1 kinship and complexity advances in kinship analysis douglas r. white october 24, 2008 kinship...
Post on 15-Jan-2016
216 views
TRANSCRIPT
1
Kinship and ComplexityAdvances in Kinship Analysis
Douglas R. White
October 24, 2008
Kinship Computing & Complexity: Cohesion, Class, and Community
2
0. OutlineI Consequences and causes of Structural Endogamy
(marriage cycles forming bicomponents)
II Constituent elements of Structural Endogamy
(census and overlaps of marriage cycles)
III Mappings onto Networks and further findings
IV Unsolved problems
V Conclusions: Tying it all together
3
1. Define a graph
that represents how marriages form cycles
(P-graphs and P-systems)
4
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
•A marriage node includes the husband and wife as an
embedded graph
•i.e., a P-system
5
2. This representation captures
independent nuclear families,
networks of marriage between them
how families form descent groups
marriages within and between them
6
3. Now link this representation
to actual marriage network data
7
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, Tipp), 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)
8
4. What are the properties
of how marriages form cycles?
they form bicomponents =maximal sets of nodes, in which each pair is connected in two or
more independent ways
9
This is a bicomponent with no cut-point and with two+ independent paths between every node pair.
By Menger’s theorem, these are equivalent.
It has 8 independent cycles m-n+1 m=24 edges (parent-child) n=17 nodes (couples)
10
This is a bicomponent with no cut-point and with two+ independent paths between every node.
It’s also ORDERED, by a time dimension, through generations.
It has 8 independent cycles m-n+1 m edges n nodes
FZDDFZDFZ MZD
MBD MMZDDZDDD
Generation 5
And 8 corresponding named cycles
WB
11
Ancestral generation 1
Generation 2
Generation 3
Generation 4
FZDDFZDFZ MZD
MBD MMZDDZDDD
Generation 5
The 8 constituent marriage cycles of the bicomponent
(PART II)
WB
12
Mapping data onto networks• Migration• Residence• Wealth owned• Heirship--- PART III• Kin Behaviors• Kin Terms &
Products in relation to marriage
• By structural endogamy
• By generation time-series, patrilineages, matrilineages
• By viri-sides, uxori-sides
Analyses of such data can be crossed:
13
e.g., Data about kin behavior (III)
• Kin behaviors mapped by kin type/kin term– Avoidance– Sexual Prohibition– Respect– Informality– Joking– Privileged sexual relation
• Associated expectations– (additional features for a given society)
14
5. Bicomponents (I), asmaximal sets of marriages, each pair
connected in two independent ways,…
... identify the boundaries of structural endogamy (& so - define a new term).
This talk will focus on the consequences and causes of these units – part of the implicate order of structural endogamy.
15
The idea of consequences is that structurally endogamous units define the local
boundaries of one or more implicate order groups that gain cohesion or are the cause
of cohesion, such as: religious groups, social class, ethnicities, stayers versus
migrants, endo-clans, factions, regions of exchange, etc. The consequences may run
from or to structural endogamy as implicated in the actions or activities of
those inside or outside the group.
16
E.g., 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
Jacob and Esau are included in the main unit of structural endogamy
17
6. This Middle-Eastern Example
shows for marriages with relatives by common descent (here, same patrilineage) and membership in a founding religious group (Judiasm).
So …
by way of contrast:
18
7. Apply marriage bicomponents to a European town
(here, no blood marriages)
How do marriage cycles and structural endogamy have
consequences in this case?
Relinkings are marriages that reconnect 1 or more families
19
with heirship
THE NEXT SLIDES WILL TREAT THESE
Feistritz, Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking
20
Feistritz, Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking (no blood marriages)
8. There are consequences but not that heirs marry heirs – its THOSE IN THE BICOMPONENT WHO DO RELINK BECOME THE HEIRS
Attribute endogamy = e.g., heirs marry heirsPearson’s R = .15
21
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy
9. This is social class constituted by marital relinking
The
Time
Dimens ion
1970
1520
22
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy by affinal relinking
10. BUT IS IT JUST RANDOM CHOICES THAT CREATE THE MARRIAGE BICOMPONENT IN THIS TOWN? OR IS THIS BEHAVIOR TARGETED AND INTENTIONAL?
23
Feistritz Austria – structural endogamy
(i.e., bicomponent) with heirship 11. Pearson’s R = .54
24
12. Here is a test of randomness as “non-intentional behavior” for
each generation
For each generation,permute the marriages
randomly
25
For example, take these three generations and permute the red lines so existing marriage and child positions are occupied
26
27
28
29
30
31
Random in all higher generations 3+
13. Comparing Feistritz actual to simulated rnd relinking frequencies:- Relinking frequency >>
random back 1 and 2 generations, those where there is most knowledge & availability
32
14. We look next at Arabized Turkish Nomads, similar in structure to the
Canaanites, and show how a similar implicate order of structural
endogamy applies to how lineages are linked into clans, and
consequences for those who stay and those who leave the clan.
33
Turkish nomads
Names of members
allmembers
Black=patri-Descent linesBlue=female lines
34
Turkish nomads
SCALING
All known members but many have emigrated
dotted= female lines
Black=patri-descent lines
35
Turkish nomads: Relinking only (Structural Endogamy)
Stayers in the community ~ cohesive core
Relinking +yes no
160 14 Stay
18 71 Leave
Pearson’s R =.73
Dotted=female lines
Black=patri-Descent lines
36
15. Cycles within Structural Endogamy (II)A 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
FFZSD FFBSD FZD MBD FBD
# of couples
# of kin types
37
Cycles within Structural Endogamy (II) log-logA 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
38
16. We look next at the Omaha, where chiefly elites are stratified
and do not relink with other social strata. Their structural endogamy is
fragmented early on into factions and decays in later generations.
39
Omaha Genealogies – Chiefs and Siblings – no relinking of chiefly lines:- disconnected
ELK CLAN
40
Omaha – top 4 generations - structural endogamy weak
Five disconnected components in the top four generations: sizes 643, 46, 38, 29, 15
Bicomponents of sizes 141, 4
41
Omaha – all generations – structural endogamy
42
Omaha – 8 generations – disintegration
43
Omaha – loss of structural endogamy
OmahaBicomponent
relinking marriages
Non-relinked singles
Total
Generation Levels 1 early
8 late
1 29 41.40% 41 58.60% 70
2 50 32.90% 102 67.10% 152
3 60 22.60% 205 77.40% 265
4 36 12.70% 248 87.30% 284
5 18 8.70% 188 91.30% 206
6 7 15.60% 38 84.40% 45
7 3 17.60% 14 82.40% 17
8 1 4.80% 20 95.20% 21
Relinking marriages decrease in later generations
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
44
17. The age-bias simulation problem (IV – Unsolved)
• The current random-simulation of marriage solution assumes that persons in the same structural generation have a uniform age distributions, a biased assumption.
• But if there are Hu-Wife age differences, then successive WiBr linkages generate younger and younger men in the same structural generation, as seen for the actual Alyawarra case where ages are known, next slide.
45
Systemic age differences of wives and husbands compli-cates generational simulation: Alyawarra of Australia
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
G8
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
G7
Key: Vertical black lines male descent, red dots, females: the generations are sloped (pink and blue) in a P-graph.
46
18. Solutions to the simulation problem• (Problem here is that “same generation” WiBr chains are
not a group of contemporaries but stretched in time)• Simulation for Alyawarra and similar examples can
be done considering male and females to have different average generational time, α and ß, where Δ= ß-α is the average age preference Δ ± ε for a younger spouse. We can get ß/α ratios without knowing actual ages. Varying α, ß, ε, these parameters define marriage-age probability distributions for simulations where wives can come from different generations.
• E.g., given section rules for marriage in Australia, different parameter ranges, generate varying distributions of marriage types and configurations of successive and branching WiBr chains.
47
Daughters are moving to husbands in groups that are “adjacent” in a flow of directed (asymmetric, “generalized”) exchange. The flow of personnel, however, like a terracing model, also has constrained alternative flows. All these elements allow more generalizable probabilistic modeling.
48
That is• Inside the structurally endogamous group we have• A “random” distribution of simulated types of
marriage, constrained by age-bias parameters and section rules and the
• Compared to the actual distribution of types of marriage
• And that actual distribution might be a function of the age-biases.
• An implicate order relation between the macro parameters of the structural endogamy group and its micro patterns of marriage-type frequencies, e.g. MBD, FZD, MMBDD, etc.
49
Advances and Benefits• Network Visualization of Kinship• Variables for testing theory• The coherent probabilistic approach that is
needed can include not only comparisons against the null hypothesis, as shown, but bootstrap inferential methods for testing complex models of kinship structure, given discrete constraints where they occur (strict Australian section rules, or incest prohibitions).
50
V Conclusions: Tying it all together – Back to II: Constituent Elements of Structural Endogamy
Ethnographers characterize marriage systems by “rules” of preferential behavior. This may be sufficient for some societies, E.g., which cousin marriages are favored over others.
Networks show a much broader range of marriage behaviors in most cases, e.g., Australia, East Asia, Africa. There are complex distributions of behavioral frequencies – e.g., power laws for blood marriage frequencies (Middle East) or for broad in-law relinking cycles (Europe) – and demographic constraints and factors like relative marriage ages that alter marriage probabilities. A coherent probabilistic approach is both possible and needed. Why is this important?
Because structural endogamy and cohesion has huge social consequences that need to be properly understood.
51
afterword
Local structure -- ranging from marriage-type rules and frequencies to the appearance of nuclear families as autonomous -- may be part of an implicate order of wholeness within structural endogamy.
Though not explored, structurally endogamous groups could be part of a larger implicate order.
52
53
It’s also ORDERED, by a time dimension, through generations.
Ancestral generation 1
Generation 2
Generation 3
Generation 4
FZDDFZDFZ MZD
MBD MMZDDZDDD
Generation 5
The 8 constituent marriage cycles of the bicomponent
(PART II)
WB
54
Larger view
Local structure, ranging from marriage rules to the appearance of nuclear families as autonomous, may be part of an implicate order of wholeness within structural endogamy, and structurally endogamous groups part of a larger implicate order.
55
18. Solutions to the simulation problem
• (Problem here is that “same generation” is not a group of contemporaries but stretched in time)
• With known ages of marriage data, simulation for Alyawarra and similar examples can be done considering marriages “filled” sequentially in time, 1-by-1, from marriageable-age probability distributions.
• Where actual ages are unknown, can they be estimated from successive WiBr chains and guesstimates from ethnographers of average Hu-Wife age differences?