I. Analyzing the Uterine Family

A. Contributions

1. Focus on female perspective
2. Emphasizes behind-the-scenes power
3. Patriliny in practice differs from patriliny in theory, e.g. sim pua

B. Possible problems with Wolf's theory

1. Over-emphasizes strategizing, agency, women seem cold, calculating
2. Is behind-the-scenes power real power?
3. Uterine family isn't a conception among Taiwanese
4. Idealizes mother-child bond

 

II. Does Kinship Really Exist?: David Schneider's critique

A. The role of biology in Euro-American kinship
B. Assumption of biology as central to kinship universally
C. David Schneider, American Kinship (1968)

1. American kinship is biogenetic
2. "Nature" as cultural construct
3. Insidiousness of biological thinking blinds us to other notions of kinship
4. Kinship only applies to America, isn't useful elsewhere

D. Problems of terminology and translation

1. Kinship is related to religion, nationality, gender, ethnicity, social class, and concepts of personhood
2. Of all the dimensions of kinship, why do we make biology central? Bias of kinship charts
3. Kinship (capital K) = American folk theory of biological relatedness
4. kinship (small k) = cross-cultural ways of organizing families and households
5. Need for cultural relativism, minimize cultural preconceptions

 

III. States and Kinship Changes

A. Nuclear family in US: historical result of religion and industrialization
B. One Child Policy in China: Small Happiness

1. Women bear responsibility for birth control, child-bearing
2. Women's bodies as objects for state policies
3. Family pressures to have sons
4. Cultural values don't change just because laws do

 

For more information, contact:  aleshkow@holycross.edu