Kinship and Complexity Advances in Kinship Analysis Douglas R. White October 24, 2008 Kinship...
-
Upload
bennett-bridges -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Kinship and Complexity Advances in Kinship Analysis Douglas R. White October 24, 2008 Kinship...
Kinship and ComplexityAdvances in Kinship Analysis
Douglas R. White
October 24, 2008
Kinship Computing & Complexity: Cohesion, Class, and Community
1. Define a graph
that represents how marriages form cycles
Data and Representation:P-graphs link parents (flexible & culturally defined) to offspring
They are constructed by showing:
• Each individual a line
•Each gender a different type of line
•Each couple (as) a node
2. Link this representation
to actual marriage network data
Data and Representation:Building Kinship Networks
P-graphs link pairs of parents (flexible & culturally defined) to their decedents
P-graphs can be constructed from standard genealogical data files (.GED), using PAJEK and a number of other programs.
See:http://eclectic.ss.uci.edu/~drwhite for guides as to web-site availability with documentation (& multimedia representations)
3. What are the properties
of how marriages form cycles?
they form bicomponents =maximal sets on nodes connected in two or more independent ways
4. Bicomponents, asmaximal sets of marriages connected
in two independent ways,
measure boundaries of structural endogamy (so-define this new term)
Measure boundaries of structural endogamy
Male Descent
Female Descent
Same person (polygamy)
Lot married to his daughters
Structurally endogamous Canaanite Marriages in the narrative of the Patriarchs (White/Jorion)
Abram Sarai
Abram Hagar
Ishmael
5. That Mid-Eastern Example
was for marriages with relatives by common descent (same lineage, here, for obvious
reasons). So
By way of contrast:
6. Apply marriage bicomponents to a European town
(here, no blood marriages)
Ask: does how marriages form cycles still have consequences?
with heirship
NO LEGIBILITY HERE BUT WE’LL SEE THESE IN THE NEXT SLIDES
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking (no blood marriages)
7 There are consequences but not that heirs marry heirs – we will see it is that THOSE WHO RELINK IN THE BIG BICOMPONENT ARE THE HEIRS
Attribute endogamy = e.g., heirs marry heirs
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy
8. This is social class constituted by marital relinking
The
Time
Dimens ion
1970
1520
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking
9. BUT IS THIS JUST RANDOMNESS CREATING THE BICOMPONENT IN THIS TOWN? IS THIS BEHAVIOR INTENTIONAL?
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy
10 Pearson’s R = .54 bicomponent with heirship
11. Lets test the randomness hypothesis as “non-intentional behavior” for each generation
For each generation,permute the marriages randomly
For example, take these three generations and permute the red lines so each existing place is occupies
Nonrandom relinking only 1-2 generations back
Random in all higher generations 3+
13 The first case we looked at in the Middle East (lineage of Abraham and
Sarah, repeated in next slide) has historical similarities with contemporary ME societies. We will look at Arabized
Turkish Nomads next, and show similar consequences of structural endogamy apply to how lineages are linked into class, and to consequences for those
who stay and those who leave the clan.
Measuring boundaries of structural endogamy
Male Descent
Female Descent
Same person (polygamy)
Lot married to his daughters
Structurally endogamous Canaanite Marriages in the narrative of the Patriarchs (White/Jorion)
Abram Sarai
Abram Hagar
Ishmael
Turkish nomads
All known members but many have emigrated
dotted= female lines
Black=patri-descent lines
Turkish nomads
Relinking only
(Structural
Endogamy)
Stayers in the community = the cohesive core
Relinking +yes no
160 14 Stay
18 71 Leave
Dotted=female lines
Black=patri-Descent lines
Turkish nomads
Names of members
allmembers
Black=patri-Descent lines
Blue=female lines
Structural EndogamyA Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems:
The Role of Marital Cohesion
A power-law decay of marriage frequencies with kinship distance
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
0 5 10 15 20 25
Frequency
0 + 156/x 2̂
FFZSD FFBSD:10-11 FZD:14 MBD:16 FBD:31
MM =206/x2
Raw frequency
(power law preferential curve)
# of Couples
# of Types
Results: Rather than treat types of marriage one by one: FBD, MBD etc., we treat them as an ensemble and plot their frequency distribution
Applications of Structural EndogamyA Turkish Nomadic Clan as prototype of Middle Eastern segmented lineage systems:
The Role of Marital Cohesion
types of marriage are ranked here to show that
numbers of blood marriages follow a power-law (indexical of self-organizing preferential attachments) while affinal relinking frequencies follow an exponential distribution
Omaha – 8 generations
Omaha – structural endogamy
Omaha – structural endogamy
OmahaBicomponent relinking
marriages
Non-relinked singles
1 1 0 0 Total
Generation Level,
1 late
8 early
1 1 4.8% 20 95.2% 21
2 3 17.6% 14 82.4% 17
3 7 15.6% 38 84.4% 45
4 18 8.7% 188 91.3% 206
5 36 12.7% 248 87.3% 284
6 60 22.6% 205 77.4% 265
7 50 32.9% 102 67.1% 152
8 29 41.4% 41 58.6% 70
Total 204 19.2% 856 80.8% 1060
Increases in relinking marriages with depth of ancestry
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Omaha – stratification / segregation of leadership
How do we make sense of a complex kinship network?
• Start with the real network, compute generations, within each generation
• Permute each spousal choice (males or females) with equal or biased probabilities, keeping everything else the same.
• Do this 1000s of times, keeping track of network characteristic distributions
• See where the actual network occurs in this distribution for each characteristic
How do we make sense of a complex kinship network?
• The descriptive statistical use is to test the null hypothesis to see if the characteristic is different from chance (significance test p<.001) a single equal-sized simulation (rewiring) is all that is needed.
• The inferential statistic is to test whether datas are correctly generated at close to p~1.00 by biased probabilities in bootstraps generated 1000s of times
• The permute-spouse method uses TOTAL CONTROL, keeping everything else the same: unilineal genealogy, nuclear family sizes, generational changes.
How do we make sense of a complex kinship network?
• The inferential statistic is to test whether datas are correctly generated at close to p~1.00 by biased probabilities in bootstraps generated 1000s of times
• The permute-spouse method controls for everything but marriage choices: unilineal genealogy, nuclear family sizes and gender composition, generational changes.
• What is a complex network? – We can begin with power-law spread of the frequencies of
different types of blood marriage / or / affinal relinking
What data do we have about kin
• Kin term products 1) defined independently and 2) mapped onto a kin type map
• Kin type behaviors– Avoidance– Sexuality Prohibited– Respect– Informality– Joking– Privileged sexual relation
in-law extensions
Same generation avoidances
Parents-in-law
X cousins
White and Wille 1995: four dimensions of avoidances in world cultures
Advances and Benefits
• Network Visualization of Kinship
• Variables for testing theory
Network Visualization of Kinship• I want to start with a form of kinship that
Nick Allen thinks has great antiquity, the TETRADIC model, an “elementary structure” equivalent to the Kariera section system. Patrilineages are co-resident in each of the waterhole “countries” of a linguistic group. The 2 sections within a country are of alternating generations, and section exogamy creates links between countries with matching pairs of opposites.
Sale R.
Its really simple• Multiple countries, paired pairs of sections
Each gives wives, takes wives for 2 sections
But is it really simple• With pairs of generation moieties in distinct pairs of sections?
• And different numbers of patrilines in each country?
A simple test: sidedness
A real kinship network-Alyawarra
What about generations?
A simple test: two viri-sides
A simple test: two uxori-sides
A simple test: two uxori-sides(are 2% taking wrong-sided spouses?)
What about generations?
all marriages same generation
Variables so far
• Generation rank
• – same generation marriage?
• Viri-sidedness (implicit patrimoieties?)
• Uxori-sidedness (implicit matrimoieties?)
• – Uxori + Viri sides = Sections =
• – Uxori + same generation marriage =
• – Viri sides + same generation marriage
Patriline classes
Here is the same kinship network
Daughters are moving to husbands in groups that are “adjacent” in a flow of directed (asymmetric, “generalized”) exchange
A study of AGES of men and women shows that alternating generations slope away from the flow of daughters, indicating that WIVES ARE YOUNGER THAN HUSBANDS, and WiBr WiBr WiBr directed same-generation chains flow indefinitely toward the future
Patriline classes
They marry Aranda next door
Variables so far
• Viri-sidedness (implicit patrimoieties?)
• Uxori-sidedness (implicit matrimoieties?)
• Sections = Any 2 of (Viri, same generation marriage, Uxori-sidedness)
• Generation rank
• – same generation marriage?
• – age-biased slope of generation
Findings so far
• Sections outlaw adjacent-generation marriages– So competition for mates is within not between marriages
polygyny, gerontocracy– Marriage strategies and environmental conditions interact
• Sections have the effect with no age biases– Of creating closure in symmetric marriages,
• With age biases sections have the effect– Of creating aperture in asymmetric marriages, long open
chains, greater possibilities for bridging different language groups, can build intersocietal networks for survival