No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
At a general level this paper is concerned with the problem of anthropological interpretation of kinship and its significance in peasant communities. In specific terms I describe and discusss a striking difference in interpretation by two observers, Forman and myself, with regard to the form and significance of kinship relations in two communities on the North East Brazilian littoral. The disparity between our conclusions brings up basic questions of a methodological and epistemological kind in much the same way as do Red- field and Lewis's findings in Tepoztlan.
1 Redfield, R., The Little Community and Peasant Society and Culture (Chicago, Phoenix Books, 1960);Google ScholarLewis, O., Life in a Mexican Village: Tepoztlan Restudied (University of Illinois Press, 1951).Google Scholar
2 Forman, S., The Raft Fishermen (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1970).Google Scholar
3 Ibid., p. 103.
5 Ibid., p. 102.
6 Ibid., p. 103.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid., p. 86.
9 Ibid., p. 97.
10 Ibid., p. 110.
11 Ibid., p. 108.
12 Ibid., p. 106.
13 Ibid., p. 107.
14 Foster, G. M., ‘The Dynadic Contrast: A Model for the Social Structure of A Mexican Peasant Village’, American Anthropologist, vol. 63 (1961).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15 Ibid., p. 1177.
16 Kottak has suggested that ‘…the number of alters whom individual Brazilians deem and treat as kinsmen varies according to socio-economic class. The richer recognize and interact with a greater number of their kindred than the poorer.’ Kottak, C., ‘Kinship and Class in Brazil’, Ethnology, 4, 4 (1967), 430. Even in Porto de Galinhas, with very slight socio-economic differences between individuals, this seems to be the case.Google Scholar
17 Kottak's general observation kinship with Arembepe material, that ‘lower-class Brazilians have cometo record kinship with ambivalence; it offers salvation to the destitute but a threat to the more ambitious entrepreneurs’ is not applicable to Porto de Galinhas. If on a single occasion a request from a poor kinsmen if granted, a second request will not elicit further help unless an exchange relationship has been established.
18 Forman, , op. cit., p. 101.Google Scholar
19 Ibid., p. 36. It is not clear in Forman's account how ‘bigwigs’ succeed in preventing innovation, but it is not my purpose here to criticize his interpretation. It is merely worth noting that in his view socio-econoimc organization anmd attitudes in Coqueiral impose no obstacles to material improvement, but that exploitation by a few men prevents this occurring.
20 Porto de Galinhas also possesses its ‘bigwigs’ but by a variety of processes they are effectively prevented form exercising inordinate control over material or human resources. Ambitious men in the community are overtly discussed and ridiculed by others. They will not easily find crews. An outsider, on the other hand, who can prevent himself becoming closely involved in day to day social lifr and who is thought to be of a higher class can more easily establish contracts with individuals with eliciting reaction from others.
21 Van Velsen, J., ‘The Extended-case Method and Situational Analysis’, in Epstein, A. L. (ed.) The Craft of Social Anthropology (London, Tavistock Publications, 1967), p. 130.Google Scholar
22 Uberoi, J. P. Singh, Politics of the Kula Ring (Manchester University Press, 1962).Google Scholar
23 Worsley, P., ‘The Kinship System of the Tallensi’, Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 86 (1956), 37–73.Google Scholar
24 Coy, P., ‘A Watershed in Mexican Rural History: Some Thoughts on the Reconciliation of Conflicting Interpretations’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 3 (1971), 39–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar