Trobriand Kinship from Another View: The Reproductive Power of Women and Men

Author(s): Annette B. Weiner

Source: Man, New Series, Vol. 14, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 328-348
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801571
Accessed: 23-07-2015 12:44 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.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Man.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TROBRIAND
THE

KINSHIP

REPRODUCTIVE

FROM

ANOTHER

POWER

OF WOMEN

VIEW:
AND

MEN
ANNETTE B. WEINER
University
of Texas at Austin
This article,based on fieldresearchin Kiriwina, Trobriand Islands,focuseson a brothersistersibling set as the primaryunit of analysis.Viewing reproductionas a model for the
organisationofa society,bothwomen andmen are analysedas reproductiveagents.From this
perspective,the processesof reproductionare examined as theyrelateto the reproductionof
dala, the reproductionof human beings,and the regenerationof social relations.Using this
model of reproduction,Trobriand kinshipterminologyis analysedand the problem of the
meaning of the kinshipterm tabuis re-examined.

Introduction
have analysedtheroles
In thisarticleI arguethatkinshipstudiestraditionally
constructedperspectives.
ofwomen andmen througha prioriethnocentrically
In usingbiological reproductionas a firstprinciple,women have been treated
as reproductiveagents(and usuallynothingmore) and men have been treated
as non-reproductiveagents (and everythingelse). Immediatelyone might
respond that,afterall, women give birthand men do not. This seems fair
enough if biological reproductionis the axis on which all else turns.But the
issues,I believe, are more complex.
andaffinity
SinceLewis HenryMorgan's Systems
ofthehuman
ofconsanguinity
fimily(I87I), thecentralproblemin kinshipstudieshas been how to organise
createdthroughtiesof marriageand the family,and
and definerelationships
those created throughties of descent and ancestors.In his essay, 'What is
kinshipall about?' (I972), Schneiderarguesthat,regardlessof how Morgan's
mostrecentfollowers(e.g. Lounsbury,Goodenough,Levi-Strauss,Leach and
Needham) 'revised, amended, altered, embellished, or tightened-up'
Morgan's paradigm,theydid not succeed in disengagingthemselvesfroma
prioribiogeneticpremissesabout thenatureof kinship(I972: 36-7). I suggest
that the resiliencyof Morgan's paradigm has much to do with the way
view authorityand power, and therefore,
theway therolesof
anthropologists
women and men traditionallyhave been conceptualised.
My thesisis thatwe have examined reproductionin itsbiological context
only, and in so doing we have reduced the affairsof kinshipto theirmost
narrow manifestations.I argued elsewhere (I978) that all societies make
commitmentsto the reproduction of their most valued resources,i.e.
resourcesthatencompasshuman reproductionas well as the regenerationof
Man (N.S.) 14, 328-48.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

329

social, material,and cosmological phenomena. In our Western tradition,

however,thecyclicalprocessof theregenerationof elementsis not of central
concern.Even thevalue ofbiological reproductionremainsa secondaryorder
of eventsin termsof power and immortalityachievedthroughmale domains
(see e.g. de Beauvoir I953). Yet in othersocieties,reproduction,in its most
inclusiveform,may be a basic principlethroughwhich othermajor societal
structuresare linked.
Using a model of reproduction(see Weiner I978; n.d.a; n.d.b fora more
detailed formulationof this model) with data from my field researchin
Kiriwina,I analysecertainaspectsof Trobriandkinshipfocusingon women
and their brothersas reproductiveagents. PresentingTrobriand data in
support of this perspectiveseems especially appropriate in light of the
influenceTrobriand ethnographyhas had on theoreticalissues concerning
kinshipand descent(Fortes I953; Homans & SchneiderI955; Leach ig5i;
Scheffler
I958; Levi-StraussI963; I969; Lounsbury I965; Needham I962;
I973).

Through Malinowski's seminalwork in the TrobriandIslands(e.g. I922;

I935a;
I935b), the Trobriandersbecame the classic example of a
matrilinealsocietywhere 'father-love'was opposed to 'mother-right'(see
deniedknowledge
especiallyI929). Accordingto Malinowski,hisinformants
of physicalpaternity-theycalled theirfatherstomakava('stranger'),and each
yearmen producedyamsfortheirmarriedsisters'husbands(see Weiner I976
fornew data and analysesof thesepoints).
One significantethnographic'problem' for Malinowski was why men
producedyamsfortheirsistersratherthanfortheirwives. A Trobriandman
supplies love and nurturance to his own children, but according to
Malinowski'sscheme,a manr's
childrenverysoon leave himto come underthe
controlof his wife'sbrother(but cf.Weiner I976). The yam production,for
Malinowski,was a statementof the 'legal authority'men exerciseover their
sistersand theirsisters'children-an authoritywhich,in Malinowski's view,
made man a partialfigurein his own household with his own children(see
especiallyMalinowski I929: I29).
Accordingto Malinowski,theavuncularrelationshipreplacedthepaternal,
and theauthorityof descentsupersededtheprimacyof thenuclearfamily(see
also Malinowski I930). Meyer Fortes (I957; I959; I969) and othershave
argued againstthisformulation.Forteshas continuallyemphasisedthatthe
formalorganisationof clans and lineagescannotbe understoodas extensions
ofthefamily.I takeup thissamepoint,butwhereasFortesanalysedlineagesas
partof thejural-politicaldomain,I show thatin Kiriwinathereproductionof
lineage(i.e. dala) is an integral,complementarypartoftheprocessesofhuman
reproductionand the reproductionof social relations.
But retainingMalinowski's analysisof the positive and negative valence
created in a Trobriand child's respectiverelationshipsto its fatherand its
mother'sbrother,Levi-Straussbringsthe avuncularrelationshipto a central
position in his 'atom of kinship' (I963: 3I-54). The relationshipbetween
thenbecomes the 'axis' around which all otherrelationships
brothers-in-law
turn.While thisperspectivetakesus farfromthemorassofargumentsover the
I929;

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

330

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

firstprinciplesofthenuclearfamilyor descent,at base,Levi-Strauss'sstructure

remains embedded in a prioriconcepts of complete male authorityover
women and theculturalinsignificance
of women and reproduction.In Levimen functionas authority
Strauss'selementarystructure,
figuresto reversethe
disequilibriumcreatedby the giving of a woman to anothergroup of men;
women are merelytheobject of theinequalitywhich thencausesthe reversal
of exchange, and childrenonly serve to validate the perpetuationof the
exchanges of women through generations(i963: 46-7). In other words,
women and childrenrepresentbalances and imbalancesin the continuityof
the authorityrelationshipsbetween men.
I verystronglyemphasisethatI am not counteringthe argumentthatmen
may have authorityover women. My thesisis that men do more than
exchange women, and that a focus on authority,in the traditional
anthropological sense, disguises and distortsthe full dimension of male
pursuitsas it also allows us to ignorewomen (see Weinern.d.b). Further,the
'underlyingstructure'is not the exchange of women, but the reproduction
of
social relations,which requires an analysis from both female and male
In theTrobriands,a man does not exchangehissister(as I explain
perspectives.
below). He is an agentofreproductivecapacitiesin wayssignificantly
different
from,but complementaryto, a woman's reproductivecapacity.
These problems remain furthercomplicated by the way brother-sister
sibling sets have been traditionallyconceptualised.For Levi-Strauss,the
prohibitionofincestbringsabout a 'new order'-the splitbetweena brothersistersiblingset (i969: 25). In theexogamous separation,a woman is reduced
to littlemore than a sex symbol-a sign for her brotherand others.
In thisnewcase,[theemergence
ofalliance]indeed,thiswastheonlymeansofovercoming
thecontradiction
bywhichthesamewomanwas seenundertwoincompatible
aspects:on
sexualandproprietorial
theonehand,as theobjectofpersonaldesire,thusexciting
instincts;
and,on theother,as thesubjectof thedesireof others as themeansof bindingothers

throughalliance with them (Levi-Strauss I969: 496).

Malinowski, althoughdeveloping his notions of kinshipin a very different

way, describedthe brother-sister
relationshipin similarterms.
forherbrother
thesister
remains
thecentreofallthatissexually
forbiddenThus,torepeat,
ofall unlawful
itsverysymbol;theprototype
sexualtendencies
withinthesamegeneration
of prohibited
and thefoundation
... (I929: 522).
degreesof kinshipand relationship

In eithertheoreticalcamp, cultureis viewed as assigningpower to men.

Because women neverescapefrombiology,thatis,fromnature,reproduction
remainsa premissratherthan an issue subject to culturalanalysis.Whereas
Malinowski reduced the brother-sistersibling set to male authorityover
children,Levi-Straussreduced the same relationshipto male authorityover
women. In both approaches,notionsof reproductionremainembeddedin an
amorphousdomain-biology-and therefore,
reproductionneverbecomesa
in
form
its
own
cultural/symbolic
right.1
Following Schneider(I968; I972), my analysisillustratesthe necessityof
discardingthe approach begun by Morgan: an approach that was streng-

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

B. WEINER

ANNETTE

33'

thened ethnographicallyby Malinowski's view of the Trobriands, and

theoreticallyrefittedwith new trappingsby Levi-Strauss.
sibling set
My methodological approach is to focus on a brother-sister
splitapartat marriage.
withoutdefiningthatsetas conceptuallyor structurally
Malinowski's emphasison the nuclearfamilyas (by definition)the minimal
setas an inclusivepartof
unitofkinship,excludesanyvalue on a brother-sister
a reproductiveunit. My argumentis that the nuclear familycannot be
conceptualisedas an elementaryunitifone is concernedwiththeprocessofthe
regenerationof relationsthroughtime. Further,by dismissingwomen as
active agents, Levi-Strauss's atom of kinship dismisses the significant
reproductiveroles that bothwomen and men play in
cultural/symbolic
to each other.I arguethatemphasison anysingleunit,such
complementarity
as lineage, family, or marriage exchange, as primary,causes the complementaryunitsto be givensubordinatepositions.A model of reproduction,
based on a systemwhich definesreproductivecapabilitiesand limitations
beyond the purelybiological, mustexamine the nucleusof kinshiprelations
througha woman and her brother,theirrespectivespouses,and respective

children(seefig.i).

INA

TAMA

EGO

TAMlA

Diagram

FIGURE

TABU

INA

KADA

LATU

LATU(male

TABU

TABU (fomale
Diagram

TABU

TABU

TAMA

INA

egjo)

EGO

eqo)

I. Brother-sistersibling set from the perspectiveof theirrespectivechildren.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

332

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

In this way, the complementaritybetween these female/malerelationships

may then be analysed as a reproductivewhole. Thus the full range of
reproductiveactivitiesforwomen and men can be plottedas theycontribute
to and definetheprocessesof human reproductionand the reproductionand
regenerationof social relations.
The basisofthereproduction
ofsocialrelations:a womanand herbrother
Althougha rangeof taboos appearsto separatea woman and her brother,
the splitoccursin public situationsand revolvesaround mattersof sexuality
only.Viewing theseparationfroma different
perspective,Malinowskiwrote:
Brotherand sisterthusgrow up in a strangesortof domesticproximity:in close contact,and
yet without any personal or intimatecommunication; near to each otherin space, near by
rules of kinshipand common interest,and yet, as regardspersonality,always hidden and
mysterious.They must not even look at each other,they must never exchange any light
remarks,neversharetheirfeelingsand ideas. And as age advances and theothersex becomes
more and more associated with love-making, the brother and sister taboo becomes
increasinglystringent(I929: 522).

is thenotionofpermanentseparationat all levelsof

Explicitin thesestatements
In
a relationship. fact,a relationshipbetweenthetwo does not seemto existat
all. The naivete in Malinowski's view (and in many other views, from
Morgan's thesison the developmentof the Punaluan familyunit to LeviStrauss'salliancetheory)can be attributed
to thetreatment
ofwomen as sexual
symbols-a perspectivethatconceivesofwomen's rolesas relativeonlyto the
negativeor positiveclaimsmade on theirsexuality.Such an assumptionthus
makes 'natural'the brother-sister
siblingsplit,and in an a prioriway, places
analytical intereston the relationshipscreated through marriage. The
reproductiverole ofa woman is thenequated with'wife' ratherthanwiththe
multiple roles of 'sister', 'mother', and 'wife'. Although Malinowski
(especiallyI93 5a) examinedtheeconomic relationshipbetweena man and his
sister(via yam exchanges),women's economic roles (via women's wealth)
were neverexplored.Thus theyam transactions
betweena man and hissister
representeda man's interestin hissister'schildren(but seeWeiner I976: chs 5
& 6). This view notonlydistortedtheroleofwomen, butequallydistortedthe
role of men: veryimportantyam exchangesalso take place directlybetween
men-especially between fathersand sons (Weiner I976: I4I-57).
By
avoidance in itspublic contextonly,Malinowski
analysingthesister-brother
What is being separated,
emphasisedseparationratherthancomplementarity.
which must come togetherto
however, are different
modesof reproduction
recombineand exchange in complementarityto each other.
These modes of reproductionmay be outlinedthroughan examinationof
the processes of human reproductionand the reproductionof dala (i.e.
lineage). I referthe readerto more detailed explanationsof thesemodes in
Weiner (I976; I977; I978). But I emphasisehere thatthe basic reproductive
processhas two importantfacets:one accommodatesthereproductionof dala
identity(achieved throughwomen and ancestralsubstance),while the other
simultaneouslyaugments dala by the continual accumulation of outside
a man makesto thegrowthofa foetus).In
resources(initiallythecontributions

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

333

thisway, the autonomyof dala is temperedby the incorporationof outside

resourcesgained through dependency on 'others' who are members of
dala. Men (as 'others')directlycontributeto theprocreativeprocess,
different
growthand developmentof
to thefurther
contributors
and remainsignificant
theirchildren(see Weiner I976; I978; cf. Malinowski I929). Further,the
relationshipbetweena man and his childrenmay lastbeyondhis own death,
when his sons and daughterscontinueto supportmembersof his dala as each
person'takestheplace of her or his father'(see Weiner I976 fordetails).The
processeslinkingdalawith'others'resultin thereproductionand regeneration
of extensive networks of intergenerationalrelationshipsbasically held
togetherthroughthe materialtransactionsof yams and women's wealth.
The relationshipscentral to these networks are the recombinationsand
exchangesthatoccur in the complementaryinteractionbetween a brothersistersiblingset. (For a discussionof the relationshipbetween my analytical
model of reproductionand 'the native'spoint of view', see Weiner n.d.b).
In the Trobriands, the relationship(whether blood, classificatory,or
afterhissister's
fictive),betweena man and hissister,gainsgreatersignificance
marriage,but therelationshipremainsone thatunitesthetwo directlyto each
other.Men do not have autonomouscontrolover theirsisters.Rather,a man
and his sistermustcontinuouslynegotiatetheirrelationshipto gain support
fromeach other.A man worksthroughhissisterto reachherhusband.But, in
return,a woman's supportcomes to herdirectlyfromherhusband.Briefly,a
man worksa yam gardeneach yearforone sister.2In addition,at harvest,he
also presentsbasketsofyams(supplementedthroughtheyearbytaroplants)to
othersisters.In thisway, a man createsforhimselfan ego-centrednetworkof
sisters.The husband of each sisteris obligated directlyto his own wife and
mustexpendhisown wealthin orderto accumulatewomen's wealthwhen his
wifedistributes
theseitemsofwomen's wealthin sagali'mortuaryceremonies'
(see Weiner I976: ch. 7, for detailsof these transactions).
As I describeelsewhere(Weiner I978), yams hold relationshipsbetween
men and women in a specialspace-timeframework.Yams given by a man to
hissisterreproducethroughotherexchangestheitemsof women's wealthfor
her. Yams are the symbol par excellenceof the reproductivenessof social
relations,as yamsmove froma man to hissisterand thencrosstheboundaryof
dala, extractingresourcesfrom a woman's husband, who is a member of
anotherdala. Thus throughyams,a man securesa specialrelationshipwithhis
marriedsister(and as many othermarried'sisters'as he can afford).In turn,
each woman's husbandis under directobligationto her. For a woman, the
is neverreversedin thata woman neverassumes
patternof thesetransactions
any directobligation to her husband or to his sistersin termsof women's
wealth.A man mustproduce yamsforhis sisterand women's wealth forhis
wife.A woman takesfromboth herhusband(women's wealth)and fromher
herown wealthas a memberof herdala.3
brother(yams),and thendistributes
Althoughwomen are themeans wherebymen may establishrelationships
with their brothers-in-law,they are not 'merely the object' of that
Marriageallows a woman, throughtheuse ofobjects,to beginto
relationship.
demonstratethe strengthof dala, her own power as an individual,and the

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

334

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

power of the men who surroundher.When a woman's brotherstartsa yam

gardenforher,herown power expandswith theyam production.For as the
yam production increases,a woman's wealth should similarlyincrease.
Presentationsof yams and women's wealth are the objectsthatin exchange,
betweena
display(or speak thewords of) thevalue of the setof relationships
woman, herbrother,and herhusband.As a man gains,so does his wife.Her
gain through'others',both in childrenand materialwealth,however,defines
thestrength
of dalaand, therefore,
also definestheimportanceof herbrother.
This interactiondoes not develop,however,because a woman is an exchange
object betweenmen. In fact,ifwe shiftthefocusto a woman as motherrather
than wife, we findthat a woman and her brotherdecide on the woman's
daughter'sspouse, and a woman and her husband make a similardecision
regardingtheirson's futurespouse (see Weiner I976: I74-6; cf. Malinowski
I929: 84-5; Robinson I962).
as men in marriagearrangements.4
Therefore,women are as instrumental
Although at marriagea woman physicallygoes to live with her husband,
conceptually,she nevermoves out of herpositionin her own dalaas itsbasic
female reproductiveagent. A man, too, remains a complementarymale
reproductiveforce for his own dala. In order to maintaina high level of
production,a man worksforhiswifeandforhissister.When he worksforhis
wife,he is accumulatingresourcepotentialin hischildren;when he worksfor
hissister,he is reproducingresourceinputforhis sisterthroughherhusband,
which also will eventuallybenefithimself.(During mortuaryceremonies,
when women distributetheir wealth, they demonstratethrough specific
of
exchanges,thestatusoftheirbrothers.At theend oftheformaldistributions
women's wealth,a woman's brothercooks pig and taro pudding forherthankingher for her work [see Weiner I976: ch. 4].)
In order to effectthe incorporationof 'others' (i.e. personsand material
resources),a man remainsdependenton abilitiesand areas which his sister
controls.In otherwords, a man's capacityforsocial reproductionincludesa
measure of his sister'sreproductiveability,A woman, enteringinto her
brother's reproductive domain, performsrites of beautificationfor his
children.At harvest,a time when the searchforappropriatespousesis most
intense,a man's sisteradds to her brother'sdevelopmentof his childrenby
performingbeautymagic forthem. In a similarway a man's sisters(blood,
or fictive)beautifythe body of his deceased child, as well as
classificatory,
performingappropriatemourningprocedures.Further,women, using their
own wealthobjects,reclaimthosedalaelements(such as names,decorations,
and evenin some cases,land) whichtheirbrothershave givento theirchildren
to use (see Weiner I976, for examples).5
Therefore,women regeneratethoseelementsprimaryto thematrixofdala:
internal,matrilinealidentityconceived in the reproductionof children.By
usingwomen's wealthto reclaimcertainkindsof elementsthathave been on
loan to 'others', women also contributeto the regenerationof material
resourcesidentifiedas dala.Further,at the deathof a dalamember,women s
wealthis distributedby women of thedalaof thedeceasedto all 'others'from
otherclanswho formerlywere associatedin some way withthedeceased (see

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE B. WEINER

335

Weiner I976). In the women's mortuarydistributions,women's innate

reproductivepower is transformedinto objects-skirts and bundles-that
identifynot only the power of individualwomen (and men), but symbolise
the reproductivepower of dala. In the mortuarydistributions,women
disengagethe deceased fromformerrelationshipswith the living-paying
back those'others'who once contributedto the growthand developmentof
the deceased (major paymentsare made to the fatherand the spouse of the
deceased).Women's power is mostpublic at theend and thebeginningof the
of dalaidentity
lifecycle-maintainingtheregenerationand reproductiveness
throughtime. Men engage in expanding the boundariesof dala-yet men
ultimatelymustdepend on women, theirsisters,to reclaimand to conceive.
siblingsetand thekin termtabu
Anotherview of thesister-brother
siblingsetby
of a brother-sister
At thispoint I summarisethe significance
analysinga limitedrange of kinshipterms.EarlierI stressedthatthe unitsof
kinshipmostessentialto theculturalmeaningof dala (as theautonomousstate
of dala, coupled with dependency on 'others') included the central kin
relationshipsof sister and brother, their respective spouses, and most
theirchildren.In fig.i, thekinshipdiagrams,a and b, areworked
importantly,
siblingset as the key relations,ratherthanthe more
around a brother-sister
Further,the diagramsare designedusingas ego
usual focusof husband/wife.
(a) a brother'schildren,and then(b) his sister'schildren.I emphasisethat,in
thisanalysis,ego merelyplaysthe role of the centre,specifyingwhich dala is
underconsideration.This is a departurefromtheargumentup to thispointin
which I have stressedthe role of ego vis-a-visspecificindividuals.
This procedurehasseveralimportantimplications.First,itallows fora view
thatincludesthe varietyof the rolestheyplay.
of sister-brother
relationships
Second, this view incorporatesthe full process of social reproductionby
relationships.
emphasisingthe primaryattentionaccorded intergenerational
to theirown
and
their
relationship
sister
and
brother,
By concentratingon a
units
and
the
the
processes
kinship
primary
children,
and each other's
sharply
units
appear
of
the
regeneration
and
reproduction
involving the
terms
I
kinship
these
female/male
In
analyse
diagrams,
interpreting
delineated.
sister-brother
that
a
Given
thesis
individual
terms.
than
as
my
as pairs,rather
and
siblingsetmustbe understoodas a unitofreproductivecomplementarity,
have
women
or
not
of
whether
that
thesis
regardless
I976)
(Weiner
mylarger
politicalpower in a society,whateverdomain women do control must be
featurein articulationwith the male domain,it seems
analysedas a structural
essentialto carrythisview throughto the area of kinshipterminology.
In my discussionof kinshipterminology,however,I am not concernedin
evaluatingand takingsideswiththeoppositionalapproachespresentedearlier
byLeach (I958) and Lounsbury(i965). Rather,I wantto presentan analysisof
Trobriandkinshiptermsfromanotherview. I do not argue thatmy view is
thatwhentheperspectivesI
primary.I am concernedherewithdemonstrating
suggestare used in viewing the full range of kinshipterms,the modes of
reproductionI alreadydescribedmay be associatedwiththemeaningof basic
kinterms.At thesame time,I do not implythatpolysemyshouldbe ignored.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

336

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

I am not interestedin analysingherethe variousdenotationsof kinshipterms

in different
becausemyaim is neitherto demonstratethespecificrelationships
social contextsbetweenan individualspeakerand hearer,nor to discoverthe
primarygenealogicalsignificata(cf.,e.g., SchefflerI973). Further,in analysing kinshiptermsfromanotherview, I am not structuring
my analysisonly
I believe
aroundtheusual basic distinctionbetweenconsanguinesand affines.
that my analysisof kin termsindicatesan allocation of cultural/symbolic
featuresand functionsregardingthereproductionof humanbeings,dala,and
the reproductionand regenerationof social relations.These functions,as I
alreadyhave shown,areintrinsicto thereproductionofthepersonand existin
the siblingpair. Therefore,parallel reproductivecomplementarities,
rather
than a more narrow view of consanguines/affines,
form the basis of my
analysis.
From thisperspectivethatfocuseson threemajor characteristics:(i) the
of male/femalerelationships;(2) theprimacyof the sistercomplementarity
brothersiblingset; and (3) theprocessesrelatedto intergenerational
timeand
thefollowingpairedsetscan be isolated.In fig.i, diagram
role differentiation,
a, in whichI use a man's childrenas ego, a man and hissisterare,respectively,
In diagramb,usinga woman's childrenas ego, a man and sisterare
tama/tabu.
kada/ina.In both diagrams,tama/ina
represents
each child'srespectiveparent.
The usual translationof thesetermsin their'primarygenealogicalmeaning'
(see Malinowski I929; Leach I958; Lounsbury I965) is as follows: ina
'mother'; tama 'father'; kada 'mother's brother'; tabu 'father'ssister'.The
entirerange of Trobriandkinshipterminologyhas been classifiedas Crowtype,common to many matrilinealsocieties(see especiallyLounsburyI964;
I965).

Trobriandkinshipterminologyhas its own anthropologicalhistory.Most

notable is the classic debate between Leach (I958) and Lounsbury (I965).
Based on a re-analysis of Malinowski's data (which differsin each
Leach and Lounsburypresentcontroversialviews concerning
interpretation),
the meaning of Trobriand kinshipterminologyand argumentssupporting
(Lounsbury)and refuting(Leach) Malinowski's theoryof the genealogical
sourceof meaningin kinshipterminologyand the extensionof thismeaning
to includea secondaryrangeofindividuals(cf.Buchler& Selby I968: 39-46).
fromMalinowski,and,byimplication,from
In importantareasmydata differ
the data used in the analysespresentedby Leach and Lounsbury.Althougha
re-evaluationof Trobriand kinshipterminology,as set out by Leach and
Lounsbury,is beyond my purposes here, my examples in fig. i illustrate
certainconceptsbasic to the above controversy.
Leach argued thatMalinowski was wrong in his assumptionthatkinship
termshave primarymeaningsassociatedwithparticularindividuals,and that
thesemeaningsare then extendedto a secondaryrange of individuals.The
processof 'extension'occursas a child grows and comes to recognisesimilar
patternsof behaviourin a widerrangeofpeople. Therefore,firsta childlearns
to call itstruemotherina,and graduallyitlearnsthatotherwomen who show
the same typeof behaviourtowardsit are also to be called ina. By extension,
ina means mother and mother's sister.Leach, objecting to Malinowski's

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

337

theory,argued that 'kinshipterminologiesare categorytermsratherthan

individualizingproper names' (I958: I24).
I do notrepudiatethepossibility
of the'extension'of meaningsfromnarrowprimary
to
widersecondary
contexts,
butI do notadmitthatwordsusedaskinship
terms
must,ipsofacto,
derivetheirprimarymeaningexclusively
froma kinshipcontext,nor thattheprimary
is alwaysto a particular
application
individualratherthanto a classofindividuals
(p. I23).

In hisanalysis,Leach used residenceand economicsratherthangenealogyto

formulatecategories of meaning in Trobriand kinship terminology.My
analyses(Weiner I976) alter the sociological implicationsin the areas, for
example,of dala,clan,residence,and urigubu
'affinalyam exchanges'.Further,
as I indicated above, my interestlies in the connotation ratherthan the
denotationof kinshipterms,and therefore,
I am not concernedwith Leach's
basic argumentconcerninga primarycategoryof meaning.
CounteringLeach's views,LounsburyarguedthatMalinowski was correct
in hisnotionsof a primarygenealogicalreferent
and a secondaryextensionof
meaning.In supportof thisperspective,Lounsburypresenteda componential
analysis of Trobriand kinship terminology. Although the controversy
appeared to be about genealogy v. sociology, Lounsbury argued that the
criticalissueshad to do with 'the precisenatureof thejural rulesof a society,
and of the roles that familyrelationshipshave in the formulationof these'
(I965: I47). For Lounsbury(followingMalinowski) thenatureofmeaningin
kinshipterminologymust relate
andoftheroleswithinit,(2) to the
(i) to thefundamental
ofthenuclearfamily
importance
withinthenuclearfamily
andtheextension
oftheseoutfromthat
originofkinship
meanings
and(3) tothebasisforsuchextension
that
pointoforiginalongspecified
pathsofconnection,
is providedby genealogyandbyfamilylaw, i.e. bytherecognition
oflegalrightsthatare
intermsofrelationships
andofvariousrelative
foundinthenuclearfamily,
ascribed
products
of these(i965: I47, author'semphasis).

In myanalysisI objectto theunrelenting

emphasisthatLounsburyplaceson
the 'jural rules of the nuclear family'. As I have shown, at least for the
Trobriands,the nuclear family,as we perceive it, remainstoo narrow and
ethnocentrica conceptin thisregard.Inherentin the relationshipbetween a
woman and herhusbandis theconfiguration
of the meaningand processesof
dala, as defined through the Trobriand mode of human and social
reproduction.From thisperspective,the 'roles' of the nuclear familymust
incorporatethe additional 'roles' pertainingto the modes of reproduction
inherentin the three reproductiveunits of husband/wife,brother/sister,
mother'sbrother/mother.
Malinowski's errorwas his assumptionthat the
nuclearfamilywas a primaryunitand thatwithtimetheclan,in the guise of
the mother'sbrother,removed thechild fromthatunit,makingit cognisant
that it belonged to a wider clan structure.Therefore,for Malinowski a
separation existed between the primary family and the secondary clan
structures.As Fortes (I957: I75) emphasised, Malinowski's view was
psychologicallyoriented,based on the slow processof a child's awarenessof
primarypersonsand kin terms(a mother and father),and a secondaryor
metaphoricalextensionof thesetermsto otherkin.
My argumentis thatthisparticularnotion of extensiondoes not pertain

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

338

ANNETTE B. WEINER

because,inherentin the processof human reproduction(i.e. the procreative

combinationof a woman's blood and ancestralsubstancecausingconception
with the procreativeabilityof a man who provides for the growth and
and interrelationships
between
developmentof thefoetus)are thedistinctions
dala and 'others'. In thisway I am contrastingtimeless,collectiveidentities
(thatelsewhere(WeinerI976) I analyseas partof'ahistorical'or cosmological
time and space) with time-bound,individualisedrelationships('historical'
timeand space) thatmustbe workedat and attendedto throughexchange.In
some ways my analysisof the relationshipbetween a man and his children
relates to Fortes's notions of 'complementaryfiliation'. Fortes, too, is
concernedwith the relationshipbetween timelessidentitiesand time-bound
individual relationships.But our views differin several significantways. I
betweenwomen and men,and,
emphasisethereproductivecomplementarity
in so doing,myanalysisdoes not focusaroundjural rightsand duties.Further,
I am not viewing marriageand the nuclearfamilyas the beginningand end
point of a domesticcycle (see Fortes I958). My concernis with death,and
indeed with the full processes of birth,death, and rebirth.Rather than
I emphasisethe
emphasisingmarriageto the exclusionof otherrelationships,
set.
reproductivesignificanceof a brother-sister
From the perspectiveof this analysis,I argue that kinship terms are
genealogicallyprimaryonlyin so faras theyrelateto theregenerationof dala
in its autonomous state. The nuclear familyis of significanceonly as it
replicatesthe reproductionof pure dala (throughwomen as ina,'mother') in
combinationwiththeintroductionof outsideresources(throughmen as tama,
thateithercrossdala boundaries,
and
'father').Kinshiptermsdefinerelationships
thereforeserve as connectorsfor outside resources(i.e. human or material
The basic
resources),or those relationshipsthat do notcrossdala boundaries.
processconcernsthetransmission
rightsor use rightsonlyofdalaproperty,and
thenatureofrelationships
in regardto regenerativeand reproductiveabilities.
in diagrama
Therefore,to returnto fig. i, I argue thatthe pair tama/tabu
definesthe male and female processes of crossingdala boundaries. Thus,
is a representation
tama/tabu
of the dependencyside of the dala matrixwhich
gives to othersand thenreclaimswhat has been given. In thisway a man, as
tama('father'),and a woman, as tabu('father'ssister'),in relationto each other
as brotherand sister(a relationshipwhich has been definedthroughyams),
crossdala boundariesand functionas connectors,creatingadditionalkinship
linkswhich in time will turnback again and benefitor/andbe reclaimedby
the tama/tabu
pair. Conversely,the kada/ina('mother's brother'/'mother')
theautonomoussideofthedalamatrix:dalablood (transmitted
pairrepresents
by ina) and dala land (transmitted
by kada).6The relationship,kada and ina,
concernsthe transmissionof control and rightsto futuretransmissionof
elementsand resourcesdefinedas dala. Thus, a woman and her brother,in
to each other,both play out two necessaryrolesas (i) tama
complementarity
and tabu, expanding dala resources through giving use rights,but not
transmission
the
rights,to dala property,and, as (2) kadaand ina,representing
full strengthand total accumulatedpower of dala.
Only fromthisperspectivecan the tama/ina
pair be seen to representthe

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

339

processesthatallow forTrobriandhuman reproduction:dala,representedby

ina,and 'other',representedby tama.When a woman marries,her role as ina
strengthens
ratherthan diminishesher position within her own dala. She
reproducesdala identityin the cosmological domain of baloma('ancestral
herwealthas a
spirit')and buyai('blood'). In thesocial domain shedistributes
memberof her dala. Ina representsthe reproductionof dala identity,which
appears in its most autonomous state at conception and death. From the
perspectiveof ego, all women in ego's firstascendinggenerationplay out this
roleof inafortheirown dala,exceptforfather'ssister,who, in relationto ego,
as tabu,plays a different
role (see fig. 2). The fact that ego calls mother's
brother'swife ina (see fig.2) has oftenbeen cited as a Trobriandanomalyin
Crow-typesystems(Leach I958; Lounsburyi965). But when inais analysedas
above and viewNved
withinthe fullrange of basic kinshipterms,the anomaly
disappears.Women, regardlessof theirmarriages,representtheirown dalaas ina.Women, as tabu('father'ssister'),also representtheirown dala,but the
process of representationis activated not only at conception and death.
Rather,tabu('father'ssister')signifiesthe attentiongiven to the growthand
developmentof ego and to the returnof dala property(e.g. decorations,
names)givento ego by heror hisfather.A woman, as tabu,cannotreproduce
dalapersons,but she contributesto herown dala throughherattentionto her
brother'schildrenin the above ways.
In thesame way, a man,as tama('father'),conceptuallycrosseshisown dala
boundaryby supplyingresourcesto hischildren,and thusgainingsupportfor
himselfand forhisdala; supportthatwill lastbeyondtama'sown lifetime.All
men,exceptkadain ego's firstascendinggeneration,are involvedin thesame
process for theirown dala. From the perspectiveof dala, a man, as tama,
producessupportforhis own dala,but he mustgo outsidehis own dala to do
so. Therefore,his reproductiverole is limited. As tamahe cannot reclaim
elementsassociatedwithdalaidentitythathe has givento hischildren,nor can
he make the fullrangeof necessarypaymentsto replacedala identitywhen a
deathoccurs. Tamaneedsthecounterpartfoundin tabu.Therefore,a woman,
as tabu('father'ssister')relinquishesherinnatesexualityto build up and assist
in definingherbrother'srelationshipto hischildren.(I discusstheexceptionof
father'sfather'sbrother'sson as tamato ego, below.)
But the kinshiptermtabuhas a greaterrange of complexity.Malinowski
definedthe various meanings of tabu as (i) somethingforbidden,sacred,
taboo; (2) grandparents,grandchildren,ancestors; and (3) father'ssister,
father'ssister'sdaughter,and by 'extension', lawful woman. Malinowski
the
fromtheothersand, therefore,
believedthateach setof meaningsdiffered
word tabuwas in facta setof severalhomonyms(Malinowski 1929: 5I 5' 524,
528-36; I935b: 28, 113). An examination of the use of the term tabu in its

fullestdimension would require expanding certainfeaturesof Trobriand

relationshipsthatare beyond my purposeshere.
Briefly,however, (i) the notion of taboo is not relatedin any way to tabu
(see Chowning 1970); (2) ancestorscalled tabureferto thoseindividualswho
foundedland and establishedthe domain of dala-individuals whom I call
'founders' and describe elsewhere (Weiner I976: 39-43; I977). Grandparents

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

340

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

00
D~~~~~~.

.0

{-ox

<n040

PPnerz

4J0~

~~~0

0J

4AL

0
0

r.I0
-H

-0

4J

~
4.)

~~ ~ ~

..
00

4-)00

<)

~~~~4J~
~~-1.0

~ ~

0~~~~~~0

L 0

4_

4J

1~~~~

i I
i

4J 4-)-

?-*

0<:CX

0d0
00:

L--O~~~~~~~~~~~~O
.0~~~~~~~~

,f 4)

L--o

--o

A%

4J 4

('Ills

.0

--o

Is4
(Is~~~~~~~~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~
0
-H~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

0
4J

0 0

00~~~~~00

4i

Y
r-4

4J~~~~~~~~~~0.

P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4
4J
4J
40

00~~~~~~~~~4
-~~~~~~.0
4-)4-),4-)
P~~~~~~~~~~~~~-4

'Is

O'o

:j

-~~~Is
-

o(

0>i

4-

0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~.
4-)0
P

00
NP
~~~~F~~0P~.)
L
(IllIs~~~~~~~~~~~~~
PP~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ri4

MP.

HP~~~~~~i

OtI
NP______

.0llI~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~r-f4

.
00
40.0

004II
PHp

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE B. WEINER

34'

markthebeginningof theuse of tabuforfurther

ascending
and grandchildren
and descendinggenerations;and (3) tabuis used forfather'ssister'shusband,
father'ssister'sdaughter,and is also the termused for any woman in ego's
father'sclan whom it is appropriateto marry.
and
The questionnow is whetherthemeaningsin (2) and (3) are different,
as
they
relate
in
some
or
whether
Malinowski
thought,
homonyms,
therefore
way to each otherand to the way I have definedthe use of tabuforfather's
sister.Ifwe takemybroadestexplanationfortabuas a connectorbetweendala
(and clans),and at thesametimeas a markerofthelimitationsoftheexpansion
of social reproduction,all theseuses of tabuseem to contain thisculturally
definedmeaning.
Tabu, as founder,marked out the original dala universe.In the original
historyof hamlet and garden lands, expansion was the basic principle(see
Weiner I976: 45-50), but finally,in the course of events,specificareas of
gardensand hamletlands were securedand limitationson furtherexpansion
were set. Today these original limitationsstill serve as boundaries of the
autonomous dala matrixassociatedwith land and origins(see Weiner I976:
39-43; I57-67, on land disputes). In addition, the beliefsassociated with
originsdescribethe relationshipsbetween membersof one dala and 'others'
clans).In theoral histories
dalain thesame and different
(membersof different
of the search for land, relationshipswith 'others' intruded upon (either
negativelyor positively)thechoice of hamletand gardensites.Therefore,the
beliefsconcerningtabuas the original foundersare structuredaround the
establishmentof dala space, contingentupon the interactionof tabu with
'others'not membersof an ego's own dala.
Similarly,the genealogical line of grandparents(tabu),and reciprocally,
(tabu),marktheboundariesbetweenwhichactivereproductive
grandchildren
processesoccur: ego's generationand ego's firstascendinggeneration(seefig.
context,tabusets offthe limits(eithergenealogical or
2). In this structural
physical,as above) forthe possibilitiesof expansion. Tabu also indicatesthe
pointswheretheboundariesbetweendalaand 'others'mustbe crossedin order
to reconstitutethe appropriate reproductive modes through successive
generations.
The pointsof articulationbetween dala and 'others'mark specifickinship
sectors definingcertain kinds of relationshipsbetween two contiguous
generations(i.e. father'ssisterand father'ssister'shusband),and withinone
generation(i.e. father'ssister'sdaughter,and from a female ego, mother's
brother'sson and mother'sbrother'sdaughter)(seefig.i, a and b). But, in fact,
the processes involved in the relationshipsat each of these sectorshave
implications.Further,theyalso indicatefemale/
intergenerational
significant
male domains of organisation.I have alreadydiscussedthe intergenerational
implicationsof the kinshipterm tabufor father'ssister.The same termfor
father'ssister'shusbandindicatesthecollapse of therelationshipbetweenego
and father'ssister'shusband to that of father'ssister.In a similarmanner,
kinshiptermsare also collapsedin thecase ofa male speakerwho usesthesame
termforhis brotherand brother'swife and a femalespeakerusing the same
termforhersisterand sister'shusband.Therefore,excludingthemoregeneral

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

342

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

categoriesof the kinshipterm,tabu,thatinclude men and women such as

foundersand grandparents/grandchildren,
theprecisepointsof articulationat
the sociallyreproductivesectorsin two contiguousgenerationsreferto the
femaledomain of reproduction.
Ifwe again examinefig.I, diagrama, we note thatego's father'ssister'sson
and daughterare respectivelycalled tamaand tabu. Tabu, as father'ssister's
daughter,has been analysedeitherin sociological or genealogicalterms(see
Malinowski I929; Leach I958; LounsburyI965) in-thecontextof a marriage
rule. I argue that the tama/tabu
pair in ego's own generationindicatesthe
replacementforego of the tama/tabu
pair in thefirstascendinggenerationfather(tabu)and father'ssister(tama).A man's childrentakehisplace even after
he dies-his son using his land and his daughter performingmortuary
formembersofhisdala.For example,whena man'sfatherdieshe
distributions
may continueto live in his father'shamlet which is now controlledby his
father'ssister'sson-his tama.Therefore,when a man and his sisterdie, the
relationshipestablishedbetween these two and a man's childrencontinues
with his sister'schildren as replacementsfor their mother and mother's
brother.The importanceof the tama/tabu
pair is accentuatedby its abilityto
succeeditselfthroughanothergeneration.The reciprocalkinshiptermsused
by ego for mother'sbrother'schildren(see fig. i, diagram b) illustratethe
importance of analysingthe significanceof the tamu/tabu
pair over two
generations.A male ego callshismother'sbrother'sson (who maybe livingon
hisland) and daughter(who continuesto distribute
herwomen's wealthin the
name of herfather)latu(child),maintaininghisfather'searlierrelationshipof
tamato his own children.A femaleego calls her mother'sbrother'schildren
tabu,for, as informantssay, only she, as tabu,can performbeauty magic,
mortuaryrituals,and othernecessarytasksforthem-just as herown mother
earlierperformedthesetasks.
Replacement is an importantconcept in Trobriand culture(see Weiner
n.d.a). The word kemapulais used to signifythata personis 'takingtheplace' of
someone else,indicatinga logical schemeof successionrelatingto theprocess
of social reproduction.The view I presentof a tama/tabu
pair in ego's own
generationas a replacementfor the tama/tabu
pair in ego's firstascending
generationsupportsLounsbury's(I964; I965) analysisof rulesof succession
foundin theskewingrulesforCrow and Omaha kinshipsystems.As Scheffiler
(I973: 773) explained, Lounsbury's equation of rules of terminological
extensionwith rulesof statussuccessiondoes not indicatethatall distantkin
calledby thesamekintermdesignatingsuccessionare,therefore,
subjectto the
& Lounsbury I97I). But whereas
rightsof succession (see also Scheffiler
Lounsburyis concerned with the extensionof a specifickin term such as
father's sister and father's sister's daughter, I am concerned with the
reproductiveunit of fatherand father'ssister,as thisunit operatesthrough
and
time in relationshipto the other reproductiveunits of father/mother
formsof
mother'sbrother/mother.
Further,theimportanceof understanding
succession, or in Trobriand terms, replacement,is not only based on
replacementbecauseofdeath,butreplacementbecomesa significant
principle
in understandingthe meaning of tabuas a marriageablepartner.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

343

In examining the kinship term tabu as a single unit, the problem of

biological premissesand rules of marriagereappears.In anotherpart of his
analysisofTrobriandkinshipterms,Lounsburypointedout thatthetermsdid
not reveal any inherentrule for marriage.
And finally,on a negativepoint,why is it that-in spiteof what theTrobriandersare quoted
as havingtold Malinowski ('To marrya tabula(cross-cousin)is right;thetruetabula(thefirst
cross-cousin)is the properwife forus' (1929a: 101; 1932: 86))-that in spiteof this,no rule
expressing cross-cousin marriage, i.e., equating affinalwith appropriate consanguineal
relationships,is necessaryin order to generate the referentialstructureof the Trobriand
kinshipterminology?(i96$: 176.)

Nevertheless,Lounsbury follows Malinowski when he states that the

Trobriandersdo not have "'prescriptive alliance", either in fact or in
ideology' (I965: I 80). Trobriandmarriageaccordingto Malinowskihas to do
is forfather'ssister's
withfreechoice,despitethefactthatthestatedpreference

daughter(MalinowskiI929:

95).

When I directlyasked informantsif someone should marryhis father's

sister'sdaughter,I was told that 'such a marriage would be very good'.
Malinowski was also told by his informantsthatthiswas a propermarriage.
Neitherof us was able to recordexamplesof such marriages.When I did not
ask directlyabout marriage,but asked why someone called theirfather's
sister'sdaughtertabu,I always received answers about a woman's role in
In otherwords,no
beautymagic and in mortuarypracticesand distributions.
informantever voluntarilymentioned marriage with a father'ssister's
daughterunlessI specificallyasked about 'the rule'. What I was told (as was
SusanMontague,pers.comm. (I975) on Kaileuna Island)emphasisedthevery
greatimportanceattachedto a marriageablespouse forego coming fromthe
same clan (kumila)as ego's father.
In marryingsomeone fromtheirfather'sclan, a man's children(both sons
and daughters) increase the number of persons standing in a special
relationshipto him. The relativesof his children'sspouses (provided they
belong to his same clan) become keyawato him and thuscontributewealth
each timesomeonein hisown
objectsforhimto use in mortuarydistributions
daladies.7
Although each man has his own individual network of keyawa relationships,the most importantare produced throughthe marriagesof his
childrenwithmembersof different
dalain hisown clan. Ifa man's childrendo
not marryanyonewho is a memberof hisclan (as is sometimesthecase), then
his children'saffineswill not be keyawato him. They do not performthe
obligationsnecessarywhen someone dies in his dala. Through mortuary
exchangeswithhiskeyawa,a man is able to accumulateenough wealthso that
essentialmortuarypaymentsfor land and otherdala propertycan be made
when someone in his dala dies. If thesepaymentsare not completed,property
used by 'others'cannot be reclaimed(see Weiner n.d.a).
Thus, tabu,as marriageablewoman or man in theclan of tama,operatesas a
connector,creatingrelationshipswithin a clan that can only be activated
througha spouse who is a memberof anotherclan (see Weiner I976: 55-6o).
not onlytheconnectorbetweendala and 'others'forego
Tabu hererepresents

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

344

B. WEINER

theconnectorbetween
(thespousean ego maymarry),but tabualso represents
dala and 'others'(keyawa)forego's father.But thereis one otherimportant
dimension to the reproductiveprocess inherentin these intergenerational
relationships.
When I returnedto Kiriwinain I 976, I gatheredadditionaldata on marriage
patterns.In the course of thiswork, I was told (withoutmy asking)thatthe
best marriagefor a man was 'to marryhis father'skada' (see fig. 3).

* P1A1tabu

1
tabu

tabu

tabu
tama ia
(tabu) (tabu)

tabu tabu tama ina

(tabu tabu)

tama tabu

ego

tama tabu tu/b luta

(tabu)
1jyI(tama)
|i

Diaqraxn a_for e~oj~

Diagram a for ego|

tu/b lut1a tab

latu
kada
(tu/b (tabu)
luta)

Diagram b for ego's

(ego's

childrei)

children

Read kin terms in parentheses

for ego's children
FIGURE3. Tabu as 'marriageablepartner'fromtheperspectiveof ego followingdiagrama, and
fromtheperspectiveofego's childrenfollowingdiagramb. The shadedsymbolsreferto Clan A
and the unshaded symbols referto Clan B.

I also foundthatthiskind of marriagedid occur often.In fig.3, diagrama, an

exception to my explanationof tamaseems to occur in the case of father's
father'sbrother'schildren,who are respectivelytamaand tabuto ego.
If, however, the analysisfocuses on ego's children,as I show in fig. 3,
diagram b, the tama exception is, in fact,a significantpart of the whole
regenerativecycle. From the perspectiveof ego's children,the tama/tabu
siblingset are theirfather'sfather'sbrother'schildren.In thissiblingset the
childrenof tabu(who are kada to ego) are tabuto ego's children: the best
individualsto marry.Withthemarriageofhischildrenin thisway,ego obtains
his father'sbrother'schildrenas keyawa.In a structuralsense the tama/tabu

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

345

siblingset representsthe closestlink to ego's father'sdala without actually

being of thatdala. It has been argued by Levi-Strauss(I969) and othersthat
patrilateralcross-cousinmarriageresultsin a 'closed system'and does not
produce any kind of organicsolidarity(see also Needham I962; Leach I95 I;
I958;

andcounter
arguments
byHomans& Schneider
I955). ButinKiriwina,

patrilateralcross-cousinmarriageis by-passedin favourof patrilateralsecond

cousinmarriage,which does not produce such a 'closed system'.Rather, this
kind of marriage representsan expansive, reproductivesystemin which
networksof relationships
are producedby thereproductiveefforts
of women
and men thatmay be regeneratedthroughpatrilaterallines for generations.
The tama/tabu
siblingset,furthest
removed genealogicallyfromego, crosses
dala boundaries and establishesthe closest and most important keyawa
relationshipsfor ego as it establishesmarriagepartnersfor ego's children.
Therefore,to returnto the questionof tabu,we findthateach meaningof
the word tabu,stemmingfromthe tama/tabu
pair, emphasisesthe same basic
reproductiveprocessof thepossibilitiesforexpansionacrossdala boundaries.
There is a concomitantemphasison the limitedfieldin which expansionis
possible,and on the absence of any automaticinherentregenerativeprocess.
When a death occurs, enormous effortand energyare expended in longlastingand complex mortuaryexchangesin an effortto regeneratetabulinks

forfive,ten,or moreyears(seeWeinerI976;

I978).

But each primarykinshippair-kada/ina,tama/tabu,

tama/ina-hasa similar
problem to solve. It attemptsto expand within the limitationsset by the
reproductivesystem. Kada/ina, as the basis of the reproductionof the
autonomousstateof dala,reproducesitselfthroughahistorical(cosmological)
and historical(social) timeand space: i.e. dalablood and dalaland. But kada/ina
cannotreproducethefulldevelopmentof personsinternallyidentifiedas dala
and externallystrengthened
by 'others'. Tama/taburepresentsthese'others',
who provideexternalresourcesto thoseoutsidetheirown dala. The tama/tabu
pair reproducesrelationshipsthatlink severalgenerationsthroughkinship.
The tama/tabu
pair mustcrosstheirown dala and clan boundariesin orderto
regeneratetheselinks. The process of regenerationdepends upon constant
productionof materialresources(e.g. for mortuarydistributions)and new
mustcontinuallybe 'fed' or they
marriages.In otherwords,theserelationships
dissipate.
From thisperspective,a woman and her brotheroperate on bothsides of
the descent/kinshipline: kada/ina-reproducing autonomous dala, and
tama/tabu-reproducingresourcesin 'others'. But a necessarypart of this
dualityis the tama/ina
pair-the basisof human reproduction.Only tama/ina
supply the primaryelement in the system: children-conceived through
women (as ina) and 'moulded' through men (as tama). But in the full
do not merelyrepresentthe
perspectiveof Trobriandreproduction,tama/ina
'nuclearfamily'.Sexually,thebrother/sister
pair is splitapart.Conceptually,
thetama/ina
pairmustalso be splitapart.The fullrangeofreproductivefactors
mustencompassnotjust husband/wife
or husband,wife,and wife'sbrother,
but the unit of tamawith tabu,and the unit of ina with kada-brother/sister
pairs.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

346

ANNETTE

B. WEINER

Conclusion
The processesinherentin theTrobriandsystemofreproductionincludethe
abilityto reproducehuman beingsthatare more thandala,and to regenerate
socialrelationships
througha dynamicculturallyderivedinterchangebetween
the complementaryreproductivecapabilities of women and men. Any
attemptto describethisreproductivesystemeithersolelyfromtheperspective
of marriage,or solely from the perspectiveof descent,or solely from the
perspectiveofjural rulesof authoritybetweenmen completelyobfuscatesthe
delicate balance in the nature of Trobriand reproductionand the cultural
attentiongiven to the complex sets of arrangementsnecessaryfor the
maintenanceof such a reproductivesystem.The systemof reproductionis
neverin equilibrium.It is always in flux,in movement,containingpointsof
limitation and points of possible expansion which demand continual
attention.Ifthereis no movementwithina segment(e.g. a dala),thatsegment
in thesystemwithersthroughtimeand diesoff.In microcosmicform,human
a momentaryhaltin theprocessofreproduction.But therituals
deathsignifies
ofdeathexceed anyotheractivityin thescope ofthedramaticand long-lasting
seriesof transactions
thatbeginwhen a deathoccurs-a measureofthedanger
in fullyshort-circuiting
the reproductionsystem.
My aim in this article has been to analyse cultural meaning through
On one level of analysisI have been concerned
ethnographicinterpretation.
withthelogic underlyingtheTrobriandstructure
ofkinshiprelations.But on
anotherlevel I have arguedfora re-evaluationof kinshipstudiesthatdirectly
meaningsof reproduction,ratherthan on
focusseson the cultural/symbolic
I have
the traditionalbiological grid. In orderto develop my interpretation
had to rejectmany of the most fundamentalassumptionsabout the 'natural'
orderof kinshipand the 'natural'orderof the relationsbetweenwomen and
men. In concluding,I again questionwhymarriagehashad suchan overriding
suchas sibling
effecton kinshipstudiesto theexclusionof otherrelationships
sets.Why is kinshipanalysedonlyfroma male perspective?Why is authority
eitherstructure
or
forunderstanding
viewed as theonlylogical modusoperandi
organisation?Why does biology remainthegridfromwhich all else springs?
And finally,why do we arrangethe roles of women and men in slots that
correspond to our own view of sex roles and our own unimaginative
perspectiveon the significanceof reproduction?

NOTES

The data presentedare from field researchon Kiriwina, Trobriand Islands, Papua New
Guinea, duringperiods in 1971, 1972 and 1976. I am verygratefulforthe following support:
Mary Bullock Workman Traveling Fellowship, Bryn Mawr College; National Instituteof
Mental Health; National Endowment for the Humanities; American Council of Learned
Societies; and the University of Texas Research Institute. In addition to Bronislaw
Malinowski's seminalwork in the Trobriand Islands,ethnographicfieldresearchhas also been
done by H. A. Powell, Susan Montague, JerryW. Leach, Edwin Hutchins,ShirleyCampbell
and Giancarlo Scoditti.
I want to expressmy thanksto theparticipantsin thesymposium,'The meaningof siblingsin
Oceania', held at the 7th Annual Meetings of the Association of Social Anthropology in

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE B. WEINER

347

Oceania, Asilomar, California, I978, for their comments on an earlier draftof this paper
presentedat thesymposium.I am indebtedto thefollowingpersonsfortheirexcellentextended
criticismsof points made in earlierdraftsof this paper: Jane C. Goodale, John Kirkpatrick,
Bernd Lambert,Robert Rubinsteinand David M. Schneider.I am also gratefulforthehelpful
observationsand criticismsmade by an anonymous reader for thisjournal.
1 Although Marxist perspectivesemphasisereproduction,the focus has been on the mode
and means of production.For the most part,human reproductionremainsa given ratherthan
the model for the reproductionof other sectorsof society.
2 The production from this garden is what Malinowski incorrectlyglossed urigubu(see
Weiner I976: on urigubuexchanges which include pork, coconuts, betel nuts,but not taytu
yams). Following a woman's marriage,her fatherfirstusually works a yam garden for her.
I978).
Severalyearslater,herbrothermay takeover theproduction(seeWeiner I976: I95-20I;
3 Because women received the production of yam gardens from their fathers,they also
distributewomen's wealth when someone dies in theirfather'sdala (see Weiner I976: i98-9;
I978).
4 This procedure changes when a chief(especiallya Tabalu) marries.A chiefmay marrya

woman 'forlove', butmostofhiswives are chosenforhim by othermen (seeWeiner I976: 20I2). However, the woman chosen may refuse,or her kin may refuse,and the woman's mother
may take part in the decision.
5 In orderto reclaimone's own land in which theuse rightshave been given to someone else,
it is necessaryto give stoneor shellvaluables to theleasee in orderfortheland to be returnedto
dala use. In some cases,men do not have thenecessaryvaluables,or the men of the dala are too
old or too young.Women thendo sagali(presentvaluablesand taketheland back). In fourcases
I recorded,women saved the land in this way.
6 Only one man (in some cases,two brothers)controlshamletand gardenlands identified
as
dala land. This man has the rightto give portionsof the land to othersto use, and to decide on
who, among hiskinsmen,will be hisheir(see Weiner I976: I 56-67). But, as a resultofa deathin
by the guiltydala to
warfareor in individualfighting,plots of gardenlands may be transferred
thehamletmanagerof thedala of the deceased.When land is given as a resultof death,theplots
never returnto the original dala.
7 See Damon I978 for a similarkind of relationship(sinvalam)on Woodlark Island.
REFERENCES

Beauvoir, Simone de I953. The secondsex (trans.)H. M. Parshley.New York: Knopf.

totheory
Buchler,Ira R. & Henry A. Selby I968. Kinshipandsocialorganization:an introduction
and method.New York: Macmillan.
Chowning, Ann I970. Correspondence: Taboo. Man (N.S.) 5, 309-I0.
Damon, F. H. I978. Modes of productionand the circulationof value on the otherside of the
kula ring,Woodlark Island, Muyuw. Thesis, PrincetonUniversity.
Fortes,Meyer I953. The structureof unilineal descent groups. Am. Anthrop.55, I7-4I.
I957. Malinowski and thestudyof kinship.In Man andculture:an evaluationofthework
of BronislawMalinowski(ed.) Raymond Firth.London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
groups(ed.) Jack Goody.
cyclein domestic
I958. Introduction.In The developmental
Cambridge: Univ. Press.
a rejoinderto Dr Leach, 2 parts. Man 59, I93-7;
I959. Descent, filiationand affinity:

59, 206-I2.

i969. Kinshipand thesocialorder:thelegacyofLewis HenryMorgan.Chicago: Aldine.

andfinalcauses:a studyof
Homans, George C. & David M. SchneiderI955. Marriage,authority,
unilateralcrosscousinmarriage.Glencoe: Free Press.
Leach, Edmund R. 951i. The structuralimplicationsof matrilateralcross-cousinmarriage.J.r.
anthrop.Inst.8i, 23-55.
I958. ConcerningTrobriand clans and thekinshipcategorytabu.In The developmental
groups(ed.) Jack Goody. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
cyclein domestic
(trans.)ClaireJacobson& Brooke Grundfest
anthropology
Levi-Strauss,Claude i963. Structural
Schoepf. New York: Basic Books.
structures
ofkinship(trans.)JamesHarle Bell, (eds) John Richard
i969. The elementary
von Sturmer& Rodney Needham, 2nd edn. Boston: Beacon Press.Original publication
in French, I949.
Lounsbury,F. G. i964. A formalaccountoftheCrow- and Omaha-typekinshipterminologies.
In Explorationsin culturalanthropology
(ed.) W. H. Goodenough. New York: McGrawHill.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

ANNETTE B. WEINER

348

Lounsbury,F. G. I965. Anotherview of the Trobriand kinshipcategories.In Formalsemantic

analysis(ed.) E. Hammel. AmericanAnthropologist
Special Publication 67: 2: I42-95.
Malinowski, Bronislaw I922. Argonautsof thewesternPacific.New York: E. P. Dutton.
I929. The sexual lifeofsavagesin north-western
Melanesia.New York: HFarvest
Books.
I930. Parenthood: the basis of social structures.In The new generation
(eds) V. F.
Calverton & Samuel D. Schmalhausen. New York: Macmillan.
andtheirmagic:a studyofthemethods
I93 5a. Coralgardens
oftillingthesoilandofagricultural
ritesin the TrobriandIslands. Vol. I. New York: American Book Co. (Bloomington:
Indiana UniversityPress, I965.)
andtheirmagic:a studyofthemethods
I 93 5b. Coralgardens
oftillingthesoilandofagricultural
ritesin the TrobriandIslands.Vol. II. New York: American Book Co. (Bloomington:
Indiana UniversityPress, I965.)
and affinity
Morgan, L. H. I87I. Systemsof consanguinity
of the humanfamily.Washington:
SmithsonianInstitution.Vol. I7 of the SmithsonianContributionsto Knowledge. First

printedin I870.

andsentiment:
Needham, Rodney I962. Structure
a testcaseinsocialanthropology.
Chicago: Univ.
Press.
Robinson, M. S. I962. Complementaryfiliationand marriagein the Trobriand Islands. In
Marriagein tribalsocieties(ed.) Meyer Fortes. Cambridge: Univ. Press.
Scheffler,Harold W. I973. Kinship, descent and alliance. In Handbookof social and cultural
anthropology
(ed.) J. J. Honigmann. Chicago: Rand-McNally.
& F. G. Lounsbury I97I. A studyin structural
semantics:the Sirionokinshipsystem.
Englewood Cliffs,NewJersey: Prentice-Hall.
Schneider,David M. I968. Americankinship:a culturalaccount.Englewood Cliffs,NewJersey:
Prentice-Hall.
I972. What is kinshipall about? In Kinship in the Morgan CentennialYear (ed.) R.
Reining. Washington,D.C.: Anthropological Society of Washington.
Weiner,AnnetteB. I976. Womenofvalue,menofrenown:newperspectives
in Trobriand
exchange.
Austin: Univ. of Texas Press.
I977. Trobriand descent: female/maledomains. Ethnos5, 54-70.
I978. The reproductivemodel in Trobriand society.In MankindII: 3, I75-86. Special
Issue: Trade and exchangein Oceania and Australia.
n.d.a. 'A world of made is not a world of born': Doing Kula in Kiriwina. Paper
presentedat the Kula Conference,King's College, Universityof Cambridge,July I978.
n.d.b. Sexualityamong theanthropologists,reproductionamong thenatives.In Sexual
meaning(eds) S. Ortner & H. Whitehead.

This content downloaded from 72.167.47.101 on Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:44:08 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions