Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:36:55.208Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Hypothesis on the Origins of the Communal Family System

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2024

Laurent Sagart  and
Emmanuel Todd
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article is the result of collaboration between a linguist and an anthropologist. In La Troisième planète. Structures familiales et systèmes idéologiques (The Third Planet: Family Structures and Ideologies) (Todd, 1983), anthropologist Emmanuel Todd provided a world map of family types, which he used to explain the distribution of major political philosophies around the world. However, this did not explain the distribution of the family types themselves. Indeed, a concluding chapter entitled “Le Hazard” (The Effects of Chance) stated that the distribution of family types did not seem to be the result of any particular economic or ecological factor and was therefore a prime example of the uncertainty principle at work. However, Laurent Sagart, a linguist specializing in Chinese dialects, noticed that this map of family types exhibited a structure well known to experts in historical linguistics and dialectology, contrasting a large, continuous zone in the center with a number of small, independent zones located around the periphery of the central zone or in isolated enclaves within it. When such maps appear in linguistic atlases, dialectologists usually conclude that the central zone was the innovative area while the peripheral and isolated zones conserved the original features. The same analysis, if applied to the map of family types, would lead to the conclusion that the communal family system in the center of the map represented a more recent innovation than the systems around the periphery.

Type
Research Article
Information
Diogenes , Volume 40 , Issue 160 , September 1992 , pp. 145 - 182
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 Fédération Internationale des Sociétés de Philosophie / International Federation of Philosophical Societies (FISP)

References

Ata, I.W., The West Bank Palestinian Family, London, KPI, 1986.Google Scholar
Bacon, E.E., The Hazara Mongols of Afghanistan: A Study in Social Organization, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, 1951.Google Scholar
Barclay, H., “The Nile Valley,” in Sweet, L.E., et al., The Central Middle East, New Haven, Human Relations Area File Press, 1971, p. 177.Google Scholar
Barth, F., Sohar, . Culture and Society in an Omani Town, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Bartoli, M., and Bertoni, G., Breviaro di Neolinguistica, Modena, 1925.Google Scholar
Barua, I., Social Relations in an Ahom Village, New Dehli, Sterling Publishers, 1978.Google Scholar
Beck, B.E.F., Peasant Society in Konku:. A Study of Right and Left Subcastes in South India, Vancouver, University of British Columbia, 1972.Google Scholar
Behura, N.K.,. Peasant Potters of Orissa: A Sociological Study, New Dehli, Sterling, 1978.Google Scholar
Benedict, P., “Aspects of the domestic cycle in a Turkish provincial town,” in J.G. Peristiany, et al., Mediterranean Family Structures, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp. 219–41.Google Scholar
Benet, S., The Village of Viriatino, translated and edited by Benet, Sula, New York, Doubleday, 1970.Google Scholar
Bernot, L., Les paysans arakanais du Pakistan oriental, Paris, Mouton, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonkáló, The Rusyns, New York, Columbia University Press (distr.), 1990. (Translation of the 1940 Hungarian version.)Google Scholar
Campbell, J.K., Honour, Family and Patronage: A Study of Institutions and Moral Values in a Greek Mountain Community, Oxford University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Cardascia, G., Les lois assyriennes, Paris, Les éditions du Cerf, 1969.Google Scholar
Chavannes, E., Les mémoires historiques de Sse-ma Ts'ien, Paris, E. Leroux, reedition 1967, original edition 1895-1905.Google Scholar
Chelhod, J., “Le mariage avec la cousine parallèle dans le système arabe,” L'Homme, v.V., July-December 1965, nos. 3 and 4, pp. 113–73.Google Scholar
Chelhod, J. “ La parenté et le mariage,” in Chelhod, J., et al., L'Arabie du Sud, histoire et civilisation, Paris, Maisonneuve et Larose, 1984, pp. 63–97.Google Scholar
Cuisenier, J., “The domestic cycle in the traditional family organization in Tunisia,” in J.G. Peristiany, Mediterranean Family Structures, Cambridge, University Press, 1976, pp. 137–55.Google Scholar
Cunnison, I., Arabs, Baggara: Power and Lineage in a Sudanese Nomad Tribe, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Czap, P., “A large family: the peasant's greatest wealth: serf households in Mishino, Russia, 1814-1858,” in Wall, R., et al., Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Danda, D.G., Among the Dimasa of Assam, New Dehli, Sterling, 1978.Google Scholar
Dauzat, A., La Géographie linguistique, Paris, Flammarion, 1922.Google Scholar
Dauzat, A. Essais de géographie linguistique, Paris, Champion, 1928.Google Scholar
DeBenoist de Gentissart, A., La composition des ménages nomades d'Afghanistan d'après les données du recensemente de 1979, Ph.D. thesis, Université de Paris V, 1984.Google Scholar
Dournes, J., Coordonnées, . Structures Jörai familiales et sociales, Paris, Institut d'Ethnologie, 1972.Google Scholar
Dragadzé, T., Rural Families in Soviet Georgi:. A Case Study in Ratcha Province, London, Routledge, 1988.Google Scholar
D'Souze, V.S., “Kinship organization and marriage among the Moplahs on the South-West coast in India,” in I. Ahmad, et al., Family, Kinship and Marriage among Muslims in India, New Dehli, Manohar, 1976, pp. 140–67.Google Scholar
Du Boulay, J., Portrait of a Greek Mountain Village, Oxford University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Dumont, L., Une sous-caste de l'Inde du Sud, Paris, Mouton, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elwin, V., Maisons de jeunes chez les Murla, Paris, Gallimard, 1954; re-issued 1978.Google Scholar
Embre, J.F., “Thailand: A loosely-structured social system,” American Anthropologist, 52, 1950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erman, A., and Ranke, H., La civilisation égyptienne, Paris, Payot, 1963.Google Scholar
Fel, , Hsiao-Tung, Peasant Life in China: A Field Study of Country Life in the Yangtze Valley, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co, 1939.Google Scholar
Finet, A., Le code de Hammurapi, Paris, Les éditions de Cerf, 1973.Google Scholar
Forgeau, A., “La M'moire du nom et l'ordre pharaonique,” in A. Burguière, C. Klapisch et al., Histoire de la famile, Paris, Armand Colin, 1986, pp. 135–61.Google Scholar
Fortes, M., “Introduction,” in J. Goody, et al., The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups, Cambridge University Press, 1969, pp. 1–14.Google Scholar
Freeman, J.D., “The Family system of the Iban of Borneo,” in J. Goody, et al., The Developmental Cycle in Domestic Groups, Cambridge University Press, 1969, pp. 15–52.Google Scholar
Gamble, S.D., Hsien, Ting: A North China Rural Community, New York, Institute of Pacific Relations, 1954.Google Scholar
Gaunt, D., “Rural household organization and inheritance in Northern Europe,” Journal of Family History, 1987, Vol. 12, nos. 1-3, pp. 121–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Germanos-Ghazaly, L., Le paysan, la terre et la femme. Organisation sociale d'un village de Mont-Liban, Paris, Maisonneuve, 1978.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J., Généalogie des mots qui désignent l'abeille d'après l'Atlas linguistique de la France, Paris, Champion, 1918.Google Scholar
Gilliéron, J., and Roques, M., Études de géographie linguistique d'après l'Atlas linguistique de la France, Paris, Champion, 1912.Google Scholar
Goldstein, M.C., “Adjudication and partition in the Tibetan Stem-Family,” in D.C. Buxbaum, Chinese Family Law and Social Change, Seattle, University of Washington Press, 1978, pp. 205–14.Google Scholar
Gorer, G., Himalayan Village: An Account of the Lepchas of Sikkim, London, Nelson, 1967 (1st edition 1938).Google Scholar
Gossiaux, J.-F., Le groupe domestique dans la Yougoslavie rurale, typed thesis, Paris, École des hautes études en sciences sociales, 1982.Google Scholar
Guiraud, P., Patois et dialectes français, Paris, P.U.F., 1978.Google Scholar
Hart, D.M., '‘Notes on the sociopolitical structure and institutions of two tribes of the Ait Yafalma Confederacy: The Ait Murghad and the Ait Hadidu,” Occident musulman et de la Méditerranée, XXVI, 2, 1978, p. 55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoben, A., Land Tenure among the Amhara of Ethiopia. The Dynamics of Cognatic Descent, The University of Chicago Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Hughes, A., and Trudgill, P., English Accents and Dialects, London, Edward Arnold, 1979.Google Scholar
Humphrey, C., Collective, Karl Marx: Economy, Society and Religion in a Siberian Collective Farm, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press; Paris, Éditions de la Maison des sciences de l'homme, 1983.Google Scholar
Ilieva, N., and Oshavkova, V., “Changes in the Bulgarian Family-cycle from the end of the 19th century to the present day,” in J. Cuisenier et al., Le cycle de la vie familiale dans les sociétés européennes, Paris, Mouton, 1977, pp. 381–92.Google Scholar
Ishwaran, K., Shivapur: A South Indian Village, London, Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1968.Google Scholar
Jones, S., Men of Influence in Nuristan, London, Seminar Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Kahk, J., Palli, H., Uibu, H., “Peasant family and household in Estonia in the eighteenth and the first half of the nineteenth centuries,” Journal of Family History, 1982, Vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 76–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplanian, P., Les Ladakhi du Cachemire, Paris, Hachette, 1981.Google Scholar
Kiefer, T.M., Tausug, The: Violence and Law in a Philippine Moslem Society, New York, SAGE Publications, 1972.Google Scholar
Koentjaraningrat, R.M., “The Javanese of South Central Java,” in G.P. Murdock et al., Social Structure in South East Asia, New York, Viking Fund Publications in Anthropology, 1960, pp. 88–115.Google Scholar
Krader, L., Peoples of Central Asia, the Hague, Indiana University, Blooming-ton and Mouton, 1962.Google Scholar
Krishnan, P., “Family and household structure among the nineteenth century Christians of Kerala, India,” Annales de démographie historique, 1986, pp. 215–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunstadter, P., “Cultural ideals, socioeconomic change, and household composition: Karen, Lua’, Hmong, and Thai in Northwestern Thailand,” in R. McC. Netting, R.R. Wilk, and E.J. Arnold, Households, Berkeley, SAGE Publications, 1984, pp. 299–329.Google Scholar
Lantis, M., “The Nunivak Eskimo of Bering Sea,” in Sanders, I.T., et al., Societies around the World, The Dryden Press, vol. I, pp. 92–128.Google Scholar
Leach, E.R., Political Systems of Highland Burma: A Study of Kachin Social Structure, Harvard University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Leaf, M.J., Information and Behavior in a Sikh Village, Berkeley, SAGE Publications, 1972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebar, F.M., Hickey, G.C., Musgrave, J.K., Ethnic Groups of Mainland South-east Asia, New Haven, Human Relations, Area Files Press, 1964.Google Scholar
Lehman, F.K., The Structure of Chin Society, Illinois Study in Anthropology, 1963.Google Scholar
Le Play, F., L'organisation de la famille, Tours, 1870.Google Scholar
Le Play, F. Les ouvriers européens, Tours, 1897.Google Scholar
Levine, D.N., Wax and Gold: Tradition and Innovation in Ethiopian Culture, The University of Chicago Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Levine, N.E., The Dynamics of Polyandry: Kinship, Domesticity, and Population on the Tibetan Border, Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1988.Google Scholar
Lowie, R., Traité de sociologie primitive, Paris, Payot 1936, re-issued in 1969.Google Scholar
Macfarlane, A., Resources and Population: A Study of the Gurungs of Nepal, Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Madan, T.N., Family and Kinship: A Study of the Pandits of Rural Kashmir, Bombay, Asia Publishing House, 1965.Google Scholar
Martinet, A., Des steppes aux océans, Paris, Payot, 1986.Google Scholar
Mencher, J.P. and Goldberg, H., “Kinship and marriage regulations among the Namboodiri Brahmans of Kerala,” Man, 2, 1967, pp. 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millardet, G., Linguistique et dialectologie romane, Paris, Champion, 1923.Google Scholar
Mir-Hosseini, A., “Impact of wage-labour on household fission in rural Iran,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. XVIII, no. 3, fall 1987, pp. 445–61.Google Scholar
Mosely, P.E., “The distribution of the Zadruga within Southeastern Europe,” in Byrnes, R.F., et al., Communal families in the Balkans, Notre-Dame, University of Notre-Dame Press, 1976, pp. 58–69.Google Scholar
Murdock, G.P., “Ethnographic Atlas: A Summary,” Ethnology, VI, 2, 1967, p. 109–235.Google Scholar
Murdock, G.P. De la structure sociale, Paris, Payot, 1972.Google Scholar
Nakane, C., Garo and Khasi: A Comparative Study in Matrilineal Systems, Paris, Cahiers de l'Homme, Mouton, 1967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orenstein, H., Gaon: Con flict and Cohesion in an Indian Village, Princeton University Press, 1965.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palli, H., “Estonian households in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries,” in R. Wall, J. Robin, P. Laslett, et al., Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Pasternak, B., Kinship and Community in Two Chinese Villages, Stanford University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Pecoraro, F., Presentation de ta vie et de la culture Taroko, Paris, Archipel, 1979.Google Scholar
Pehrson, R.N., The Social Organisation of the Marri Baluch, Chicago, Aldine, 1966. (Re-worked by F. Barth.)Google Scholar
Piault, C., et al., Families et Biens en Grèce et à Chypre, Paris, L'Harmattan, 1985.Google Scholar
Pignède, B., Gurungs, Les. Une population himalayenne du Népal, Paris, Mouton, 1966.Google Scholar
Plakans, A., “The familial contexts of early childhood in Baltic serf society,” in R. Wall, J. Robin, P. Laslett, et al., Family Forms in Historic Europe, Cambridge University Press, 1983, pp. 167–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popov, A.A., “The Nganasans,” in M.G. Levin and L.P. Potapov, The Peoples of Siberia, University of Chicago Press, 1964, pp. 571–81.Google Scholar
Puthenkalam, Père J., “Marriage and family in Kerala,” Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 1977.Google Scholar
Raun, A., The Ostyak (Khanty) and the Vogul (Mansi), Subcontractors' monograph, Human Relations Area File, Yale, New Haven, Connecticut.Google Scholar
St Erlich, V., Family in Transition: A Study of 300 Yugoslav Villages, Princeton University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Salzmann, Z. and Scheufler, F., Komarov: A Czech Farming Village, SAGE Publications, 1974.Google Scholar
Sarma, J., “A village in West Bengal,” in Srinivas, M.N., et al., India's Villages, Bombay, Media Promoters and Publishers, 1960, pp. 180–201.Google Scholar
Schmidt, J., Die Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse der indogermanischen Sprachen, Wiemar, Bölhau, 1872.Google Scholar
Seddon, D., “Aspects of kinship and family structure among the Ulad Stut of Zaio rural commune, Nador province, Morocco,” in J.G. Peristiany, et al., Mediterranean Family Structures, Cambridge University Press, 1976, pp.173–93.Google Scholar
Siegel, J.J., The Rope of God, Berkeley - Los Angeles, SAGE Publications, 1969.Google Scholar
Singh, Y., “Chanukera: cultural change in Eastern Uttar Pradesh,” in K. Ishwaran, et al., Change and Continuity in India's Villages, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Sanirnov, J.N., Les populations finnoises des bassins de la Volga et de la Kama. Études d'ethnographie historique. Première partie: groupe de la Volga ou groupe bulgare, I. Les Tchérémisses, II. Les Mordves, Paris, Ernest Leroux, 1898.Google Scholar
Stahl, P.H., Sociétés traditionnelles balkaniques, contribution à l'étude des structures sociales, Paris, 1979 (ms).Google Scholar
Stein, H.F., “Structural change in Slovak kinship: An ethno-historic enquiry,” Ethnology, Vol. XIV, 1975, pp. 99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stirling, P., Turkish Village, London, Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1965.Google Scholar
Sugiura, K., and Befu, H., “Kinship organization of the Saru Ainou,” Ethnology, vol.1, no. 3, 1962, pp. 287–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takanashi, A., Land and Peasants, in Central Luzon, Honolulu, East-West Center Press,1969.Google Scholar
Tapper, R., Pasture and Politics: Economics, Conflicts and Ritual among Shahsevan Nomads of Northwestern Iran, New York, London, Academic Press, 1979.Google Scholar
Thomas, W.I. and Znaniecki, , The Polish Peasant in Europe and America, New York, Dover Publications, 1958 (2nd edition).Google Scholar
Todd, E., La Troisième planète: Structures familiales et systèmes idéologiques, Paris, Le Seuil, 1983.Google Scholar
Todd, E. “ L'analyse des structures familiales: approches anthropologiques et démographiques,” Au-delà du quantitatif (Chaire Quételet 85, Ciaco), Louvain-la-Neuve, 1988, pp. 467–82.Google Scholar
Todd, E. L'Invention de l'Europe, Paris, Le Seuil, 1990.Google Scholar
Trautman, T.R., Dravidian Kinship, Cambridge University Press, 1981.Google Scholar
Trudgill, P., Sociolinguistics: an Introduction, Harmondsworth, Penguin, 1974.Google Scholar
Vainshtein, S., Nomads of South Siberia: The Pastoral Economics of Tuva, Cambridge University Press, 1980.Google Scholar
Vergouwen, J.C., The Social Organization and Customary Law of the Toba-Bataks of Northern Sumatra, the Hague, Nijhoff, 1964.Google Scholar
Vreeland, H.H., Mongol Community and Kinship Structure, New Haven, Behavior Science Monographs, Human Relations Area File, 1954.Google Scholar
Weekes, R.W., et al., Muslim Peoples: A World Ethnographic Survey, Westport (Conn.), Greenwood Press, 1978.Google Scholar
Winner, I., A Slovenian Village: Zerovnica, Providence (R.I.), 1971.Google Scholar
Yang, M.C., A Chinese Village: Taitou, Shantung Province, London, Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1947.Google Scholar