[Xmca-l] Re: kinship

[Martin Packer]

Right, Michael, so one approach would be to presume that each society defines ‘family’ in its own way, and to give up the attempt to find an ahistorical, culture-neutral, scientific definition of family.

That line of reasoning was what led me to wonder whether there may be societies that have *no* definition of family. They simply divide up the social world in a different way. Hence my question.

Martin

> On Jan 7, 2018, at 5:09 PM, Glassman, Michael <glassman.13@osu.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hello Martin,
> 
> I have recently been reading the recent social evolution work comparing hunter gatherer (which were more distributed) to more agrarian social groups (more focused). "Against the Grain,"  "Affluence without abundance" and "Guns, Germs and Steel." I wonder if the definition of family across cultures is more transactional (both in the business sense and the Deweyan sense). That is it fills dynamic needs. For instance for hunter gatherers it might be whoever is part of your dinner table at the moment (who you hunt with, gather with, eat with). For societies that are more agrarian and object based it might refer to whoever helps you achieve your focused task (sports teams often refer to themselves as family), or helping to define property ownership (including the passing between generations), knowledge ownership, skill ownership. The definition depends on what is needed at the moment.  I think in Europe guilds were much closer to family than blood kinship. The divine right of kinds sugges
> ts family is based on blood relations because it is part of their reason for being able to rule. It just seems that family is a word that fulfills needs rather than defines specific types of relationships.
> 
> This was deeply affected in our society I think by the idea of ownership of children (they have absolutely no rights outside the jurisdiction of the parent from birth to 18 and are not even allowed to have voice (I believe they are referred to as infants in law books - at least that is what somebody who I think read said law books told me once). Maybe this is very tied to our strong agrarian culture where children were expected to work on the farm and support the family. Family is defined by the needs of the farmers.  In a more general sense family is defined by the needs of culture/civilization not the other way around.
> 
> An interesting question anyway.
> 
> Michael
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> 
>