KINSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT || Introduction: Kinship and Development

Introduction: Kinship and DevelopmentAuthor(s): BERNARD FARBER, JOHN MOGEY and KAREN S. SMITHSource: Journal of Comparative Family Studies, Vol. 17, No. 2, KINSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT(SUMMER 1986), pp. 151-160Published by: Dr. George KurianStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601597 .

Accessed: 24/06/2014 22:27

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 ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Dr. George Kurian is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal ofComparative Family Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 91.229.229.13 on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 22:27:41 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=kurian

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41601597?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Introduction: Kinship and Development

BERNARD FÄRBER** JOHN MOGEY** KAREN S. SMITH**

The complex interrelations between familial and kinship institutions and societal development have prompted numerous theoretical explications. Some social scientists have focused on methodological approaches, others on the disorganizing effects of development, and still others on industrialization. These efforts share a series of postulates which preclude their ability to explain effectively the ways societies modernize. Jn this paper, we briefly review earlier explanations of kinship and development and propose an alternative to them.

PREVALENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES ON DEVELOPMENT

Concepts utilized in previous theories of development emanate from three principal sources: (a) the study of social indicators in economics, (b) the dicho- tomy between rich and poor countries seen as a maldistribution between different economic and political sectors, and (c) the contrast between different ideologies of social change (e.g., industrialization through state capital investment versus market capital investment) (Aron, 1967). Each of these sources leads to a different definition of development - a growth in production of goods and services, change from traditional village crafts to modern urban factories, or the application of capital to promote exploitation of resources. Underlying all of these views of development is a concept of quantification or measurement of the indicators of modernization.

At one time, reasearch on development was dominated by the convergence theory (e.g., Goode, 1963). This perspective proposes that as countries are industrialized, they increasingly resemble highly developed societies in their family, kinship ties, and other basic institutional arrangements. Further study of development, however, has raised serious questions about the usefulness of convergence theory (Form, 1972). The papers in this journal issue suggest an alternative approach to the convergence theory of development.

The limited ability of measures of modernization to explain processes of development has given rise to a concern with the adequacy of existing theories

♦The editors are indebted to Salvador M. Calderon for preparation of the Spanish translations of the abstracts and to Debbie Suit for typing assistance. »♦Department of Sociology, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona 85281, U.S.A. Vol. XVII No. 2 (Summer 1986)



152 Journal of Comparative Family Studies

of social change. Raymond Boudon (1983) has enumerated a series of reasons for the failure of sociological theories to account for the kinds of modifications that have occurred in modernization. He argues that four postulates lie at the root of this failure.

(a) "The structural postulates" alludes to the assumption in some theories of social change that certain structural features are "essential to the detection and explanation of the main trends of social change" (Boudon, 1983:151). These features are believed by the theorist to be so compelling in producing change that all other factors and data can be neglected (Boudon, 1983:153). From this perspective, it is possible to argue that particular types of structure are associated with given processes of change. However, Boudon argues that the theorists mistake the mental constructs that they identify as structural features for "reality" itself. Because these features are artificial, their power to explain social change is limited.

(b) "The postulate of the coherence of social structure" refers to the assumption that "the various features which can be identified and isolated in a society tend to be coherent with one another" (Boudon, 1983:144). According to this assumption, modernization is dominant, and through convergence it progressively affects all elements in a social system. Boudon suggests, however, that, opposed to this tendency, toward consistency, the interdependence of these features may result instead in strain or conflict among them.

(c) According to the "ontological postulate" certain identifiable categories of variables (that is, "sectors of reality") are "the main determinants of change" (Boudon, 1983:155). Such determinants are described as social constraints, forces, or pressures that are, in the final analysis, responsible for setting off and giving direction to societal change. However, Boudon conceives of change "as the product of the aggregation of [sequential] individual actions" in which "interaction effects and feedback effects make it difficult" to identify initial social determinants (Boudon, 1983:155).

(d) "The nomological postulate" assumes the existence of regularity and order in social phenomena. In practice, "the main objective of the social sciences is to produce conditional statements of universal validity" (Boudon, 1983:148). Boudon's counterproposal is that singular evidence is extended to unjustified generality. For example, theorists tend to associate industrialization with the emergence of "the conjugal family" form. Boudon (1983:149) suggests, however, that "the effect of industrialization on the structure of the family is highly dependent on the context. In some cases, the effect goes in one direction; in others, in the opposite direction."

From Boudon's perspective, the presence of these postulates in theories of social change limits their ability to explain patterns of actual development. These postulates characterize ideal rather than actual conditions of change; they assume that development can be adequately conceptualized as a "natural" phenomenon, completely independent of intended action. Following Alexander



Introduction: Kinship and Development 153

(1981), they belong to that class of social theories that explain normative order. A second class seeks to explain social action. In contrast to theories of social order, a theory of change based on social action, implies that development occurs as people try to reconstruct the features of their society either through an aggregate of individual actions or through collective action. In any case, the focus of understanding shifts from a search for "natural" regularities to questions about the ways (either individually or collectively) that people go about the task of reconstructing their patterns of social relationships. We suggest, therefore, that one solution to the problems raised by Boudon is the transforma- tion of these postulates from statements of regularities in social change into hypothetical modes of reconstructing social relationships.

DEVELOPMENT AS SOCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

The potentials of a reconstruction paradigm have long been recognized by sociologists. For example, Karl Mannheim (1940) was a principal proponent of the position that social change inheres in reconstructing the rules and institutions of a society. Living in a period in which fascism, totalitarianism, and world-wide war dominated existence, Mannheim was particularly concerned with the problem of how societies could be reconstructed in a democratic, rational manner. But, as Merton (1956) and others have observed, rationality has its limits, and any series of actions- individual or collective - generates numerous unintended consequences. Yet, the matter does not stop with unintended consequences. The state of affairs yielded by these consequences stimulates further efforts at social reconstruction. The result is a continuing cycle of social reconstruction.

If development is no longer interpreted as being a "natural" phenomenon, but is viewed instead as social action, the postulates in social change theories must also be re-interpreted. In the theories of social change discussed by Boudon, the postulates refer to methodological presuppositions of social scientists. As hypothetical modes of social reconstruction, these same postulates refer to ways by which people transform their way of life. The central problem in applying these postulates as modes of social reconstruction is to determine the specific transformations that take place as people try to resolve anew impedi- ments to the maintenance of order.

Societies undergoing technological development generally face severe threats to the existing social order. The papers in this collection portray concrete ways of reconstructing family life and kinship structures growing out of societal development. Accordingly, we propose the translation of Boudon's methodological postulates into the following modes of social reconstruction :

a. The Structural Postulate

The structural postulate refers to the way "essential" structural relation-

ships are transformed to maintain social continuity (e.g., relationships of production; relationships of social reproduction, that is, family and kinship). Specifically, the structural postulate suggests a hierarchy of structural influence



154 Journal of Camparative Family Studies

in a society. This postulate assumes a pervasive influence of one feature of social structure in a society. For example, one can regard capitalism as elevat- ing market relationships to the point where it epitomizes all social relationships in the society- marriage is seen as the trading of goods and services between husband and wife, parent-child relations are negotiable, family roles are viewed as maximizing utility. In contrast to this arrangement is the demand society, in which economic and political policies are centralized. Under these conditions, social relationships may be defined through a lens of legitimate limitations on claims by others, for example, the limits of spousal demands, parental demands, and child demands. The way that this lens (or to use a grammatical metaphor, this metonym) is transformed in the course of industrialization has received little attention in research on family and kinship.

Perhaps the reason for this neglect is found in the paper by Andrejs Plakans. In his paper, Plakans examines the problem of relating industrialization or the centralization of political institutions to kinship structures. In studying these relationships in European history, Plakans finds that, for the most part, the records necessary to test these relationships are absent. Plakans notes that "as far as pre-industrial and industrializing Europe is concerned, the identification of kinship ties must start with evidence chat takes the form of nominal-level single-year censuses or continuous records of vital events." There are few documents which one can use to analyze systematically either (a) extensive genealogical ties through maternal descent or (b) the quality of kinship ties. Since the historical and theoretical ramifications of the connections among industrialization, political centralization, and kinship are probably very broad, Plakans suggests that, rather than abandoning the problems of research, we revise our definitions of the relevant structures of kinship in order to devise fruitful analyses.

The challenge of Plakans is to reformulate kinship propositions in ways that will work with available historical evidence. But more than that, his challenge calls for theoretical insights into structural arrangements which will impart to the existing data base the kinds of understanding that will draw meaningful connections among economic, political, and kinship transformations. Thus, meeting this challenge means a revision not only of conceptions about kinship structure, but also a re-interpretation of the very concepts of industrialization and political centralization themselves.

b. The Coherence Postulate

The coherence postulate is operative insofar as people seek to integrate structural features in a consistent manner (e.g., rearranging kinship claims consistent with demands of the econonomic system or vice versa). In fact, the coherence of social structure, instead of being postulated is to be seen as problematic. Changes are regarded as introducing problem situations with numerous possible solutions (e.g., contradictions between existing family structure and new economic relationships). The extent to which there is a strain toward consistency will undoubtedly rest upon the conceptions people hold of



Introduction: Kinship and Development 155

family life and the perceptions of materialism. Insofar as both are considered equally important, people have much motivation for revising the rules governing them in a coherent fashion. Thus, one sees in India (as portrayed in the Ramu paper) the establishment of a tax structure which fosters family partnerships.

In a study of the Marwaris (a money-lending caste from Marwar), Ramu demonstrates how a group of families exploit opportunities provided by tax laws to move from money-lending to retail trade, banking, and factory owner- ship. By favoring the joint family rather than the individual, Indian income and inheritance tax policies foster solidarity among kin despite the appearance of smaller households and increasing geographic mobility.

Opposed to the Indian mode of coherence between family and economy is the situation shown in the paper by Оке on the Nigerian family. In Nigeria, the relationships between family and kinship structures fand political and economic needs are reported as highly flexible. Sometimes family and kinship follow traditional norms and are subordinated to economic and political relationships. On the other hand, Оке reports the avoidance of kinship responsibilities among upwardly socially mobile individuals; among these individuals, it is only when political power or economic aide are required that efforts are made to coordinate family and civil relationships.

The contrast between the Indian and Nigerian kinship structures suggests that integration be regarded as a normative, rather than a "natural" process. The Indians have developed integrative political structures to coordinate kinship and economic actions (e.g., the tax structure), while the Nigerians have not replaced previously existing bridges between family and civil society; instead, the Nigerians live with a dual set of structures- invoking either set as the situation demands.

Insofar as coherence between structures facilitates development (e.g., Weber's Protestant ethic; Alexander, 1984), one can anticipate that where people are inclined to establish integrative norms, development will proceed at a more rapid rate than where dual sets of contradictory traditions are permitted to persist. In her contribution to this issue, Ekong suggests that this coherence can be achieved by taking into consideration the process of "ethnic industrialization." Again examining development in Nigeria, Ekong argues that development occurs differentially among three Nigerian ethnic groups, the Igbo, the Yoruba, and the Ibibio. Each group experiences development in a manner consistent with its own social and cultural history and structure. According to the concept "ethnic industrialization," integrated development is achieved by utilizing indigenous skills and customs, ineluding those pertaining to kinship. Therefore, Ekong argues for the development of national agro-industries that would make use of local products and that would be structured to be consistent with the cycle of indigenous farming.

c. The Ontological Postulate The ontological postulate refers to the working out of the multitude of




social constraints, cross-pressures, and social forces of the various social groups and aggregates involved in the compromises in attaining competitive goals (e.g., the cross-pressures in goals related to socioeconomic status, norms about the welfare of the family and kin, religious prescriptions, citizenship, and so on). From the perspective of social reconstruction, the ontological postulate is a complex version of attribute theory developed in social psychology. This theory derives from an attempt to determine conditions under which people choose among alternative courses of action (e.g., internal versus external attribution of "cause," choice among conflicting loyalties).

In this journal issue, Foster examines whether, in a Thai farming village near Bangkok, there are indications of a decline of the stem family form over a ten-year period, from 1971 to 1981. During that decade, the village had undergone several important changes - the introduction of modern transporta- tion, and increasing number of residents commuting to jobs elsewhere, a growing money economy, and perhaps most significant, an expanding population. In this analysis, Foster focuses on the methodological problems in ascertain- ing whether distinctions in the village between composite and nuclear family households derive from the demographic processes or from norms in household composition. He shows that changes in household composition over the decade are fully accounted for by the domestic cycle and that there is no indication that the stem family form is declining. The influence of contact with external, Urban ways of life is apparently subordinate to the internal, village forces.

Benoit, Levy, and Vimard, in their contribution to the journal, deal with a concern somewhat similar to that of Foster. Their research on household types in South Togo compares the household structure in a traditional region in South-East Togo with that of families engaged in a commercial plantation economy on the Dayes Plateau. They find that the presence of collateral kin in the household has little to do with social-demographic variables (such as age, education, and occupational level). Instead, they find that villagers on the Dayes Plateau have the highest percentages of composite households. Moreover, these composite households are found most frequently among the older established Ahlon and Ewe ethnic-group landowners in the villages* Yet, these composite households tend to be most frequent in households charac- terized by marital instability. By way of contrast, the lowest percentages of composite households occur among the South East Tongons, generally among farm families. A preponderance of nuclear households occurs among the most recent migrants to the Dayes Plateau, the Kabye farmers, who tend to have stable marriages.

Taken together, the Thai and Togo data suggest that one must be cautious in attributing composite household structures to traditional kinship. For the Togo, the composite household structures seem to represent efforts to counter the effects of marital instability; for the Thai, composite households seem to provide a means for countering urban influences. Thus, the Togo and the Thai appear to use similar strctures to serve different goals of kinship.



Introduction : Kinship and Development 157

d. The Nomologie*! Postulate

The nomological postulate is relevant for identifying consequences of the strategies that people develop in adapting to observable changes or problematic situations, such as the separation, of the domicile from production, The nomological mode of analysis of social change suggests the use of models in forming solutions to the problems of development. Accordingly, some countries apply a Marxist model in social reconstruction; others use the United States; still others follow different traditions. In a sense, the models provide a basis for a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In their paper, Mogey and Bachmann report on the family consequences of the dispersal of industry versus the concentration of factories in urban centers in Senegal. They find that industrial dispersal in the villages reduces the impact of traditional family structures on the way of life, but that under conditions of centralization of industry, the intermittent migration of men to work in cities enhances the importance of family ties in the village. However, the consequence of centralization of industry in cities in Senegal, which has resulted in a commu- ter, target work force, is quite different from that in Nigeria, which follows the European model, where centralization has stimulated much family migration to cities. In Senega], centralization has fostered traditional tribal ties back in the village, whereas, in Nigeria, centralization has fostered the severing of ties with the village.

CONCLUSION

Theorists have approached problems of development both from the idea of the breakdown of a pre-existing social order and from the behavior of individuals facing new opportunities brought about through growth, progress, or change. Theories that focus on social order often utilize the anomie, disor- ganization, and turmoil of change (Berger, Berger, & Kellner, 1973: Chodák, 1973). However, theories that focus upon social action emphasize the opportunities for achieving new life styles offered to individuals and their families.

This collection of papers represents the latter approach to development. By reconceptualizing Boudon's four methodological postulates of theories of social change, we re-interpret these postulates as guidelines that people apply in order to reconstruct their social worlds. Although the papers in this issue derive from diverse methodological strategies, they are complementary in their recognition of the social exercise of reconstruction (that is, the activity of remodeling social structures to meet problems fostered by the introduction of new elements in social relations). From this perspective, we are able to argue that development encompasses more than simply a collective march through time which can be assessed merely by measuring differences between historic moments. Rather, based on a perspective of social reconstruction, analyses can be sensitive to (a) changes in social institutions, such as family and kinship, as well as (b) the resilience of these institutions in the face of change. With these points in mind, we suggest that future research on the




relationship between kinship and development might utilize effectively the social reconstruction model. Potential avenues of exploration might include:

1. The levels on which social reconstruction occurs. Although it is difficult to conceptualize development without, at least by implication, a beginning and an end, the social reconstruction model encourages an interactive perspective which examines the levels upon which reconstruction occurs and the interaction between these levels. The Parsonian trichotomy of the cultural, social, and personal levels provides a useful starting point. From this vantage point, the processes of reconstruction can be traced through industrialization and urbanization on the cultural level, the family on the institutional level, and life-styles on the personal level. In this way, social reconstruction assumes both macro-and micro-level expressions. In terms of the family, for example, one can consider the ways individuals reconstruct living arrangements which are tied to altered patterns of inheritance rules. Alternatively, research could focus on the ways in which inheritance patterns are reconstructed in the face of problematic situations associated with changes in economic relations.

2. The persistence of the family in the face of change. The nuclear family model is often associated with industrialization and urbanization. Recent research questions the accuracy of this description by suggesting both that the nuclear family form predominated prior to industrialization (Laslett, 1972) and that the extended family persisted (and perhaps prevailed) during the process of industrialization (Anderson, 1971; Hareven, 1982; Sennett, 1974). These observations prompt the question, "How can the predominant family form be both nuclear and extended during this era"?

Social reconstruction as a method offers a potentially useful solution to this dilemma. Conceptualizing family conduct in terms of the reconstructive efforts of its members permits analysts to encompass the diversity of responses to changes in technology and other elements of modernization. Generally, urban expansion in developing societies is predicated on the breakdown of corporate kinship and the emergence of the nuclear family. Residential neighborhoods have been planned as a conglomeration of nuclear family households, unrelated to one another. Under such conditions, families often reconstruct ties to their close relatives despite the barriers of the free market housing economy: migrants move in with relatives at least temporarily (Anderson, 1971), periodic visits are made to the home village, clan structures are maintained (Bruner, 1963). Laslett (1972) has suggested that the patterns of urban growth in the West have been influenced by the particular history of Western Europe and the breakdown of feudalism. But detriballzation is not a necessary concomitant of modernization (Chodak, 1973). What would happen in developing countries if policy makers and urban planners took into account the diversity of the ways in which people reconstruct kinship ties?

3. Parent-child relations . The papers in this issue do not address the issue of parent-child relations specifically in terms of socialization. Yet, this dimen-



Introduction : Kinship and Development 159

sion of family life is a crucial element in modernization of developing societies. Patterns of authority associated with the social relationships of work seem to carry over into the family and the training of children (Kohn, 1969). With increasing specialization, one would expect a greater diversity in work relationships and, consequently, in family and kinship relationships. Indeed, one might suggest that the growing heterogeneity of living arrangements in American society is associated with changes in the workplace in the post- industrial age. How the emerging diversity of living arrangements is associated with the reconstruction of the bonds of kinship and with devising different modes of socialization needs to be explored.

The introduction suggests that the concept of ''social reconstruction" evokes important questions about the relationship between kinship and modernization in developing societies. This collection of papers does not provide definitive ans- wers to these questions. However, it does challenge the reader to avoid sortie of the pitfalls described by Boudon (1983) by viewing societal development as "social action" rather than as a "natural" occurrence- It is for that purpose that we offer the papers in this issue.

REFERENCES

Alexander, Jeffery 1981 "Revolution, reaction and reform: The change theory of Parsons' middle period."

Sociological Inquiry 51: 267-280.

Alexander, Jeflery 1984 "Social-structural analysis: Some notes on its history and prospects." Sociological

Quarterly 25: 5-26.

Anderson, Michael M. 1971 Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire. New York: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Berger, Peter L., Brigette Berger, and Hans Kellner 1973 The Homeless Mind: Modernization and Consciousness. New York: Random

House.

Boudon, Raymond 1983 "Why theories of social change fail: Some methodological thoughts." Public Opinion

Quarterly 47: 143-160. Bruner, Edward M.

1966 "Medan: The role of kinship in an Indonesian city." Pp. 418-426 in Bernard Färber (ed.), Kinship and Family Organization. New York: Wiley.

Cohdak, Szymon 1973 Societal Development: Five Approaches with Conclusion from Comparative Analysis.

New York: Oxford University Press.

Form, William 1972 "Technology and social behavior of workers in four countries: A sociotechnical

perspective." American Sociological Review 37: 727-738.

Goode, William J 1963 World Revolution and Family Patterns. New York: Free Press.




Hareven, Tamara 1982 Family Time and Industrial Time. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kohn, Melvin 1969 Class and Conformity. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.

Laslett, Peter 1972 " Introduction: History of the family." Pp. 1-89 in Peter Laslett and Richard Wall

(eds.) Household and Family in Past Time. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mannheim, Karl 1940 Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. London: Routledge.

Merton, Robert K. 1956 Social Theory and Social Structure. New York; Free Press.

Sennett, Richard 1974 The Family Against the City. New York: Random House (Vintage Books).



Documents

KINSHIP AND DEVELOPMENT || Introduction: Kinship and Development