Yanagisako - Family and Household

Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups
Author(s): Sylvia Junko Yanagisako

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 8 (1979), pp. 161-205
Published by: Annual Reviews
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2155618
Accessed: 20-07-2015 21:46 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:46:22 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Ann.Rev.Anthropol1979.8:161-205
Copyright
( 1979byAnnualReviewsInc. All rightsreseryed
FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD:

THE ANALYSIS OF
DOMESTIC GROUPS
*9631
SylviaJunko Yanagisako
Departmentof Anthropology,StanfordUniversity,Stanford,California94305
INTRODUCTION
In 1913,Malinowski(91) introducedhis disquisitionon the familyamong
the AustralianAborigineswith the contentionthat a carefulinvestigation
of the factsof familylife in Australiawas urgentlyneeded.He claimedthat
the confusion and contradictionin extant depictionsof the Australian
familywere due to certaintheoreticalpostulatesand axiomsadoptedby
some ethnographers.Principalamong these was the attributionof Europeancharacteristicsto the aboriginalfamilywithoutadequateinvestigation of the details of actual family relationships.As an antidoteto such
inclinations,Malinowskiproposedthat we beginthe studyof the familyin
societiesdifferentfromour own by attachingonly a vaguemeaningto the
term "individualfamily."
For the essentialfeaturesof the individualfamily,as of all other social institutions,
dependupon the generalstructureof a given society and upon the conditionsof life
therein.A carefulanddetailedanalysisof familylifeandof differentaspectsof thefamily
unitin connectionwithothersocialphenomenais thereforenecessary.Suchan analysis
enablesus to describethe said unit in a completeand exact way (91, p. 6).
In the more than half-centurythat has passed since Malinowskiexpoundedon the procedurefor arrivingat a "scientific,correct,and useful
definitionof the familyin Australia"(91), it has becomecommonplaceto
chargehim with havingfallenfar shortof thesegoals.Lessoftenevaluated
is the successthat anthropologistsin generalhave attainedin illuminating
161
$01.00
0084-6570/79/1015-0161
162
YANAGISAKO
the dynamicstructuresof those units we call families.This reviewis an

attemptat such an evaluation,not by way of an analysisof the historical
developmentsin anthropologicalresearchon the family,but throughan
examinationof a cross-sectionof literaturepublishedmainlywithinthe last
decade.
A properreviewof currentanthropologicaldiscussionson the family
mustnecessarilyincludethe literatureon householdsas well. For, overthe
years,the socialunitswhichin Malinowski'sday werecustomarilyreferred
to as families have come to be differentiatedinto "families" and
"households."To introducethe readerto the conventionaldistinctions
drawnbetweenthesetwo termsandto the notionsunderlyingthe meanings
attributedto them, I beginwith an examinationof attemptsto definethe
familyand household.This is followedby a criticalsurveyof the ways in
which anthropologistsinterpretand explainobservedvariationsin the social formsincludedundertheserubrics.I then proceedto extractfromthis
literaturethe basicconceptionsand encompassingframeworksharedby its
authors. My argumentis that despite our repudiationof Malinowski's
reductionof all kinshiprelationshipsto mere extensionsof the emotional
and psychologicalcorrelatesof intimatefamily associations,most of our
analysesof domesticgroupsremainfundamentallyrootedin his conceptions of the family.Followingthis discussion,I introducealternativeanalytic frameworkswhich have been applied productivelyto family and
householdrelationships
andevaluatetheircontributionsandcurrentlimitations. I postponeuntil last a discussionof the universalityof the family,
becausethis issuecan be addressedadequatelyonly afterI haveelucidated
the natureof anthropologicaldiscourseon the familyand household.
DEFINITIONS OF FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

Although anthropologistscommonly employ the terms family and
householdlooselywithoutattachingto them rigorous,formaldefinitions,
at the sametime most recognizesome sort of distinctionbetweenthe two.
The distinctionthatappearsto be most widelyacceptedby anthropologists
(8, 9, 17, 21, 29, 45, 74, 80, 81, 108, 128)contrastskinshipandpropinquity
as the essentialfeaturesthatdefinemembershipin the familyandhousehold
respectively.Bender(8) contendsthat the groundsfor analyticallyseparating familiesand householdslie in the recognitionthat they are both "logically distinct"and "empiricallydifferent"(8, p. 493). The logicaldistinction is apparentbecausethe referentof the family is kinship,while the
referentof the householdis geographicalpropinquityor commonresidence.
FollowingBohannon(17, p. 86), who claimsthat kinshipand propinquity
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
163
"do not evenbelongto the sameuniverseof discourse,"and F.M. Keesing

(80, p. 271), who views kinshipand locality as two distinctprinciplesof
organization,Bendermaintainsthat " . . . families,as kinshipunits, must
be definedstrictlyin terms of kinshiprelationshipsand not in terms of
co-residence"(8, p. 493). For Bender,the empiricaldifferencederivesfrom
the observationthatin numeroussocietiesfamiliesdo not formhouseholds,
and in even moreinstances,householdsare not composedof families.
The contrastbetweenkinshipand localityas differentprinciplesof organizationalso lies behindthe more specificdistinctionbetweenfamilyand
householdwhich prevailsin studies of peasant communities.Here the
family as a jurallydefined,corporatekin groupis distinguishedfrom the
householdas a collectionof kinandsometimesnonkinwhosharea common
residence.The corporatenatureof the familyderivesfromthe juralrights
to property,usuallyland,whichits membershold in common(29, 51, 106,
151). Accordingly,for Freedman(51, p. 9) a joint familyexists in China
whenevertwo or more men are coparcenersof a chia (family) estate,
regardlessof whetherthese men are marriedor whetherthey and their
respectivewivesandchildrenlive in differentresidences.An obviousconsequenceof thisjuraldefinitionof the familyis thatin societiessuchas China
and India, men, as inheritorsof property,are placed at the core of the
or fringemembers"who
family,whilewomenareclassifiedas "subordinate
have lesser rightsof ownershipin the estate (151).
The focus on propertyrightsattachesto the familythe specificfunction
of controloverproperty,includingits transmission.But the more general
distinctionbetweenthe family as a kinshipunit and the householdas a
residentialunit, which Bendercarriesfurtherthan anyoneelse, is an attempt to avoida functionalistdefinitionof the family.Benderassertsthat
functionaldefinitionsof the family are inadequatebecausemany of the
functionsthat have been construedas "familyfunctions"are sometimes
fulfilledby coresidentialgroupsthat arenot basedon kinshiprelationships
and are in otherinstancescarriedout by neitherfamiliesnor households.
As an alternative,he proposesthat we definethe familyin purely"structural"terms,becausein all societiespeoplerecognizekinshiprelationships
and use theseto formsocialgroups,andbecausetheserelationshipscan be
organizedin only a limitednumberof logical ways. Like the otherswho
pose this distinction,Bendernevermakesexplicitpreciselywhathe means
by "kinship"relationshipsor "kinship"unitsas distinctfromcoresidential
relationshipsor relationshipsarisingfrom propinquity.Yet it is evident
on the subjectthatby "kinship"relationships
fromBender'samplifications
he meansgenealogicallydefinedrelationships;that is to say, relationships
that can be tracedthroughone or moreparent-childor marriagelinkages.
164
YANAGISAKO
In his attemptto formulatea universal,parsimoniousdefinitionof the

familyfor comparativepurposes,Goodenough(58) likewisetriesto divorce
the family from specificfunctions.He definesthe nuclearfamily group
presentin all humansocietiesas a woman and her dependentchildren.
Whenthe woman'ssexualpartneris addedto this group"in a functionally
significantway" the result is an elementaryconjugalfamily (Murdock's
nuclearfamily).Whenthewoman'sbrothers(andothercloseconsanguines)
are added to the group "in a functionallysignificantway," the result,
accordingto Goodenough,is a consanguinefamily.The vaguenessof the
phrase"in a functionallysignificantway" is a consciouseffortby Goodenoughto avoidlinkingthe familyto a specifiedfunctionor set of functions.
In contrastto Bender,who does not specifythe genealogicallink or links
that form the core of the family,Goodenoughidentifiesthe mother-child
link as the nucleusof all familygroups.
Thatboth BenderandGoodenoughwouldtry to detachthe definitionof
the familyfromparticularfunctionsis not surprisingin light of the failure
of past attempts(96, 143)to definethe familyon a functionalbasis.There
appearsto be no singlefunction-and certainlyno set of functions-that
is invariablyfulfilledby a set of genealogicallylinkedindividuals.In the
finalsectionof this paper,I will returnto this issue to arguethat in spite
of theireschewalof a functionaldefinitionof the family,bothBender'sand
Goodenough'sdefinitionsare rootedin a functionalview of the family.
Whileall the distinctionsbetweenfamilyandhouseholdsettleon residential propinquityas the criterionfor the household,thereremainsstill the
questionof whatwe meanby residentialpropinquityor coresidence.Innumerableproblematiccasesin the ethnographicliteraturecanbe adducedto
illustratethe difficultiesin definingthe boundariesof households.These
cases raise questionsabout how to treat residentialgroupingsthat move
througha seasonalcycle of dispersaland concentration,how to handlethe
movementof personnelbetweendwelling units, particularlyin societies
where there is great mobilitybetweenthese units (78, 145), whetherto
defineas a singlehouseholdthe huts or housesthat sharea commonyard,
which may or may not be enclosedfromotheryards(39), and whetherto
include servants,apprentices,boarders,and lodgers as membersof the
household(74, 86, 156).Certainlythereare discrepanciesin our usageof
the termhouseholdif its sole referentis residentialpropinquity.Why then
do we regardsolitaries(individualslivingalone)as constitutinghouseholds,
while we exclude institutionslike orphanages,boardingschools, men's
houses, and armybarracks?
The answeris that althoughthe primaryreferentof the termhousehold
is spatialpropinquity,in actualusagemoreis usuallymeant(8). Generally
the termrefersto a set of individualswho sharenot only a livingspacebut
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
165
also someset of activities.Theseactivities,moreover,areusuallyrelatedto

food productionandconsumptionor to sexualreproductionandchildrearing, all of which are glossed under the somewhatimpenetrablelabel of
"domestic"activities.Yet since all the activitiesimplicitlyor explicitly
associatedwith the term householdare sometimesengagedin by sets of
(8, 22, 128)contend
peoplewhodo not livetogether,severalanthropologists
that we would do betterto employalternativetermsin our ethnographic
descriptions.Bulmer(22), for one, questionsthe adequacyof the term
"household"for describinga situationwhere overlappingsets of people
participatein meal sharing,gardening,and coresidence.He proposesthat
in thesecircumstances
the "domesticgroup,"in whichpeopleacknowledge
commonauthorityin domesticmatters,is a moresalientsocialunit.Seddon
(128) offersthe term"budgetunit"to referto a groupof individualshaving
a common"fund"andexchanginggoodsamongeachotherwithoutreckoning, as distinctfromindividualswho live togetherwithinone homestead.
In the same vein, Bender(8) points out that becausethe term household
is alwaystaintedby an implicitassociationwith certaindomesticfunctions
it is oftenmisusedandconsequentlyis not usefulfor comparativepurposes.
group"forhousehold
He suggeststhatwe substitutethe term"coresidential
andthatwe drawa cleardistinctionbetweensuchgroupsandanyfunctions
they might fill. In the case of a societylike the Mundurucuthen, Bender
identifiestwo kinds of coresidentialunits: one composedof adult males
living in men's housesand the other composedof groupsof womenand
children. By labeling these units coresidential groups rather than
households,we avoid making the false assumptionthat either of these
coresidentialunits are the most importantgroupsfor the performanceof
domesticfunctionsin Mundurucusociety. We would recognize,furthermore, that becausedomesticfunctionsare for the most part carriedout
throughreciprocalinteractionsbetweenadult malesas a groupand adult
femalesas a group,"thewhole villageformsthe domesticunit, the sexual
divisionof laborin domesticactivitiesbeingat the villagelevel"(8, p. 495).
Bender'sseparationof families,coresidentialgroups,anddomesticfunctions is usefulto the extentthat it prodsthe ethnographerto explicatethe
exact natureof the social unit he is labelinga familyor coresidentialunit
and to describepreciselythe functionsit performsratherthan assuming
them or leavingthe readerto fill in with his own culturalassumptions.In
addition, by substitutingthe term coresidentialgroup for household,
Benderallows for the coexistenceof severaltypes of coresidentialgroups
at differentlevels within the same society. An individualmay simultaneouslybelongto two or morenestedcoresidentialgroups:for example,a
nuclearfamilyhut, in a patrilaterallyextendedfamilycompound,withina
patrilinealdescent-basedsettlement.
166
YANAGISAKO
Onthe otherhand,Bender'sterminologicalschemeleadsus directlyback

to the most troublesomeissue confrontingdefinitionsof family and
household;namely,whatare domesticfunctions?Whenexaminedclosely,
all the abovedefinitionscan be shown to radiatefrom one centralpoint:
the notionthat domesticfunctions,domesticactivities,and domesticorganizationarewhatfamiliesandhouseholdsarefundamentally
all about.Yet
"domestic"remainsa ratherpoorlyexplicatedterm.We haveBender's(8,
p. 499) uncharacteristically
imprecisedefinitionof "domestic"activitiesas
those that "areconcernedwith the day-to-daynecessitiesof living,including the provisionand preparationof food and the care of children."Even
more vague is Fortes's(45, p. 8) definitionof the domesticgroup as "a
householdingandhousekeepingunit organizedto providethe materialand
culturalresourcesneededto maintainand bringup its members,"and his
definitionof the domesticdomainas "thesystemof socialrelationsthrough
whichthe reproductivenucleus[thefamily]is integratedwith the environment and with the structureof the total society."Despitethe imprecision
of these definitions,at the core of most conceptionsof "domestic"(8, 45,
47, 60, 74, 138)aretwo setsof functionalactivities:thosepertainingto food
productionand consumptionand those pertainingto social reproduction,
includingchild-bearingand child-rearing.
Having arrivedat what I considerto be the key to our conventional
understandingas well as to the ambiguitiesof the terms family and
household,I will postponefurtherconsiderationof whatthis tells us about
the prevailingconceptualframeworkorderinganthropologicaldiscussions
of domesticorganization,leavingit to be taken up againin later sections
of this article.1I wantfirstto examinethe mannerin whichanthropologists
describeand explainthe diversesocial formsthat they includeunderthe
rubricsof familyandhousehold.For the present,I will use the termsfamily
and householdas the authorsbeingrevieweduse them.The terms"domestic group"and "domesticunit" will be employedto refermore generally
to both familyand household,particularlywhereit is unclearwhetherthe
referentcorrespondsmore closely to the conventionalmeaningof either
term.
VARIATIONSIN DOMESTICORGANIZATION
The literaturein which variationsin domesticgroupsare describedand
explainedcan be dividedconvenientlyinto two sections:discussionsof
cross-societalandintrasocietalvariationsanddiscussionsof variationsover
time.
An Underview,and Conclusion:A Returnto
'See Variationsin DomesticOrganization:
Definitionsand the Searchfor Universals.
FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD
167
Cross-societaland Intrasocietal Variations

Two relatedquestionshave been askedof the variationsobservedamong
domesticgroupsin the same society and in differentsocieties.First, why
do we findin somesocietiesdomesticgroups,whethertheseare coresidential groupsor dispersedfamilies,which have a differentcompositionand
structurefromthosein othersocieties?And second,wherethe membersof
a societyagreethat a particularhouseholdor familyformis the ideal,why
do we so often discoverthat a significantpercentageof the householdsor
familiesin that societydivergefromthe ideal?Threesets of variableshave
beenadducedto explaintheseinterlinkedquestions:demographic
variables,
includingthe developmentalcycle of domesticgroups,economicvariables,
and stratificatiQn
variables.
DEMOGRAPHIC DETERMINANTS AND THE DEVELOPMENTAL CY-
CLE OF DOMESTICGROUPS By now it has been well established that
demographicprocessesaffectthe size and compositionof domesticgroups,

thus acting as constraintson the attainment of the culturally ideal
householdor familytype (23, 89, 162). Age at marriage,life expectancy,
andfertilitylevelsall havean impacton the compositionof householdsand
familiesin a community.For example,in the case of the Yugoslavian
zadruga(a joint householdof eitherthe paternal-filialor fraternaltype),
Hammel(72) contendsthatif age at marriageis early,the periodof overlap
in the marriedlives of fathersand sons will be relativelygreat and the
possibilityof paternal-filial
zadrugasincreases.
Demographicprocessesmay also havea significantimpacton the economy of the household.Followingthe RussianeconomistChayanov(25),
Sahlins(120) claimsthat amongpeasants,wherethe householdis the unit
of production,changesin the demographicstructureof the householdas
it moves throughthe developmentalcycle will entail changesin the ratio
of consumersto workers.As the numberof dependentchildrenincreases
while the numberof adultworkersremainsconstant,each familyworker
must farm a greateramountof land and work longer hours. Thus, the
amountof time a familymemberworkswill be proportionalto the dependencyratio (the numberof consumersdividedby the numberof workers)
of the household.Moreover,in a societywherethe householdis the unit
of production,somepercentageof the householdswill not be ableto support
themselvesbecauseof an unfavorabledependencyratio (120, p. 74).
In attendingto demographicfactors,however,we must avoid treating
observeddemographicprocessesas exogenous, biologicallygiven constraintswhichdeterminethe compositionand economyof households.To
do so wouldbe to confusesocial replacementwith biologicalreplacement
(122, 123) and to overlookthe strategiesthat people employ to exercise
168
YANAGISAKO
controloverhouseholdsize andcomposition,manyof whichareembedded

in "kinship"customs such as marriageand adoptionpracticesand the
timingof familydivision.For instance,in a remarkablepiece of detective
workin historicaldemography,T. C. Smith(140) discloseshow in at least
one villagein eighteenthcenturyJapan,peasantswereableto prolongthe
family'sphaseof "maximumfarmingefficiency"by postponingthe inheriting son's marriageas long as possibleand in the meantimedetainingthe
departureof his siblingsfrom the household.Furthermore,we cannot
assume,as do Chayanovand Sahlins,that becausewage-laboris absent,
householdshave access only to their own labor. As Donham (37, 38)
convincinglyargues,there may be other institutionalcontextsin which
fromone householdto another.Accordingly,the memlaboris transferred
bers of householdsamongthe Malleof southwesternEthiopiaworkabout
the samelengthsof timeregardlessof the household'sdependencyratioand
stagein the developmentalcycle. Ratherthan workinglongerhours,middle-agedmen sponsormore work partiesthroughwhich they are able to
gain in the net transferof laborbetweenhouseholds(37).
Fortes's(45) modelof the developmentalcycle of domesticgroupsalso
relieson demographicprocessesto explainthe varietiesof domesticgroups
found in a community. According to Fortes, " . . . when it is recognized that
cycleof a single
theseso-calledtypesarein factphasesin the developmental
p. 3). The
(45,
vanishes"
generalform for each society, the confusion
ordered
into
in
can
be
time
variousdomesticgroupsobservedat one point
in
of
families
a single developmentalsequence,as in the case matrifocal
exmay
cycle
the
developmental
(formerly)BritishGuiana(136). Hence,
plain why a censusshows only a small percentageof the householdsin a
communityconformingto the ideal type (10, 72). As all domesticgroups
pass throughdifferentstagesof the developmentalcycle at differenttimes,
a censuswill catchonly a few in the ideal,completephase.For this reason,
an ideal householdtype such as the EasternEuropeanzadrugais better
regarded" . . . not as a form, but as a transitorystate in the development
of the household"(72, p. 142).
Whilethe developmentalcycle mustbe reckonedwith in any analysisof
householdor familyform,in most casesit cannotexplainall the observed
variationbecausefactorsother than those stemmingfrom the processof
socialreproductionmay operateto producea diversityof domesticgroups
(29, 59, 141). E. N. Goody's study (59), for example,reveals that the
differentamong
developmentalcycles of compoundsare characteristically
divisional
in
the
capitals
the threeestates(commoner,Muslim,and ruling)
of centralGonja.Hence,as Fortes(47, p. 18) now concedes,a modelof a
uniformdevelopmentalcycle cannot explainwhy the actual historiesof
differentfamiliesentaildifferentdevelopmentalsequences.
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
169
Thelimitationsof Fortes'sinitial(45) conceptof the developmentalcycle

derive from his attachmentof the successivephases of the cycle to the
individual'spassagethroughthe life cycle (29, 139).But changesin family
structurecan be keptdistinctfromchangesin familypersonnel(29). Families can replenishtheirmembershipwithoutundergoingchangesin structure, and they can spawn other families that pass through divergent
sequences.
Fortes'sformerassumptionthat in eachsocietythereis a single,uniform
developmentalsequencethroughwhichall domesticgroupspassmay also
blindus to historicalchangesin domesticorganization.If we orderall the
differenthouseholdformswe observeat one point in time along a single
developmentalsequence,we may well fail to realize that more recently
formed householdsare embarkingon a differentsequence than older
households.To recognizehistoricalchangewe must collect longitudinal
data on domesticgroupsby utilizinghistoricalsources,such as household
registers,or by reconstructingthe histories of individualsand families
throughretrospectiveaccounts.By usingthe techniqueof cohortanalysis
developedby demographers,
we can discernwhethermembersof successive
cohorts (whetherthese are birth cohorts,marriagecohorts,or whatever
othercohortsemergeas historicallysignificantin a particularpopulation)
have the same or differentdomestichistories.
Despite these limitations,the concept of the developmentalcycle of
domestic groupshas been extremelyuseful in displayingthe impact of
events such as marriage,birth, death, and division of propertyon the
compositionof familiesandhouseholds.Althoughthe timingandsequencing of theseeventshavebeenshownto be complexlyshapedby a widerange
of cultural,political,and economicprocesses,these eventsclearlymediate
betweenthe complexcausalfactorsand the shapeof domesticgroups.
ECONOMIC DETERMINANTS Economic variables are predominant
amongthose adducedto explainfamilyand householdstructure.At times

a diversemix of "economic"or "ecological"factors,includinglaborneeds
in production,defensiveneeds,careof children,taxation,and conscription
practicesof the state,are cited as the "underlyingfunctionalreasons"for
the presenceof a particulartype of domesticgroup(72, p. 142).As often,
however,one economicfactoris singledout as the primaryor causallyprior
determinantof domesticgroupstructure.
Propertyis a commonfocus in discussionsof familyform, althoughit
may be approachedin differentways.One approach,whichI havealready
toucheduponin my discussionof definitions,viewspropertyrelationships
from a jural perspectiveand thereforedoes not cast it as an economic
determinant.A second approachtreats propertyas a resourceand goal
170
YANAGISAKO
whichshapesthe actionsof maximizingindividuals.The two viewsarewell

illustratedin the literatureon Chinesefamilies,wheremost researchers(1,
28, 29, 51, 158)appearto agreeon the pivotalrole of property,but disagree
overthe mannerby whichpropertyrightsaretransmittedfromone generation to the next and, consequently,over what determinesthe timing of
propertydivision. Accordingto Freedman(50, 51) and Ahern (1), the
Chinesefatherhasjuralauthorityoverthe familypropertyuntilhis death.
Cohen (28, 29), in contrast,maintainsthat as soon as a son marrieshe
becomeshis father'sjural equal and can demanddivisionof the family
estate.For Freedman,the greaterthe authorityof the father,that is, the
more his authorityis buttressedby his politicaland economicpositionin
extradomesticspheres,the longerhe can delaydivisionof the estateby his
sons. For Cohen,what determinesthe timingof divisionis not the extent
of the father'sauthorityover-sonswhowishto be freeof it, butthe economic
whichmayderive
self-interestof the sons.Thepursuitof this disagreement,
in partfromactualregionaldifferences,wouldhardlyseemto be productive
as it wouldlead only to furtherreifyingthe faultydichotomyof juraland
economicsphereswhichmuddlesdiscussionsof propertyrelationships.To
view propertyeitheras the merevehicleof juralrelationships(46) or as an
economicrelationshipbetweenpeople and things (29) is to misconstrue
what is morecorrectlyan "entiresystemof rules,rights,and expectations
of role"(73, p. 207) or a "systemof socialrelationships"
(16, p. 204) which
must be explainedratherthan adducedas explanation.
In the samelight,we musteschewnarrowconceptionsof propertyreladeterminedby "ecologicalfactors."The
tionshipsas man-landrelationships
limitationsof a narrowecologicalframeworkarewell documentedin G. A.
Collier's(30) study of family organizationand land tenurein six Maya
communities.Although he began with a culturalecologicalframework
emphasizingthe local adaptationof people to resources,Collierbecame
increasinglyawarethat an adequateexplanationof the relationbetween
familyorganizationand land tenurerequiredan understandingof the region-widesystemof interethnicandinterclassrelationshipslinkingfamilies
to hamlet,township,state,andnationalprocesses.Goldschmidt& Kunkel
(55) reacha similarconclusionin theircross-culturalsurveyof the relationshipbetweendegreeof landscarcity,patternof landinheritance,and"family structure"(by whichthey meanhouseholdcomposition)in 46 peasant
communities.They findthat the "ecologicalcontext"suggestedby E. R.
Wolf(159)cannotexplainthe differentpatternsof landinheritancein these
communitiesbecausethereis no conclusivepatternof associationbetween
land scarcityand eitherresidenceor inheritancepatterns.Consequently,
they directour attentionto Wolf's(159) "hierarchicalsocial context"by
suggestingseveralwaysin whichthe relationshipbetweenpeasantsandthe
171
elites who control state organization(and therebyland tenurepatterns)

shapesthe formof inheritanceand,consequently,peasantfamilystructure.
Goody's(61, 62) grandtheoryof the evolutionof domesticorganization
also focusseson the transmissionof propertyas a key featureof the domestic domain.Goody proposesto explainnot just the structureof domestic
groups,but a whole cluster of interlinkedelements,includingmarriage
transactions,inheritancepatterns,descentgroups,form of marriage,domesticroles,andkinshipterminology.Centralto his theoryis the contrast
he drawsbetweenAfricanbridewealthsocietiesand Europeanand Asian
dowrysocieties,in whichtwo verydifferentformsof marriagetransactions
consequencesfordomesticorganization.Bridewealth,
generatefar-reaching
as a transactionbetweenthe kinof the groomandthe kinof the bride,forms
part of a circulatingsocietalfund which has a levelingeffect on wealth
differences.In contrast,dowry,as a type of premorteminheritanceof the
bride,sets up a conjugalfund for a marriedcouple,therebyreproducing
wealth differences.As differentmechanismsfor redistributingproperty,
these marriagetransactionsare linkedby Goody (61) to other aspectsof
socialorganization.Dowrysystemsareseenas inherentlybilateral,because
they distributerights in a mannerthat does not link propertyto sex.
Furthermore,as a formof "divergingdevolution,"dowryentailsthe transmissionof propertyoutsidethe unilinealdescentgroup,thusweakeningthe
corporatenatureof thesedescentgroups.In comparison,inheritancewithin
the unilinealdescentgroup in Africanbridewealthsocietiesstrengthens
theircorporatenature.Finally,bridewealthanddowryhavedifferentconsequencesforthe "domesticrolecompendia"(62, p. 41). Thestatusof women
as heirs to significantpropertyin a dowry system leads to monogamy
(sometimesaccompaniedby concubinage),the concept of conjugallove,
and the individualizationof the mother (61, p. 37; 62, pp. 42, 51). In
contrast,bridewealthis associatedwithpolygyny,diffusedomesticrelationships, and the classificatoryrole of mother.
Therecan be little doubtthat Goody'stypologicalschemedeservesto be
a major focus of discussionand researchon marriagetransactionsand
domesticorganizationfor some time to come. Most provocativeare the
questionsraisedabouthow the transmissionof property-whetherin the
formof marriagepayments,premorteminheritance,or postmorteminheritance-shapes both th-einternalstructureof domesticunits and economic
and politicalprocessesusuallyconstruedas externalto the domesticdomain.Whatremainsto be deliberatedandfurtherresearchedis the empirical generalityand analyticutility of his typology. For example,there is
ampleevidencein the ethnographicliteratureon bridewealthtransactions
in cognaticsocieties(e.g. 6) and in the more"looselystructured"unilineal
descentsocietiesof highlandsNew Guinea(e.g. 149),whichdoesnot appear
172
YANAGISAKO
to fitwellwithhis Africanbridewealthmodel.Indeed,onewonderswhether
we areduefor anotherroundof debateoverthe utilityof "Africanmodels"
as was our fate in the case of unilinealdescentsystems.
of dowryin European
Evenmoredisputableis Goody'scharacterization
andAsiansocieties.Accountsof dowrytransactionsin Japan(140), southern Italy (33), and China(93) do not sustainGoody'sclaimthat dowryis
bestseenas a formof femaleinheritanceof "maleproperty."EvenGoody's
coeditorTambiah(151) cites criticaldifferencesamongthe South Asian
societies of northernIndia, southernIndia, Ceylon, and Burmain jural
conceptionsof femalerightsto property,in the mannerin whichproperty
is actuallytransmittedto women,and in the consequencesof these transmissionsfor domesticorganization.These recalcitrantcases, of which I
suspectwe will hearmorein the future,are ampleremindersthat the task
awaitingus is to "decomposethe propertyof the family or the conjugal
estateinto its explicitlyrecognizedcomponentsand see what rightshusbandand wife enjoyin relationto them at marriageand divorce"(151, p.
153).
Althoughit requiresrefinement,Goody'scontrastbetweenbridewealth
anddowry,at leastas two idealtypes,providesa promisinginsightinto the
impact of marriageand its accompanyingtransactionsin the shapingof
domesticrelationships.His causalmodelin which technologicalfactorsof
productionare the primarymoversin the evolutionof domesticorganization probablywill not standso well againstthe test of time. His attemptto
derivehistoricalinferencesfromcross-sectionaldataby subjectingcorrelations betweenmode of propertytransmissionand societalinstitutionsto
pathanalysisdoeslittlejusticeto the complexityof historicaldevelopments
thathaveled to the kindof dowrysystemhe describes[seeStone(146, 147)
for a discussionof the significantchangesthat occurredin early modern
Englandwith regardto the controlof propertyby familyheadsand women's legal rightsto property].The problem,of course,is inherentin any
evolutionaryschemethatrestson a crudesuccessionof types.For however
sophisticatedthe quantitativehardware,one cannotderivehistoricalprocess from ahistorical,cross-sectionaldata.
There is a finalissue that I fear will be overlookedin the debateover
Goody's typology and evolutionaryscheme, because it is so embedded
within Goody's discussionthat it is likely to go unnoticed.In Goody's
evolutionaryaccountof the shift from a bridewealthto a dowry system,
radicaltransformationsoccur in mode of production,divisionof labor,
stratification,propertyrelations,centralizationof politicalauthority,marriageforms,kinterminology,anddomesticrolerelationships.Yet one thing
remainsconstant:the nuclearfamilyis the basicproductiveunit of society
(62, p. 20). Becausehe seesthe nuclearfamilyas everywhereandforall time
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
173
thebasicandnaturalunitof society,Goodyneverfeelscompelledto explain

why, when intensiveagriculturecreatedgreaterproductionsurplusesand
differencesin styles of life, people becameconcernedto reproducethese
life-stylesin their own progenyas against the membersof the lineageor
otherkinshipor localitygrouping.For Goody,thereis no need to explain
the emergenceof the nuclearfamilyas a sociallyand culturallysignificant
unit becauseit was already,and always,present.In the finalsectionof this
paper,I will returnto a criticalcommentaryof this assumption,which is
held by many more anthropologiststhanjust Goody.
A secondproductiveresourcecitedas a determinantof householdstructure is labor.Laborrequirementsare singledout by Pasternak,Ember&
Ember(108)as the mostpowerfuldeterminantof the formationof extended
familyhouseholds.Using a randomlyselectedsampleof 60 societies,they
test their hypothesisthat
... extendedfamilyhouseholdsare likelyto emergeand prevailin a societywhen(in
the absenceof slaveor hiredlabor)workoutsidethe homemakesit difficultfora mother
to tend childrenand/or performher otherregulartime-consuming
domestictasks,or
whenthe outsideactivitiesof a fathermakeit difficultforhimto performhis subsistence
work (108, p. 121).
They assumethat in the absenceof such activityrequirements,extended

familyhouseholdswouldnot emergein any societybecausethey wouldbe
plaguedby the "ordinarydifficultiesof extendedfamilydynamics,"includingjealousiesand problemsof authority(108, p. 121).Havingshownthat
the statisticalassociationbetweenpresenceof "incompatibleactivity requirements"andpresenceof "extendedfamilyhouseholds"is strongerthan
thatpredictedby Nimkoff&Middleton's(103)hypothesis(whichattributes
extendedfamilyhouseholdsto agriculturalsubsistence),theyconcludethat
labor requirementsper se are better predictors of extended family
householdsthantypeof subsistenceactivity.The problemwith this conclusion, as the authorsthemselvespointout (108, p. 121),is that they haveno
justificationfor positinga causalrelationshipbetweenthe purportedindependentvariable(incompatibleactivityrequirements)and the purported
dependentvariable(presenceof extendedfamilyhouseholds)on the basis
of correlationalevidence.Hence,theymustresortto insistingthatit is more
plausiblethat incompatibleactivity requirementscause extendedfamily
householdsratherthanvice versa.But it is just as reasonableto arguethat
extendedfamilyhouseholdsencouragewomento work outsidethe home,
of
particularlyif we acceptPasternak,Ember& Ember'scharacterization
such householdsas riddledwith tensionsand conflicts.Evenmoredubious
is their constructionof arbitrary,crudemeasuressuch as the presenceof
"incompatibleactivity requirements,"which they define for women as
174
YANAGISAKO
"workawayfromthe homefor morethanhalfthe dayfor at least(cumulatively) 30 days of the year"(108, p. 118).

The mostvexatiousissuethat Pasternak,Ember& Emberandthe others
(55, 62) who attemptstatisticalcross-societalcomparisonsencounteris
whetherthe unitsthey have selectedare appropriatefor comparativepurposes. The evidencethat societiescontaindifferentfrequenciesof a range
of householdtypessurelychallengesthe classificationof wholesocietiesinto
two categoriesof those with "extendedfamily households"versusthose
with "independentfamily households."Our goal of understandingand
explainingdomesticorganizationmay be betterachievedby investigations
of the diversityof domesticunits in societiesand the articulationof these
domesticunits with one another,ratherthan by comparisonsthat reduce
whole societiesto a single householdtype, family structure,or marriage
transaction.
areusedto explaincross-societalvariationsin
Justas laborrequirements
domesticgroups,so a largenumberof researchershave used it to explain
the frequencywith whicha particularhouseholdtype appearsin a society
or segmentof a society.In reviewingecologicalstudies,Netting(102) cites
severalstudieswhichpurportedlyshowthathouseholdcompositionamong
varieswiththe typeandamountof labor
horticulturistsandagriculturalists
requiredfor-effectivecrop production.In his own study, for example,he
attributesthe differencesbetweenthe large, extendedfamiliesof shifting
cultivatorsand the nuclearfamilyhouseholdsof intensiveagriculturalists
in the sameNigerianplateauenvironmentto differinglaborrequirements
(100, 101).Alongthe samelines,Sahlins(119)arguesthatunderconditions
of widelydispersedresourcesthe extendedfamilyprovidesa moreefficient
mean
productiveunit. Nakane (97) attributesthe larger-than-average
householdsize in two Japanesecommunitiesto the laborrequirementsof
theirproductiveactivities(fishingin one, silk cultivationin the other),and
Dorjahn(39) citeslabordemandsof uplandricefarmingas the primefactor
in householdsize and type amongthe MayosoTemne.In the case of the
Chinesefamily,bothPasternak(107)andCohen(29) stressthe needfor the
efficientallocationof laboras a primarydeterminantof familyform.
In all these studies,the authorsassumethat once havingidentifiedthe
productiveactivityof the household,they can ascertainthe technologically
of thatactivityandproceedto showthatthe
determinedlaborrequirements
householdefficientlymeets these laborrequirements.They fail to explain
adequately,however,that it is not merelythe technologicalrequirements
of productionwhichnecessitatea particularhouseholdtype,but the entire
mannerin whichproductionis sociallyorganized.In otherwords,a productive activitycanbe accomplishedby a varietyof householdtypesdepending
on how thatproductionis sociallyorganized,includingthe divisionof labor
by sex and age, the use of hired labor, cooperationin productivetasks
175
amonghouseholds,and the exchangeof labor betweenhouseholds.Like

Chayanovand Sahlins, these authors are inclined to assume that the
householdis a self-containedlabor unit, and so they fail to investigate
sufficientlythe existenceof otherformsof productiveorganization.Yet the
salientunitsengagedin productionmaynot be the sameat differentphases
of the productivecycle;for example,differentsocialgroupsmay engagein
the transplanting,
weeding,andharvestingof rice(32). Oncewe realizethat
a particularproductiveenterprisecan be accomplishedby a variety of
productiveunits, dependingon how productionis organized,it becomes
apparentthat to attributehouseholdcompositionto laborrequirementsis
to beg the question,becauseto do so we haveto assumethe priorexistence
of an entireinstitutionalframeworkfor production(38). To overcomethis
overlyrestrictedfocuson technologicallyderivedfactorsof productionwe
need to investigatea widerrangeof social, political,and economicforces
shapingproductiverelationships
bothwithinandbetweendomesticgroups.
SOCIAL STRATIFICATION AND
THE DIVERSITY OF DOMESTIC
GROUPS Our past tendency to neglect stratification in the analysis of

domestic organization seems to have derived from our notion of the basic
homogeneityof the communitieswe have studied.In the case of peasant

communities,for example,the contrastbetweenthe peasantswe havestudied and the landlordswhomwe generallyhave not has madethe peasants
look ratheruniform.Hence,even thoughFreedman(50, 51) suggeststhat
it was among the landed gentry in China that one found a significant
proportionof joint families,while among the peasantryone found only
nuclearand stemfamilies,Cohen(29) findsit easy to dismissstratification
as a significantfactorin his villagebecauseit containsonly "dirtfarmers,"
none of whomcouldbe construedas membersof an elite gentry.Cohenis
right that wealthdifferencesamong the villagesof Yen-liaoare small in
comparisonto wealthdifferencesbetweenpeasantsand landedgentry.But
his own data (29, pp. 239-42) indicatethat per capita landholdingsare
consistentlylargeramongthe tobacco-growing
households,manyof whom
also have diversifiedinto capitalized,nonagriculturalenterprises,than
amongthe rice-growinghouseholdswhosemembersappearto providethe
hired laborfor the larger,tobacco-growinghouseholds.
Thefailureto takeadequateaccountof the internaldifferentiation
among
the peasantryhasbeenredressedin a numberof recentstudies(95, 129, 130,
140, 156). As Mintz states, " . . . peasantries nowhere form a homogeneous
massor agglomerate,but arealwaysandeverywheretypifiedthemselvesby

internaldifferentiation
along many lines" (95, p. 3).
Part of the difficultyin recognizingsignificantwealthdifferenceswhich
generatestructuraldifferencesin the householdsof a peasantcommunity
stemsfromtheirsocialmobility.Sincepeasanthouseholdsfunctionas small
176
YANAGISAKO
productionunits with extremelylimitedresourcesand are greatlysubject

to the forces of nature,the market,and the state, they experiencesome
degreeof randomoscillationin social mobility(129, p. 112). Among the
Russianpeasantryin the early twentiethcentury,for example,there was
considerablemultidirectional
and cyclicalmobilityof households(129). T.
C. Smith(140) also characterizesthe situationin TokugawaJapanas one
in whichfarmfamilieswerenot likelyto enjoyan economicadvantageover
their neighborsfor manyyears.On the other hand, it wouldbe wrongto
concludethat becauseof this mobilityobserveddifferencesin wealth are
mere transitoryadvantagesthat have no consequencefor domesticorganization.Despitethe mobilityin Smith'svillage,the highestprobabilitywas
for a family to remainin the same landholdingcategoryfrom one tax
registerto another-an averageintervalof 12 years (140, p. 119).
Significantdifferencesin wealthamongpeasantsalso maybe overlooked
becausethey areso oftenobscuredby kinshiprelationshipswhichbindthe
landedto the landlessand the land-richto the land-poor(95, 129, 130).
Consequentialwealthdifferencesmay exist betweenthe smallercoresidentialunitsof a singlekin-basedcompound(54) or betweenbrotherswhohead
the main and branchhouseholdsof a family(140).
The complexityof the internaldifferentiation
of the peasantry,or of any
kind of community,shouldnot deter us from investigatingits relationto
the variationswe observein the compositionand internalstructureof
domesticgroups,as well as in theirexternalrelationships.Indeed,it is this
very complexity-the fluctuationsin size and wealth,the social mobility,
and the kin ties that bind togetherhouseholdsin differentstrata-that
underlinesourneedto investigatethe economicandsocialinterdependence
of differentsectorsof society.
Variationsover Time
In consideringrecentpublicationswhich addressthe topic of change in
familyand householdstructure,I havegone beyondthe boundariesof our
own disciplineto includethe burgeoningliteraturebeingproducedby family historians.Giventhe limitationsof spaceandmy acquaintancewiththis
literature,I havenot attempteda broadlyinclusivereviewof the historyof
the family.My purposeinsteadis to evaluatesome of the historicalstudies
that speakdirectlyto our theoreticalinterestin changingdomesticorgabecomeincreasinglyimmersedin the
nization.Of course,as anthropologists
with
of
literate
societies
recorded
study
pasts,an acquaintanceand facility
the
methods
of
with
historian's
analyzingdocumentarymaterialsbecomes
a necessity.My reviewof the workof historians,however,is intendedpartly
as a didacticexercisedirectedtowardexhibitingthe predominantconceptions and theoreticalorientationsguidingour own analysesof familyand
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
177
kinshipchangeas much as theirs,since many of their notionshave been

borrowedfrom anthropologyand sociology.Indeed,the commonguiding
frameworksmaybe moreeasilydiscernedin the contextof a newlydeveloping field of inquirysuch as the historyof the family.After I discussthe
methodsandanalyticalstrategiesemployedby familyhistorians,I moveon
to a reviewof anthropologicalstudiesof family and kinshipchange.
The emergenceof historians'interestin
the familyis properlyplacedwithinthe contextof a moregeneraltrendin
historicalresearch,the shift awayfroma historyfocusedprimarilyon the
descriptionandinterpretation
of particularhistoricalevents-a historythat
has been dominatedby the ideas and actionsof a few-to a historyconcernedwith the everydaylivesof the many(118). The "newsocialhistory"
necessarilyhas beenaccompaniedby a changein the kindsof datasources
and methods of analysis historiansemploy. The social historian sifts
throughrecordsof births,marriages,deaths,and householdlists contained
in censuses,parishregisters,and governmentreports,ratherthan through
political treatises,autobiographies,and philosophicaltracts. Given the
kinds of eventsin the lives of the commonfolkwhich get recorded,much
of the new socialhistoryhasbeendirectedtowardreconstructing
the family
experienceof historicalpopulations.2
To utilize quantifiableenumerativematerials,historiansof the family
haveaddedtwo methodsof analysisto theirmoretraditionaltool kit. These
are:(a) the methodof familyreconstitutiondevelopedby the Frenchhistorical demographerLouisHenry,which entailsreconstructionof the demographichistoryof individualfamiliesfrom entriesin parishregisters(64,
161, 162);(b) aggregatedata analysis,which uses nominalcensuslists or
surveystakenat differentpointsin time to constructa pictureof statistical
trendsover time (10, 69, 86, 132, 133). Historicaldemographersemploy
thesemethodsto discerndemographicchangesin death,birth,and illegitimacy rates, age at marriageand other eventsthat have consequencesfor
family size and composition.By supplementingthe quantitativeresults
achievedby these methodsof analysiswith qualitativesource materials,
family historiansattemptto describeand analyzefamily and household
patternsin differenttime periodsand differentlocales,althoughprimarily
in WesternEuropeand the United States.
An emphasison quantitativeanalysis is reflectedin the work of the
CambridgeGroupfor the Historyof Populationand Social StructurecoTHE HISTORY OF THE FAMILY
2Areviewof the Journalof FamilyHistory,theHistoryof ChildhoodQuarterly,the Journal

of Interdisciplinary
History,the Annales(France),and Pastand Present(England)confirms
this concernwith the family.
178
YANAGISAKO
directedby Laslett.The mainthrustof Laslett'swork(85-87) is the refutation of the theorythat a shiftfroman extendedfamilysystemto a nuclear
familysystemaccompaniedEuropeanindustrialization.
His discoverythat
early census materialsshow the small, nuclearfamily householdto have
predominated
in Englandbeforethe industrialrevolutionis ampleevidence
of the contributionthat historicaldemographycan maketo the construction and revisionof hypothesesabout the history of the family. Having
foundsimilarevidenceof the predominanceof smallhouseholdselsewhere
in preindustrialWesternEuropeand even in TokugawaJapan(76), however,Laslettboldlyextendshis thesisto assertthat"littlevariationin family
organizationcanbe foundin humanhistory"(86, p. lx). Whilehe is aware
of the distinctionbetweenhouseholdsize and familyorganization,at times
Laslettlapsesintothe unfortunatepracticeof confusingfamilyorganization
with residencepatterns.Becausehe reliesprimarilyon aggregatedata on
householdsize and composition,Laslett'swork suffersfroma narrowness
as well as a plethoraof methodologicaland conceptualproblems[see (12)
for an excellentcritiqueof Laslett'swork]. A few of these problemsare
worthlistingherebecausethey plaguethe work of otherquantitativehistoriansof the family:equatingresidencepatternswith familystructureand
even kinshiporganization,payinglittle heed to relationshipsbetweenresidential units, failing to considerregionaldiversity,failing to take into
considerationthe developmentalcycle of domestic groups, and making
unwarrantedassumptions about the common criteria for defining
householdsused by censustakersin differentsocieties.
Theseconceptualandmethodologicalmuddlesarewell illustratedby the
literatureon the historyof the blackfamilyin the UnitedStates.In reassessing the slave experiencethroughreconstructingthe historyof blackfamilies, scholarslikeGutman(69, 70) assertthat,contraryto receivedwisdom,
blacksin the UnitedStateslived predominantlyin two-parenthouseholds
bothbeforeandafteremancipation.Gutman'sfigurescertainlyattestto the
needfor a reassessmentof popularnotionsof the blackfamily.But he and
otherfamilyhistorians(53) muddlethe issueby assumingthatif husbands
are presentin the household,they play a centralrole in the family and,
therefore,that these cannot be "matrifocal,""matriarchal,"or femaleheadedhouseholds.Yet the point that presenceor absencein a household
is quite a differentthingfrom an individual'sstructuralrole in the family
was made convincinglyclear 20 yearsago by R. T. Smith(136).
Fortunately,not all familyhistorianswho rely on quantitativemethods
sufferfromthesefailings.Somehistoriansof the blackfamily(77, 131)are
quitecognizantof the distinctionbetweenhouseholdcompositionandfamily structure;and those anthropologistswhose worksappearin historical
anthologieshave tried to drive home this distinction.(60, 71). The most
179
analyticallyrefinedworksseemto comefromhistorianswho use a broader

range of source materialsin conductingintensiveresearchon a specific
localityat a single point in time, thus avoidingan unhealthyrelianceon
aggregatefigureswhich obscuresubstantialdifferencesamong strata,regions, and ethnic groups.In some historicalstudies of the family, the
authorstakeinto accountthe developmentalcycleof domesticgroups,even
in using aggregatedata (10, 13), place the householdwithin its proper
kinshipcontext(82, 156),attendto local variations(65, 142),andpay heed
to the influenceof other cultural domains, such as religion,on family
ideology(7, 88).Greven(67, 68), for example,utilizesboththe genealogical
historiesof specificfamiliesand aggregatedata on the entirepopulationin
New
his casestudyof population,land,andfamilyin a seventeenth-century
Englandtown. His reconstructionof the householdand kinshipnetworks
in the communityenableshim to interpretthe organizationalstructureof
individualhouseholdswithinthe contextof their relationshipswith other
aristocratic
households.Similarly,Kent's study (82) of fifteenth-century
familiesin Florenceshowsthe relationsamongthe individual,household,
and lineageto be more subtle than is suggestedby overly dichotomized
conceptualframeworkswhichportraythe householdand lineageas inherently antagonisticstructures.Finally, historicalresearchon inheritance
systems in differentregions of Western Europe (14, 153) promisesto
provideus withusefulanalysesof the interplaybetweenthe inheritancelaws
of the state,local customs,and the actualinheritancepracticesof different
sectorsof society.
Likeanthropologists,
socialhistoriansaresearchingfor analyticallyproductive ways to identifyand describefamily change. Stone's (146, 147)
effortsto displaythe changesin Englishfamilystructurein the earlymodem periodlead him to the constructionof a typologyof three successive
familytypes.Whilethereis muchthat can be objectedto in his interpretation of evidence(154),his attentionto publicideologiesof the familyas well
as to family functionscontributesmuch richer materialfor an analysis
of historicalchangethan the absorptionwith surfacelevel similaritiesof
demographicstatisticscan offer.
The most formidableproblemwhich confrontshistoriansof the family
is the matchingof data sourceswith the right kinds of questions.Where
they are least successfulin their endeavorsis when, like Laslett(86) and
Gutman(69, 70), they attemptto answerquestionsaboutfamilystructure
forwhichtheirquantitative
sourcesareill suited,or when,likeShorter(132,
133),they try to "extractemotionalmotivationsfromunwillingstatistics"
(C. Daniels,unpublishedpaper).Theyare most successfulwhen,like T. C.
Smith(140), they makecreativebutjudicioususe of quantitativematerials
to calculatemeasuresof age-specificmortalityand fertility,life expectancy,
180
YANAGISAKO
nuptiality,and birth spacing,and supplementingthese with literaryand

legal records,arriveat conclusionsabout populationgrowth,infanticide,
and the dynamicsof the householdin a specificlocality.
Althoughthe researchof historianshas certainlyyieldedmuch of substantiveinterestand significancefor discussionsof the historyof the Westof family
ernfamily,the implicationsof theseresultsfor our understanding
changeare obscuredby the absenceof a coherenttheoreticalframework.
A ratherodd grab-bagof conceptualtools and analyticstrategieshas been
liftedfromthe socialsciencesby historians.Perhapsmostill-advisedis the
proclivityof some social historians(86, 87, 132, 133) to infer changesin
sentimentsand culturalconceptionsfrom alterationsin demographicpatterns.Becausetheilliteratemassesleavebehindmainlyvitalstatisticswhich
do not speakof attitudesandbeliefs,they areparticularlyvulnerableto this
kind of interpretation.Given the availablesourcematerials,the adoption
of psychoanalyticmodelsto speculateaboutthe historicalconsequencesof
childhoodexperiencesin differentperiodsalso seemsparticularlyinappropriate.Few historiansgo as far as deMause(35) to proposea "psychogenic
theoryof history"whichappliesFreudianandneo-Freudiantheoriesto the
historyof childhood,but an emphasison socializationand an implicit,if
undeveloped,theoryof the importanceof early childhoodexperiencein
shaping personalityand culture is presentin the works of other family
historians(86, 87). It is because of this socializationbias that Laslett
choosesas the predominantfamilialtypein a societythe formin whichthe
largestpercentageof childrenhavegrownup "intheirmostimpressionable
years"(86, p. 67). This reinventionof personalityand culturetheoryleads
historianslike Laslettto place an inordinateemphasison a single family
functionto the detrimentof other, no less important,functions(12, 156).
The most popularimportfrom the social sciences,however,has been a
somewhatlooselyconceptualized,Parsonianequilibriummodelof society.
In general,familystructureandfunctionareseenas adjustingto the shifting
externalconditionsof the economyandpoliticalorganization(11, 118, 146,
147). Economicfactorsmay be singledout as havinga majorcausalinfluence on the family,as in Greven'sstudy (67) wherethe controlof land by
the town'sfoundingfathersleadsto the establishmentof "extendedpatriarchal families."In any event, alterationsin family form and functionsare
portrayedas attemptsto makedomesticrelationshipsmorecongruentwith
the outsidesocial environment.I includewithinthe generalcategoryof a
approaches(4, 5,
Parsonianequilibriumframeworkthe "actor-oriented"
118) whichpurportto explainparticularfamilystructuresby reconstructing the social options open to maximizingindividuals.For despite the
processes
interestof historianssuch as Anderson(4, 5) in decision-making
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
181
and the inclusionof formalistpremisessuch as "all actorshave a number

of goals, the attainmentof which would maximizetheir satisfactionsor
psychicrewards"(4, p. 8), in the endthe explanationof familyrelationships
is a functionalistone. Hence to explainthe high incidenceof coresidence
of marriedchildrenand parentsin the early industrialEnglish town of
Preston,Anderson(4) cites the economicbenefitsfor both the married
couple and parents.Much rarerare the historianslike N. Z. Davis who
recognizethe conflictsand tensionsas well as the consistenciesbetween
familylife andpolitical,economic,andreligiousinstitutions.Davis'sdiscussion (34) of the disjuncturebetween"privatisticfamily values"and the
"morecorporatevalues"heldby the samefamiliesin earlymodemFrance
conveysa morerefinednotionof culturalsystemsthan do the analysesof
family historianswho are inclinedtowardtightly integratedfunctionalist
schemes.
Severalfamilyhistorians(e.g. 63, 133)havebeenattractedto the simple
dichotomiesof traditionalvs modern,ruralvs urban,mechanicalsolidarity
vs organicsolidarityand instrumentalvs affectivefamilies.While this is
framework,
hardlythe placeto reviewthe shortcomingsof a modernization
sufficeit to say thatit is somewhatironicthat historianswouldfinda static
functionalistperspectiveso appealingjust at a time when anthropologists
and sociologistsare searchingfor more dynamicmodelsof society.
As I impliedin the beginningof this section,the answerto the question
of why historianshavenot beenmoresuccessfulin integratingtheirfindings
into a unifiedtheoryof familychangelies, at leastin part,in the shortcomings of our own discipline.It is to this body of literaturethat I now turn.
ANTHROPOLOGICAL
STUDIES
OF
CHANGE
IN
FAMILY
AND
A good deal of anthropologicalpublicationsof familyand

householdchangecan be categorizedas refutationsor at least refinements
model of the evolutionof the family in
of a Parsons-Redfield-Durkheim
industrial-urban
society.Hammel& Yarbrough(75) summarizewell the
receivedhypothesisof familybreakdownand the contrastingview of the
family as a durableinstitution:
HOUSEHOLD
andoftenromanticviewhasprevailed,beginningperhapswithLePlay
. . . a conservative
and Durkheim,that upheaval,social change,and increasingdivisionof labordestroy
betweenits
fundamental
values,dividethe primarygroup,anddisruptthe relationships
members.The family,in particular,has beenseen as a victim,reducedfroma solidary
fortressprotectingthe socialand psychicwelfareof its membersto a temporaryabode
for transientseekersof self-interest,
losingits functionas the incubatorof socialvirtue
to the marketplaceandthe peergroup.Morerecent,andit is probablyfairto say,more
durableinstitution,
empiricalresearchhassuggestedthatthe familyis an extraordinarily
even underconditionsof extremesocial changeand social mobility(75, p. 145).
182
YANAGISAKO
Hammel(71) concludesthatindustrialization,
andintegraurbanization,
tioninto a moneyeconomyhavenot weakenedthe Balkanextendedfamily,
but ratherhavestrengthenedit. Similarly,Carlos& Sellers(24), in reviewing publicationson the familyin LatinAmerica,contendthat"themodernizationprocessis beingmoldedto existingfamilyand kinshipinstitutions
and areasof traditionalfamilyfunction"(24, p. 113). They suggestthat
Goode's (57) propositionsabout industrializationand family change be
modifiedbecausestudiesin LatinAmericadisclosethatgeographicmobility
and class differentialmobilitydo not weakenintimacyand contactin the
kin networkandthatindustrialization
doesnot createa newvaluestructure
emphasizingachievementover ascription.Otherresearchers(150) report
that kinshipties endureunderconditionsof social changeand that new
functionsare assumedby kinshipunits. Still others(106, 135)findthat in
and the
developingnationssuch as India it is particularlyentrepreneurs
leadersof modernindustrywho are membersof joint families.Hence,the
most "well-adjusted"
and financiallysuccessfulsectorsof society have a
family structurethat modernizationtheorywould characterizeas "traditional."At the sametime, researchin ruralareasconfirmsthat migration
and increasingintegrationinto a marketeconomydo not inevitablyspell
decline in family unity. Urban migrationmay increasefamily solidarity
and widenkin ties in the ruralcommunity(19), and wage-labormigration
may contributeto the maintenanceof extendedfamily households(104,
105).
The abovestudiesprovidea necessarycorrectiveto the excessivelybroad
hypothesisthat with "modernization"
kinshipstructuresdecline.At the
sametime, however,they often replicatethe shortcomingsof those whom
they criticizeby using the same problematicterms,like "modernization"
(24, p. 114).At othertimes,the argumentover whetherextendedfamilies
deterioratein the face of industrialchangeseemslittle morethan an outcomeof the inconsistentusageof the term"extendedfamily."Firth,Hubert
& Forge(44) pointout that thereis no inherentcontradictionbetweenthe
view that modernindustrialsocietyfavorsthe developmentof the nuclear
familyat the expenseof the extendedfamilyandthe viewthatthe extended
family remainsimportant.They suggestthat it all dependson what we
meanby the extendedfamily.To resolvewhattheysee as a needlessdebate,
Firth,Hubert& Forgesuggestthat we distinguishbetweentwo uses of the
term by askingwhereauthoritylies. In extendedfamilies, authoritynormally resideswith the seniormale;in a set of extrafamilialkin, authority is dispersed.Havingmade this distinction,they concurwith Parsons
on the relativeisolationof the nuclearfamilyin urban-industrial
society,
because
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
183
... exceptfor familyfirmsand some controlof joint property,decisionsin the set of

extra-familial
kin in a modernWesternurbansocietyare madein nuclearfamilyunits,
howeverinfluencedthey may be by kin ties outside(44, p. 456).
Firth, Hubert& Forge are right that some of the debateis createdby
researcherswhotendto overstatethe significanceof kinties.Butin addition
to its androcentricbias,theirdistinctiongives undueweightto centralized
authorityas the definingfeatureof the extendedfamily.Kin groupscan
make decisionsand take cooperativeaction without a centralauthority.
And evenwhena dispersedfamilyis not specificallya politicalor economic
group, this does not meanthat it cannotbe used for politicalor economic
purposes(15). It is wrong,therefore,to acceptthe absenceof kin groups
resemblingthose foundin lineagesocietiesas evidenceof a declinein the
importanceof the extendedfamily.
If we are to refineouranalysisof familyand householdchange,we must
beginto ask new questionsof our data.Questionsas to whetheror not the
sociextendedfamilyor kinshipin generalhas declinedin industrial-urban
ety or whetherthe familyhas enduredevenunderconditionsof rapidsocial
change have impededour progresstoward a more refinedanalysis of
change.Afterall, structuralchangeandstructuralcontinuityin familyand
kinshipinstitutionsarenot mutuallyexclusivephenomena(135, 163).One
wayto movetowarda morerefinedanalysisof changein familyandkinship
is to examinethe relationshipbetweenchangein the ideologyof familyand
In the case of the
kinshipand changein actualinstitutionalarrangements.
Balkanzadruga,Hammel(71) concludesthat recent changescan be attributedlargelyto alterationsin demographicratesandexternalconstraints
while the underlyingkinshipprinciples(e.g. virifocality,agnaticbias, patrifocality,and lineageorganization)have remainedrelativelyunmodified.
Brown(20) suggestssimilarlythatwe cannotassumethatindustrial-urbanizationin Japanhasnecessarilyresultedin the demiseof the dozoku(a group
of householdsrelatedin a networkof main and branchties) even though
the classictype of dozokuwith its economiccorrelatesis no longerviable.
The ideology which has yieldeddozoku organizationcan persistdespite
alterationsin the observableorganizationalforms.
The criticalquestionwhichariseswhen we employthis analyticalstrategy is how do we identifythe underlying,ideologicalprinciplesof formslike
the BalkanzadrugaandtheJapanesedozokuto discernwhetherideological
changehas occurred?For the zadruga,the underlyingkinshipprinciples
extractedby Hammel(71)consistof an assortmentof things,someof which
appearto be normativerulesor preferences(patrifocality),otherof which
areobservablebehavioraltendencies(agnaticbias),andstillothersof which
(virifocality)areambiguouslyeitherobservablepatternsor normativerules.
184
YANAGISAKO
As someof the basicprinciplesare outcomesof otherprincipleswhenthey

arecombinedwithcertaindemographicandsocialconstraints,the meaning
of "ideologicalprinciples"is equivocal.
The assessmentof ideologicalchange,of course, is difficultwhere the
anthropologist,like the historian,does not have directevidenceof former
culturalideals,values,and meanings.Most commonly,the anthropologist
is forcedto reconstructpast ideologiesfromcontemporaryaccounts.If he
then comparesthis abstractedideology of the past with the more richly
contextualizedcontemporaryideology, his evaluationof change may be
limitedby the vaguenessof his constructedmodelof the past. If we are to
bringto ouranalysisthe knowledgethatchangein observablebehaviordoes
not necessarilymeanthat culturalideologieshave altered,we need a conceptual frameworkthat can help us to systematicallydifferentiateand
displaythe interactionbetweenthese aspectsof family and kinship.The
greatpromiseof such an analyticstrategylies in its capacityto identifythe
dynamictensionbetweenideologyandactionas a possiblesourceof change
(163), therebytranscendingthe limitationsof an analyticframeworkthat
invariablyattributeschangeto the constraintsimposedby factorsexternal
to family,household,and kinship.
Variationsin DomesticOrganization:
An Underview
Having surveyedthe recent literatureon variationsin domesticgroups
across societies,within societies,and over time, I want to pause here to
addressthe questionof what holds all these works together.Do these
diverseinquiriesinto the structureand functionof domesticgroupsshare
any mutualconceptionsor analyticcategories?The answer,I contend,is
yes; however,to unearththis commongroundwe mustfirstturnthe question aroundand ask not what we see in commonin the explanations,but
whatwe see in commonin the depictionsof the phenomenabeingexplained.
In otherwords,whenanthropologists
treatthe familyandhouseholdas the
thing to be explained,the dependentvariable,how do they describeits
features?3
My precedingcommentaryby now must have made it apparentthat
when they attemptto explainvariationsin domesticgroupsmost authors
settle on the genealogicalcompositionof the domesticgroupas its most
salient feature. Terms such as "nuclear family" and "nuclearfamily
household,"or "stemfamily"and "stemfamilyhousehold"classifya do3I shouldpointout herethat thereare anthropological
studieswhich treatthe familyor
householdas an independentvariable,that is, as the explanationfor such thingsas childrearingpracticesand personalitystructure.I have not includedthesestudiesin this review.
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
185
mestic unit on the basisof the genealogicallydefinedkin types contained

withinit, regardlessof whetherthe unit is a coresidentialgroupor a spatially dispersedfamily.In addition,the groupis usuallylabeledaccording
to the tie betweenits most genealogically"close"members,becauseit is
presumedthat this relationshipformsits structuralcore.If it containstwo
family
adultbrothers,theirwivesandchildren,it is labeleda fraternal-joint
household,the assumpor household.In otherwords,for a fraternal-joint
tion is that the brother-brother
relationshipis the structurallydominant
relationshipwhichbindstogetherthe restof the membersof the household.
in studiesthatconsiderthe developmental
cycleof thedomesFurthermore,
tic group,whatis usuallydescribedas changingover the courseof time is
the genealogicalcompositionof the group(10, 48, 72, 129).
The classificationof householdsand familieson the basisof theirgenealogical makeupconveysthe implicit notion that there is a fundamental
similarityin the structuresof the units which share the same label. In
cross-societalcomparisonsor historicalinvestigations,the presumptionis
that a stem family at one time and place has the same organizational
structureas a stem familyat anothertime and place.Yet obviouslythere
is moreto "familystructure"thangenealogicalcomposition.The structure
of a family,household,or any othersocialunit is not merelythe sum of its
genealogicalties, but the total configurationof social relationshipsamong
its members.Thereis a plethoraof earlyand recentethnographies(29, 59,
136, 144, 145, 149)whichproviderich accountsof the continuallyshifting
relationshipsof authority,influence,emotional solidarity,and conffict
which characterize families and households. And yet when explanations of
thesevariationsin domesticrelationshipsare attempted,the tendencyis to

divestthem of theirinteractionaland meaningfuldimensions,leavingonly
the genealogicaldimensionas the salientfeatureto be comparedand explained.Aside from comparingthe configurationof actual domesticrelationships,comparativestudiesmight alternativelytreat the family as a
"....
normative system composed of those interrelated norms which define
the proper modes of interactionsbetween persons performingfamilial

roles"(137, pp. 59). Unfortunately,whena termis proposedas a labelfor
a dynamicsystemof normativerole relationships,as in the caseof the term
"matrifocalfamilystructure"(136), it is often mistakenfor a description
of householdcomposition(83).
Thefailureto bringintoourcomparativeanalysesthe dynamicconfiguration of rolerelationships
of familiesandhouseholdsextendsto relationships
betweendomesticgroups.As I explainedin my critiqueof explanationsthat
of households,to focuson householdsas
centeron the laborrequirements
self-containedunits which fulfillsome set of specifieddomesticfunctions
186
YANAGISAKO
maybe altogetherthe wrongstrategy.Thisis trueof setsof householdsthat

sharea corporateidentityas well as thosethat do not, but whichmayhave
other significantrelationships.It is too often thoughtthat by labellinga
we haveadequatelydescribedbothits interdomesticunit a "stem-family"
nal organizationalstructureand the relationshipsthat articulateit with
groupsand individualsoutsideit. But if we compare,for example,stem
family householdsin eighteenthcenturyAustria (10) with stem family
householdsin eighteenthcenturyJapan(140), the economicrelationships
betweenhouseholdsin these two societiesare clearlydifferent.
One kindof analyticadvancewe can makeis illustratedby Cohen's(29)
dissectionof Chinesefamilyorganization.He observesthat while the Chinese family (chia) is a discretekin group,
andin the economic
it can displaya greatdealof variationin residentialarrangements
ties of its members.For purposesof analysisthe chia estate,economy,and groupcan
be consideredas threebasiccomponentsin chia organization(29, p. 58).
The chia estateis "thatbody of holdingsto which the processof family

divisionis applicable,"the chia group is "madeup of personswho have
rightsof onesortor anotherto the chiaestateat the timeof familydivision,"
and the chia economy"refersto the exploitationof the chia estateas well
activitieslinkedto its exploitationthrough
as to otherincome-producing
(29, p. 59). By examinremittancesanda commonbudgetaryarrangement"
ing variationsin the connectionsbetweenchiacomponents,Cohensucceeds
in clarifyingsomeof the problemsencounteredwhenthe Chinesefamilyis
describedin termsthat wronglyassumean ideal chia in which the estate,
group,and economyare unified.
An analyticframeworksuch as Cohen's,of course,is usefulonly when
appliedwherethe commonownershipof propertyis the key elementbinding togetherdomesticunits.Wherethis is not the case, as amonglandless
or wage-laborers,
we mayusefullyidentifyother
peasants,hunter-gatherers,
significantcomponentsof family organization,includingthe commensal
group, the productiongroup, and the budget group in which reciprocal
exchangeoccurswithoutaccounting(cf 90, 128). However,as I have alreadyremarked,the aggregateof peopleengagedin any of theseactivities
may changethroughoutthe productioncycle, the exchangecycle, or the
individual'slife cycle.Consequently,it seemsmoreanalyticallystrategicto
beginwith an investigationof the activities that are centralto the domestic
relationshipsin each particularsociety, rather than with its domestic
groups.If we startby identifyingthe importantproductive,ritual,political,
and exchangetransactionsin a societyand only then proceedto ask what
kinds of kinshipor locality-basedunits engagein these activities,and in
187
what manner,we decreasethe likelihoodof overlookingsome of these

salientunits, particularlythose that do not fit our conventionalnotion of
a household.
A considerationof the secondareaof commongroundin the literature
reviewedtakes us back to the conceptionof the "domestic"which I said
lies at the heartof definitionsof the familyand household.I observedthat
in spiteof theirimprecision,definitionsof "domestic"activities,"domestic"
groups, and the "domestic"domain coverge on two sets of functional
activities:food productionand consumptionand socialreproduction.Now
that we have seen how anthropologistsdescribeand explainthe structures
of social units which engage in these activities,we can elicit a further
componentin the conceptionof the domestic.This facet derivesfrom the
conceptualoppositiondrawn between the "domestic"domain and the
domain.The most ardentadvocateof the heuristicadvan"politico-jural"
tages of this distinctionis Fortes, who views humansocial organization
everywhereas "a balance,stable or not, between the political orderAristotle'spolis-and the familialor domesticorder-the oikos-a balance
betweenpolity and kinship"(47, p. 14). For Fortes,the two domainscan
be "analyticallyand indeedempiricallydistinguishedeven wherethe two
ordersappearto be fusedtogetherin a singlekinshippolity,as amongthe
Australianaborigines"(47, p. 15).
In unilinealdescentsocietieslike Ashanti,the familyand interpersonal
relationsamongkin and affinesbelongto the domesticdomain,while the
domain.The criticalfeaturedifferentiatlineagebelongsto thepolitico-jural
ing the two domainsis the type of normativepremisewhichregulateseach
domain.Underlyingthe politico-juraldomainarejural normsguaranteed
by "external"or "public"sanctionswhich may ultimatelyentailforce.In
contrast,the domesticor familialdomainis constrainedby "private,"affective and moralnorms,at the root of which is the fundamentalaxiom of
prescriptive altruism (46, pp. 89, 250-51).
Fortes warnsagainstthe reificationof this methodologicaland analytic

distinctionby statingthat "theactualitiesof kinshiprelationsand kinship
behaviorsarecompoundedof elementsderivedfrombothdomains"(46, p.
his caveats
251). But whenthe distinctionis usedby otheranthropologists,
often fall by the wayside.Thereis, in fact, a tendencyfor the termsto be
employedto referto wholesocialrelations(ratherthanto theircontextsand
implications)andto entiresocialinstitutions(ratherthanto facetsof social
notes,mostsocialscieninstitutions).Moreover,as Benderperspicaciously
tists employthe term"domestic"as an unmodifiedfolk conceptto referto
"thoseactivitiesassociatedwith the householdor home"and to "female
activitiesmore than male activities"(8, p. 498).
188
YANAGISAKO
usageof thisdistinctionin anthropological

Thepervasiveandunreflective
studieshas had an importantand as yet little recognizedconsequencefor
researchon familiesand households.Two studiesby anthropologistswho
otherwiserepresentdivergentconceptualapproacheswill illustratethis
consequence.
Pasternak's(107)studyof familyandlineageorganizationin two Taiwanese villagesexhibitsa commonunevennessfoundin manyethnographies
of family and lineageorganization.In separatesections of his book, he
proposesto explaindifferencesin the strengthof agnaticties in the lineages
of the two villagesand differencesin the frequencyof joint familiesin the
sametwo villages.If we comparehis two discussions,we noticea marked
contrastbetweenhis analysisof agnaticorganizationand his analysisof
familyform.In the caseof lineageorganization,Pasternakconsidersseveral
possible sources of variabilityin the strengthof agnatic ties, including
ethnicity,Japanesecolonialpolicy,and the
urbanization,industrialization,
conditionsof initialsettlement.In the caseof differencesin familyform,he
considersonly ethnicityand productivelaborneeds, rejectingthe former
(forgoodreason)andsettlingon the latteras the explanatoryvariable.For
a researcherwho handlescausalcomplexitywith greatsophistication,as he
does in his discussionof lineage organization,Pasternakis surprisingly
contentto havefounda singledeterminantof familyform.Moreover,the
two featuresof kinshiporganization-agnaticorganizationandfamilyform
-are treatedas if they were ratherisolated featuresof social structure
insteadof facetsof an integratedkinshipsystemrequiringa unifiedexplanation.
Geertz& Geertz's(54) analysisof Balinesekinshipsuffersfromthe usage
of a similardichotomy.In this case, the authorsare quite explicitabout
theirreasonsfor dividingtheirdiscussionof kinshipinstitutionsand practices into two domains:the privateor domesticdomainversusthe public
or civil domain. The reason is that the Balinese themselvesmake this
distinctionwith great clarity.The domesticaffairsconductedwithin the
houseyardwalls of Bali are consideredfundamentallydifferentfrom the
affairsof the societyat large(54, p. 46). Whilethereis thus amplejustification for elucidatingthis culturaldistinctionof Balinesekinship,the distinction has its drawbacksas an analyticframe.A comparisonof Geertzand
Geertz'schapteron kinshipin the privatedomainwith their chapterson
kinshipin the publicdomainshows the formerto be uncharacteristically
thin and unrevealing.Furthermore,whereasthey discuss kinshipin the
public domainfor the gentry and kinshipin the public domainfor the
commonersin separatechapters,the two strataare consideredtogetherin
a singlechapteron kinshipin the privatedomainbecausethe authorsview
it as essentiallythe samefor commonersand gentry(54, p. 47). One won-
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
189
dersif this is reallythe caseor whethertheirunifiedtreatmentstemsmore

fromtheirapproachto the domesticdomain.Theirdiscussionof the politics
of marriageamongthe gentry(54, p. 131)makesit clearthatthereis much
morecomplexityin marriagerelationshipsamongthe gentrythan among
commonersand consequentlygreaterstatusdistinctionamonggentrysiblings. If this is the case, we would expectto find some salientdifferences
betweencommonerandgentrysiblingrelationshipsandin the relationships
betweenhouseholdswithin a commonhouseyardwhich are linkedby a
siblingtie. Thesemattersare neverdiscussed,however,and we are led to
believethat despitesignificantdifferencesbetweenthe two statusgroupsin
the operationof publickinshipinstitutions,kinshipin the privatedomain
is essentiallythe same for both.
Thiskindof oversightoccurs,it seems,becauseGeertzandGeertzbegin
theiranalysisof kinshipwitha discussionof the domesticdomainand then
neverreturnto it afterthey have extensivelyanalyzedthe publicdomain.
As a result, their analysisof interpersonalrelationshipsin the domestic
domaindoesnot benefitfromtheirexpositionof the complexforcesshaping
the public domainof kinship.Indeedone wonderswhetherthe thinness
of our descriptionsof domesticrelationshipsis partlyan artifactof our
habit of beginningwith the domestic and then moving to the politicojural-a habit that we may have unthinkinglyinheritedfrom Malinowski.
The distinctionbetweenthe domesticand politico-juraldomains(or the
privateand publicdomains)calls for strictscrutinynot just becauseof its
analyticalconsequences,but becauseit is the encompassingframeworkfor
studieson the familyand
a clusterof notionswhichpervadeanthropological
household.Includedwithinthis denseconceptualnetworkis the conviction
that the core of domesticrelationsis the mother-childbond. Whilethere
may be differencesin the mannerin whichthe mother-childunit is linked
to largerorganizational
structures,the bonditselfis perceivedas essentially
the same everywhereand derivedfrom the biologicalfacts of procreation
and nurturance(45, p. 8; 46, pp. 251, 255-56; 47, p. 21; 49, p. 37; 58, p.
18).Closelytiedto this notionis the ideathatthe mother-childrelationship
is constrainedby affectiveand moralconvictionsgeneratedby the experience of "mothering"necessaryfor the biologicalsurvivalof human offspring.Theseaffectiveand moralconstraintspermeatethe entiredomain
of domesticrelationships,therebydistinguishingthemfromthoserelationships which are orderedby politicaland jural principles.Finally,as was
seen in the attemptsto definefamilyand household,thereis the beliefthat
reproduction-thatis, the provisionof properlyenculturatedpersonnelto
fillsocialpositionsnecessaryfor the perpetuationof the socialorder-is the
primaryactivityof the domesticdomain.
190
YANAGISAKO
NEW PERSPECTIVES ON DOMESTIC

ORGANIZATION
Withinthe past decade,alternativeperspectiveson domesticgroupshave
beengeneratedprimarilyby anthropologistsconcernedwith a set of issues
of domeswhichhaveconsequentialimplicationsfor our conceptualization
explorations
these
degree,
to
some
tic relationships.Althoughthey overlap
can be loosely categorizedinto three groups:the study of gender and
sex-rolesystems,particularlywomen'srolesin domesticgroups,the study
of kinshipas a symbolicsystem,and the study of social inequality.
Women in Domestic Groups

Anthropologistsinterestedin genderandsex roleshavehadto confrontthe
issue of women'sstatus and roles in domesticgroups.In their effortsto
transcendthe limitationsof previousanalysesof genderandsex roles,many
researchershavecome to questionthe utilityof extantanalyticcategories,
includingthe domesticversuspublic(political)dichotomy.Therenow appears to be a growingconsensusamong these anthropologiststhat past
researchtendedto overlookthe politicalconsequencesand motivationsof
women'sactionsin domesticgroups(31, 36, 84, 112, 160).M. Wolf's(160)
portrayalof Taiwanesefamiliesrevealsthat familydivisionis as much a
resultof women'sattemptsto advancetheirown interestsandthoseof their
"uterinefamily"as it is an outcomeof conffictsof interestbetweenbrothers.
J. F. Collier(31) andLamphere(84) suggestthatthis is a generalphenomenon in societieswheremen gain politicalpowerby havinglarge,cohesive
youngwomen)gain
bodiesof coresidentkin,butwherewomen(particularly
power by breakingup these units. These authorsnote that the political
natureof these conffictsis usually obfuscatedby culturalperceptionsof
selfish,and irresponsibleby nature.Folk explanawomenas quarrelsome,
tions of the divisionof patrilaterallyextendedjoint families,for example,
commonlystresswomen'spettyjealousies,therebymaskingthe extentto
which women'sactionsare politicallymotivatedratherthan generatedby
emotionalpredispositions.
Rogers(112) attributessomeof our pastfailure
to recognizethe politicalnatureof women'sactionsin domesticgroupsto
our attentivenessto authorityvisible in formal power structures(legitimizedpower)ratherthanto informalpower.However,by viewingwomen
as political actors and by viewing the developmentalcycle of domestic
of the
groupsfroma female-ego'sperspective,we enlargeourunderstanding
dynamictensionsoperantwithin domesticgroups.Such an approachenablesus to recognizethat virilocalextendedhouseholdsare as muchfaced
with the problemof incorporatingoutsidersas are uxorilocalextended
households(36).
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
191
Inquiriesinto women'srelationshipswith peopleoutsidetheir own domesticgrouprefutethe notionthat it is invariablymen who link motherchild units to larger institutional structures in society. Women's
involvementsin exchangetransactions(149, 155), in informalwomen's
communities(99, 111, 160), and in urban kin networks(164) are now
interpretedas havingsignificancefor extradomesticarrangementsrather
than as mereextensionsof women'sdomesticorientation[seefor example
(56)]. Moreover,domestic relationshipsare often so inextricablyintermeshedwith relationshipsof politicalalliancethat to separatethe domestic
aspectsfromthe politicalaspectsis to misconstruetheserelationships.M.
Strathern's(149) discussionof divorceand the attributionof blame for
divorceon women's"will"by Mt. Hagenersis a particularlytellingdemonstrationthat "domestic"aspects of the conjugalrelationshipsometimes
cannotbe usefullyseparatedfrom the allianceaspectsof the relationship.
Takentogether,thesestudiespushbeyondthe recognitionthat domestic
relationshipsareinfluencedby extradomestic,politico-juralconsiderations
to the realizationthat domesticrelationshipsare part and parcel of the
politicalstructureof a society.Althoughsome initialexplorationson sex
rolesmayhavebeenguidedby a domesticversuspublicdistinction(52, 113,
121), more recentlythere appearsto be an emergingconsensusthat this
dichotomyis analyticallyunproductiveand empiricallyunfounded(109,
110, 114). Too many studiesof women's"domestic"activitieshave disclosedthat thesehavepoliticalas well as reproductiveconsequencesfor us
to continueto acceptthe domestic/publicdichotomyas a descriptionof
socialreality.It now seemsmoreproductiveto interpretthe dichotomyas
"a cultural statementmaskingrelationswhich are highly problematic"
(1 10).
As researchon womenhas takena closerlook at genderideologies,it has

also begunto disputethe notion that the biologicalfacts of reproduction
producean immutablemother-childrelationship."Motherhood,"it turns
out, is not everywhereconstruedin the same manner,nor do all gender
ideologiesplaceequalemphasison "motherhood"as an aspectof womanhood (115, 116).Revelationsaboutnannies,wet nurses,and other"surrogate" mothersdisclosethat even in our own Euro-Americanhistoryone
has alwaysentailedthe samefunctional
cannotassumethat "motherhood"
componentsor the samecomponentsof meaning(18, 40).
SymbolicApproachesto the Family and Kinship

The analysisof kinshipas a systemof symbolsand meaningshas likewise
shown that relationshipsdiagrammedsimilarlyon genealogicalchartsdo
not necessarilyhave the same meaningsacross cultures.Schneider(122,
124, 126)contendsthat the studyof kinshipas a symbolicsystemmustbe
192
YANAGISAKO
undertaken if we are to produce cross-cultural comparisons of kinship

rather than cross-societalcomparisons which divorce components of behav-
ior from their symbolicmeanings.In a cultural (symbolic)analysis of

kinship,one does not definethe domainof kinship
premisesof the genealogically-defined
. . . a prioriby thebio-genetic
grid... [incontrast
to Morganandhisfollowerswho]takeit as a matterof definitionthattheinvariantpoints
of referenceprovidedby the facts of sexualintercourse,conception,pregnancyand
parturitionconstitutethe domainof "kinship"(126, p. 37).
Insteadone asks what the definitionof the domainof kinshipis for each
culturestudied.By abstractingnormativerules fromconcrete,observable
actions(whichincludesverbalstatements),the anthropologistderivesthe
systemof symbolsand meaningspertainingto kinshiprelationships(126,
p. 38).
Becauseit directsus to conductthoroughinvestigationsof nativeconceptual categories,symbolicanalysisproducesricherand morepreciseethnographicaccountsthan do analysesthat fail to interpretsocial units and
actionswithintheirrelevantcontextsof meaning.The advantagesof symbolic analysisas an analytictool for the comparativestudy of familyand
kinshipare attestedto by studies (79, 127, 134, 157, 165) that employ
Schneider'sapproach.For example,Inden & Nicholas (79) demonstrate
that a Bengalikinshipunit, which from a purelygenealogicalperspective
appearsto be identicalto the Euro-American"nuclear"family, is constructedout of verydifferentculturalmeaningsandnormativeexpectations
families.In addition,symbolicanalysisenablesus
thanareEuro-American
to see that nativekin categories,includingfamilyand household,are often
polysemic,thatis, theyencompassa rangeof differentmeanings(26, 40, 98,
117, 134, 165). R. I. Rosaldo'sanalysis (117) reveals that the Ilongot
is usedin a numberof differentsensesthat cannot
categoryname"be:rtan"
be conveyedadequatelyby any single, reducedanthropologicalconcept,
such as the deme or nonunilinealdescent group. By introducinga diachronicperspective,he is able to show that these categorynamesare best
interpretedas "a meansof identifyingboundedgroupsat differentphases
in a single historicalprocess"(117, p. 18). In my analysisof JapaneseAmericankinship(165), I concludesimilarlythat the category"relative"
hasdifferentmeaningsandis composedof differenttypesof unitsdepending
upon the culturalcontext.Hence, if we are to understandthe natureof
kinshipcategoriesin a society, we must investigatethe diversemeanings
attachedto themin actualusage.And contraryto the claimthat this kind
of ethnographicspecificitymakescomparativestudiesunfeasible,Needham
(98) and others (117, 124) argue persuasivelythat it puts us in a better
positionto makecomparisonsbecauseit allowsus to "seethe social facts
in a less distortedway."(98, p. 70).
193
Symbolicapproachesto kinship also have contributedto our understandingof the interpenetration

of kinshipand other culturaldomains.
Although"kinship"relationshipsmayhavesymbolicmeaningsthatarenot
reducibleto otherrelationships(e.g. economicrelationships),at the same
time severalstudies(2, 3, 26, 125, 127, 165)demonstratethat "kinship"is
not a discrete,isolabledomainof meaning.Rather,the meaningsattributed
to the relationshipsand actions of kinsmenare drawnfrom a range of
culturaldomains,includingreligion,nationality,ethnicity,gender,andfolk
conceptsof the "person."One cannot,for example,explainwhy JapaneseAmericansevaluatethe actionsof parentsand childrendifferentlyin specific contextsunless one understandstheir historicallyderivedsystem of
ethnic constructs(165).
A furtheradvantageof analyzingkinshipas a symbolicsystemlies in its
abilityto helpus makesenseof the diversityin familyandkinshiporganization within a single society. Geertz & Geertz (54) employ the analytic
strategyof differentiating
the culturaldimensionof kinshipfromits social
structuraldimensionto bringtogether"as aspectsof a singlestructureof
meaning"what seemto be "puzzlinglyirregularand contradictory"Balinese kinship customs and practices(54, p. 3). They conclude that the
diversityof kin groupsobservedin Bali are all "variationson a set of
commonideationalthemes.... which permeateand informthe whole of
Balinese life" (54, p. 3).
Cautionmustbe exercised,however,lest we assumethat all variability

in domesticarrangements
is producedby diverseexternal(i.e. economic,
political,ecological)constraintsratherthanby differencesin culturalvalues
and meanings.Effortsto encompassall the sectorsof a complexsociety,
includingthe UnitedStates,withina unitarymodelof the culturalsystem
of kinshipmayunderminethe verystrengthsof a symbolicapproach(165).
The questionof whetherour discoveryof culturaluniformityin the midst
of socialdiversityis an artifactof ourrelativelack of facilityin recognizing
diversityin symbolicsystemscan only be answeredby furtherresearchand
by the refinementof our conceptualarmaturefor elicitingand displaying
the symboliccomponentsof familyand kinship.
Social Inequalityand DomesticOrganization

Oneof the lacunaein paststudiesof the familyandhouseholdhas beenthe
investigationof social inequalityboth within and betweenthe domestic
unitsof a society.Althoughfactorssuch as wealthandpropertyhavebeen
consideredas variableconstraintsimpingingon differentsegmentsof society, researchers generally have failed to focus on relations of inequality
themselvesas determinantsof the total configurationof domesticgroups.

Threerecentworksillustrateprovocativenew waysof bringingrelationsof
inequalityinto the heartof our analysisof domesticorganization.
194
YANAGISAKO
At the core of J. F. Collier'sanalysis4of the political-economyof three

nineteenthcenturyPlainsIndiantribesis her investigationof the relations
of inequalitywithinhouseholds.Collierexaminesthe inequalitiesbetween
menandwomenandbetweenseniorsandjuniorswhichunderliehousehold
productionunits and discloseshow the sociallycreatednormsof kinship
structurethe social relationsof production.FollowingMeillasoux's(94)
and Terray's(152) concernfor matrimonialpolicy, she looks carefullyat
the connection between bridewealth and social inequality, because ".. . it
is throughbridewealthexchangesthat the materialproductsof economic

activityareconvertedintokinshiprelationswhichdeterminethe natureand
organizationof thosegroupswhichcooperatein production"(J. F. Collier,
unpublishedmanuscript,p. 86). For example,in discussingCheyennesociety with its uxorilocalextendedhouseholds,she maintainsthat property
exchangesoccurringat marriage"contributedto the subordinationof the
young withinproductionunits by ensuringthe dependenceof all youths"
and at the same time "contributedto the creationof unequalrelations
betweenproductionunitsby givingthe rich an opportunityto accumulate
kin at the expenseof the poor"(J. F. Collier,unpublishedmanuscript,p.
27). A majoradvantageof Collier'sanalysisis its tyingtogetherof the two
ends of the stratificationspectrumin Cheyennesociety by showinghow
large, wealthyhouseholdsrequiredthe simultaneousexistenceof small,
poor households.Her use of a political-economyperspective,moreover,
enablesher to breakthroughthe domestic/politico-jural
dichotomyand
placedomesticrelationshipsat the core of the politicaland economicprocesses of society.
Martinez-Alier(92) also focuses on marriageas a key elementin her
inquiryinto the color/classstratifiedsociety of nineteenthcenturyCuba.
By wayof heranalysisof the marriagepracticesof the upperclassandlower
class, she arrivesat a compellinghistoricalinterpretationof matrifocality
in Cuba.She contendsthat
... the existenceof slaveryproduceda social orderwhich assignedto the coloured
people,whetherslaveor free,the lowestrankin the socialhierarchy... to perpetuate
this hierarchyit was essentialto proscribemarriagebetweenthe dominantand the
dominatedgroups.Yet, partlyfor demographic
reasons,whitemenhadto resortto the
colouredcommunityforwomen.By virtueof the hierarchical
natureof the societythese
unionsas a ruletook on the formof sporadicor stableconcubinage.Boththe freemen
andthe slavewomenaquiescedin this inferiorformof matingbecause,dueto the racial
overtonesof the system,it was a most effectivemeansof socialadvanceto them and
Theprincipleof hypergeneration
to theiroffspring.
particularly
appliesas wellto intraracial unions(92, p. 124).
4J.F. Collier."Women'sWork,Marriage,and Stratification
in ThreeNineteenthCentury
PlainsTribes."Unpublishedmanuscript,StanfordUniversity.
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
195
Hence,it was the hierarchicalnatureof the socialorderthat producedthe

of colored women, and this in turn produced
"sexualmarginalization"
concubinageand matrifocality.
As R. T. Smith (139) perceptivelynotes, Martinez-Alier'sanalysis
becauseit does
eclipsesotherexplanationsof matrifocalityin the Caribbean
not focuson isolated"economicfactors"like incomeor occupation,which
cannotadequatelyaccountforthe diversetypesof domesticunionobserved.
By focusingon relationsof inequality,includingconjugalunions,between
membersof differentstrata,she casts light onto the marriagerelationsand
formsof domesticunion withineach stratum.
A thirdstudythat bringssocialinequalityinto a discussionof domestic
organizationis Gough's (66) reanalysisof Nuer society as a society in
transitionratherthan in timelessequilibrium.Gough'sreexaminationof
Evans-Pritchard's
(41, 42) data on Nuer domesticrelationsuncoversthe
fact that a large proportionof the populationdid not conformto the
"agnaticprinciple."By presentingevidenceof the differencesbetweenNuer
aristocraticlineagesand Dinka or Nuer commonerlineagesin forms of
domesticunion,postmaritalresidence,and the tracingof descent,Gough
is able to arguepersuasivelythat Evans-Pritchardoverlookeda marked
"skewing"in the operationof the agnaticprincipleamongdifferentsegments of the population.Havingrecognizedthis unevennessin the operation of the agnaticprinciple,she offersa compellinghistoricalexplanation
of this variability.
Whatis particularly
notablein Gough'sanalysisis thatshe drawson two
presentedin a
differentsets of materials,each of which Evans-Pritchard
of course,was committed
separatemonograph(41, 42). Evans-Pritchard,
to the idea that ". . . the relationsbetweenthe sexesand betweenchildren
andadultsbelongratherto an accountof domesticrelationsthanto a study
of politicalinstitutions"(41, p. 178) Consequently,he excludedsuch relations fromhis analysisof Nuer socialstructureand relegatedtheminstead
to a second volumein which he discussedincest prohibitions,marriage,
typesof domesticunions,and interpersonalkinshiprelationships.Gough's
creativecontributionderivesfromher unwillingnessto acceptthis separation of the domesticand politicalspheres.By bringingtogetherin a single
separatedinto two, she elucidatesthe workanalysiswhatEvans-Pritchard
ings of a social systemthat is as much producedby relationsbetweenthe
sexesandbetweenchildrenandadultsas it is producedby relationsbetween
men.Her reanalysisshouldlay to its finalrest the falsenotion(cf 49, p. 22)
that one can describethe politicalsystemof a societywithouttakinginto
accountthe web of interpersonalrelationshipsof kinship.
All three of these worksshow marriageto be centralto the creationof
differenttypesof domesticgroups.All threeareableto displaythe interrela-
196
YANAGISAKO
tionshipbetweenthe domesticstructuresof differentsegmentsof society.

Togetherthey demonstratethe necessityof bringingrelationsof inequality
within and amongdomesticgroupsinto our analysisof the politicaland
economicprocessesof society.
CONCLUSION: A RETURN TO DEFINITIONS

AND THE SEARCH FOR UNIVERSALS
At the outset of this review,I statedthat it was my intentionto save for
the verylast the questionthat most systematicreviewsof the familybegin
by addressing,namely,is the familyuniversal?To answerthe questionof
whetherthe family(or the household)is universal,one must obviouslybe
able to defineit. Not everydefinitionof the family,of course,need be an
attemptto delineatean invariantsocial unit. We might insteadproposea
definitionwhich could be used to assess the presenceor absenceof the
familyin eachsociety.The fact that anthropologistshavenot beeninclined
to proceedin thismannerwithregardto the family,whereastheyhavebeen
willingto do so in the case of the lineage,the clan, the state,and a host of
other institutions,includingthe household,atteststo the firmnessof our
beliefin the functionalnecessityof the familyfor humansurvival.Given
this convictionand the consequentintertwiningof the issuesof definition
and universality,the questionwe inevitablyencounteris whetherthere is
a definitionof the familythat can standthe test of all ethnographiccases.
There are, in essence,three candidatesfor the universaldefinitionof the
family.
Thefirstof thesecandidatescanbe ratherreadilydismissed.By nowmost
anthropologists
(21, 27, 43, 46, 49, 58) acknowledgethatthe nuclearfamily
or the elementaryfamilyas Murdock(96) definedit is not universal.Accordingto Goodenough(58), exceptionslikethe Nayarcastesof southwestern India,the kibbutzcommunitiesin Israel,and the matrifocalfamiliesin
the Caribbean testify to our ethnocentrism in "... taking a functionally
significantunitin oursociety... andtreatingthe nearestfunctionalequivalent elsewhereas if it were,in somefundamentalway, the samething"(58,

p. 5).
Goodenoughhimself,along with Bohannan(17, p. 73), Fox (49, pp.

37-40), and Fortes(46, pp. 251-56;47, p. 21), designatesa womanandher
dependentchildrenas the nuclearfamilialgroupin humansocieties.As
I related earlier, Goodenoughconsciously avoids specifyingthe functions which the family fulfills.Yet behind the studied ambiguityof his
definitionof the family as a "womanand her dependentchildrenplus
whomeverelse they arejoined to throughmarriageor consanguinityin a
minimalfunctioninggroup,whateverthe group'sfunctionsmaybe"(58, p.
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
197
19) is the belief that the vital functionof the family is the bearingand
rearingof children.Otherwisetherewouldbe no reasonfor choosingmothers andchildrenas the atomof the family.Goodenough'sdefinition,therefore, ironicallysuffersfrom the same ethnocentrismthat he attributesto
Murdock'sdefinition.By assumingthat whereverwe find mothersand
children(a biologicalgiven)theyformthe coreof the family,he hashimself
taken a functionallysignificantunit in our society and treatedunits that
resembleit elsewhereas if they werefundamentallythe samethings.While
he is undoubtedlyrightthat in everyhumansocietymothersand children
can be found, to view their relationshipas the universalnucleus of the
familyis to attributeto it a social and culturalsignificancethat is lacking
in some cases.Merelybecauseone can identifya relationshipthat bearsa
genealogicalresemblanceto our own mother-childrelationshipdoes not
provethat peopleeverywhereattachto this relationshipthe samecultural
meaningsandsocialfunctions,nor thatit formsthe structuralcoreof larger
kinshipgroups.We do not, afterall, insistthat unilinealdescentgroupsare
present everywherejust because in every society we can ferret out of
genealogiesa set of unilinealdescentrelationships.Just as a unilinealdescent grouprequiresthe attachmentof concretefunctionsand a culturally
recognizedidentity,so any unit designatedas the nuclearfamilymust be
shownto engagein somesociallysignificantactivityand to be imbuedwith
some consequentialmeaning. Goodenoughdoes not feel compelled to
presentus with proofthat the mother-childdyadeverywherehas a central
functionalandmeaningfulrole,becausehe assumesthat nurturanceby the
motheris requiredfor the biologicalsurvivalof humanoffspringand that,
consequently,all peoplemust attributeculturalimportto this fact. But, as
I indicatedin the precedingsection,closer scrutinyof the functionaland
meaningfulentailmentsof "motherhood"does not sustainthese assumptions (18, 40, 115, 116).We shouldno more infer that mothersand their
dependentchildrenare the irreduciblecore of the family,becauseeverywhere they have some kind of socially recognizedtie, than we should
concludethat the siblingtie is the core of the familybecauseit is likewise
invariablyrecognized.
As the finalcandidatefor a universaldefinitionof the family,Bender's
(8) characterization
of the familyas a strictlykinshipphenomenonposesa
slightlydifferentset of problems.As peopleeverywhererecognize"kinship"
relationships,Bendermightseemto havehit uponthe sole invariantaspect
of the family.Yet if we definethe familyin what has been disclosedto be
strictlygenealogicalterms,how then do we recognizeits boundaries?If we
completelydivorcethe familyfromany functionalconsiderations,thereis
but one way to decidewho arethe membersof a familyin a particularcase:
that is by askingthe nativesto identifythe culturallymeaningful"kinship"
198
YANAGISAKO
units in theirsociety.The inescapableoutcomeof this proceduremust be

the discoveryof manykindsof families,but no universalfamily.Although
in part Benderadoptsthis procedure,he stopsjust short of its inevitable
conclusion.Whilehe disclosesthat in somesocieties,as amongthe Yoruba
kingdomof Ondo, the idea of a distinctivefamily unit is not a cultural
emphasisand that thereare no termsusedto designateparticularformsof
familiesor familiesin general,he concludesthat here there are defacto
families(9). Thus, even thoughthereare no Ondo social groupingsbased
exclusively or primarilyon kinship relationships, he still holds that ".. . the
relationshipsof whichfamiliesare composed... are nearlyuniversal"(9,

p. 238). Thereis no uncertaintythat what Bendermeanshere by family
relationshipsarereallygenealogicalrelationshipsandnot rolerelationships,
eithernormativeor actual.Hence,becausehe equatesgenealogicalrelationshipswith "familialrelationships"whichhavenormativerole entailments,
Benderfails to recognizethat a de facto familyis no familyat all.
suffersfrom
Bender'smethodicalexaminationof the family,furthermore,
the falsepremisethatthefamilyandhouseholdarealwayslogicallydistinct,
if not always empiricallydifferent,phenomena.In the face of contrary
ethnographicexamples(e.g. the Burmeseain-daung)wherethe "principles
of propinquityand kinship are combinedto form what are frequently
designatedas householdgroups"(8, p. 498), and wherecoresidenceis not
to kinshipprinciples,but is as muchthe basisfor the
merelyepiphenomenal
existenceof the group,he failsto see thefallacyin the statementthatkinship
and propinquityalwaysbelongto two differentuniversesof discourse.Yet
the Burmeseain-daung,alongwithnumerousotherethnographicexamples
[fortwo particularlyilluminatingcases,see (117, 148)]affirmsthat in some
cultural systems kinship and propinquitynot only belong to the same
universeof discourse,but are so intermeshedthat to separatethem would
be to underminethe integrityof culturalprinciples.
The concentrationof genealogicalrelationships,the equationof these
with role relationships,and the unstatedfocus on the nuclearfamilyin his
discussionof de factofamilies,displayBender'scommitmentto reproduction as the essentialfunctionof the family.Thiscommitmentis mostclearly
reflectedin his statementthat
... the legitimizationof children,rightsin childrenand exchangeof sexualand other
associatedwithunionsbetweenmenandwomen.It follows
rightsarenearlyeverywhere
of kinshipandthe nearuniversalityof marriagethat,by definition,
fromthe universality
familyrelationshipsare nearlyuniversal(9, p. 238).
A similarcommitmentto the reproductivefunctionsof the familyunderlies Goody'sconclusionthat the "domesticfamilywas neverextendedto

any degree"and that thereare "basicsimilaritiesin the way that domestic
199
groupsare organizedthroughoutthe wholerangeof humansocieties"(60,

pp. 118, 124).Thisminimizationof domesticvariabilityspringsforthfrom
Goody'sassumptionsaboutthe wayin whichthe physiologicalandpsychological concomitantsof childbearing,childrearing,and food preparation
structurethe activitiesof domesticunits(139).The reluctanceto recognize
that in differentsocietieswidelyvaryingand shiftingassemblagesof people
participatein these activitiesbespeaksof an unstatedabsorptionwith the
biologicalrequirementsof sexualreproduction.
To commencea searchfor "the family,"whethergeneralor particular,
by seekingout genealogicalrelationshipsis to begin with the assumption
thatreproductionis the primaryfunctionof the family.For if ourinvestigaof affinalandfiliallinksandthenproceeds
tionbeginswiththe identification
to discoverthe groupingsformedout of thesebonds,parenthoodand marriageand,inevitably,reproductionmustby definitionemergeas the irreducible core of the family.As Schneider(126) rightlyargues,the use of the
genealogicalgrid in kinshipstudies commits us to the position that the
biologicalfacts of reproductionare what kinshipis all about.
Theconvictionthatthe reproductionof society'smembersis the essential
functionof the familyrevealsthat we have not progressedas far past a
Malinowskianconceptionof the familyas we wouldlike to claim.We may
have recognizedthe errorin Malinowski'sreductionof all kinshipinstitutions to extensionsof relationshipswithin the elementaryfamily,but we
continueto acceptmanyof his notionsaboutthe natureof the familyitself.
Ourplacementof the familywithinthe domesticdomainwithits moraland
affectiveconstraints,our fixationon genealogicaldefinitionsof the family,
and,underlyingall, ouremphasison reproductionas the coreof the family's
activitiesall betrayour Malinowskianheritage.
The beliefthat the facts of procreationand the intenseemotionalbonds
that growout of it generatean invariantcoreto the familyis whatsustains
our searchfor universals.But the unitswe labelas familiesare undeniably
about more than procreationand socialization.They are as much about
production,exchange,power, inequality,and status. When we fully acknowledgethat the familyis as much an integralpart of the politicaland
economicstructuresof societyas it is a reproductiveunitwe will finallyfree
ourselvesfromanunwarranted
preoccupationwithits procreativefunctions
and all the consequentnotions embodiedwithin such a stance. There is
nothingwrong,of course,witha functionalanalysisof the family;for if the
family is a salientunit in any society it must have attachedto it some
functions-whether these are symbolic functions, activity functions, or
both.Whatis wrongis to decidea priorithatthe diversearrayof socialunits
we call families fulfill the same set of functions or that their primary
functionis alwaysthe same.If we areto cast asidethis premiseandinstead
200
YANAGISAKO
seek out the functionsof the familyin each society,we must at the same
time abandonour search for the irreduciblecore of the family and its
universaldefinition.Ourusageof the terms"family"and "household"will
then reflectan awarenessthat they are, like "marriage"and "kinship,"
merely "odd-job"words, which are useful in descriptivestatementsbut
unproductiveas toolsforanalysisandcomparison(98, p. 44). Thedilemmas
we encounterin cross-culturalcomparisonsof the family and household
stem not fromour wantof unambiguous,formaldefinitionsof these units,
but fromthe convictionthat we can constructa precise,reduceddefinition
for what are inherentlycomplex,multifunctionalinstitutionsimbuedwith
a diversearrayof culturalprinciplesand meanings.Indeed,the only thing
that has thus far provedto be unvaryingin our searchfor the universal
familyis ourwillingnessto reducethis diversityto the flatnessof a genealogical grid.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I am gratefulto RuthBorkner,GeorgeCollier,JaneCollier,DannyMaltz,
BrigetteO'Laughlin,RaynaRapp,MichelleRosaldo,RenatoRosaldo,G.
WilliamSkinner,RaymondT. Smith,ArthurWolf,and MargeryWolffor
theirsuggestionsandcommentsat variousstagesin the developmentof this
paper.I am particularlyindebtedto JaneCollierand MichelleRosaldofor
suggestingthe relevanceof Malinowski'sconceptionof the familywithin
the contextof theirresearchseminaron sex rolesamongAustralianAborigines.
Literature Cited
1. Ahern, E. M. 1973. The Cult of the

Dead in a ChineseVillage.Stanford:
StanfordUniv. Press.280 pp.
2. Alexander,J. 1977.Theroleof the male
in the middle-classJamaicanfamily.J.
Comp.Fam. Stud. 8:369-89
3. Alexander,J. 1978. The culturaldomain of marriage.Am. Ethnol. 5:5-14
4. Anderson,M. 1971.FamilyStructurein
NineteenthCenturyLancashire.Cambridge, England: Cambridge Univ.
Press.230 pp.
5. Anderson,M. 1972.Householdstructureandthe industrialrevolution:midPrestonin comparanineteenth-century
tive perspective.In Household and
Familyin Past Time,ed. P. Laslett,R.
Wall, pp. 215-36. London:Cambridge
Univ. Press,623 pp.
6. Appell,G. N. 1976.TheRungus:social
structurein a cognaticsocietyand its
In TheSocietiesof
ritualsymbolization.
Borneo:Explorationsin the Theoryof
CognaticSocial Structure,ed. G. N.
Appell, pp. 66-86. WashingtonDC:
Am. Anthropol.Assoc. 160 pp.
7. Auwers, L. 1978. Fathers,sons, and
wealthin colonialWindsor,Connecticut. J. Fam. Hist. 3:136-49
of the
8. Bender,D. R. 1967.A refinement
conceptof household:families,co-residence,anddomesticfunctions.Am.Anthropol.69:493-504
9. Bender,D. R. 1971.De facto families
and de jure householdsin Ondo. Am.
Anthropol.73:223-41
10. Berkner,L. K. 1973.The stem family
and the developmentalcycle of the
peasanthousehold:an 18 centuryAustrianexample.In TheAmericanFamily
Perspective,ed. M.
in Social-Historical
Gordon,pp.34-58.NewYork:St. Martin's. 428 pp.
11. Berkner,L. K. 1973. Recent research
on the historyof the familyin Western
Europe.J. MarriageFam. 35:395-405
FAMILYAND HOUSEHOLD
201
nousFamilies.Evanston:Northwestern
Univ. Press.380 pp.
pro28. Cohen,M. L. 1970.Developmental
cess in the Chinesedomesticgroup.In
cip. Hi& 5:721-38
Familyand Kinshipin ChineseSociety,
13. Berkner,L. K. 1976.Inheritance,land
ed. M. Freedman,pp. 21-36. Stanford:
tenure,and peasantfamilystructure:a
StanfordUniv. Press.269 pp.
Germanregionalcomparison.In Fam29. Cohen, M. L. 1976. House United,
ily and Inheritance:Rural Society in
House Divided:the ChineseFamily in
WesternEurope,1200-180X,ed. J. R.
Taiwan.New York: ColumbiaUniv.
Goody,J. Thirsk,E. P. Thompson,pp.
Press.267 pp.
71-95. Cambridge,England: Cam30. Collier,G. A. 1975.Fieldsof theTzotzilk
bridgeUniv. Press.421 pp.
The EcologicalBases of Traditionin
14. Berkner,L. K., Shaffer,J. W. 1978.The
HighlandChiapas.Austin:Univ.Texas
joint familyin the Nivernais.J. Fam.
Press.255 pp.
Hist. 3:150-62
15. Bloch, M. 1971. Placing the Dead: 31. Collier,J. F. 1974.Womenin politics.
In Woman,CultureandSociety,ed. M.
Tombs,AncestralVillagesand Kinship
Z. Rosaldo, L. Lamphere,pp. 89-96.
in Madagascar.London:
Organization
Stanford:StanfordUniv.Press.352 pp.
Seminar.241 pp.
32. Crain,J. B. 1976.Ngerufan:ritualpro16. Bloch,M. 1975.Propertyandtheendof
cess in a Borneanriceharvest.In Studaffinity.In MarxistAnalysesand Social
iesinBorneoSocieties,ed.G. N. Appell,
ed. M. Bloch, pp. 203Anthropology,
pp. 51-63. NorthernIllinoisUniv.Cen28. New York:Wiley.240 pp.
ter for SoutheastAsian StudiesSpec.
17. Bohannan, P. 1963. Social AnRep. 12.De Kalb:Centerfor Southeast
thropology.New York:Holt, Rinehart
Asian Studies,NorthernIllinoisUniv.
& Winston.421 pp.
157 pp.
18. Boon, J. A. 1974. Anthropologyand
33. Davis,J. H. 1973.Land and Familyin
nannies.Man 9:137-40
Pisticci.London:Athlone.200 pp.
19. Brandes,S. 1975. Migration,Kinship
Traditionand Transi- 34. Davis, N. Z. 1977. Ghosts, kin and
and Community:
progeny:somefeaturesof familylife in
tion in a SpanishVillage.New York:
early modern France.Daedalus 106:
Academic.220 pp.
20. Brown,K. 1968.Thecontentof dozoku
87-114
relationships in Japan. Ethnology 35. deMause,L. 1974. The evolution of
childhood.In TheHistoryof Childhood,
7:113-38
21. Buchler,I. R., Selby,H. A. 1968.Kined. L. deMause,pp. 1-73. New York:
PsychohistoryPress.450 pp.
ship and Social Organization.New
36. Denich, B. S. 1974.Sex and powerin
York:Macmillan.366 pp.
22. Bulmer,R. N. H. 1960.Leadership
the Balkans.See Ref. 31, pp. 243-62
and
socialstructureamongtheKyakapeople 37. Donham,D. L. 1977.A field theoryof
householdproduction. Presented at
of the westernhighlandsdistrictof New
Ann. Meet. Am. Anthropol.Assoc.,
Guinea PhD thesis. AustralianNa76th, Houston
tionalUniv., Canberra,Aust.
23. Burch,T. K. 1972.Somedemographic 38. Donham,D. L. 1978.Productionin a
EthiMalle community,Southwestern
of averagehouseholdsize:
determinants
an analyticapproach.See Ref. 5, pp.
opia, 1974-75. PhD thesis. Stanford
Univ., Stanford,Calif.309 pp.
91-102
24. Carlos,M. L., Sellers,L. 1972.Family, 39. Dorjahn,V. R. 1977.Temnehousehold
in
size and composition:rural changes
kinshipstructure,andmodernization
over time and rural-urban
differences.
Latin America. Lat. Am. Res. Rev.
Ethnology16:105-28
7:95-124
40. Drummond,L. 1978.The transatlantic
25. Chayanov,A. V. 1966. The Theoryof
nanny:noteson a comparativesemiotPeasantEconomy,ed. D. Thorner,B.
soics of the familyin English-speaking
Kerblay,R. E. F. Smith.Homewood,
cieties.Am. Ethnol. 5:30-43
Ill: Irwin.317 pp.
E. E. 1940.TheNuer.
41. Evans-Pritchard,
26. Chock, P. P. 1974.Time, natureand
Oxford:Clarendon.271 pp.
spirit: a symbolicanalysisof Greek42. Evans-Pritchard,
E. E. 1951. Kinship
Americanspiritualkinship.Am. EthandMarriageamongtheNuer.Oxford:
nol. 1:33-46
Clarendon.183 pp.
27. Clignet,R. 1970. Many Wives,Many
Powers:Authorityand Powerin Polygy- 43. Fallers,L. A., Levy,M. J. Jr. 1959.The
12. Berkner,L. K. 1975.The use and misuse of census data for the historical
analysisof familystructure.J. Interdis-
202
YANAGISAKO
family: some comparativeconsiderations.Am. Anthropol.61:647-51

44. Firth, R. W., Hubert,J., Forge, A.
1969.Familiesand theirRelatives:KinSectorofLondon:
shipin a Middle-Class
an AnthropologicalStudy. London:
Routledge& KeganPaul.476 pp.
45. Fortes, M. 1958. Introduction. In
The DevelopmentalCyclein Domestic
Groups,ed. J. R. Goody, pp. 1-14.
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniv.
Press. 145 pp.
46. Fortes,M. 1969.Kinshipand theSocial
Order.Chicago:Aldine.347 pp.
47. Fortes, M. 1978. An anthropologist's
apprenticeship.Ann Rev. Anthropol.
7:1-30
48. Foster, B. L. 1975. Continuityand
changein ruralThai familystructure.
J. Anthropol.Res. 31:34-50
49. Fox, R. 1967. Kinship and Marriage. Middlesex,England:Penguin.
271 pp.
50. Freedman,M. 1958.LineageOrganization in SoutheasternChina. London:
Athlone. 151 pp.
51. Freedman,M. 1970.Introduction.See
Ref. 28, pp. 1-20
52. Friedl,E. 1975. Womenand Men: an
View.New York:Holt,
Anthropologist's
Rinehart& Winston.148 pp.
53. Furstenberg,F. F. Jr., Hershberg,T.,
Modell, J. 1975. The origins of the
blackfamily:the impact
female-headed
of the urbanexperience.J. Interdiscip.
Hist. 6:211-34
54. Geertz,H., Geertz,C. 1975.Kinshipin
Bali Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press.
213 pp.
55. Goldschmidt,W., Kunkel,E. J. 1971.
The structureof the peasantfamily.
Am. Anthropol.73:1058-76
56. Gonzalez,N. L. 1970.Towarda definiIn Afro-American
tion of matrifocality.
PerspecAnthropology:Contemporary
tives,ed. N. E. WhittenJr.,J. F. Szwed,
pp. 231-44. New York: Free Press.
468 pp.
57. Goode, W. J. 1963. WorldRevolution
and FamilyPatterns.New York:Free
Press.432 pp.
58. Goodenough,W. H. 1970.Description
and Comparisonin Cultural Anthropology.Chicago:Aldine. 173 pp.
59. Goody, E. N. 1973. Contextsof Kinship:an Essayin the FamilySociology
of the Gonja of Northern Ghana
Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniv.
Press.335 pp.
60. Goody,J. R. 1972.Theevolutionof the
family.See Ref. 5, pp. 103-24
61. Goody, J. R. 1973. Bridewealthand

dowryin AfricaandEurasia.In Bridewealthand Dowry,ed. J. R. Goody,S.
Univ.
J. Tambiah,pp. 1-58. Cambridge
Press. 169 pp.
62. Goody,J. R. 1976.Productionand ReStudyof the
A Comparative
production:
Domestic Domain. Cambridge,England:CambridgeUniv. Press. 157 pp.
63. Gordon, M. 1973. Introduction.See
Ref. 10, pp. 1-16
64. Goubert,P. 1970.Historicaldemograof early
phy and the reinterpretation
modem Frenchhistory:a researchreview. J. Interdiscip.Hist. 1:37-48
65. Goubert,P. 1977.Familyandprovince:
to the knowledgeof fama contribution
ily structuresin earlymodem France.
J. Fam. Hist. 2:179-95
66. Gough, K. 1971. Nuer kinship:a reof CulIn TheTranslation
examination.
ture:Essaysto E. E. Evans-Pritchard,
ed. T. 0. Beidelman,pp. 79-121. London:Tavistock.440 pp.
67. Greven,P. J. Jr. 1970. Four Generations: Population,Land and Family
in Colonial Andover,Massachusetts.
Ithaca:CornellUniv. Press.329 pp.
68. Greven,P. J. Jr. 1973.Familystructure
Andover,Masin seventeenth-century
sachusetts.See Ref. 10, pp. 77-99
69. Gutman,H. G. 1975.Persistentmyths
family.J. Inaboutthe Afro-American
terdiscip.Hist. 6:181-210
70. Gutman,H. G. 1976.TheBlackFamily
in Slaveryand Freedom,1750-1925.
New York:Pantheon.664 pp.
71. Hammel,E. A. 1972.The zadrugaas
process.See Ref. 5, pp. 335-74
72. Hammel,E. A. 1975.Reflectionson the
zadruga.Ethnol.Slav. 7:141-51
73. Hammel,E. A. 1978.Reviewof family
ed.J. Goody,J. Thirsk,
andinheritance,
E. P. Thompson.J. Fam. Hist. 3:
203-10
74. Hammel,E. A., Laslett,P. 1974.Comparing householdstructureover time
andbetweencultures.Comp.Stud.Soc.
Hist. 16:73-109
75. Hammel,E. A., Yarbrough,C. 1973.
Social mobility and the durabilityof
family ties. J. Anthropol.Res. 29:
145-63
76. Hayami,A., Uchida,N. 1972.Size of
household in a Japanese county
throughoutthe Tokugawaperiod.See
Ref. 5, pp. 473-516
77. Higman,B. W. 1975.The slavefamily
and householdin BritishWest Indies,
1800-1834. J. Interdiscip.Hist. 6:
261-88
203
78. Howard,A. 1971.Households,families 94. Meillasoux,C. 1972. From reproductionto production.Econ.Soc. 1:93-105
and friendsin a Hawaiian-American
community. Work Pap. East-West 95. Mintz,S. 1973.A noteon the definition
of peasantries.J. PeasantStud. 1:91Popul. Inst. No. 19. Honolulu:East106
West Center.117 pp.
96. Murdock,G. P. 1949.SocialStructure.
79. Inden, R. B., Nicholas, R. W. 1977.
New York:Macmillan.387 pp.
Kinshipin Bengali Culture.Chicago:
of
97. Nakane,C. 1972.An interpretation
Univ. ChicagoPress. 139 pp.
the size and structureof the household
80. Keesing, F. M. 1958. CulturalAnin Japanover threecenturies.See Ref.
thropology. New York: Rinehart.
5, pp. 517-44
477 pp.
98. Needham,R. 1974. Remarksand In81. Keesing,R. M. 1973.Kinshipstudiesin
ventions:SkepticalEssays about KinPrecurrentand future anthropology.
ship. London:Tavistock.181 pp.
sented at 9th Int. Congr.Anthropol.
99. Nelson,C. 1974.PublicandprivatepolEthnol.Sci., Chicago
itics: women in the Middle Eastern
82. Kent, F. W. 1977.HouseholdandLinworld.Am. Ethnol. 1:551-64
Florence:theFameagein Renaissance
ily Life of the Capponi,Ginori,and 100. Netting,R. McC. 1965.Householdorganization and intensive agriculture:
Rucellai. Princeton:PrincetonUniv.
the Kofyarcase.Africa 35:422-29
Press.325 pp.
83. Kundstadter,P. 1963.A surveyof the 101. Netting,R. McC. 1968.Hill Farmersof
Nigeria:CulturalEcologyof theKofyar
consanguineor matrifocalfamily.Am.
of theJosPlateau.Seattle:Univ.WashAnthropol.65:56-66
Press.259 pp.
84. Lamphere,L. 1974.Strategies,cooper- 102. ington
Netting, R. McC. 1974. Agrarian
ation,andconflictamongwomenin doAnn. Rev.Anthropol.3:21-56
mesticgroups.See Ref. 31, pp. 97-112 103. ecology.
M. F., Middleton,R. 1960.
Nimkoff,
Have
The
We
P.
1971.
World
85. Laslett,
of
and typesof economy.
family
Types
Methuen.
ed.
2nd
Lost. London:
J. Sociol. 68:215-25
the his- 104. Am.
86. Laslett,P. 1972.Introduction:
Nutini, H. G. 1968. San Bernadino
tory of the family.See Ref. 5, pp. 1-90
Contla:MarriageandFamilyStructure
87. Laslett,P. 1977.FamilyLife andIllicit
a TlaxcalanMunicipio.Pittsburgh:
in
Love in Earlier Generations.CamUniv. PittsburghPress
bridge, England: Cambridge Univ. 105. Nutini,H. G., Murphy,T. D. 1970.LaPress.270 pp.
bor-migrationand family structurein
88. Levy,B. 1978."Tenderplants:"Quaker
area,Mexico.In
the Tlaxcala-Pueblan
farmersand childrenin the Delaware
of LatinAmerTheSocialAnthropology
Valley, 1681-1735.J. Fam. Hist. 3:
ica: Essays in Honor of Ralph Leon
116-35
Beals, ed. W. Goldschmidt,H. Hoijer,
89. Levy, M. J. Jr. 1965. Aspects of the
pp. 80-103. Los Angeles: Lat. Am.
analysisof familystructure.In Aspects
Cent., Univ. Calif., Los Angeles.
of theAnalysisof FamilyStructure,ed.
369 pp.
A. J. Coale,L. A. Fallers,J. J. LevyJr., 106. Owens,R. 1971.Industrialization
and
D. M. Schneider,S. S. Tomkins,pp.
the Indian joint family. Ethnology
1-64. Princeton:PrincetonUniv.Press.
10:223-50
248 pp.
107. Pasternak,B. 1972.Kinshipand Com90. Lomnitz, L. A. 1977. Networksand
munityin TwoChineseVillages.StanLife in a MexicanShantyMarginality:
ford:StanfordUniv. Press. 174 pp.
town.Transl.C. Lomnitz.New York: 108. Pasternak,B., Ember,C. R., Ember,M.
Academic.230 pp.
1976. On the conditionsfavoringex91. Malinowski, B. 1963. The Family
tendedfamilyhouseholds.J. Anthropol.
A SoamongtheAustralianAborigines:
Res. 32:109-23
ciologicalStudy.New York:Schocken. 109. Rapp,R. 1978.Familyandclassin con322 pp. Originalpubl. 1913
temporaryAmerica:notes toward an
92. Martinez-Alier,V. 1974. Marriage,
understanding of ideology. Sci. Soc.
Classand Colourin Nineteenth-Century
42:278-300
Cuba:A Studyof RacialAttitudesand 110. Rapp, R. 1979. Review essay: anSexual Valuesin a SlaveSociety.Lonthropology.Signs:Journalof Womenin
don: CambridgeUniv. Press.202 pp.
Cultureand Society.In press
93. McCreery,J. L. 1976.Women'sprop- 111. Reiter,R. R. 1975.Menandwomenin
the southof France:publicandprivate
erty rights and dowry in China and
domains.In Towardsan Anthropology
SouthAsia. Ethnology15:163-74
YANAGISAKO
204
of Women,ed.R. R. Reiter,pp.252-82.
New York: Monthly Review Press.
416 pp.
112. Rogers, S. C. 1975. Femaleforms of
powerandthemythof maledominance:
a model of female/maleinteractionin
peasantsociety.Am. Ethnol.2:727-56
113. Rosaldo,M. Z. 1974.Woman,culture,
and society:a theoreticaloverview.See
Ref. 31, pp. 17-42
114. Rosaldo, M. Z. 1978. Thoughtson
domestic/public.Presentedat Rockefeller Found. Conf. Women, Family,
Work,New York
115. Rosaldo,M. Z., Atkinson,J. M. 1975.
Manthe hunterandwoman.In TheInofSymbolism,ed.R. Willis,
terpretation
pp. 43-76. London:Malaby,181 pp.
116. Rosaldo,M. Z., Collier,J. F. 1979.Politics andgenderin "simple"societies.In
Sexual Meanings,ed. S. Ortner, H.
Whitehead.Submittedfor publication.
117. Rosaldo,R. I. 1975. Whereprecision
lies. See Ref. 115,pp. 1-22
In
118. Rosenberg,C. E. 1975.Introduction.
TheFamilyin History,ed. C. E. Rosenberg, pp. 1-12. Philadelphia:Univ.
PennsylvaniaPress.210 pp.
119. Sahlins,M. D. 1957.Landuse and the
extendedfamilyin Moala,Fiji.Am.Anthropol.59.:449-62
120. Sahlins,M. D. 1972. Stone-AgeEco348
nomics.Chicago:Aldine-Atherton.
PP.
121. Sanday,P. R. 1974.Femalestatusin the

publicdomain.See Ref. 31, 189-206
122. Schneider,D. M. 1964.The natureof
kinship.Man 64:180-81
123. Schneider,D. M. 1965. Kinship and
biology.See Ref. 89, pp. 83-101
124. Schneider,D. M. 1968.AmericanKinship:A CulturalAccount.Englewood
Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.117 pp.
125. Schneider,D. M. 1969. Kinship,religion,andnationality.In Formsof SymbolicAction,ed. V. Turner,pp. 116-25.
Seattle:Univ. WashingtonPress
126. Schneider,D. M. 1972.Whatis kinship
all about?In KinshipStudiesin theMorgan CentennialYear,ed. P. Reining,
DC:Anthropol.
pp. 32-63. Washington
Soc. Washington.190 pp.
127. Schneider,D. M., Smith,R. T. 1973.
Class Differencesand Sex Roles in
AmericanKinshipand Family Structure. EnglewoodCliffs:Prentice-Hall.
132 pp.
128. Seddon,D. 1976. Aspects of kinship
and family structureamongthe Ulad
Stut of Zaio rural commune,Nador
province,Morocco.In Mediterranean
FamilyStructures,ed. J. G. Peristiany,
pp. 173-94.Cambridge,
England:CambridgeUniv. Press.414 pp.
129. Shanin,T. 1972.TheAkwardClass:PoliticalSociologyof Peasantryin a DevelopingSociety:Russia1910-1925. London:OxfordUniv. Press.253 pp.
130. Shanin,T. 1973.Thenatureandlogicof
the peasanteconomy,1: a generalization. J PeasantStud. 1:63-80
131. Shifflett,C. A. 1975. The household
compositionof rural black families:
LouisaCounty,Virginia,1880.J. Interdiscip.Hist. 6:235-60
132. Shorter,E. 1973.Femaleemancipation,
birthcontroland fertilityin European
history.Am. Hist. Rev. 78:605-40
133. Shorter,E. 1975. The Makingof the
Modern Family. New York: Basic
Books. 369 pp.
134. Silverman,M. G. 1971. Disconcerting
Issue:MeaningandStrugglein a ResettledPacificCommunity.
Chicago:Univ.
ChicagoPress.362 pp.
135. Singer,M. 1968.The Indianjoint family in modemindustry.In Structureand
Change in Indian Society, Ed. M.
Singer, B. S. Cohen, pp. 423-54.
Chicago:Aldine.507 pp.
136. Smith,R. T. 1956.TheNegroFamilyin
BritishGuiana.London:Routledge&
KeganPaul. 282 pp.
137. Smith,R. T. 1970.The nuclearfamily
in Afro-Americankinship. J. Comp.
Fam. Stud. 1:55-70
138. Smith,R. T. 1973.The matrifocalfamof Kinship,ed. J.
ily. In TheCharacter
R. Goody, pp. 121-44. London:CambridgeUniv. Press.251 pp.
139. Smith,R. T. 1978.The familyand the
modem world system:some observationsfromthe Caribbean.
J. Fam.Hist.
3:337-60
140. Smith,T. C. 1977. Nakahara:Family
Farmingand Populationin a Japanese
Village,1717-1830.Stanford:Stanford
Univ. Press. 183 pp.
141. Soliende Gonzilez, N. 1965.The consanguinealhouseholdand matrifocality. Am. Anthropol.67:1541-49
142. Spagnoli,P. G. 1977. Populationhistheprobtoryfromparishmonographs:
variations.J.
lem of local demographic
Interdiscip.Hist. 7:427-52
143. Spiro,M. E. 1954.Is the familyuniversal?Am. Anthropol.56:839-46
144. Spiro,M. E. 1977. Kinshipand Marriagein Burma:A CulturalandPsychodynamic Analysi& Berkeley: Univ.
Calif.Press
145. Stack,C. B. 1974.All OurKin:Strategiesfor Survivalin a BlackCommunity.
New York:Harper& Row. 175 pp.

146. Stone,L. 1975.The rise of the nuclear
family in early modem England.See
Ref. 118, pp. 13-58
147. Stone,L. 1977. TheFamily,Sex, and
Marriagein England1500-1800.London:Weidenfeld& Nicolson.800 pp.
148. Strathern,A. 1973. Kinship, descent
and locality:some New Guineaexamples. See Ref. 138,pp. 21-34
149. Strathem,M. 1972.Womenin Between:
FemaleRolesin a Male World:Mount
Hagen,NewGuinea.London:Seminar.
372 pp.
Y. 1970.Socialchange
150. Talmon-Garber,
andkinshipties.In Familiesin Eastand
West:Socialization
ProcessandKinship
Ties,ed. R. Hill, R. Konig,pp. 504-24.
The Hague:Mouton.630 pp.
151. Tambiah,S. J. 1973.Dowryandbridewealth and the property rights of
womenin SouthAsia. See Ref. 61, pp.
59-169
152. Terray,E. 1972.Marxismand "Primitive" Societies. Transl. M. Klopper.
New York:MonthlyRev.Press.186pp.
153. Thirsk,J. 1976.The Europeandebate
on customsof inheritance,1500-1700.
See Ref. 13, pp. 177-91
154. Thomas,K. 1977.Thechangingfamily.
TimesLit. Suppl.3943:1226-27
155. Weiner,A. B. 1976. Womenof Value,
Men of Renown:New Perspectivesin
TrobriandExchange. Austin: Univ.
TexasPress.299 pp.
205
156. Wheaton,R. 1975.Familyandkinship

in WesternEurope:the problemof the
joint family household. J. Interdiscip.
Hist. 5:601-28
157. Witherspoon,G. 1975.NavahoKinship

andMarriage.Chicago:Univ. Chicago
Press. 137 pp.
158. Wolf, A. P. 1976. Chinese domestic organization: the viewfrom Taiwan. Pre-
sented at Conf. Anthrop.in Taiwan,

Portsmouth,New Hampshire
159. Wolf,E. R. 1966.Peasants.Englewood
Cliffs:Prentice-Hall.116 pp.
160. Wolf, M. 1972. Womenand the Family
in Rural Taiwan. Stanford: Stanford
Univ. Press.229 pp.

161. Wrigley,E. A. 1966.Familyreconstitution. In An Introduction to English Historical Demography, ed. E. A. Wrigley,
pp. 96-159. London: Weidenfeld&

Nicolson.283 pp.
162. Wrigley,E. A. 1969. Populationand
History. New York: McGraw-Hill.
256 pp.
163. Yanagisako,S. J. 1975.Two processes
kinof change in Japanese-American
ship. J. Anthropol. Res. 31:196-224
164. Yanagisako,S. J. 1977. Women-centered kin networksin urbanbilateral

kinship. Am. Ethnol. 4:207-26
165. Yanagisako,S. J. 1978. Variancein

Americankinship:implicationsfor cultural analysis. Am. Ethnol. 5:15-29

Yanagisako - Family and Household

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Yanagisako - Family and Household

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Family and Household: The Analysis of Domestic Groups

Author(s): Sylvia Junko Yanagisako

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD:

the dynamicstructuresof those units we call families.This reviewis an

DEFINITIONS OF FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

"do not evenbelongto the sameuniverseof discourse,"and F.M. Keesing

In his attemptto formulatea universal,parsimoniousdefinitionof the

also someset of activities.Theseactivities,moreover,areusuallyrelatedto

Onthe otherhand,Bender'sterminologicalschemeleadsus directlyback

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

Cross-societaland Intrasocietal Variations

CLE OF DOMESTICGROUPS By now it has been well established that

demographicprocessesaffectthe size and compositionof domesticgroups,

controloverhouseholdsize andcomposition,manyof whichareembedded

Thelimitationsof Fortes'sinitial(45) conceptof the developmentalcycle

amongthose adducedto explainfamilyand householdstructure.At times

whichshapesthe actionsof maximizingindividuals.The two viewsarewell

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

elites who control state organization(and therebyland tenurepatterns)

thebasicandnaturalunitof society,Goodyneverfeelscompelledto explain

They assumethat in the absenceof such activityrequirements,extended

"workawayfromthe homefor morethanhalfthe dayfor at least(cumulatively) 30 days of the year"(108, p. 118).

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

amonghouseholds,and the exchangeof labor betweenhouseholds.Like

THE DIVERSITY OF DOMESTIC

GROUPS Our past tendency to neglect stratification in the analysis of

homogeneityof the communitieswe have studied.In the case of peasant

massor agglomerate,but arealwaysandeverywheretypifiedthemselvesby

productionunits with extremelylimitedresourcesand are greatlysubject

kinshipchangeas much as theirs,since many of their notionshave been

2Areviewof the Journalof FamilyHistory,theHistoryof ChildhoodQuarterly,the Journal

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

analyticallyrefinedworksseemto comefromhistorianswho use a broader

nuptiality,and birth spacing,and supplementingthese with literaryand

and the inclusionof formalistpremisessuch as "all actorshave a number

A good deal of anthropologicalpublicationsof familyand

... exceptfor familyfirmsand some controlof joint property,decisionsin the set of

As someof the basicprinciplesare outcomesof otherprincipleswhenthey

mestic unit on the basisof the genealogicallydefinedkin types contained

thesevariationsin domesticrelationshipsare attempted,the tendencyis to

normative system composed of those interrelated norms which define

the proper modes of interactionsbetween persons performingfamilial

maybe altogetherthe wrongstrategy.Thisis trueof setsof householdsthat

The chia estateis "thatbody of holdingsto which the processof family

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

what manner,we decreasethe likelihoodof overlookingsome of these

Fortes warnsagainstthe reificationof this methodologicaland analytic

usageof thisdistinctionin anthropological

dersif this is reallythe caseor whethertheirunifiedtreatmentstemsmore

NEW PERSPECTIVES ON DOMESTIC

Women in Domestic Groups

As researchon womenhas takena closerlook at genderideologies,it has

SymbolicApproachesto the Family and Kinship

undertaken if we are to produce cross-cultural comparisons of kinship

ior from their symbolicmeanings.In a cultural (symbolic)analysis of

FAMILY AND HOUSEHOLD

Symbolicapproachesto kinship also have contributedto our understandingof the interpenetration

Cautionmustbe exercised,however,lest we assumethat all variability

Social Inequalityand DomesticOrganization

themselvesas determinantsof the total configurationof domesticgroups.

At the core of J. F. Collier'sanalysis4of the political-economyof three

is throughbridewealthexchangesthat the materialproductsof economic

Hence,it was the hierarchicalnatureof the socialorderthat producedthe