Ethnographics Gallery University of Kent

Turkish Village

Copyright 1965, 1994 Paul Stirling. All rights reserved.

Paul Stirling
CHAPTER EIGHT

KINSHIP

previous page

Page 149


must obviously vary greatly. It depends partly on the closeness of the kinship link, with a noticeable tendency for agnatic lnks to be stronger than others. But it also varies with other factors. Even the boundary between kin and non-kin is not clearly marked. Obviously, as the social distance increases, the scale and frequency of the exchange of mutual services and friendly intercourse diminishes, but no hard line exists between kinship akrabalïk - and neighbourliness - komshuluk . More than once, people said to me that they were kin, akraba , then when pressed for details corrected themselves; `Not exactly kin, neighbours. But it's all the same really.'

Hüseyn (F) and Yahya (V) lived side by side in Sakaltutan, at one edge of the village. Though they recognised no kin tie, they were constantly together. Hüseyn's orphaned agnatic cousin was married to Yahya's daughter, and Hüseyn's guest room was used for the meal given by Yahya to the boy's side when they came to fetch the bride. This case was perhaps exceptional, but it illustrates a perfectly acceptable type of relationship.

The Nuer, a patrilineal people of the southern Sudan, cannot imagine a confusion of distinct kinship roles. In particular, the distinction between agnates and other consanguineal kin and affines is sharp. No one can give and receive cattle for the marriage of the same girl (Evans-Pritchard (1951) pp. I52 ff.). Most unilineal societies have such sharp distinctions. In these villages, on the contrary, again with one major exception, father's sister's daughter, different kinds of uncles and aunts are not theoretically sharply distinct. A man may through the practice of marriage, be mother's brother and classificatory father's brother to the same child. Some informants even denied, incorrectly, that the roles of mother's brother and father's brother differ at all.

The lack of specificity in kinship roles goes with an absence of formal or organised sanctions. No public authority, for example, admonishes those who fail in their duties, as the Lozi are lectured in their courts of law (Gluckman (1955) p 358 and passim). Those who feel that they have been let down have no sanctions to apply except to withdraw from social relations with the offenders - unless the matter is serious enough to call for violence. Reciprocity is the main sanction. But the very lack of specificity and formality weakens this sanction also, because

next page
Contents Page