As part of the matrilineal kinship system “raven” of the Crow Indians, a particularly exemplary father-child dyad is the one found in the biilapx relationship (using the example of the real Crow Indians). “Strong” and “unique” dyads are characterized by their mutual exchange and reciprocity of goods and services. In any society, marriage has certain rules such as endogamy, exogamy, the taboo of incest and other restrictions. These rules apply to all family members. Usually, rural residents are more serious and stricter in adhering to the rules related to marriage. Exogamy is often followed in most villages in India. Village members do not prefer to get married in their own village. However, this rule may vary depending on the severity of the marriage regulations. 2. Since men are traditionally anchored in the “public space,” they are associated with cultural engagements that revolve around economics, politics, and religion, that is, all expressions of power over nature that help create artificial symbolic and technological mediations that increase man`s control over nature. In contrast, women are traditionally rooted in the “domestic sphere” and focus on “natural” participations, such as childbirth and care for boys, as well as food and health. With domestication, a new ideology further emphasized the need to control “nature,” that is, wilderness, in fact, a threat to cultivated fields and livestock – barriers between – separation – and towers erected to monitor and control submission. With domestication, the Earth is now presented as a “wilderness” and a “threat” to what is domesticated, as well as something that must be “controlled” and as a “natural resource” for the benefit of humanity.
Example in the theories of Sherry Ortner. Domestication would certainly have developed differently if the image of a “nourishing” and “maternal” land had remained. No one would want to exploit their “mother”! Beginning in the 1950s, reports of kinship patterns in the New Guinea highlands gave some impetus to hitherto occasional short-lived suggestions that cohabitation might underlie social ties, and eventually contributed to the general abandonment of a genealogical approach (see section below). For example, Barnes suggested based on his observations: According to relationships, there are two types of kinship, which are given below: generalized exchange and dual organization occur when cooperation is important, while limited exchange occurs when the avoidance of mating conflicts is more important. This suggests that, contrary to the Lévi-Strauss classification, the dual organization is more akin to a general exchange than to a limited exchange. If the mating conflict is low, the community is endowed with a small number of clans united by marriage. As the mating conflict becomes stronger, it would be better to separate the clans within the villages to avoid conflicts. Then a limited exchange occurs. In this case, however, each clan has more than one cooperative clan not. B, such as B1 for A1 in Fig. 6. Thus, a limited exchange only occurs if conflict avoidance is more important than cooperation, i.e.
dm/dc is sufficiently important. Differentiation and yet gender balance — Gender equality — has the advantage of the incest taboo has been discussed biologically and economically (12, 13). With regard to kinship structures, the way in which marriage and ancestry rules are chosen has been examined numerically in the context of a given clan separation (14). Theoretical group analysis, known as kinship algebra, shows structures that fill transformation symmetry according to the rules of marriage and ancestry (15⇓-17). However, these studies cannot explain the social origin of the incest taboo (including the distinction between the daughters of the father`s sisters and the daughters of the fathers` brothers), nor the emergence and transition of kinship structures. Let`s take the example of the “father.” A “father” includes expectations about his relationship with a “son” or “daughter” that are generally different from the relationship of a “father,” for example, his sister`s “son.” The question of whether kinship is a privileged system and, if so, why remains unanswered satisfactorily. If it is privileged because of its relationship with the functional presuppositions imposed by the nature of physical kinship, this remains to be explained even in the most basic details. (Schneider 1984, p. 163) Ask yourself, what happens when “love” is no longer the glue that holds relationships together? Early developments in the theory of biological inclusive fitness and the field derived from sociobiology encouraged some evolutionary sociobiologists and psychologists to approach human kinship by assuming that inclusive fitness theory predicts that kinship relationships in humans should actually depend on genetic kinship, which they easily associate with the genealogical approach of early anthropologists like Morgan (see sections above). However, this is the position that Schneider, Sahlins and other anthropologists explicitly reject. A more flexible view of kinship has been formulated in British social anthropology.
Among attempts to break out of universalizing hypotheses and theories about kinship, Radcliffe-Brown (1922, The Andaman Islands; 1930, The Social Organization of Australian Tribes) was the first to assert that kinship relationships are best regarded as concrete networks of relationships between individuals. But he went on to describe these relationships as characterized by interlocking interpersonal roles. Malinowski (1922, Argonauts of the Western Pacific) described patterns of events with concrete individuals as participants who emphasized the relative stability of institutions and communities, but without insisting on abstract systems or models of kinship. Gluckman (1955, The Trial under the Barotse of Northern Rhodesia) balanced the emphasis on institutional stability with the processes of change and conflict derived from the detailed analysis of cases of social interaction to deduce rules and assumptions. John Barnes, Victor Turner and other associates at Gluckman`s Manchester School of Anthropology have described models of real network relationships in communities and fluid situations in urban or migratory contexts, as in the work of J. Clyde Mitchell (1965, Social Networks in Urban Situations). But all these approaches clung to a vision of stable functionalism, with kinship as one of the central stable institutions. Primary affinity: The relationship that takes place with marriage is called primary affinity. The main direct final kinship is the husband-wife relationship.
Philip Thomas` work with the Temanambondro of Madagascar emphasizes that care processes, regardless of genealogical ties, are considered the “basis” of kinship relationships in this culture; Primary final kinship refers to the direct relationship formed as a result of marriage. The only direct relationship is the relationship between man and woman. Tertiary kinship refers to the primary kinship of the primary kinship of primary parents or the secondary kinship of the primary kinship of the primary kinship of the secondary kinship. Approximately 151 tertiary parents have been identified. The women`s emancipation movement demands that women not be deprived of inheritance rights and that everyone receive equal shares of property. In most village studies, ownership and kinship are discussed in relation to each other. In human society, a family and kinship are formed through marriage and descent. In Indigenous societies, families that have a common ancestor are called ancestry. Lineages form a socially related group called clan, in which the common culture is shared (1⇓-3). .