Development of Alliance Theory
The alliance theory in the study of kinship is also known as the general theory of exchange. It bears its roots to the French structuralist Claude Lévi-Strauss and hence is also known as the structural way of studying kinship ties. The alliance theory was first discussed in Lévi-Strauss’ monumental book named as Elementary Sturctures of Kinship. Alliance theory was quite popular during the 1960s and went on to be discussed and deliberated till the 1980s where the issue of incest taboo was taken up by not only anthropologists but also by psychologists, political philosophers etc. Alliance theory tries to enquire about how inter-individual relationships are woven and how finally they constitute society.
The theory developed to study those kinds of kinship systems which exemplify positive marriage (cross-cousin marriage) rules. However besides providing conjectures on marriage, it also provides a general theoretical awareness about kinship. The study of marriage rules have been used from the initial days of kinship studies to comprehend kinship terminologies. Scholars like W.H.R. Rivers also used marriage (symmetrical cross-cousin marriage) and terminology (bifurcate merging) and tried to exhibit a relationship between each other. For him the marriage rule is the cause and the terminology is the effect. Australian kinship system, which is quite perplexing, was also studied elaborately by anthropologists to be familiar with their descent system. They too made use of marriage alliances for this. Most scholars agree with each other on the notion that in symmetrical cross-cousin marriage pacts, double descent is always seen, directly or indirectly.
However exponents of descent theories tried to go on about this through various instances, like for example B.Z. Seligman’s tries to convert types of marriage to forms of descent or Radcliffe-Brown’s extra stress upon descent where he finds it worrying that the Australian kinship system has a core matrilineal exogamy along with what he mentions as classic Australian patrilineal system. Radcliffe-Brown did accept that relationship between individuals and marriage rules are more important than descent groups. However, coming back to alliance theory and its development,Lévi-Strauss’ alliance theory was in complete defiance to Radcliffe-Brown’s functionalist theory.
Main Exponent
Alliance theory was categorically created by Claude Lévi-Strauss, though analytical assessment has been also offered by Rodney Needham and Louis Dumont. Lévi Strauss studied and observed the connections formed between consanguinity and affinity in his investigation of non-European societies. These two are both opposed and complementary to each other. Due to this rules of preferential marriage and marriage prohibitions are an incorporated part of this theory. Such rules in fact rise due to the connection between blood ties and affinal ties. It is the marriage ties, according to Levi Strauss and many of his contemporaries which create interdependence between families and lineages.
According to Levi-Strauss alliance theory is based on incest taboo and the prohibition of incest is recognised universally. It is viewed as a fundamental condition of human social life. A man is not allowed to make a woman his wife who is his immediate kin and in fact he has to give her away to another man. It is this prohibition of incest that led human groups to follow exogamy. Lévi-Struass says this prohibition is beyond any sociological explanation and clearly shows a difference between consanguinity and affinity as the basis of kinship system. For him incest taboo is thus seen as a negative prescription and it is only because of this that men had to move out of the core kinship group or come in from another group to it. This theory has much similarity with Sigmund Freud’s work Totem and Taboo (1913).
This process of incest taboo where a daughter or sister is sent to a different family commences a circle of exchange of women. Strauss views marriage as primarily a process of exchange (between one men and other men or between one domestic group and others). He observes positive marriage rules from the negative prescriptions of prohibition. The main notion of alliance theory is then a reciprocal exchange which creates affinity. It is the positive marriage rules which regulates this exchange and thus gives rise to what Strauss call ‘elementary’ structures. For Lévi-Strauss, there are two models of structure in the study of kinship and exchange in marriage. When women in the ego’s group are proposed to another group which is eligible for such exchange then such a situation may be called as elementary structures of kinship. Similarly if the group of possible spouses for the women are not known and kept open in the ego’s group, excluding particular kin people like the nuclear family, an uncle, an aunt etc, this Strauss terms as complex structures of kinship. This is easily seen in the western scenario.
In a society, keeping in mind incest prohibition, a kinship system is made up of a combination of many traits, like inheritance, affinity, descent, residence etc. and an understanding is reached by the combination of these features as a whole. If all the transmission between these features takes place systematically between generations in one and the same line it is known as harmonic while it is said to be disharmonic if some of it is passed patrilineally and some matrilineally. It was observed that the rules of cross cousin marriage where it exists is associated with this. Theoretically from this, three types of affinal relations can exist, bilateral, matirlateral and patrilateral. In bilateral cross cousin marriage, the spouse is mother’s brother’s child and father’s sister’s child. It forms a self sufficient unit as two intermarrying groups exchange women as wives. Lévi-Strauss calls this closed or restricted exchange. He also connected it with disharmonic transmission. In contrast to this, he talks about the implications of matrilineal cross-cousin marriage. Here a man marries his mother’s brother’s daughter. So to elaborate if a given line A gives their women to Line B and themselves take women from C, finally at the end a circle is formed where Z after receiving from Y, will give back to A. This is what Levi-Strauss class generalised form of exchange. It is opposed to the closed type as it first consists of three groups and can accommodate any number of groups. This type has similarities to harmonic transmissions, which are either matrilineal or patrilineal.
It is the network of relationships which shows the identity of the intermarrying group. Relationships that come out of different generations within the same group of affines are terminologically compared. It is due to intermarriage being directionally adapted to, hence a group does not receive wives from a group to which it gives its daughters, as has been mentioned above. A possibility of disparity in status is noted between wife-givers and wife takers. Levi-Strauss’ third type, the patrilateral type has been superficially dealt with. It seems to be there in his discussion as a failed hybrid of the other two.
Lévi-Strauss’ model tried to offer a proper description of cross-cousin marriage, exchange of sisters, rules of exogamy etc. He postulated that it is the marriage rules which after a certain period generate social structures. This he says is because marriages are a coming together of not just two individuals but also of two groups. With his root for such relationships as based on incest taboo, he formulated that it was because of it that natural impulses were kept under check and it also created the division of labour based on sex. We have discussed the former notion in the above paragraphs about how women are exchanged and the latter idea prescirbes work for women at a domestic level. As noted this exchange of wives are arrangements which advances inter-group alliances and helps in creating structures of social networks. The kinship structures that Levi-Strauss proposed were of three kinds, which are created out from two types of exchange. They are elementary, semi-complex and complex structures.
The first i. e. elementary structures are centered on rules of positive marriage which indicate whom an individual can marry. Elementary systems work on two forms of exchange, direct exchange or restricted exchange between two groups of people which is symmetric. In restricted exchange, father’s sister and mother’s brother marry and the children born out of them become bilateral cross cousins. Then to maintain the continuity the two lineages marry again. Restricted exchange structures are not very common.
Elementary structures have another form of exchange which is called generalised exchange. Here a man can marry either his mother’s brother’s daughter, which is a matrilateral cross-cousin marriage or his father’s sister’s daughter, which is a patrilateral cross cousin marriage. These forms of exchange give rise to asymmetry between three groups. According to Levi-Strauss matrilateral cross cousin marriages are common in Asia, especially among the Kachin. Compared to restricted exchange, generalised exchange was considered to be finer as it permitted the incorporation of innumerable numbers of groups. Levi- Strauss gave the example of Amazonian tribes who followed restricted form of exchange. They were considered to be unstable as they usually were made up of moieties which broke quite regularly.
Generalised exchange on the other hand allows more amalgamation but exhibits hierarchy. The wife – givers are superior to wife takers and the last wife taking group is much inferior to the first wife giving group. Such disparities can weaken the complete structure of society. Levi Strauss gave the example of the Kachins, in Elementary Structures of Kinship, to show such behaviour. Levi-Strauss noted that the matrilateral cross- cousin marriage was better than the patrilateral one, from the structure point of view. As the exchange sequences are not very long as the direction of wife exchange is inverted every successive generation, hence it has less probability to create social integrity. As has been mentioned earlier patrilateral cross-cousin marriage is very rare and hence not clearly touched by Levi-Strauss. The peril that matrilateral cross cousin marriage faces is that group A as a giver has to wait to get a wife from a group which would be very far from the line and not much obligated to give a woman for marriage. A delay which might be caused is not found in restricted exchange system
Between Elementary and Complex structures, Levi-Strauss contributed to a third structure, the semi-complex structure. It is also known as the Crow-Omaha system as it is found among the Crow and Omaha native Indians of North America. It is in many instances like the elementary structures, as for example it also contains negative marriage rules and almost have rules like prescribing marriage to some groups.
Analytical Assessment
Levi-Strauss’ alliance theory is not without its flaws. His arguments are based on societies about which he has given examples of, which are clearly viripotestal and also that his ideas of marriage was simple. The fundamental character and explanatory value of exchange as defined by Levi Strauss faced some extreme criticism. For supporters of consanguinity as a self-explanatory system, the prohibiton of incest as the basis for the difference in consanguinity and affinity is redundant. Marriage as been seen as a form of exchange was also questioned, one because women were seen as possessions, private properties and also because exchange was used in too wide a sense that it lost its meaning. Strauss’ main confronter, R. Needham tried to make clear cut distinction between prescription and preference in rules of marriage. For Needham, prescription on its own has structural involvements in the whole social system. He states that if prescription rules are seen not only as a marriage rule but as significant in the entire system, then the danger arises in underrating the importance of other types, like preferential marriage. These too have structural elements and the distinctions are sometimes not visible at all. The main development in the alliance theory which was observed was that there was a refinement of the concept of alliance and to make to more empirical, it was given a more structural identity. Initially the theory was mostly concerned with the exchange of women between greater exogamous components of the society.
Needham tried to improve the notion that matrilateral marriage rules would result in groups intermarrying in a circle. It was suggested that the marriage circle was too limited in number and the people involved should be aware of them. Needham further asserts that such alliance cycles do exist, and that too implicitly, however their existence does not bring to an end the function or meaning of marriage alliance. Levi-Strauss himself noted that conscious rules were to be considered more important than their results in terms of exchange. In the absence of cycles, the fundamental relationship can be formed from one of the many types of consanguinal relationship between paired local descent groups. Louis Dumont points out that where marriage alliance does not result in a system of exchange at the level of group as a totality, it remains an integral part of the system of categories and roles as understood by the people studied.
Needham further criticizes Levi-Srauss’ structuralism by calling the mediating concepts of reciprocity and exchange as facing distinctive opposition. The basic assimilation is not of groups but of categories as is viewed by the social mind, where marriage rule is nothing but a gamut of ideas. Social relationships are demarcated by classification and Needham perceived that asymmetrical intermarriage, though could not function with less than three alliance groups, can be dualistically theorized. This was in accordance to a complete dualist arrangement. Louis Dumont like Needham states that structural entailments which are observed are diverse from the group scheme on which attention was initially given. The phrase marriage alliance hence includes both a generic phenomenon of intellectual assimilation and a particular fact of group integration. Dumont further states that this structural theory in its limited arena on its own rises above the prejudices in our own culture. For him words like cross-cousin marriage maybe useful in theory but in real life is deceptive. A concrete comprehension can be reached according to him when the marriage rule which is known as marriage alliance is viewed as offering a diachronic aspect which is only connected to descent or consanguinity.If this can be done then it will be possible to go beyond our margins of thought built upon our own society and make evaluations and appraisals on the basis of the key perceptions involved, in this case consanguinity and affinity.
Conclusion
Allaince theory though quite categorical did not continue to work as a speculation which bore definite fruits. A lot more was anticipated from the theory. The inference of marriage alliance for status, economy, and political organisation was never clearly explained. The etymological investigation remained defectively structural. The study of terminologies did not finally help in comprehending or bettering this theory. Though alliance theory had much greater explanatory value than descent theory, yet in today’s contemporary anthropological setting, investigations have minimized their interest in kinship studies to understand the diversity of kinship systems. Hence the question of universal kinship structures remains unanswered due to which the debates between descent and alliance theories have shrunk.
Alliance Theory– Second Answer
While British social anthropologists were focused on the existence of social rules and the ways in which members of different societies acted within a given framework of ideas and categories, French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss had a very different starting point. His work was motivated by the question of how arbitrary social categories (such as those within kinship, race, or class) had originated. He was also concerned with explaining their apparent compulsory quality, or presence within the “natural order,” in societies. In The Elementary Structures of Kinship (1949), Lévi-Strauss turned to kinship to try to answer these questions. His model became known as the alliance theory of kinship.
Reciprocity, incest, and the transition from “nature” to “culture”
Profoundly influenced by the work of Marcel Mauss on the central role of reciprocal gift giving in “primitive” societies, Lévi-Strauss held that the transition from the animal world of “nature” to the human one of “culture” was accomplished through the medium of exchange: it was in the act of giving that the category of the self in opposition to another, or of one’s own group to another group, was actually constituted. Thus, the first social categories originated not in the realm of ideas but through the exchange of gifts.
Lévi-Strauss suggested that, because women’s fertility is necessary to the reproduction of the group, women are the “supreme gift.” With no fair return for a woman except another woman, they must have been reciprocally exchanged rather than simply given away. The simplest form of exchange in this schema involved men exchanging their sisters. According to Lévi-Strauss, this set up a distinction between those who give wives (“wife givers”) and those who receive them (“wife takers”), thus creating the first kinship categories. Later, more-complex forms of exchange marriage were developed.
But what had encouraged this notional exchange of women in the first place?
- According to Lévi-Strauss, two factors obtained: the principle of reciprocity and the incest taboo. He suggested that the principle of reciprocity, essentially the recognition that gifts set up a series of mutual obligations between those who give and receive them, lies at the heart of human culture. Because women were unique in value, reciprocity ensured that men who gave their sisters away in marriage would in turn receive the sister (or sisters) of one or more other men.
- Lévi-Strauss invoked the incest taboo as the second condition upon which the exchange of women was based, noting that it had the peculiar status of being well-documented as both a universal human phenomenon and one in which specific forms were culturally variable. That is, every culture proscribed sexual relations between some kin categories, but the particular categories of kin with whom sexual relations were prohibited varied from one culture to the next. He posited that, in being not only universal but also culturally variable, incest taboos marked humanity’s transition from “nature” to “culture.”
Elementary structures
Most anthropologists viewed incest taboos as negative prohibitions that had a biological basis (to prevent the inheritance of negative genetic traits) or reflected a particular nexus of cultural rules about marriage. In contrast, Lévi-Strauss saw incest taboos as positive injunctions to marry outside the group. These “positive marriage rules,” which state that a spouse must be from a certain social category, were the titular “elementary structures” in The Elementary Structures of Kinship.
Within sets of elementary structures (or positive rules), Lévi-Strauss made a further distinction between systems of “restricted exchange” and those of “generalized exchange.” Restricted exchange involved just two groups of men exchanging women (for example, their sisters). Here the reciprocity was direct and immediate. Generalized exchange involved three or more groups exchanging women in one direction (from group A to group B to group C and back to A). Here exchange was delayed and indirect but held out greater possibilities in terms of the scale and number of groups involved.
For Lévi-Strauss, positive marriage rules combined with the rules of reciprocity as the basis for a general theory of kinship that emphasized exchange as the central principle of kinship and indeed of “man’s” break from nature. He subsumed relations of consanguinity (blood ties) to those of affinity (marriage): whereas British structural functionalists saw descent ties—based on filial relations within the group—as paramount in kinship, the relations between groups had priority in Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist analysis. He also held that affinal relations framed the most basic and irreducible unit of kinship—what he called the “atom of kinship.” Where descent theorists defined a set of parents and children as the core of kinship relations, Lévi-Strauss defined it as a husband and wife, their son, and the wife’s brother. The presence of the wife’s brother signified the importance of marriage as a relation of exchange between men rather than a mechanism concerned only with ensuring reproduction.
Lévi-Strauss’s work demonstrated that human kinship was fundamentally cultural. Originally he had intended to proceed to an analysis of “complex structures” (those without positive marriage rules). There, he argued, the same principles of exchange and reciprocity were present but were implicit and hidden rather than explicit. In fact, he never completed this work but instead went on to a monumental study of myth. Anthropologists in France, however, have pursued Lévi-Strauss’s analysis of complex and “semi-complex” systems.
Critiques of alliance theory
As already indicated, Lévi-Strauss’s theories placed him in opposition to anthropologists who saw kinship as based on descent rather than marriage. This was not just a matter of whether consanguineal or affinal relations had logical priority. There was a fundamental difference between the analytical projects in which each of these groups of anthropologists were engaged. While structural functionalists in Britain and elsewhere aimed to describe the rules of kinship operating in particular societies, Lévi-Strauss was seeking to understand the origin of categories and thereby of human culture.
- A common criticism of both descent theory and alliance theory was that they had a strong tendency to view kinship in normative terms, ignoring the variations of gender and of different social actors and omitting the experiential and emotional sides of kinship. Feminist anthropologists and others inveighed against Lévi-Strauss and other alliance theorists for their objectification of women.
- other critiques addressed both theories’ androcentrism, their exclusive concern with “primitive” cultures, and their deficiencies in the analysis of residence and other aspects of kinship.
- Despite these problems, Lévi-Strauss left a clear and enduring mark on kinship studies. The fundamental importance of treating marriage as an exchange between groups eventually became a more or less uncontroversial tenet within anthropology. Particularly in New Guinea, Indonesia, and South America—regions where it was difficult to discern descent groups operating in the manner described by the classic models—exchange seemed to be the principle that unlocked a new way of understanding social life.