Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T11:29:11.420Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Shaking off the Domestic Yoke, or the Sociological Significance of Residence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2009

Michel Verdon
Michel Verdon
Affiliation:
University of Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The recent incursion of historians into the ‘history of the family’ raises a number of crucial problems from which anthropologists and sociologists seem to have shied away. Dealing with a topic new to the historical discipline, some of these historians have turned to anthropologists for theoretical inspiration. It will thus come as no surprise that what they have found and reproduced is the very conceptual discord so endemic in anthropological circles (see Laslett 1972 and Berkner 1975 for antithetical stances). This controversy, however, in one way represents only a minor aspect of the problem. Equally if not more important is the fact that the phenomena which fall under historical and sociological/anthropological investigation may not be the same after all. This is intrinsically related to their respective subject-matter and the type of evidence they have to rely upon.

Type
Placing the Family
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 22 , Issue 1 , January 1980 , pp. 109 - 132
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, L. 1947. ‘Virilocal and uxorilocal,” American Anthropologist 49: 678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, John Arundel 1960. ‘Marriage and residential continuity,” American Anthropologist 62: 850–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, Donald R. 1967. ‘A refinement of the concept of household: families, co-residence and domestic functions,” American Anthropologist 69: 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berkner, Lutz 1975. ‘The use and misuse of census data for the historical analysis of family structure,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History IV: 721–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biraben, Jean-Noel 1972. ‘A Southern French village: the inhabitants of Montplaisant in 1644,” in Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bohannan, Paul 1957. ‘An alternate residence classification,” American Anthropologist 59: 126–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, Bohannan 1960. Social Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Buchler, Ira R., AND Selby, Henry A. 1968. Kinship and Social Organization. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Burling, Robbins 1964a. ‘Cognition and componential analysis: God's truth or hocus-pocus,” American Anthropologist 66: 20–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burling, Robbins 1964b. ‘Rejoinder to Hymes and Frake,” American Anthropologist 66: 120–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrasco, Pedro 1963. ‘The locality referent in residence terms,” American Anthropologist 65: 132–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Casselberry, S.E., AND Valavanes, N. 1976. ‘“Matrilocal” Greek peasants and a reconsideration of residence terminology,” American Ethnologist 3: 215–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Emile 1892. De la division du travail social. Paris.Google Scholar
Ember, Melvyn, AND Ember, Carol 1971. ‘The conditions favouring matrilocal versus patrilocal residence,” American Anthropologist 73: 571–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ember, M., Ember, C. and Pasternak, B. 1976. ‘On the conditions favouring extended family households,” Journal of Anthropological Research 32: 109–24.Google Scholar
Fischer, J.L. 1958. ‘The classification of residence in censuses,” American Anthropologist 60: 508–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fjellman, S.M. 1977. ‘The Akamba domestic cycle as a Markovian process,” American Ethnologist 4: 699–714.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1949a. The Web of Kinship among the Tallensi. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1949b. ‘Time and social structure’ in Fortes, M. 1970. Time and Social Structure and Other Essays. London: Athlone Press.Google Scholar
Fortes, Meyer. 1958. ‘Introduction,” in Goody, Jack, ed., The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fox, Robin 1967. Kinship and Marriage. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Frake, Charles O. 1964. ‘Further discussion of Burling,” American Anthropologist 66: 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonzalez, Nancie L. Solien 1969. Black Carib Household Structure. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Goodenough, Ward H. 1955. ‘Residence rules,” Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 12: 22–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goody, Jack 1958. ‘The fission of domestic groups among the LoDagaba,” in The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack 1972a. Domestic Groups. Reading, Mass.: Addison Wesley Modules.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack 1972b. ‘The evolution of the family,” in Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press.Google Scholar
Hammel, Eugene A. 1964. ‘Further comments on componential analysis,” American Anthropologist 66: 1167–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammel, Eugene A. 1972. ‘The zadruga as process,” in Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Marvin 1974. ‘Why a perfect knowledge of all the rules one must know to act like a native cannot lead to the knowledge of how natives act,” Journal of Anthropological Research 30: 242–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell 1964. ‘Discussion of Burling's paper,” American Anthropologist 66: 116–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Korn, S.D.R. 1975. ‘Household composition in the Tonga Islands,” Journal of Anthropological Research 31: 235–60.Google Scholar
Laslett, P. 1972. ‘Introduction,” in Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laslett, P. and Hammel, E.A. 1974. ‘Comparing household structure over time and between cultures,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 16: 73–109.Google Scholar
Leach, Edmund 1960. ‘The Sinhalese of the dry zone of Northern Ceylon,” in Murdock, G.P., ed., Social Structure in Southeast Asia. London: Tavistock Publications.Google Scholar
Lounsbury, Floyd G. 1964. ‘A formal account of the Crow- and Omaha-type kinship terminologies,” in Goodenough, Ward H., ed., Explorations in Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGraw Hill Book Company.Google Scholar
Miller, F. 1974. ‘Tzotzil domestic groups,” Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 94: 172–82.Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter 1949. Social Structure. New York: The Macmillan Company.Google Scholar
Murdock, George Peter 1957. ‘World Ethnographic Sample,” American Anthropologist 59: 664–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nakane, Chie 1972. ‘An interpretation of the size and structure of the household in Japan over three centuries,” in Laslett, P., ed., Household and Family in Past Time. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pasternak, Burton 1976. Introduction to Kinship and Social Organization. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc.Google Scholar
Richards, Audrey 1950. ‘Some types of family structure amongst the Central Bantu,” in Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. and Forde, D., eds., African Systems of Kinship and Marriage. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rivers, W.H.R. 1924. Social Organization. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
Stern, Lilo 1973. ‘Inter-household movement in a Ladino village of southern Mexico,” Man 8: 393–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, N.W. 1906. Kinship Organization and Group Marriage in Australia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tylor, Edward B. 1889. ‘On a method of investigating the development of institutions,” Journal of the Anthropological Institute 18: 245–72.Google Scholar
Verdon, Michel. 1979a. ‘The stem family: towards a general theory,” Journal of Interdisciplinary History, forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verdon, Michel. 1979b. ‘Sleeping together: the dynamics of residence amongst the Abutia Ewe.” Journal of Anthropological Research forthcoming.CrossRefGoogle Scholar