CLAUDE LEVI-STRAUSS The Elementary Structures of Kinship Les Structures elementaires de la parente) JAMES HARLE BELL OHN RICHARD vo STURMER RODNEY NEEDHAM 3 BEACON PRESS BOSTON
CHAPTER XXIX The Principles of Kinship Thus, it is always a system of exchange that we find at the origin of rules of marriage, even of those of which the apparent singularity would seem to allow only a special and arbitrary interpretation. In the course of this work we have seen the notion of exchange become complicated and diversified it has constantly appeared to us in different forms. Sometimes exchang appears as direct( the case of marriage with the bilateral cousin), sometimes as indirect(and in this case it can comply with two formulas, one continuous the other discontinuous, corresponding to two different rules of mariage with the unilateral cousin). Sometimes it functions within a total system (this is the theoretically common characteristic of bilateral marriage and of-s matrilateral marriage), and at others it instigates the formation of an un limited number of special systems and short cycles, unconnected among themselves(and in this form it represents a permanent threat to moiety systems, and as an inevitable weakness attacks patrilateral systems ) Some times exchange appears as a cash or short-term transaction(with the exchange of sisters and daughters, and avuncular marriage), and at other times more as a long-term transaction(as in the case where the prohibited degrees include first, and occasionally second, cousins ). Sometimes the exchange is explicit and at other times it is implicit(as seen in the example of so-called riage by purchase). Sometimes the exo closed (whe must satisfy a special rule of alliance between marriage classes or a special rule for the observance of preferential degrees), while sometimes it is open (when the rule of exogamy is merely a collection of negative stipulations, hich beyond the prohibited degrees, leaves a free choice). Sometimes it is secured by a sort of mortgage on reserved categories(classes or degrees); sometimes(as in the case of the simple prohibition of incest, as found in our society) it rests on a wider fiduciary guarantee, viz the theoretical free- dom to claim any woman of the group, in return for the renunciation of certain designated women in the family circle, a freedom ensured by the xtension of a prohibition, similar to that affecting each man in particular to all men in general. But no matter what form it takes, whether direct or 478
The Principles of Kinship indirect, general or special, immediate or deferred, explicit or implicit, closed or open, concrete or symbolic, it is exchange, always exchange, that emerges as the fundamental and common basis of all modalities of the institution of marriage. If these modalities can be subsumed under the general term of exogamy (for, as we have seen in Part I, endogamy is not opposed to exogamy, but presupposes it), this is conditional upon the apperception behind the superficially negative expression of the rule of exogamy, of the final principle which, through the prohibition of marriage within prohibited degrees, tends to ensure the total and continuous circulation of the group's most important assets, its wives and its daughters. The functional value of exogamy, defined in its widest sense, has been specified and brought out in the preceding chapters. This value is in the first place negative. Exogamy provides the only means of maintaining the group aa as a group, of avoiding the indefinite fission and segmentation which the practice of consanguineous marriages would bring about. If these consan guineous marriages were resorted to persistently, or even over-frequently, E they would not take long to fragment the social group into a multitude of families, forming so many closed systems or sealed monads which no pre-established harmony could prevent from proliferating or from coming into confict. The rule of exogamy, applied in its simplest forms, is not entirely sufficient to the task of warding off this mortal danger to the group B. Such is the case with dual organization. with it there is no doubt that the risk seeing a biological far mily become est stablished as a closed system is definitely eliminated; the biological group can no longer stand apart, and the bond of alliance with another family ensures the dominance of the social i. over the biological, and of the cultural over the natural. But there immediately war appears another risk, that of seeing two familie rather two lir 23. isolate themselves from the social continuum to form a bi-polar system, an indefinitely self-sufficient pair, closely united by a succession of intermarriages The rule of exogamy, which determines the modalities for forming such pairs, gives them a definite social and cultural character, but this social character is no sooner given than it is disintegrated. This is the danger which is avoided by the more complex forms of exogamy, such as the principle of generalized exchange, or the subdivision of moieties into sections and subsections in which more and more numerous local groups constitute indefinitely more complex systems. It is thus the same with women as with the currency the name of which they often bear, and which, according to the admirable native saying, ' depicts the action of the needle for sewing roots which, weaving in and out, leads backwards and forwards the same liana, holding the straw together,. Even when there are no such procedures, dual s: organization is not itself ineffective. We have seen how the intervention of preferred degrees of kinship within the moiety, e.g., the predilection for the real cross-cousin, and even for a certain type of real cross-cousin, as among 1 Leenhardt, 1930, pp. 48, 54
4 The elementary Structures of Kinshi, the Kariera, provides the means of palliating the risks of an over-automatic functioning of the classes. As opposed to endogamy and its tendency to set a limit to the group, and then to discriminate within the group, exogamy represents a continuous pull towards a greater cohesion, a more efficacious solidarity, and a more supple articulation This is because the value of exchange is not simply that of the goods exchanged. Exchange -and consequently the rule of exogamy which ex presses it-has in itself a social value. It provides the means of bindir men together, and of superimposing upon the natural links of kinship the henceforth ificial links-artificial in the sense that they are removed from chance encounters or the promiscuity of family life-of alliance governed by rule. In this connexion, marriage serves as model for that artificial and temporary 'conjugality'between young people of the same sex in some schools and on which Balzac makes the profound remark that it is never superimposed upon blood ties but replaces them It is strange, but never in my time did i know brothers who were"Activists". If man lives only by his feelings, he thinks perhaps that he will make his life the poorer if he merges an aftection of his own choosing in a natural tie. 1 On this level, certain theories of exogamy which were criticized at the beginning of this work find a new value and significance If, as we have suggested, exogamy and the prohibition of incest have a permanent functional value, co-extensive with all social groups, surely all the widely differing interpretations which have been given for them must contain an atom of truth? Thus the theories of McLennan, Spencer and Lubbock have, at least, a symbolical meaning. It will be recalled that McLennan believed that exogamy had its origin in tribes practising female infanticide, and which were consequently obliged to seek wives for their sons from outside. Similarly Spencer suggested that exogamy began among warrior tribes who carried off.- women from neighbouring groups. Lubbock proposed a primitive opposition between two forms of marriage viz an endogamous marriage in which" the women were regarded as the communal property of the men of the group, and an exogamous marriage, which reckoned captured women as the private property of their captor, thus giving rise to modern individual marriage. The concrete detail may be disputed, but the fundamental idea is sound. iZ,, that exogamy has a value less negative than positive, that it asserts the social existence of other people, and that it prohibits endogamous marriage only in order to introduce, and to prescribe, marriage with a group other than the biological family, certainly not because a biological danger is attached to consanguineous marriage, but because exogamous marriage results in a social benefit Consequently, exogamy should be recognized as an important element doubtless by far the most important element-in that solemn collection of The conjugal regard that united us as boys, and which we used to express by calling Balzac. ve X,1937,pp.366,382
The Principles of Kinship 48I manifestations which, continually or periodically, ensures the integration of partial units within the total group, and demands the collaboration of outside groups. Such are the banquets, feasts and cerei monies of various kinds which form the web of social life. But exogamy is not merely one manifestation among many others. The feasts and ceremonies are periodic st part have limited functions. The law of exogamy, by contrast, is omnipresent, acting permanently and continually; moreover, it pplies to valuables-viz,, women-valuables par excellence from both the biological and the social points of view, without which life is impossible, or at best, is reduced to the worst forms of abjection. It is no exaggeration then, to say that exogamy is the archetype of all other manifestations based upon reciprocity, and that it provides the fundamental and immutable rule ensuring the existence of the group as a group. For example, among the Maori, Best tells us Female children of rank, as also male children of that status, were given in marriage to persons of important, powerful tribes, possibly of a quite unrelated people, as a means of procuring assistance from such tribes in time of war. In this connexion we can see the application of the following saying of older times: He taura taonga e motu, he taura tangata e kore e mod”(“ A gift connexion may be severed, but not so a human link”) Two peoples may meet in friendship and exchange gifts and yet quarrel and fight in later times, but intermarriage connects them in a permanent manner. And, further on, he quotes another proverb: 'He hono tangata e kore e motu, kapa he taura waka, e motu, 'a human joining is inseverable, but not o a canoe-painter, which can be severed. 2 The philosophy contained in these remarks is the more significant because the Maori were by no means insensible to the advantages of marriage within the group If both families quarrelled and insulted each other, they said this would not be serious, but merely a family affair and war would be avoided. 3 II The prohibition of incest is less a rule prohibiting marriage with the mother, sister or daughter, than a rule obliging the mother, sister or daughter to be given to others. It is the supreme rule of the gift, and it is clearly this aspect, too often unrecognized, which allows its nature to be understood. All the errors in interpreting the prohibition of incest arise from a tendency to see marriage as a discontinuous process which derives its own limits and possi- bilities from within itself in each individual case Thus it is that the reasons why marriage with the mother, daughter or sister can be prevented are sought in a quality intrinsic to these women Best,1929,p.34. 2 ibid, p. 36 3 ibid. 1924, vol. I, p. 447
82 The Elementary Structures of Kinship One is therefore drawn infallibly towards biological considerations, since it is only from a biological, certainly not a social, point of view that mother hood, sisterhood or daughterhood are properties of the individuals con- sidered. However, from a social viewpoint, these terms cannot be regarded defining isolated individuals, but relationships between these individuals: and everyone else. Motherhood is not only a mother's relationship to her children, but her relationship to other members of the group, not as a mother, but as a sister, wife, cousin or simply a stranger as far as kinship is concerned. It is the same for all family relationships, which are defined not only by the individuals they involve, but also by all those they exclude. This is true to the extent that observers have often been struck by the impossibility for natives of conceiving a neutral relationship or more exactl ly, no relation ship. We have the feeling-which, moreover, is illusory -that the absence of definite kinship gives rise to such a state in our consciousness. But the supposition that this might be the case in primitive thought does not stand up to examination. Every family relationship defines a certain group of rights and duties, while the lack of family relationship does not define anything; it defines enmity If you wish to live among the Nuer you must do so on their terms, which means that you must treat them as a kind of kinsman and they will then treat you as a kind of kinsman. Rights, privileges and obligations are determined by kinship Either a man is a kinsman, actually or by fiction or he is a person to whom you have no reciprocal obligations and whom you treat as a potential enemy. The australian aboriginal group is defined in exactly the same terms When a stranger comes to a camp that he has never visited before, he does not enter the camp, but remains at some distance. a few of the older men,after a while, approach him, and the first thing they proceed to do is to find out who the stranger is. The commonest question that is put to him is"Who is your maeli (father's father)?" The discussion proceeds on genealogical lines until all parties are satisfied of the exact relation of the stranger to each of the natives present in the camp When this point reached, the stranger can be admitted to the camp, and the different men and women are pointed out to him and their relation to him defined If I am a blackfellow and meet another blackfellow that other must be either my relative or my enemy. If he is my enemy I shall take the first opportunity of killing him, for fear he will kill me. This, before the white man came, was the aboriginal view of one's duty towards one's neigh Through their striking parallelism, these two examples merely confirm a universal situation 1 Evans-Pritchard, 1940, p. 183. 2 RadclifTe-Brown, 1913, p. 151
The Principles of Kinship 'Throughout a considerable period, and in a large number of societies, men met in a curious frame of mind, with exaggerated fear and an equally exaggerated generosity which appear stupid in no one's eyes but our own In all the societies which immediately preceded our own and which still surround us, and even in many usages of popular morality, there is no middle path. There is either complete trust or complete mistrust. One lays casual hospitality to one's daughter or one's property, ng away, from down one's arms, renounces magic, and gives everythi There is no barbarism or, properly speaking, even archaism in thi attitude. It merely represents the systematization, pushed to the limit, of characteristics inherent in social relationships No relationship can be arbitrarily isolated from all other relat i It is likewise impossible to remain on this or that side of the world of relation- ships. The social environment should not be conceived of as an empty frame- g work within which beings and things can be linked, or simply juxtaposed.It i is inseparable from the things which people it. Together they constitute a field of gravitation in which the weights and distances form a co-ordinated whole, and in which a change in any element produces a change in the total equilibrium of the system. We have given a partial illustration at least of this principle in our analysis of cross-cousin marriage. However, it can be seen how its field of application must be extended to all the rules of kinship and above all, to that universal and fundamental rule, the prohibition of incest. Every kinship system(and no human society is without one) has a total character, and it is because of this that the mother, sister, and daughter are perpetually coupled, as it were, with elements of the system which, in relation to them, are neither son, nor brother, nor father, because the latter are themselves coupled with other women, or other classes of women,or feminine elements defined by a relationship of a different order. Because marriage is exchange, because marriage is the archetype of exchange, the analysis of exchange can help in the understanding of the solidarity which unites the gift and the counter-gift, and one marriage with other marriages It is true that Seligman disputes that the woman is the sole or predominant instrument of the alliance. She cites the institution of blood brotherhood as expressed by the henamo relationship among the natives of New Guinea. 2 The establishment of blood-brotherhood does indeed create a bond of lliance between individuals, but by making them brothers it entails a prohibition on marriage with the sister. It is far from our mind to claim that the exchange or gift of women is the only way to establish an alliance in primitive societies. We have shown elsewhere how, among certain native groups of Brazil, the community could be expressed by the terms for brother- in-law'and 'brother. The brother-in-law is ally, collaborator and friend it is the term given to adult males belonging to the band with which an 1 Mauss,1925,p.138. 2 B Z Seligman, 1935, pp. 75-93
The ele ry Sti of Kinship alliance has been contracted. In the same band, the potential brother-in-law 1. e, the cross-cousin, is the one with whom, as an adolescent, one indulges in homosexual activities which will always leave their mark in the mutually aftectionate behaviour of the adults. However, as well as the brother-in-law i. relationship, the Nambikwara also rely on the notion of brotherhood Savage, you are no longer my brother ! 'is the cry uttered during a quarrel with a non-kinsman. Furthermore, objects found in a series, such as hut posts, the pipes of a Pan-pipe, etc., are said to be 'brothers, or are called others', in their respective relationships, a terminological detail which is worth comparing with Montaigne's observation that the Brazilian Indians whom he met at Rouen called men the halves' of one another, just as we say four fellow men'. However, the whole difference between the two types of bond can also be seen, a sufficiently clear definition being that one of them expresses a mechanical solidarity(brother), while the other involves an organic solidarity(brother-in-law, or god-father) r. Brothers are closely related to one another, but they are so in terms of their similarity, as are the posts or the reeds of the Pan-pipe. By contrast, brothers-in-law are solidary because they complement each other and have a functional efficacy for one another, whether they play the role of the opposite sex in the erotic games of childhood, or whether their masculine alliance as adults is confirmed by each providing the other with what he does not have-a wife-through their simultaneous renunciation of what they both do have-a sister. The first form of solidarity adds nothing and unites nothing; it is based upon a cultural limit, satisfied by the reproduction of a type of connexion the model for which is provided by nature. The other brings about an integration of the group on a new plane Linton's observation on blood-brotherhood in the Marquesas helps to place the two institutions(blood-brotherhood and intermarriage) in their reciprocal perspectives. Blood-brothers are called enoa: 'When one was enoa with a man, one had equal rights to his property and stood in the same relation to his relatives as he did 3However, it emerges very clearly from the context that the enoa system is merely an individual solution acting as a substitute, while the real and effective solution of the relations between the groups,i.e,the collective and organic solution of intermarriages, with the consequent fusion of the tribes, is made impossible by the international situation. Although vendettas may be in progress, the institution of enoa, purely individual affair, is able to ensure a minimum of liaison and colla boration, even when marriage, which is a group affair, cannot be contracted Native theory confirms our conception even more directly. Mead's Arapesh informants had difficulty at first in answering her questions on possible infringements of the marriage prohibitions. However, when they eventually did express a comment the source of the misunderstanding was clearly 1 Levi-Strauss. 1948a 3 Linton,1945,p.149 2 Montaigne, 1962, vol I, ch XXXI (Des Cannibales)
The Principles of Kinship revealed they do not conceive of the prohibition as such, i. e, in its negative pect; the prohibition is merely the reverse or counterpart of a positive obligation, which alone is present and active in the consciousness. does a man ever sleep with his sister? The question is absurd. Certainly not, they reply: ' No, we don,'t sleep with our sisters. We give our sisters to other men and other men give us their sisters.'I The ethnographer pressed the point, asking what they would think or say if, through some impossibility, this eventuality managed to occur. Informants had dificulty placing themselves in this situation, for it was scarcely conceivable: What, you would like to marry your sister What is the matter with you anyway Don't you want a brother-in-law? Don't you realize that if you marry another man,'s sister i: and another man marries your sister, you will have at least two brothers-in- law, while if you marry your own sister you will have none? With whom will you hunt, with whom will you garden, whom will you go to visit? 2 Doubtless, this is all a little suspect, because it was provoked, but the native aphorisms collected by Mead, and quoted as the motto to the first a: part of this work, were not provoked, and their meaning is the same.Other evidence corroborates the same thesis. For the Chukchee, a"bad family is defined as an isolated family, brotherless and cousinless' .Moreover, the necessity to provoke the comment (the content of which, in any case, is spontaneous), and the difficulty in obtaining it, reveal the misunderstanding inherent in the problem of marriage prohibitions. The latter are prohibitions only, secondarily and derivatively. Rather than a prohibition on a certain category of persons, they are a prescription directed towards another cate gory. In this regard, how much more penetrating is native theory than are so many modern commentaries! There is nothing in the sister, mother, or daughter which disqualifies them as such. Incest is socially absurd before it is morally culpable. The incredulous exclamation from the informant: so you do not want to have a brother-in-law? provides the veritable golden rule for the state of society. There is thus no possible solution to the problem of incest within the biologi- cal family, even supposing this family to be already in a cultural context which imposes its specific demands upon it. The cultural context does not E: consist of a collection of abstract conditions. It results from a very simple act which expresses it entirely, namely, that the biological family is no longer alone, and that it must ally itself with other families in order to endure Malinowski supported a different idea, namely, that the prohibition of incest a results from an internal contradiction, within the biological family, between mutually incompatible feelings, such as the emotions attached to sexual relationships and parental love, or the sentiments which form naturally Mead,1935,p.84 3 bogoras,19049,p.542
86 The Elementary Structures of Kinship between brothers and sisters. These sentiments nevertheless only become incompatible because of the cultural role which the biological family is called upon to play. The man should teach his children, and this social vocation practised naturally within the family group, is irremediably compromised if emotions of another type develop and upset the discipline indispensable to the maintenance of a stable order between the generations: ' Incest would mean the upsetting of age distinctions, the mixing up of generations, the disorganization of sentiments and a violent exchange of roles at a time when the family is the most important educational medium. No society could exist under such conditions 2 It is unfortunate for this thesis that there is practically no primitive society which does not flagrantly contradict it on every point. The primitive family fulfils its educative function sooner than ours, and from puberty onwards and often even before-it transfers the charge of adolescents to the group with the handing over of their preparation to bachelor houses or initiation groups. Initiation rituals confirm this emancipation of the young man or girl from the family cell and their definitive incorporation within the social group. To achieve this end, these rituals rely on precisely the processes which Malinowski cites as a possibility solely in order to expose their mortal dangers, viz, affective disorganization and the violent exchange of roles sometimes going as far as the practice, on the initiate s very person, of most unfamilial usages by near relatives. Finally, different types of classificatory system are very little concerned to maintain a clear distinction between ages and generations. However, it is just as difficult for a Hopi child to learn to call an old man 'my son', or any other assimilation of the same order, as it would be for one of ours. The supposedly disastrous situation that Malinow ski depicts in order to justify the prohibition of incest, is on the whole, no more than a very banal picture of any society, envisaged from another point i of view than its own This naive egocentrism is so far from being new or original that Durkheim made a decisive criticism of it years before Malinowski gave it a temporary revival in popularity. Incestuous relationships only appear contradictory to iy family sentiments because we have conceived of the latter as irreducibly excluding the former. But if a long and ancient tradition allowed men to arry their near relatives, our conception of marriage would be quite different. Sexual life would not have become what it is. It would have a less personal character, and would leave less room for the free play of the imagination, dreams and the spontaneities of desire. Sexual feeling would be tempered and deadened but by this very fact it would compare closely with domestic feelings, with which it would have no difficulty in being reconciled. To conclude this paraphrase with a quotation: 'Certainly, the question does not pose itself once it is assumed that incest is prohibited; for the conjugal order, being henceforth outside the domestic order, must necessarily develop in a I Malinowski, 1934, p. ixvi. 2jbid.1927,p.251 Simmons, 1942, p. 68
