Kinship among South Indian Communities - Literature review Example

GENDER Polythetic definition of the term kinship is not limited to certain aspects; instead, it includes many items on its list without exception of the blueprint. According to this definition, Kinship relationship is determined by birth and continues until death, it is prescribed by marriage, includes people of a single household or family. Further, it incorporates a persevering relationship between household units, establishes expectations and goals concerning conduct, it is accepted based on biological idiom, demands serial inheritance and the utilization of social resources, and it entails making presentations with the little or direct return (Dumont 2006). Kinship among South Indian communities has been indispensable and the main form of social organization (caste system). The caste system was a closed hereditary group to which a person belonged strictly by birth. At one point, there were relationships based on endogamous marriage between two people from the same caste. Kinship is also concerned about the productive anxiety of relations of distinction and sameness, the main aspects being the ties that separate or bind. In a fishing village, ‘the Marianad’ what matters is the relations between siblings. The children of the same father and mother, siblings are similar apart from their gender. The strongest differentiation is made between siblings of different gender, a difference that has a great effect in the following generation (Busby 2000; 1995). Therefore, among the “Marianads” sisters are viewed to be identical in a manner that brother and sister cannot be. Sisters in this tribe, live closely, they are spotted with each other baby either carrying or feeding it. Contrary, brothers are different in that they move to their wife’s houses in distinct villages, although they view their brother’s children as their own, and they often refer to them as their daughters or sons. The word Dravidian refers to a family dialect mainly spoken in South India. The Dravidian family is different in both origin and structure from the Anglo-Aryan family located in North India. People from South India classify kin based on difference in sex, difference in age, difference in generation, and difference of kin identical with union relationship. This system exemplifies a sociological theory of marriage, and it justifies the issue of someone marrying a cross cousin (Clark-Deces 2011; Bourdieu 1997). The Marianad people do not have the separate terminologies for the younger and elder sibling, uncles, and aunts. They also do not differentiate between kin identified to ego’s parents via same-sex association (parallel kin) and kin identified to ego’s parents via opposite se-associations. Writers such as Dumont try to suggest differentiation between cross and parallel kin in comprehending marriage choices and decisions in South India (Dumont 2006). The children of parents’ same or similar sex siblings (the father in-laws and mother in-laws) are absorbed to the position of elder or young siblings, with whom sexual intimacy, marriage and sexual activities is prohibited. On the other hand, the children of parents’ cross-sex siblings (father in-laws and mother in-laws) are absorbed to the position of spouses or wives with whom marriage is accepted or permitted in that in some castes in south India, it is preferred and prescribed. It is significant to note that these terms recommend separation between relatives (in-laws) and kin, which is not the same to our cultural differentiation between relatives by marriage and blood relatives. At the semantic level among the Marianad tribe in South India, the two sides of cross kin (father’s sister and mother’s brother) are the same, and while the castes perform bilateral cross-cousin marriage. This tribe prefers marrying on either father’s sister side or mother’s brother side. From these findings, it is clear that among the Marianad tribe, the sister’s son is permitted marrying the brother’s daughter (Busby 2000). The Dravidian kinship advocates that marital relations are inherited from parents to siblings without being changed into blood relations. For instance, it shows that a man who is someone’s father brother in-law becomes his father in-law and his son will be his brother in-law. In this manner, affinity relations are inherited from one generation to another, which is later recognized in the ego’s generation as relations of union. By union, it means relations build on marriage and a process by which lineages or families converse and swap gifts in ways that represents the union tie (Dumont 2006). Dravidian kinship also unravels that most south Indian tribes such as Tamils marry near relatives that exceeds cross cousin, nieces, and maternal uncles whether bilateral or unilateral. For instance, evidence shows that a man and his sister’s son can be married to two sisters, therefore, because of their marital status; they no longer refer to one another as in-laws but brothers. Further, it shows that a man can be married to his granddaughter, and although it is a rare thing, this union is inherited. The general practice among Dravidian tribes is that men have to marry women who are younger than they are (Bourdieu 1977). Marriage in South Indian tribes is on the decline because young people have the freedom to choose their own spouses based on love and affection rather than on kinship or blood relations. In addition, India is developing like western countries and moving away from traditional marriages towards contemporary alliances. This development has seen the concept of Dravidian kinship decline rapidly in India (Clark-Deces 2011). The strengths of this book are that Busby’s explanation of life in a fishing village is an interesting and perplexing account of daily exchanges, interaction, and dynamics of people. Further, it shows an organized analysis and evaluation of gendered events such as the manner in which men and women are separated via their jobs, their roles in society, and their capabilities. In addition, the book reveals the gender differences that drive separation of work and roles among men and women in society, and the aftermath of these gender differences on the life of men and women (Busby 2000). In addition, the author clearly challenges and questions the universalism evident in modern western feminism and theorizing of matters of gender. The author clearly analyzed the Dravidian kinship in India. Further, the author showed clear insight of gender distinction in association between people of cross and parallel kin. For instance, the book reveals that the categories of this terminology does not rely on marriage system but it depends on prior consideration of someone marrying which at the end relies on consideration of relations as seen in the fishing village in India. The book explains the ways in which gender is comprehended as performative that is done via daily life practice. The weakness of this book is that it does not depict what can be done to change the theorizing of issues of gender in society. Further, the author fails to interrogate the roles that have been traditionally viewed as belonging to men. For instance, in the fishing village in India, men were supposed to be head of family, and that a woman once married had to follow and strictly obey her husband. In addition, women were expected to scold, carry, and feed children while their husbands were out in the field doing other chores such as fishing. At no particular time, women were allowed to assume the roles of their husbands but men were permitted to perform some household chores. The other problem with the book is that it does not show what happens after a marriage has been interrupted by the unavailability of a partner. This implies that it is not easily restarted in the next generation since there is no endurance quality among Marianad affinity. Further, it is clear that in the patrilineal manner of cross cousin marriage, the transmission of affinity is not express because it skips or passes over a generation. References Busby, C 1995, Marriage and marriageability: Gender and Dravidian kinship. The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 3(1):21-42. Busby, C 2000. The Performance of gender: An anthropology of everyday life in a South Indian fishing village. New York: Berg Publishers. Bourdieu, P 1977, Outline of a Theory of Practice, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Butler, J 1990, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the supervision of identity, New York: Nabu Press. Clark-Deces, I 2011, The decline of Dravidian kinship in local perspectives, New York: Kindle Books. Dumont, L 2006, Dravidian Kinship, Journal of Anthropological research, 62(3):321-379. Read More