Talk:Kinship and descent

Something that could add to this page is having a link or site to a program or web address so that people could search their ancestors and find their family tree. I would really like this and I think that if people new that they could find their family tree it might attract more people to come to www.wikipedia.com.

Something interesting that could be added in the future, is Genetic; based on Mitochondria and Y chromosomes. Scientists are now researching lineages around the world, so that people can see who their anceint ancestors were. Males Continue on the Y Chromosome Lineage, and Females pass on Mitochondrion Lineages, which are unbroken chains, unless their is a new mutation, resulting in a new lineage. Males can directly trace an ancient mother and father, while females can trace a ancient mother with their personal DNA (females could use their brother's or father's DNA).

Merge

"Kinship and Descent" is a designation that makes the American POV cultural assumption that kinship is based on blood relationship (Schneider 1984) is one of many who critique this position. Its would be a major mistake to classify the category kinship under an exclusively American POV. German, French, and British anthropology, among others, define kinship as including marriage and descent, and this was the view of one of the founders of american anthropology, L.H. Morgan. Schneider's critique of kinship theory in his study of American kinship makes precisely this point. Don't go there: this category should be abolished for greater generality, and the best option is to merge with Kinship which was just rewritten with this greater generality in mind.Douglas R. White (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a number of pages that could probably be better served by merging them and I think this page would be the appropriate destination. They're all fairly short, some are just definitions. Matrilineality is the only one of any length, but I also think a good portion of it should be moved to more relevant pages. Ewlyahoocom 07:38, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about most of them, but I don't think phratry should be. There's far too much in the way of ancient Greece specific political ramifications that need to be discussed on that page, and I'm going to go expand it right now. Robth^Talk 21:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think such a merge would produce a jelly-like mass of quivering nonsense; entirely fragmented and unreadable. Each article that you are suggesting should be merged into this one should be expanded until they serve as stand-alone pieces. --Oldak Quill 11:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Re - matrilineal and patrilineal) I think that the articles should remain seperate. They are distinct and opposite to me. Such would be akin to having an article on black and white or something like that. Charles 18:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it should be mentioned with a few short and consice sentances with a "for more info on patrilinialit (p) see: "x" article. if not the other article just gets way to convoluted and someone looking up "p" on its own might have a hard time. i think fluidity is importantismo. 67.150.63.109 03:45, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's pretty well decided that the purpose of Wikipedia isn't to glom every bit of information on a subject into one article—else, why not just have one article titled "Knowledge"? While some things should certainly be merged, I don't think there's a particularly good case for any of the suggestions on this article. And as all those templates are an eyesore, I'll remove them for the time being. Czoller 14:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Douglas White that no article should provide solely an American POV. However, I do not think that is relevant to the question of merger. Let me put it another way: either this article should be renamed, Descent groups and should be one of a series of very focused articles on specific themes relating to kinship broadly conceived, or there should be one article on kinship, which explains ideas of kinship broadly conceived and then covers all major topics related to kinship, including descent groups. I favor the merger, in part precisely because it makes it easier to explain debates over the relationship between kinship and biological relatedness. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.kinshipstudies.org

Hello folks,

Please consider linking my website www.kinshipstudies.org to the Wikipedia articles on kinship. It contains a comprehensive bibliography of kinship studies in various fields. Thanks for all your work. 171.64.39.35 03:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Caste

Caste is complex enough to merit a separate article, but should it be mentioned in this article as well? Castes (jati) in India seem to be, in most cases, groups of lineages that trace to a common ancestor (frequently mythological). The two systems (lineage and caste) are intertwined as the lineages and sub-lineages under castes are often arranged in a sort of hierarchy (which can, however, change). I'm not sure if this means that caste is a type of kinship term. Maybe caste is more of a social organization term, and in India it just happens to correspond with lineages or clans. I am a scholar of Indian history, so I don't know much about the anthropology view on these subjects. --152.3.85.160 04:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote against merger!

I believe that this topic is unique enough to maintain as a separate article. Linking to the other related articles is sufficient.

--68.221.51.114 19:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree; while some articles will never become huge (phratry comes to mind) it is still useful to have them stand alone to allow the reader to look at these very separate concepts separately - with this page to link them together and provide context/intro/direction. Keeping it separate thus prevents confusing the reader, and also prevents what could otherwise become one ginormous unwieldy Kinship article (which could in theory take into itself half the articles dealing with anthropology) eek...Bridesmill 01:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since these mergers have been proposed for sometime, and there seems to be relative agreement against them, I'm going to remove all the proposals. Peyna 19:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

huh?

deleted: "The notion of the nuclear family has been largely dismissed, as have other theories which argue for a universal core unit of kinship."

Benwing 02:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions - apical ethnicity

Logic for splitting the diference among what appears to be a revert war that is splitting hairs.... a. use wording non-anthropologists understand - 'apical' is not a word the average lay person will understand, so why confuse the masses; especially as there's no article for it yet (wonder if there ven needs to be other than wiktionary...) b. not stray too far off topic - we're talking about 'apical' here - in other words, within the same ethnicity, non?

Please lets discuss with some logic & reasoning before reuming the reverts...thanks Bridesmill 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained myself thoroughly. Ethnicity and Kinship/Descent are not only related articles, the concepts themselves are very intertwined. Kinship and Descent is one of the pillars of ethnic identification and varying aspects of it are found in the vast majority of ethnic groups around the world. Rubenstein has a bias and extremist POV against this for some odd reason. There is no reason why the link shouldn't be included in this article, especially since a link to Kinship and Descent is found in the Ethnicity article itself. This is ridiculous, honestly. Epf 01:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Sorry, but the tagging quite explicitly proposes a merger. One which was decided against last summer, and one which nobody has commented in favour of since March of this year when it was re-proposed by someone who didn't even care to explain why (and nobody else has either). It took me a while to find your explanation - the fact it became a one-on-one discussion between you and user:Slrubenstein rather than on this talk page implies its more personal than the open, public, and professional discussion it should be. Your argument re relationship betweenkinship & ethnicity has merit; but rather than simply adding the "see also" perhaps there should be a short (cited) explanation of how they tie together (otherwise to lay folk it can have a bit of a POVvy eugenic connotation). Hopefully that will make everyone happy?Bridesmill 01:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean 'eugenic connotation' ? I didn't see any of that whatsoever personally. Anyway, I wll provide the quotes. The sources for the definition of ethnic group itself show the key role of common descent (and associated traits) in ethnic identification. The Kinship and Descent system is a major part of the foundation of the common origins for most ethnic groups.Epf 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epf is just making things up. Kinship and descent theory is not related to ethnicity. They are two separate domains of anthropological theory and refer to distinct social phenomena. My only bais is towards adequately representing established fields of knowledge. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Two distinct social phenomena" ? What are you talking about ? Kinship and Descent is key to the formation of most ethnic groups and so therefore the topics (though obviously not the same) are clearly related. Both of these 'social phenomena' also include a biological and familial relatedness. Most ethnic groups in the world are not non-exclusive and Kinship and Descent (Common Origins) plays an integral role. Stop pushing your own propoganda. Epf 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a theory among anthropologists that in some larger non-state societies, people orgnanize themselves into corporate groups i.e. membership involves rights to certain property, usually land or cattle, sometimes ritual knowledge. According to this theory (which is not universally held by anthropologists) membership in a group most commonly takes one of two forms: one automatically belongs to one's mother's group, or to one's father's groups. Less commonly, one may belong to one's father's group for some property, and one's mother's for other property. Even less commonly, one choses to which parent's group one will belong after puberty. The name - that is, the anthropologist's name - for this group is "lineage." Members of the same group claim descent from a common ancestor, and this is the "apical" ancestor - it is a term of anthropological theory. Note that the lineage is a social not biological organization and the apical ancestor plays a social function i.e. people of different lineages may have common ancestors. Also in most systems people may belong to a lineage without being descended -literally - from the apical ancestor. That anthropologists have claimed that certain societies are organized according to these principles is uncontroversial, but anthropologists have long debaed the precise definition of these terms and several have questioned whether they really exist or have any meaning at all. The classic sources on the topic are E.E. Evans Pritchard's The Nuer and Myer fortas's The Web of Kinship Among the Tallensi. In both books it is clear that lineages are not ethnic groups. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get condescending please. I teach this stuff. Nobody here is arguing that lineage=ethnic group. the pont is that kinship groups are the founding seeds of ethnic groups. Bridesmill 02:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not mean to be condescending - I did mean to explain myself as clearly as possible without assuming any prior knowledge on the part of readers. As for kinship groups being the founding seeds of ethnic groups, I do not know of anyone who makes that argument. I think Ronald Cohen, Joan Vincent and Frederick Barth, three major theorists of ethnicity, would reject it. I know Fortas and Evans Pritchard debated the nature of the ethnic boundary between Nuer and Kinka and i think Sarah Hutchenson's new analysis of the Nuer would reject your claim. Fried's essay on the Tribe explicitly rejects your claim. Much work on ethnicity especially by Eric Wolf and Ernest Gellner and Marvin Harris and others see ethnic groups forming out of societies that were not organized by kinship, certainly not lineages, and most definitely not apical ancestors. Wolf and Cole's classic study of ethnicity, The Hidden Frontier, makes no claims about lineages or apical ancestors for example. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that in the 1950s students of Talcott Parsons, notably Edward Shils and Clifford Geertz, argued that ethnicity was based on kinship. My argument is that this was never the mainstream view of anthropologists and it has pretty much been rejected since it was proposed in the 1950s. The edited volume by Guidieri, Pellizzi, and Tambiah, Ethnicities and Nations, provides a far more up-to-date review of mainstream anthropological views. I would have no objection in the ethnicity article to adding a sentence or two stating the Shihls/Geertz position, as long as it as made plain that research since, summed up in review essays by Cohen and Brackett Williams (verifiable notable sources) relegate that position to the past. But in this article on kinship and descent, well, ethnicity was simply never a significant element in debates over kinship theory. i can't think of an example. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rubenstein, your agenda pushing by re-wording and inaccurately citing sources is astounding (you continue to be exposed of this, so why do you continue with it ?). I guarantee you most anthropologists (from Boas to Coon to Claude Levi-Strauss), biological or cultural, agree Kinship and Descent is one of the founding aspects of ethnic identification. Many of your own sources clearly emphasize this (most notably Barth), despite your odd claims to the contrary. The whole claims of common descent as well as the observance and tracing of such is obviously related to the Kinship and Descent which the vast majority of ethnic groups are based upon. This is particularly the case amongst the remaining tribal groups and clans in the world, such as the nomadic Arab Bedouin for example. The aspects of Kinship and Descent clearly also form a major part of other ethnic groups, including those who later became affiliated with a political entity or nation state. You would seem quite ridiculous and not grounded in this area if you disagree with the fact that the identifying factors of Kinship and Descent are inextricably linked to the shared common origins of ethnic groups. Anyone, including User:Bridesmill, knows I'm not 'making up' (as you strangely claim) anyt of this and these are all views not only widely held by most researchers, but also by the majority of the general population. The Ethnicity and Kinship/Descent articles both relate to each other and there is no reason not to have both under "See Also" in the respective articles. The aspects of ethnic identification based on Kinship and Descent (i.e. Common Origins and Geneaology) have never been 'relegated to the past' and is widely accepted. Who are you attempting to fool here ? I and other users have extensive backgrounds in this subject area, though I'm beginning to wonder what understanding you have of these topics. The link to the ethnicity article will stay for now since there is no valid or supported reasons and evidence against such. Epf 01:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I found this statement particularly amusing with regards to your views on the apical ancestor: "Note that the lineage is a social not biological organization". Are you seriously claiming this ? That whole 'social' organization is strictly tied to a biological and familial one, relating to an actual common descent, as is mentioned in your own definition. The biological and social concepts are intertwined, and obviously not completely independent of one another. I haven't come across any researchers who have argued to the contrary. Epf 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know if you haven't already realized, as Bridesmill stated, no one here is arguing that ethnicity is solely based from Kinship and Descent (or a common descent in general), as you mentioned was supported by Shils and Geertz. I am merely stating that very few (if any) researchers would deny the signficant role (or integral part) that kinship/descent groups play in the formation and identification of ethnic groups. If I have had a somewhat arrogant or abrasive tone in these recent responses, I apologize, but it was only due to some of your own ignorant comments, false accusations (towards myself) and unnecessary actions (i.e. re-wording some sources on the ethnic group article) which have become a little irritating. Maybe we should both try to be a little more civil and understanding on this matter. Epf 04:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epf, while I'm not an expert on these topics by any stretch of the imagination, it does strike me as odd that while Slrubenstein has provided a number of experts (along with the titles of some of their works) to back up his position, while you say that anthropologists do back up your position, you have failed to give a single concrete citation to back up your position. So, to the informed layman, in this situation, so far it seems it is your position which is unsubstantiated, and thus possibly a personal POV.--Ramdrake 21:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that I have gave some citations, most which Slr supposedly quoted himself. Here's the thing you fail to acknowledge, he is inaccurately quoting many sources and is merely using some to back up his own POV, which the source material itself does not necessarily agree with. I may have not quoted as many sources as he has, but most if not all of his do not support his disagreement in this discourse (as I have pointed out). In terms of the edit we are discussing here, it would in fact seem to the neutral observer that my argument has more credence. Epf (talk) 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While my understanding is that there's actually been some recent interest in it, most contemporary anthropologists regard kinship studies as antiquated at best, a relic of the period when anthros drew lines around a village or three, called that a "culture" and mapped it on a kinship chart. Needless to say, those days are long gone. Most anthropologists would find laughable the idea of reducing something as large, complex and socially constructed as ethnicity into a problem of family trees.

Now if you have a source that contradicts this mainstream perspective of anthropology as I've described it, by all means present it. Undoubtedly, someone somewhere has attempted to resurrect the kinship chart. I even agree that the two terms "ethnicity" and "kinship" are not unrelated, though that's probably not enough reason to mention ethnicity in the See also section. Carol Stack's ethnographic study of poverty and race (All Our Kin) used kinship to analyze economics and survival in a poor black neighborhood, but I'm not going to go insert "ethnicity" into the article on socioeconomics.--Newsroom hierarchies (talk) 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

merging/content-forking

Ihave not looked at these articles in a long time, but I see no reasons for spearate articles on kinship, kinship terminologies, and kinship and descent. I can see one article, "kinship," with sections on: kinship terminology, residence rules, descent groups, and marriage. Or I could see four separate articles on these themes. If others are interested in reopening this discussion I would participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Kinship is a relatively weak article. It should be merged into this one (Kinship and descent). -Classicfilms (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support:Kinship is currently an article that poorly (and sorely?) captures and represents the full breadth and dimensions of the subject .. It is an article that needs work and attention (see suggestion here.. but this does not change the verifiable fact that within anthropology kinship is a concept larger, and different to the concept of descent .. and the one 'concept' should NOT be collapsed into the other.. each deserves it's own article. Bruceanthro (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support:I agree--there's a lot of content that could be merged, so long as we preserve the differences between kinship and descent. While I think we should focus on anthropological kinship, we still need to preserve the uses of the term "kinship" which lie outside of anthropology.--Pariah (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what kind of uses are you referring to there, just so I can better understand what's needed? Robotforaday (talk) 00:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Kinship article states: "The word kinship can refer more broadly to any emotional relationship. This can also refer to ideas which are mathematically related." I think these are fair (if uncited) statements. Just as long as there's a distinction made between everyday usage of the word, and technical usage. I think we could do this in the introduction--say: "in common usage, the term kinship can refer to a X or Y. In Anthropology, it refers to the many ways in which people of various cultures trace their ancestry and define family connections" (or something along that line).--Pariah (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, fair enough, I was just wondering if you meant anything that would be worth creating a disambiguation page for. Robotforaday (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh--no, probably not.--Pariah (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merger of this page into the new page for Kinship

Kinship and Descent is an awkward entry because Descent is part of Kinship, along with Affinity. That is made clear in the rewrite of the Kinship page as part of the Anthropology of the month project. That rewrite goes only so far as to review the history of kinship studies. This page would make a good sequel.Douglas R. White (talk) 13:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. My belief is that there should be a article for kinship (which is what the anthropology cotm is working on), which should provide an overview of kinship, and as such should include a section which briefly discusses descent as one dimension of kinship as conventionally understood. There should also be a an article with the title of descent (which is currently taken up with a disambiguation page), and in that article can into more specific detail about ways of understanding descent, etc. Robotforaday (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, within anthropological theory one could say that "descent" is a concept used to understand a wide range of behaviors ... it is not a "way of understanding descent" per se. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is why I used the plural, "ways". Anyway, what you're saying is perfectly reasonable, but doesn't change the essential point, which is that it's better to have an overview article for "kinship" with a section on descent, which also links to a more specific article on "descent" where we can describe that 'concept' or whatever other word you want to use for it. Robotforaday (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Apparently, I did not express myself clearly. "Descent" can refer to an observable phenomenon in the world, or set of phenomena, which is a legitimate object of scholarly study. "Descent" can also refer to a concept, or set of concepts, which anthropologists use to analyze a variety of phenomena in the world. My issue is not with singular versus plural, but between the first (object of analysis) and second (concept that may be used to analyze) sense of the word. In the last sentence of your 14:43 post, it was not clear to me in which sense you meant the word "descent." If you meant in the first sense, then I think this is actually a bad way to think about an article and would lead to a confused organization and coverage. If however you mean the second usage, I am with you 100%. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are basically in agreement, I just wanted to clear this up. I suggest as a procedure working on the ominubus article first, because that will give us a global sense of how we are covering the range of concepts and objects of study - then we can create linked daughter articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is getting a little into a debate about signifier and signified. In essence, my motives were much more mundane, just making suggestions about how I saw the inter-article organisation working, without really going into any details about the content particularly of the descent article. I don't really want to get into that debate right at this second, because I'd like to focus on the kinship article for now, but let's just say that I envisaged the descent article starting with something along the lines of "The term descent is used to refer to..." ;) Which I suppose doesn't get us too much further, but still, let's come back to this after we've dealt with kinship. Good work on your structure proposal for the kinship article, I've left a reply. Robotforaday (talk) 05:37, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is great to see so much recent activity around Wikipedia's articles on kinship and descent. By way of strong support for the recent merge + redirect + proposed article specifically on descent, I wish to quote from my MacMillan Dictionary of Anthropology as follows:

..the field of kinship studies in the 20th century both in the USA and in Britain was dominated for a long period by the almost exclusive emphasis on DESCENT .. The 'underlying spell of descent' .. was broken by .. Levi Strauss' "The Elementary Structures of Kinship" ..pg 157 (first edition: 1949, second edition 1967)

"..anthropologists have moved away from programmatic assertions of the importance of .. descent and towards the recognition of the empirical diversity of kinship and marriage systems in different ethnographic contexts - some of which employ descent as their primary organizational principle, others alliance, and others a combination of the two.." Pg 9

Bruceanthro (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a new outline at the bottom of the Kinship talk page, would love to know what you think about it/how you would tweak (I hope!) it, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]