that

appropriate

differentiation

(into husband,

wife,

mother, father,

and so

forth)

eventuates.

But the

creativity

elsewhere,

and

especially

in

tribal

societies,

is

based

on

an act

of

appropriate

differentiation,

one that will

assure a

proper

relational flow.

Marriages,

in our

sense,

are

not

made ;

they

follow,

or

flow,

from an

initial

differentiation,

from

which the

consequences

of

marriage

also

flow.

Let

us then

explore

this mode of

thought

and

action.

All kin

relationships

and

kinds

of kinsmen are

basically

analogous

because all

incorporate

the essence

of

human

solicitude

that

we

call

relating.

Every

particular

kind of

relationship

exemplifies

this essence in

some

particular way,

and

comprises

a

( metonymic )

part

of a

potential

whole,

a

totality

of

which the

aggregate

of

all

the kinds of

relationship

represents

a

homologue.

Each

particular

kind of

relationship,

since

it

incorporates

the

underlying

context of relational

solicitude,

can be seen as

an

( metaphorical )

analogue

of

each other kind of

relationship.

An

example

taken

from

Levi-Strauss's

classic

study

of totemism

(1962) might help

to

clarify

this

point.

Levi-Strauss

postulates

a

homology

between a natural

series of totemic

creatures and the

set

of

human

groupings

that

they represent,

in which it

is

not the

resemblances,

but

the

differences,

which

resemble

each

other

(1962:77).

Applying

this

model to

Spencer

and

Gillen's

description

of

the Aranda

of Central

Australia,

we

find that for

certain

purposes

this

homology

is

significant,

whereas

624

american

ethnologist


4/21

for others

it is

collapsed

into

a series of

anthropomorphic analogues.

Thus

the totemic

groupings

in the human series are

each

responsible

for the ritual

proliferation

of their natural

homologues

so as

to

benefit

the

whole

of

society.

But the Intichiuma

rite,

which

brings

this

about,

requires

that each

human

grouping

synthesize

the

primordial

inapertwa

creature

that

represents

a

union

between man and a natural homologue, an anthropomorphic metaphor standing

in an

analogous

relation to other such

metaphors (Spencer

and Gillen

1968:167-211,

389,

445).

This

transformation

is

diagrammed

at the

top

of

Figure

1. We can

likewise

postulate

a

homology

between the various kinds of relatives

traditionally

recognized

in

kinship

studies

(or,

for

that

matter,

between

any

particular

cultural set of

relatives)

and the

totality,

or

aggregate

of

kinds

of

human

relationship,

as I

have

stated

above.

By

recognizing

the union of each kind of

relative

with

its

relational

homologue,

on the model of the

Aranda

inapertwa

creature,

I can transform

this

traditional

conception

of kin

relationship

into the

analogical

model

I

have

suggested.

The transformation

is

diagrammed

at

the bottom

of

Figure

1. It is

a

scheme for the differentiation of a kin universe into

analogical

units.

The

traditional concerns and

problems

of

functionalist,

structuralist,

and

cognitive

kinship

studies can

be

seen

as

consequences

of

a

homological

frame of

reference.

The

analysis

of

joking,

avoidance,

and

respect

relationships

initiated

by

Radcliffe-Brown

(1952)

and

Eggan

(1937)

deals with

culture-specific

homologies

between

sociological

kin

roles and a set of

given genealogical

relatives.

Kin

differentiation

(the

genealogical

grid )

becomes an invariant control

against

which

the

sociological

alignments

and

stresses

of

various tribal

peoples

are

contrasted.

Joking,

avoidance,

and

respect

are

understood as

conventional

strategies

for

A

Homological

Equivalence

natural

human

series

series

Emu

o

o

Emu

men

Kangaroo

o o

Kangaroo

men

Honey

o

o

Honey

Ant

Ant

men

Witchetty

o

o

Witchetty

Grub Grubmen

Homological

Equivalence

relational

kinds

of

totality

relatives

paternal

o

o

father

solicitude

maternal

o

o

mother

solicitude

fraternal

o o

brother

solicitude

affinal o o various

solicitude

affines

B

Analogical

Equivalence

Intichiumaseries

I

Emu Emumen

I

I

Kangaroo Kangaroo

|

men

I

IHoney

Ant

Honey

Ant

men

Witchetty

Witchetty

Grub Grubmen

Analogical

Equivalence

kin

relationships

I

aternal father

I

solicitude

maternal mother

solicitude

fraternal brother

solicitude

affinal various

solicitude affines

Figure

1: A

comparison

of

Levi-Strauss's totemism model and

its ritual transformation

among

the

Aranda

(Spencer

and Gillen

1968)

with the model of

analogical

kin

relationship

presented

in

this

discussion.

Boxes indicate

contiguity

or

incorporation,

parallel

alignment

indicates

resemblances.

analogic

kinship

625


5/21

converting

a

naturally

differentiated kin

universe

into

a

functioning

society,

and a

comprehensive

account

of

a

people's

relationship

protocols

yields

their social

homologue

of

genealogy.

Levi-Strauss's atom

of

kinship

model

(1963)

achieves an

elegant

simplification

(or

oversimplification)

of

this

homological

approach.

Natural

differentiation

is

supplemented by the constraints of (social) reciprocity to limit the possible

constellations

of

kin

attitudes

among

four

basic

kin

types.

What

Levi-Strauss

offers is a

limited and

rigorous

refinement of

homology,

rather than an

alternative

to

homology.

A

set

of

contrastively

defined

attitudes

(the

distinction

between

attitude and

relationship

is

by

no

means

clear)

is

shown to

vary

in

a

regular

way

in

relation to

genealogy

and

reciprocal

obligation.

The insistence

on

a

given

kin

differentiation,

however

abstracted,

preserves

the

essentially

homological

character

of

this model.

The character of the

homology

changes

radically

in the ethnosemantic

approaches

of

Lounsbury

(1964)

and

others,

which

substitute

culture-specific

kin

classification for mode of relationship or kin attitudes. The homology of

componential

analysis

is neither the

explication

of

a

sociological

dynamic

nor

a

synthesis

of the

attitudes

induced

by

reciprocity,

but

a detailed

correspondance

established between a native

classificatory system

and

the kinds

of relatives

specified

by

genealogy.

Much

of

the

value

of

this

approach

comes

from the

close

specification

of

particular

homological

transformations

(rather

than a

demonstration

of how

a

society

is

held

together);

like other

homological

schemes,

however,

its

usefulness

is

ultimately

contingent

upon

the

validity

of the idea

of

natural

kin

differentiation.

For

the

functionalists and structuralists as

well

as

the

ethnosemanticists

the

problematic

area is demarcated

by

the

empty

spaces

between boxes in the first column

of

Figure

1.

For an

analogical

approach,

however,

the

(homological)

correspondence

is

subsumed

by

the

postulated

identity

between

mode

of

relationship

and

kind of

relative.

Here the

kin

term

or

terms

(as

well as the

relatives

it

identifies)

is

part

and

parcel

of the

mode of

relationship

(see

Wagner

1972a),

and term and

relationship

together

form a

conceptual

entity

that

is

differentiated

from other such

entities. The

problematic

area

here

corresponds

to

the

empty

spaces

between

boxes

in

the

second column

of

Figure

1

and involves the flow

of

analogy

or

similarity

between

kin

relationships.

The

dynamic

of

explanation

for

an

analogical

analysis

of kin relations is

radically

different

from

that

traditionally

assumed

in

homological approaches.

The

traditional

genealogical

method,

with its

kinship

diagrams

and

terminological

kin

types,

is

basically

synchronic

and

emphasizes

the

systematic

deployment

of relational

correspondences

across an

invariant

grid.

What

we

might

call the

temporal

factor can be located

as one of

a number

of

logical

implications

subsumed

in

the

total

constellation. But an

analogical

analysis

is

of

necessity

diachronic

and

sequential:

concerned with

relationship

as

the

analogical

consequence

of

contrived

differentiation,

it

exhausts a

terminological-relational

series

through

temporal

sequence

rather than

logical

systemization.

Each differentiation

has its

consequences

and

is

reestablished

or altered

diachronically.

There is

another, perhaps

more

subtle, implication

of

an

analogical approach

that deserves

clarification. This is the fact

that,

having

obviated

the distinction

between natural

kin

type

and

cultural

kin

relationship

by subsuming

terminology

and

relationship

within a

single

entity,

an

analogical

approach

does

not

incorporate

the contrast between

mental

symbolization

and

physical

fact.

Its

constructions

are intended as

simultaneously

conceptual

and

phenomenal;

they

626 american

ethnologist


6/21


7/21

Maleness is considered to

be

an effect of seminal

fluid, kawa,

which is contained

and

developed

within

a

system

of

tubes

(agwa

bono)

and nodes

(agwa ge)

that

we

would call the

lymphatic system,

and is

transmitted

by

a man

in sexual

intercourse. It forms the

outer

layer

of an

embryo,

the

skin,

eyes,

teeth,

and

hair,

as

well

as the

lymphatic

system

and

genitalia

of a

man,

and

the

lymphatic

system and mammary glands of a woman. Femaleness is considered to be an effect

of

maternal

blood,

pagekamine,

which

is

contained

within the

circulatory

system

and

provided

by

a woman

in the

conception

of a child. It forms the

inner

layer

of

an

embryo,

the

bones, viscera,

and

other

internal

organs,

and the

circulatory

system.

Menstruation is seen

as the release

of

pagekamine

for

reproductive

purposes.

Although

the

heart,

lungs,

and

liver

are

thought

of as

places

where

the

soul

(noma')

resides and are

developed

from maternal

blood,

Daribi

says

that

the soul

of a

man is

bestowed

by

the

father,

and that

of a woman is bestowed

by

the mother.

But

the

crucial

difference between these

fluids and

the

sexual

characteristics

they objectify is the relative

contingency

of the male and relative self-sufficiency

of

the female.

Both fluids are

necessary

for the creation

of

an

embryo,

but

although

the

blood in a woman's

body

is

sufficient

for her

role in

conception,

the seminal

fluid that a man receives

from his father is

never

sufficient

in

quantity

for

conception

and

must be

augmented.

It

is

replenished

and

increased

by

the

juices

and

fat of meat that

is

eaten

(in

a

woman these fluids

form

maternal

milk).

Thus

meat takes

on

the considerable

significance

of an

adjunct

to maleness

and

male

reproductive

potential:

it is the

partible

and

portable

accessory

to

masculine

continuity. Beyond

this,

the

contingency

of maleness amounts

to a

definitive

statement

of moral

obligation:

man's

responsibility

should be

to retain

and

supplement

the

contingent,

to

manage

and utilize meat resources and exercise

social force and constraint

in

such a

way

as to contain

and

incorporate

male

lineality.

Viewed

in

analogical

terms,

kawa

and

pagekamine

are

simply

two

ways

in which

the vertical

flow of

analogy

resulting

from

the

interdict are

represented.

They

amount to

the

same

thing

seen,

as

it

were,

from different

angles,

and

we shall

see that the whole course of

Daribi

relational

transformation

is but a

sequential

realization

and

acknowledgement

of this fact. But the realization is

a

gradual

and

sequential

one,

and

the force of the moral

obligation

is that each

party

to

the

interdict shall

represent

and

perceive

its

own lineal

flow

as

that of

male

substance,

for

its

primary

concern is the retention and

replenishment

of this substance.

The

party

of the

wife

givers

will,

for this

reason,

represent

and

perceive

the

giving

of

its women

and

their

consequent reproductive

activities as its

own

lineal

flow of

male

substance.

A

Daribi

man

regards

and addresses

his sister's

children

as his own.

But the

party

of the wife

takers

will

regard

the lineal

flow

of

the

wife

givers

as that of

female

substance,

as a flow

of blood.

What

might

be described as

exchange

or

reciprocity

is

in

fact

an

objectified,

quantifiable

mediation and

intermeshing

of two views of a

single

thing.

The

wife

givers represent

their

own flow to the wife takers as

that

of

femaleness,

giving adjuncts

of

female

productivity

(bark

cloth,

string bags,

and

so

forth)

and

the

promise

of

a woman.

The wife

takers

represent

their

flow to

the

wife

givers

as that of

maleness,

giving

meat and

other

adjuncts

of maleness

and

male

productivity

(pearlshells,

axes,

bushknives).

Each

party

acquires

an

objectified

increment

of flow consonant with its

perception

of the

flow of

the

other,

but,

because

the wife

givers

regard

the woman and

her

apurtenances

as

part

of their

628 american

ethnologist


8/21

own male

lineality,

each

party's

giving

is

consonant

with

its

perception

of its

own lineal flow. We

are

always

male

contingency,

by

moral

precept,

and it

is

always

the

women,

because

of their

very

self-sufficiency,

who are

obliged

to

mediate the flow

of

male

lineality.

The

objectification

of

parallel

male and female

flows,

as

against

any

single,

analogical flow or relationship between prospective wife givers and wife takers,

is thus

an artifact

of the interdict. But

because

the

meat,

wealth

objects,

and,

potentially,

the

woman

involved

are not

merely symbolic

tokens

like our

money,

and rather

are

themselves

what

they

stand

for,

or

represent,

we can

say

that

the

objectification

of

parallel

flows

through

exchange

is

the

very

substance,

as

well as the

artifact

of the interdict. Now

it

should be clear

why

the full

force of

the

interdict involves a male on

the side

of the

takers and a

female

on that

of

the

givers:

because the interdict and

the

objectification

of

parallel

flows are

one and

the

same

thing.

Betrothal and

marriage,

via

the interdiction

and

separation

of flow

through

which

they

are

constituted,

amount to the

germinal

social

differentiation

of male and female, a differentiation that motivates the whole of Daribi secular

life. It is

a differentiation

that

is recreated

constantly

in betrothal and

marriage

and

that owes its

social

persistance

to this recreation.

And this

perhaps explains

why,

when I

asked

a

group

of

Daribi

men what

specific practice

had

always

been

theirs

(and

not introduced as

part

of

a

cult),

they replied:

it is

this,

that a

man

should

never

behold,

speak

to,

or

utter

the name of his wife's mother.

The establishment of a

betrothal,

formalized

in the

passing

over

of

a

sizable

amount of male

goods

to the

prospective

wife's

people

and a

small

return

gift,

initiates the

recourse to affinal

forms of interaction between

appropriate

parties

in

the

parallel

linealities-the

beginning

of

the

interdict. This

amounts

to a

total,

formal

abrogation

of

intercourse

and even

recognition

between the

prospective

groom

on one

side

and

his

prospective

bride

and

her

mother

on

the

other.

They

may

not

speak

to each

other,

see each

other,

utter

one another's

name or the name of the

thing

it refers

to,

or hear such a name

spoken.

(To

this end Daribi women wear their bark cloaks like a shawl about

the face-so

that it

may

be drawn

over

the

face if

the occasion demands this.

They

will

also

step

off a road

and

turn

their backs

if

there is

any

possibility

of

meeting

a

forbidden

person.)

There is no

terminology

of address

or

protocol

for interaction

between a

male

and his

betrothed.

A

male

and his

betrothed's

(or

wife's)

mother

are

au

to

each

other.

Any infringement

of the interdict

between

them

must

be

compensated by

a small

gift

of

(male)

wealth to the

female au.

Those considered

true

bothers

(ama' mu)

of

a

groom

or

prospective groom

and

all other

women

married into the

lineality

of the bride

or

prospective

bride

(generally

including

wives of

full brothers of the

woman

and

the

wives

of their male

issue)

are

also

au

to

each

other,

though

the force of the interdict

may

not be as

emphatic

in

these

cases.

The terms of

the

interdict are no less

stringent

with

regard

to the father

of

the

betrothed,

though

the

forms are

different.

This

man

(and

his male and

female

siblings)

and

the

prospective

groom

(and

his true

brothers)

are

wai

to one

another.

Wai

should

observe

particular

care

in

their

relations

with one

another,

avoiding

embarrassing

situations and

speaking

carefully,

with

a

certain

degree

of

deference

being

shown

by

the

prospective

groom

and his brothers.

The forms

of the

interdict are

slightly

more

permissive,

though

no

less

significant,

between

baze,

including

the

prospective

groom

(and

his true

brothers)

on one

hand,

and the

siblings

of

the

prospective

bride

on

the other.

This

is

a

careful

protocol,

analogic

kinship

629


9/21

which

combines mild

joking

with

a

certain

amount of deference

to

the bride's

brothers

(to

whom

Daribi

occasionally

refer as true

baze).

Female

w?i

and baze

are

potential

and even

preferred

(additional)

marriage

partners, though

this

does

not affect the

protocols

of interaction

with

them

during

betrothal.

Female wai

and

baze

are

distinguished

by

a

combination

of

the

terms

with the

word

we

( woman, wife ), as in w i-we, baze-we. Offspring of male baze, who stand in

the

yage

protocol

in

relation to

the

prospective

groom

and his

brothers,

and

offspring

of male

yage,

who

are

reciprocally

yame

to

them,

are likewise

fairly

unimportant

during

the betrothal

stage

of

the

interdict,

and

the

protocols

are

relatively

unconstrained. Female

yage

and

yame

are

potential

preferred

marriage

partners,

but

like

wgi-we

and

baze-we,

this

potentiality

of

their

role is

held

in

abeyance

during

betrothal.

Betrothing

a woman is often

spoken

of

by

Daribi

as

noma'

sabo

( takes

the

soul,

that

is,

soul

taking ).

Noma'

( soul )

can

be understood

as

the

moral and

social

persona.

In

this

usage

the noma' can

be

approached

on an

analogy

with the

Maori hau, the

spirit

of a

gift

that demands

reciprocation

(Mauss 1954:8-9).

Taking

the

soul

then

amounts

to

acquiring

a

pledge,

the

moral

self

of

a

woman,

to be

requited

later

by

the

passing

over

of the

woman.

During

the course

of

the

betrothal,

generally

when the

betrothed reaches

the

age

of

eight

or

ten,

she

is

obliged

to

visit

the

prospective

groom's

people

and

is then

placed

under

the care and

tutelage

of

her

prospective

husband's

mother,

whom

she

calls

auwa

( grandmother,

reciprocal:

wai',

grandchild.

She calls her

auwa's

husband

wai',

here

grandfather,

which

carries

the same

reciprocal.)

The

purpose

of

this

visit,

which

is to

see

that the

prospective

groom

is

assembling

the bridewealth so that she

may

return to tell

her

father,

is

significant.

For the

bridewealth

is linked to another

use

of the

term

noma',

the

ogwanoma'

(literally boy

soul,

but

spoken

as a

single

word).

The

ogwanoma'

is the ceremonial attire assumed

by

the

groom

and

four

or five

other

members

of his line for the

presentation

of the

bridewealth,

which constitutes

the

wedding

ceremony.

It consists of a

covering

of charcoal

over the entire

visible

body,

a black

cassowary

plume

worn on the

head,

and

contrasting

white

shell

ornaments.

This is

also

the traditional battle

dress

of

men.

The

wedding

consists of

the

men,

so

attired,

standing

at

rigid

attention

in

single

file before the

door of the bride's

father's

house.

In

their left hands the

men

hold

pearlshells

belonging

to the

brideprice,

and

in

the

right

they

each hold

a bow and

a

bundle

of

arrows.

The

bride

then

emerges

from

the

house, splendidly attired,

walks

down the file of

men,

and takes

the

pearlshells

from

each. She

then

takes

them to her father.

As

they

are

relieved of

the

shells,

the

men

grasp

one of the

arrows

in

the

left

hand and

resume their

rigid

stance.

It is

highly

significant

in

terms of male

contingency

that

the female

soul is

taken,

whereas

the

boy

soul

is

merely

shown and

retained,

and that this

showing

is done

in

a

martial

posture.

This

ceremony,

we

kqbo,

literally

the

tying

or

fastening

of the

woman

(as

opposed

to

merely

taking

her

soul ),

might

also

be viewed as

the

explicit

and

self-contained

assumption

of

parallel,

vertical flows.

The

groom's

party

moves

into the

residential locus

of the

bride's

people

and shows

but

also

contains

its

ogwanoma' in a rigid, armed manner. This manifests and exemplifies

an

ideal of

sober male

assertiveness,

while at the same

time

presenting

the

bride's

people

with

pearlshells

of the

same

sort as those worn

by

the

groom

and

his

accomplices.

In

sum,

the

ceremony

amounts to

an

assertion and

mutual

recognition

of

the

self-image

of male

substance

that is

proper

to each

party.

But

the

tying

of the

woman

also

means that she

is

separated

(that

is,

taken

and

fastened )

from her

own

line,

who

630

american

ethnologist


10/21

are

henceforth

known

as her

pagebidi - base-people -a

tie that

is

explicated

and

substantiated

through

the

tracing

of

pagekamine.

Prior to

the

tying,

her

principal

links

of

substantial

analogy

were

traced both

through

paternal

and maternal

substance.

But

presentation

of

the

brideprice

commutes this

linking

analogy

to a

single

tie

with

her

natal

line,

viewed as

a

link

of

maternal

substance

by

the

groom's

people

and as an extension of their own paternal substance by the bride's. Thus the latter

are

obliged

to

give

over

a

certain

portion

of

the

bridewealth

as

a

quitclaim

to

the

bride's

mother's

people,

given

more

or

less

to

validate

assumption

of her

pagebidi's

role.

We

can

understand

a kind

of

analogy

to

be

manifest

between

the

givers

and

takers

of

souls,

women,

and

pearlshells,

and this

analogy

can indeed

be said to

relate

them.

Yet

the

terms

of

the

interdict

are

such

that this

kind of

analogy

is

not

embodied

in

internal,

substantial

flow,

but

in

the kinds

of

detached or

detachable

things

(souls, women,

pearlshells)

that are

being

presented

and

accepted.

For

it

is

these

detachable

things,

used

as

mediators in

lieu

of

substantial

flow,

that

are used

socially

to mark and confirm, to establish and substantiate, the setting up of parallel

substantial

flows.

There is

a flow of

meat, women,

and

pearlshells

just

precisely

where

there is no

flow

of

substantial

analogy,

because the

exchange

of

these

detachable

markers in

one

direction is

the

means

by

which

substantial flow

is

emphasized

(and

hence

created)

in

another.

This

is

why

Daribi

say

that

we

marry

those with

whom we

do

not

eat

[that

is,

share]

meat. It

is a

self-contained

statement,

a

model of

and

a model

for.

In

sum,

then,

the

exchange

of

detached,

partible

things

amounts to

deliberate,

controlled

analogy-the

manipulated

flow

that is

substituted for

internal,

substantial

flow

by

the

imposition

of

the

interdict.

Like

the interdict

itself,

it

is the

aspect

of

kin

relationship

for which human

beings

take direct

responsibility.

Unlike

internal,

substantial

flow,

which,

as the

given

residuum of

previous

exchanges,

prompts

certain

kinds of

appropriate

human action

(such

as

sharing ),

the

interdict

and

the

exchange

that

it

leads to

is

predicated

upon

immediate

human

action.

The

restrictions

and

distinctions made

here,

whether

behavioral

(as

with

avoidance

and

respect)

or

structural

(as

with

exchange

and

marital

protocols),

are the

subject

of

great

care

and

discretion.

They

call to

mind

the

painstaking

restrictions

surrounding

food

and

pollution

that

Dumont

emphasizes

in

Homo

Hierarchicus

(1970)

as

the

very

core of the

Hindu

caste

system.

As

in

Dumont's

analysis,

it is

not

necessary

to

adduce

literally

constituted

groups

(or

even

societies )

here:

all

that is

necessary

is

for

people

to

observe the niceties

of

the

interdict

and its

concomitant

exchanges

and

prerogatives,

and

the

sociality

(and

its

analogies

of

substantial

flow)

will

take

care

of

itself.

The flow

of

controlled

analogy

through

exchange

is

thus

constitutive of

the

whole

relational

matrix.

But we

have seen

that this

constitutive

action

must

respect

the

exigencies

of

the

substantial

analogies

(that

is,

male

and

female

flows,

as

perceived

by

the

respective

parties)

that

it

sets

up.

Most

significantly,

this

involves the

obligations

of

male

contingency-giving

meat and

male

wealth

to

the

pagebidi

to

make

restitution

for

their

perceived

loss

of

male

flow.

For

Daribi

(whose

usages

are

fundamentally

asymmetrical

in

this

respect,

in

contrast

to

those

of

some

other

Papuan

peoples)

the

morality

of

this

obligation

extends

beyond

individual

marriages

and

becomes

a

binding

consideration

for

the

two

linealities

involved.

Thus,

insofar

as

these

linealities

are

set

up

through

interdict

and

exchange,

they

will

be

constituted

in

terms of

a

unidirectional

flow

of

controlled

analogy,

one

being

wife

giver

and

the other

meat

giver,

so to

speak.

Additional wives

may

be

given

in

the

direction

of

the

original

marriage

but

should

not be

given

in

the

reverse

direction. In

those

few

analogic

kinship

631


11/21

cases where sister

exchanges

do take

place

(owing,

as

the Daribi

say,

to

a lack of

wealth on the

part

of

the

exchangers,

who

are

often criticized

on

moral

grounds),

informants insist

that

any

meat

exchanged

may

not

be

consumed

by

the

exchangers

themselves.

It

would

seem, indeed,

that

the

protocols

regarding

meat

here are

even

more

crucial than those relating to the giving of women themselves. But this is just what

we

should

expect, given

the

predominant

significance

of

male

contingency,

for

meat

is

the

externalized,

partible

equivalent

of seminal

fluid,

kawa.

We

can

then

apprehend

the

asymmetrical

and unidirectional character

of

exchange

as

being

itself

a kind of

analogue

of male

lineality:

as the

flow of

kawa,

male relational

analogy,

passes

from

father to

son,

so

the flow

of

its external

equivalent

passes

horizontally

in one

direction

only.

Exchange

and

descent,

affinity

and

consanguinity,

become

metaphors

for one

another.

Like

all

metaphors,

however,

this one works both

ways.

As there

is

a

flow

of

meat between linealities that

replicates

descent,

so

we

also

find a

flow of

women

within these linealities on the model of unidirectional or

asymmetrical exchange.

This

is the

junior

levirate,

which for

Daribi

is

generalized

to

include

the

inheritance

of

wives from father to son and

among

those

who

regard

one another

in

broad,

idiomatic

terms as brothers. The

moral

emphasis,

however,

is

on

the transference

of

wives

from

elder to

younger

males,

and

this is

clearly

reflected

in

various

kinds of

relational

terminology.

The eldest of a

set

of

male

siblings

is referred

to

as

the

gominaibidi,

literally

the head-man

or

source-man,

on the

analogy

of

a

wQ-gomo,

the

water-head,

or

high point

at the

source

of a

stream.

As

the

water

flows downward

from this

point,

so the wives

flow from

the

gominaibidi

to his

younger

siblings.

A

man

and

his elder

brothers'

wives,

who are

potential

spouses

under

the

levirate,

are

sare to one another and

may

not

joke

or act in other

ways

that betoken

familiarity,

such as

calling

one

another

by

name.

A

man

and

his

younger

brothers'

wives,

whose

potential

marriage

is

not

encouraged

by

the

levirate,

are

wai'

to one another.

This

indulgent,

nonrestrictive

relationship

is also that of

grandfather

and

grandchild

and

of a

wife and

her

husband's father.

It

may

be

incidental

to the

central

idiom of this

discussion,

but

it is

nevertheless

helpful

to note that leviratic transfer is involved

in

a

significant

fraction

of all Daribi

marriages.

Table

1,

based

on

marital histories collected

from

roughly

half

of the Daribi

married males in

1968-1969,

indicates that wives are obtained

leviratically

in 46.8

percent

of all cases.

Certainly

this

high

incidence is

the

result

of diverse

situational

factors,

including

especially

the

practice

of

betrothing

very

young

girls

to older

men.

Early

widowhood,

and

a

plurality

of

widows,

is

an

expected

feature

of such

an

arrangement.

Thus

we find

that,

statistically,

the

internal,

lineal

flow of

wives

is

almost as

frequent

as the

external,

interlineal flow.

Significantly,

however,

the marital

rites

of

we

kQbo,

with their

dramatic defense of male

contingency,

are not

performed

in

cases

of leviratic

transfer.

The

external,

horizontal

flow of women from

wife

givers

to

wife takers is

also,

of

course,

very

much

an

ongoing

affair,

particularly

since Daribi

usages

require

that

small

prestations

of

meat

and wealth be

passed

along

continually

in the

opposite

direction. Another

measure

of

this

flow is

the

prerogative

or

expectation

of the

groom,

or

wife

taker,

to receive further

wives

from the

lineality

of the

wife

givers.

This

includes women who

are

w,i

we, baze-we,

yage,

and

yame

to

him,

but

usually

focuses

more

particularly

on the wife's

sister,

or

baze-we.

It

is

clear that

the

obligation

is

not

always

honored

by

wife

givers,

who

may

have

other

obligations

or

inclinations

regarding

their

sisters,

daughters,

and father's

sisters. But

the

prerogative

632

american

ethnologist


12/21

Table

1. The

prevalence

of leviratic transfer.

Marriages

Initiated

by

Betrothal

Number

Percent

following original

betrothal

209

29.8

betrothal

inherited

leviratically

at death* 32

4.6

betrothal

inherited

leviratically

without

death* 56

7.9

betrothal transferred

nonleviratically

55

7.9

Marriages

Not Initiated

by

Betrothal

married

without

betrothal

or

transfer

46 6.6

wife

inherited

leviratically

at death* 207

29.5

wife inherited

leviratically

without death*

34

4.8

wife

received

nonleviratically

63

8.9

total 702 100.0

*

Total

marriages

resulting

from leviratictransfer

329

(46.8%).

Total

marriages

without

leviratic

ransfer 373

(53.2%).

is

often

pushed

by

Daribi

men,

especially

influential

ones.

I

have several

times

been

approached

by

anxious

Daribi

tultuls

(government-appointed

village

leaders)

who

had

forcibly

detained their

wives'

sisters

(married

elsewhere)

and were

fearing

the

consequences.

Others,

learning

that

my

wife

had a

sister,

wondered

aloud

why

I

did

not

quit

New

Guinea and

go

off

in

hot

pursuit

of her.

Table 2

presents

some

statistical

measures of

continuing marriage

with wife

givers,

calculated as a

percentage

of all

marriages

contracted and of all

marriages

completed

after

the first. The

categories

baze-we

(including

wife's sisters and

half-sisters)

and

yage,

taken

in

the

strictest

sense,

account

for

about

15

percent

of

all

later

marriages;

taken

together

with

wife's other

lineage

mates,

this

yields

a total

of

between

30

percent

and 35

percent

of all

marriages

after the first

resulting

from the

continuing

horizontal

flow

of

meat and

partible

analogy.

The

metaphorical

equivalence

of

vertical

lineality

and horizontal

exchange,

however

subliminal

and

implicit

it

may

be

from

the

standpoint

of

participants,

is

highly

significant

for

my

central

argument.

For it is

an

analogy

drawn

between

two rather

different forms

of

analogy,

one of

them assumed

as

a

part

of

the

nature

of

things,

and

the other

brought

about

by

human action. More

specifically,

it

can be

seen as a

kind of

inveterate

slippage

or

dissonance in the terms of the

interdict,

which was set

up

Table 2.

The

prevalence

of

continuing marriage

with wife

givers.

All

contracted

marriages

after the first All

completed marriages

(includes

dissolved

betrothals)

after the first

Relationship

Number

Percent

Number Percent

Baze-we

58 9.5

40

11.0

Yage

30

4.9

18

4.9

Wai-we 3 .5 3 .8

wife's other

lineage

mates

93 15.2

67

18.3

other

marriages

427

69.9

238 65.0

total

611

100.0 366 100.0

analogic kinship

633


13/21

through

the

mediation of

horizontal

flow,

to counteract

and abolish

any

substantial

flow

between the two

linealities.

What

happens

is that

the means

of

imposing

the

interdict come to

model,

and

to

be

modeled

by,

the

thing

that

is

interdicted.

This

effect,

coming

about

gradually

in

the

years

after

marriage

(in

the

allocation

of

widows

and

the

organization

of

polygyny),

is

the first

step

in

the obviation

of the

interdict.

This effect is paralleled

by

an even more

significant

compromising of the interdict:

that

brought

about

by

the

birth

of

children,

who manifest

the

substantial

flow

of

both

linealities-that

of

the mother and that

of the father-in

a

single

social

persona.

Terminologically

and

in

every

other

way,

Daribi

men

regard

their

sisters'

children

as

their

own.

From

the

respective

viewpoints

of

the

two

linealities, indeed,

the

child

stands in

an

analogic

relation

of

paternal

substance

to each

of

them.

Thus

the

child

becomes

itself

a

point

of

analogic

relation between

the two

linealities:

relationship

has

happened

to the

original

demarcation

between

them. Because

the same

social

persona

stands

in

an

analogic

relation

to

both,

the two are

related

analogically

to one

another.

It

is

important,

too,

to

remember

that

every

single

individual

in the

society

manifests such a confluence of

linealities,

and that

every

expression

of

lineality

as a

clear-cut

social construction

is

compromised

by

the

implications

of this

effect.

If

the

expression

of

distinct

linealities

is to be

maintained

as

a viable

social

construction

beyond

the

point

of

marriage-if,

in other

words,

the child

is to be

regarded

as

analogically belonging

to one

or

another

of

its

two

linealities-then

a

mediation must be effected.

Moreover,

this

mediation

must

satisfy

the claims

of male

contingency

that

both linealities make

upon

the child.

Once

again,

this is

accomplished

through

the

presentation

of

detached and

partible

equivalents

of substantial

flow.

These are

given,

in

a series of

payments

called

pagehabo

(from

pagehaie

to

pay

the

pagebidi )

by

the father

of

the

child to the child's

pagebidi.

Because

the latter

regard

the

child

as an

analogue

of their

own

paternal

lineality,

the

detachable

analogic

elements

can be

accepted

(or

negotiated

for)

as a

legitimate

substitution.

Because

the

father's

lineality

regards

that

of the

mother as

the child's

pagebidi,

analogues

through

maternal

substance,

pagehabo

becomes

for them an

act of

defending

male

contingency

against

female

sufficiency;

for the

pagebidi

are

believed

to

exercise,

through

the

special qualities

of maternal

blood,

a

power

of

cursing

the

child

with death or

illness.

Thus

male

contingency

is the chief

moral

consideration

on

both

sides,

though

it

becomes

a

truly

pressing

issue

for the father's

lineality,

since

for them

male

contingency

is

opposed

to

female

sufficiency.

This difference

makes

paternal

affiliation

a moral issue,

for

in the absence

of

pagehabo payments

the father's

line would be

indeed

contingent

in

the

face

of

the

pagebidi's

position

of

sufficiency-the paternal

side

must

supplement

its

maleness

and

the

claims based

upon

this maleness.

The

pagebidi,

for

their

part,

need not

supplement

their

claims,

but

they

claim

the

right

(which

is sometimes

exercised)

of

taking

possession

of the

children

themselves

in

the

event of

nonpayment.

Pagehabo

is

often

subject

to

negotiation;

payment

often

is

delayed

until a

child

survives

its

vulnerable

early years,

or

the

payments

for one

child

or even several

are

tendered

in

a

single

lump

sum.

Customarily,

too,

it

is

only

demanded

for

a

woman's

first

three

children,

though

this

again

is often a

matter

of

negotiation.

What

is

important, regardless of the circumstances of giving, is the mediation

that

is

effected,

for this

is

a moral issue

bearing upon

health and

lineality.

Pagehabo

is

given

a

few

years

after

birth,

at initiation

for

males

or

marriage

for

females,

and

again

at death.

But

adult males should

also,

as a matter

of

some

moral

consequence

(for

example,

what

a man who

understands well

would

do),

pair

off

with one

of their awa

pagebidi

(the

so-called

awa

mu,

or

true maternal

uncle )

in

an

ongoing

exchange

relationship.

634 american

ethnologist


14/21

Female

lineality,

that

is,

should

morally

be

transmuted into

a

flow

of

partible analogy

throughout

a man's

life.

In

terms

of our

broader

understanding,

pagehabo

is

a kind of

reimposition

of

the

interdict,

a

deliberate

(though

motivated)

definition of

lineality.

But it is

also,

as

I

have

observed,

compromised

in a

way

that the

original

interdict is

not,

for

inasmuch

as

the

persona for whom the payments are given belongs simultaneously to both linealities,

and

relates

them,

the

mediating

payments

that

define this lineal

affiliation

are

exchanged

within

a

single lineality. They

are

shared

as well

as

exchanged,

and

to

this

extent

the

linealities

that

they

serve

to

define are

rendered less

distinct.

Thus

the

identification between

horizontal and

vertical

flow,

between

lineality

and

exchange

(or

act and

circumstance),

encountered in

the

levirate and

in

continuing marriage

with

wife

givers

and

compounded

in

the

begetting

of

children is carried forward

in

a

cumulative fashion.

It

qualifies

the

redefinition of

lineality

in

pagehabo,

and

its

effects

grow

even

more

pronounced

as

the

child

grows

older.

Most

Daribi

exchanges,

including

those

made at

betrothal

and

marriage,

as

well

as

pagehabo,

involve the

passing

back of a smaller

prestation

called

sogwarema

by

the

receivers

of the main

prestation.

In

the

case of

pagehabo

given

for a male

child,

however,

the

sogwarema

wealth is

often

withheld

by

the

pagebidi

until the child

grows

up

and

begins

to

assemble his

own

brideprice.

The

youth

then has

the

right

to

go

to

his

pagebidi

and

request

a

contribution to

the

bridewealth

he is

assembling,

and

the

accumulated

sogwarema

wealth will

be turned

over

to

him

for

this

purpose.

Even if

the

sogwarema

wealth has

not

been

withheld,

however,

the

youth's

request

should

be

honored.

The

right

to

ask for

such

a

consideration

and the

contribution

itself

are

tokens

of

the

young

man's

affiliation with

his

maternal

lineality,

over

and above the

definition

of

his

lineality

effected

bypagehabo.

Withholding

the

sogwarema

prestations

has the effect

of

conserving

the

definition

of

lineality,

though

it renders the

transference of

wealth,

when it

occurs,

more

ambiguous,

for

by

honoring

the

youth's

request

with

sogwarema

wealth the

pagebidi

both

exchange

with

the

youth's

paternal

lineality

and

share with

the

youth

himself.

Precisely

this

sort of

ambiguity,

exchanges,

expectations,

and

protocols,

simultaneously

honoring

the

canons

of

sharing

and

exchanging,

suffuses

the

relations

among

cross-cousins,

the

offspring,

respectively,

of

the erstwhile wife

givers

and

wife

takers.

Daribi

say

that

cross-cousins,

or

hai',

are the

same as

siblings,

meaning

that

they

should

think

of

each other

and

treat each

other as

siblings.

But

of

course

they

are

not

siblings,

but

hai'. Hai'

are

siblings

to

the

extent

that

lineality

and

exchange,

sharing

and

exchanging,

are

collapsed

into

one,

for

then

the

paternal

linealities

of

their

fathers

are

merged

into a

single

flow

of meat

given

in

exchange

and

kawa

passed

down

generationally.

Hai'

are

not

siblings

to

the

extent

that

the

lineality

of

the

matrilateral

cross-cousins

is

regarded

by

the

patrilateral

cross-cousins as

female

or

maternal

rather

than

male,

because

female

lineality

emphasizes

lineal

obligation.

Thus

the

moral

injunction

to

regard

hai'

as

siblings

is

in

fact

a

restatement of

the

primacy

of

male

substantial

flow,

a

further

resolution of

male

contingency.

Hai'

as

siblings

are

related

by

the

analogy

of

male

substance,

a

condition

that

leads

Daribi to

say

that

one's

patrilateral

hai' are

true hai

in

contradistinction

to

one's

matrilateral

hai', for the latter may also be regarded as

pagebidi.

Because

the

hai'

relationship

is itself

developed

out of the

paradoxical

confrontation

of

two

analogous

but

distinct

semiotic

modalities,

it

emerges

as the

crucial

point

in the

self-creation

and

self-limitation

of

Daribi kin

relationships.

Because

the

vertical and

horizontal

modes of

analogic

construction are

interdependent

as

well

as

fundamentally

analogic

kinship

635


15/21

opposed

to

one

another,

relating

to

one's

hai'

is

always

a matter of

playing

one set

of

relational

injunctions

against

another.

We

might

say

that hai'

impersonate

or

dramatize the

conflicting

implications

of

lineality

and

exchange

in their relations

with

one another. For

this reason the

responsibilities

and

obligations,

what

we

might

wish

to

call

the norms of the

relationship,

are

restricted

closely

to

bivalent

usages,

those

that

satisfy

simultaneously,

though ambiguously,

the canons of

sharing

and

exchanging.

As

siblings,

male

hai' should

contribute

to one another's

brideprices

and

are

entitled

to

a

share

in

the

bridewealth

received

for their

respective

female hai'.

As

brothers,

male

hai'

may

exercise a

claim

(rated

as

being

just

below

that of

a

younger

brother in

priority)

on the

inheritance

of one another's widows.

But

because hai'

are

not

siblings

and

because matrilateral hai'

are

also

dwano

pagebidi,

little

pagebidi,

and

hence

exchangers,

these

rights

and

obligations

of

sharing

are

always

worked into

the idiom

of

exchanging,

so

that

expressions

of

lineality

as

well

as

exchange

take

the

same external

form. The leviratic claims that

hai'

make

as

siblings

must

generally

be

validated

by

equilateral exchanges among

the

prospective

co-heirs-should

the

surviving

hai' not receive the widow thus

paid

for,

he

may

legitimately

demand

the

return of his

wealth.

Otherwise,

of

course,

the matrilateral

hai'

receives somewhat

more

wealth than his

patrilateral

counterpart

in

the

exchanges

that

pass

between

them,

for

he

is

a creditor

of the

latter

in

the

pagebidi

relation.

Viewed as

expressing

sharing through

the idiom of

exchanging,

the

hai'

relationship

approximates

the

generationally

skewed

one of

child and

pagebidi,

even

though

the

pagebidi

here is of the

same

generation

as

the child

and

is

a

little

pagebidi.

As in

the case of the

awa

pagebidi,

or

maternal

uncle,

the hai'

pagebidi

retains

the

sanction of

cursing ego,

and,

also as

in

that

case,

ego

is often

paired

off with a

particular

hai'

pagebidi

in

a

permanent exchange relationship

(that

of

hai'

mu,

or

true

hai'

)

when he

reaches

adulthood. Viewed as

expressing

exchanging

through

the idiom

of

sharing,

the

hai'

relationship

approximates

that

of

siblings, generationally

equivalent,

with a

slight

implication

of

leviratic

seniority

on the

part

of

the

patrilateral

partner.

(It

is

said

that the

patrilateral

hai',

if

a

gominaibidi-the

eldest

male

of his

sibling

series-should not

inherit the widow

of his hai'

pagebidi,

because

his

mother

came

from

there,

and a

gominaibidi

is

felt to be closer to his mother than

his

younger

siblings

are.)

Figure

2,

which

lists

leviratic transfers

statistically

according

to the

kin

category

of the

source,

illustrates

graphically

the

prevalence

of transfers from

patrilateral

to matrilateral

kin for

a number of

relationships,

including

hai'.

The

effect

of

the

moral

injunction

to

regard

hai'

as

siblings,

and

hence

to

express

exchanging

through

the

idiom of

sharing,

is

that

of

countering

and

neutralizing

the structural

superiority

of the

matrilateral

hai'

as

pagebidi.

Thus the

injunction

of

siblingship

among

hai' is

self-fulfilling

as

regards

equivalence;

matrilateral and

patrilateral

hai' become

equals

through

the

balancing

out of

two

rather

different

sorts

of

inequalities,

the

ostensible

generational superiority

of

the former

and the

putative

lineal

seniority

of the

latter. The

fact that matrilineal

hai'

receive more

wealth

and,

statistically,

more

widows

can thus

be accounted

for either

in

terms of

their

superiority

or their

inferiority.

It

is,

like

virtually

everything

else

in

the

relationship,

ambiguous,

and it

acquires

this

character

precisely

because

the

relationship, qua

relationship, is constituted by the summing together and mutual modeling of the two

aspects.

Terminological

usage

accords

with the

injunction

to

regard

hai'

as

siblings.

Were

this

not

the

case,

were

the

pagebidi

aspects

of the relation

to

be

emphasized,

then

we

might

expect

the

normalization of

an Omaha

terminology

to

apply

here

(Wagner

1970).

In

fact the

term

hai'

is used

almost

exclusively-dwano

pagebidi being

invoked

636 american

ethnologist


16/21

Patrilateral

elder

number

percent

younger

ama'

59

14.8

number

percent

(brother)

ama' 5

'1.3

aia

33

8.3

(brother)

(father)

ogwa

4

1.1

Total

92

23.1

(son)

Total

9

2.4

ama'

(half

brother)

ama'

(first

cousin)

ama'

(second

cousin)

Total

hai'

(FZS)

hai'

( classificatory

FZS)

Total

number

percent

41

10.3

39

14

9.8

3.4

94

23.6

^

ama'

K%%h

(half brother)

ama'

%

(first cousin)

ama'

_^

(second

cousin)

Total

number

percent

1

5 1.3

4 1.1

1

.3

10

2.7

number

percent

19

4.8

number

percent

^^

hai'

15 3.8

11

2.8

.

(MBS)

hai' 6 1.5

30 7.6

,

( classificatory

MBS)

Total 21 5.3

number

percent

Total:

preferred

source

of wives

Total:

permissible

but

not

preferred

source

Genealogically

distant

ama'

No kin

category

identification

provided

Inheritance

rom

ogwa

or

awa

(pagebidi)

Grandtotal

1

216 54.3

40 10.4

97 24.4

29 7.3

L

397100.2

Figure

2.

Leviratic ransfers

according

to kin

category

of

source

(preferred

flow of wives shown

graphically

by

arrows).

only

occasionally

as a

descriptive

gloss.

Moreover hai'

are

expected

to use

affinal

terms and

relational modes with

one another's

siblings

and

to

gloss

them

descriptively

as

hai'

bare

affines

(one's

hai's

wife's

brother,

for

instance,

is one's hai' bare

baze).

In

the

following generation,

that

of

the

children of

hai',

the distinction between

male and female

analogical

flow

following

upon

the initial

interdict is

completely

abrogated.

One

relates to one's father's male and

female hai'

as

aia

( father )

and

na'

( father's

sister )

respectively

and to one's

mother's male and

female hai' as awa

( mother's

brother )

and ida

( mother ) respectively,

with

corresponding

relational

usages

for those

related

through

them.

In

each

case,

the distinctions

contingent

upon

the

parent's

pagebidi relationship

are elided and subsumed

within an

all-embracing

patrilateral

flow.

Because hai' are

siblings

and because

the

injunction

to relate

to

hai' as

siblings invariably

puts

a

patrilateral

(male

analogical)

construction

on

the

relationship,

the differential

aspect

of

the

wife

givers'

lineality

(male

vertical flow

analogic

kinship

637

Matrilateral


17/21

in

their own

eyes,

female

flow in

those

of

the wife

takers)

disappears.

In a broader

perspective,

the

identification of

sharing

with

exchanging,

of

lineality

with

exchange,

among

hai'

in

the

parental

generation

obviates

the

lineal

distinctions

that

the

original

exchanges

(via

the

interdict)

had set

up.

Of

course,

an

individual's

own

lineal

relationships

through

his or

her

parents

may

color

relationships

with

the

respective parental hai', but these more recent

analogical

constructions bear upon

other

loci

of

responsibility.

Parents'

hai'

are

relationally

parents' siblings.

They

involve,

in

any

case,

essentially

weak

relationships.

If

they

permit

a

generally

unconstrained

flow of

analogy

irrespective

of

strong

lineal

bias,

it

is

only

because

the

force of a

strongly

motivated

lineality

has

gone

out

of them.

There

are,

barring

adoption

by

one's father's hai'

through

widow

inheritance,

few

obligations

or

perquisites

attached

to them.

It

is

said

that one should

not

marry

offspring

of one's

parent's

hai',

as one should

not,

in

general,

marry

those

of

a

parent's

siblings.

But

one

may

marry

the

grandchildren

of

parental

hai'.

Primary parties

to

the

original

interdict

(the

point

of reference

in

the

grandparental

generation

of

the children of

hai')

are

related

to as wai' and

auwa,

reciprocal

relationships

differentiated

by

the sex

(respectively

male and

female)

of

the

senior

partner.

But these

relationships

are

broadly indulgent

and

diffuse.

All

Daribi kin

relationships

can

be

seen

to

be

generated

by

the

interdict

imposed

at

the

incipience

of

a

marriage,

and

by

its

consequences.

The

impression

of

tremendous

complexity,

indeed,

the

impression

of a

naturally

or an

innately imposed

differentiation

of

kinds of

relatives,

is an

illusion fostered

by

the

contrapuntal

and

overlapping

implications

and

consequences

of innumerable

past,

present,

and

projected

impositions

of the

interdict,

and

their

consequences.

Daribi create their

world

of

relatives and

kin

relationships

even

as

their

perceptions

and

conceptions

of kin and

kin

relationship

are created

by

this world.

Nevertheless,

a

strong

argument

can

be

made,

supported by

their

own notions of

priority

and

responsibility,

that

the

kin

relationships

of

the

Daribi constitute a

self-generative

means

of

analogical

construction.

Such a

regime

of semiotic construction

can

be

understood

and

explicated

as

a

phenomenon

in

itself,

tangent

to

other,

similar

constructive

regimes

but

not

necessarily

predicated upon

such other

imputed

theoretical orders as

political

or economic

interest

or the

solidarity

of the

group.

To

be

more

specific,

there is

no

necessity

to

adduce

corporate

interest

here;

lineality

as

analogic

flow

and

its associated

premise

of

male

contingency

are

quite

sufficient to

account

for recruitment

and

other

solidarity-oriented

issues.

Lineality

as

open-ended

Documents

WAGNER, Roy_Analogic Kinship a Daribi Example