Anthropos: Anthropos, 79.1984

Anthropos, 79.1984

Bibliographische Daten

Zeitschrift

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschrift

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-714820

Persistenter Identifier:: BV043334262

Titel:: Anthropos

Erscheinungsort:: Fribourg

Verlag:: Ed. St. Paul

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1906

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Wissensgebiet:: Sozial- und Kulturanthropologie > Allgemeines

Zeitschriftenband

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenband

Werks-URN (URL):: https://digi.evifa.de/viewer/resolver?urn=urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711819

URN:: urn:nbn:de:kobv:11-711819

Persistenter Identifier:: 1512370864325

Titel:: Anthropos, 79.1984

Erscheinungsjahr:: 1984

Signatur:: LA 1118

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenheft

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenheft

Titel:: Bd. 79, 1984, Heft 1-3

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Zeitschriftenartikel

Strukturtyp:: Zeitschriftenartikel

Titel:: Hesquiat Kinship Terminology: Social Structure and Symbolic World View Categories

Sonstige Person:: Fleisher, Mark Stewart

Sammlung:: Zeitschriften und Zeitungen > Zeitschriften zur Ethnologie

Berichte und Kommentare 247 Anth ‘ropos 79.1984 the relatives who work for and with him. If ego were not a chief, these would be the people with whom he resides and works. (3) The necessary criterion for interhouse residence flexibility is kinship. Beyond the kin elaboration within the residence group, labeled A and В in Figure 2, the kinship network collapses social distinctions to the point of using a single kin term in reciprocal generations. Establishing a kin network to gain membership in a house can be accomplished through the use of “wide-open” generational terms. 5. World View In this final section of the paper I propose this question: ‘How can the types of social structure and organization already considered lead to an initial world view proposal for Hesquiat society?” Ethnolinguistic theory assumes the “awareness of structure” on part of the people who use lexical items from various semantic domains. I assume, therefore, that Hesquiat speakers do recognize consciously a social and psychological difference for people with contrasting labeled statuses. To this awareness is attached a set of symbolic values, i. e., cognitively fundamental sets of categories which are abstrac ted from lexical designations. The meaning of the symbolic aspect of lexical items assumes a less-than-conscious position Ш cognitive activity of a speaker. This is analogous to a speaker’s unawareness of phonemic categorization, yet the speaker relies on this set of less-than-conscious discrimina tors. World view from this symbolic perspective is an experiential hypothesis which is individually formulated as part of personality development and, simultaneously, shared, to a degree, with members of one’s speech community. World view, therefore, is a cognitive and behavioral hypo thesis carried by the people in a society. I propose two pairs of symbolic oppositions which are mstrumental in the ordering of experience in Hesquiat speakers. These oppositions are intended to extend the list of potential structuring oppositions that I have already pro posed for Northwest Coast society (Fleisher 1981 a: 69-71). Lineality/nonlineality Lineality is a symbolic dimension which orders people through time and space. It is the symbol of lineality which Se parates one’s own genealogical line from others. Lineality is hypostatized as the lexical differentiation between “older,” twiddle,” and “younger” brother. A functional perspective shows that each of these lines represents an important ec onomic, political and ceremonial social line. Social space is ordered “horizontally” in a longhouse ly ing situation and “vertically” as social history within the community. This is witnessed as the inheritance of particular living areas in a longhouse, e. g., corner, side, etc. In this Se nse, space is a complex metaphor for status. The space- status dimension is recognized in living areas, seating in tvhaling canoes, and especially in Potlatch seating. Moreover, ne space-seating dimension is seen in inheritance-lines tvhich are lexically marked in kinship terminology. The symbolic feature, lineality/nonlineality, serves the function of allowing the analyst to relate similar phenomena to a common point of origin which hypothetically has psychological reality for the cultural participant. As I noted above, this is analogous to a cognitive theory of the structure and organization of Language. Separateness/nonseparateness The opposition relates to a personality orientation for the group and its antithesis in the individual. The issues of self-identity and degree of separateness from one’s group are the issues in question (Fleisher 1981 a and h). Hesquiat is a highly integrated kinship-based society emphasizing social unity through complementary and hierarchical levels of kin groupings. Any person within this social milieu is potentially able to exert their individuality through obtaining some form of socio-psychological uniqueness by acquiring a symbol of separation, e. g., a spirit-helper allows a person to distinguish himself socially and psychologically from all others. The social statuses labeled with descriptive terms in ego’s lineal family emphasize this separation of ego/other by denoting descriptively their respective social positions. Soci ally ego is identifying members of his closest family since these people probably were his closest support system. Symbolically, the antithesis was being expressed; the psycho social system establishes closeness by clearing noting separa tion, and the converse. The classic example of rites of passage - birth, marriage, death - inextricable involve placing an individual of a sort of metaphoric platform and publically announcing their uniqueness in the social community. I am hypothesizing that the descriptive kin terminology used by ego for his closest family members simultaneously drew his family nearer to him, and pushed them away. Separateness is also seen in the theme, lineality. Lineali ty separates family lines from each other. This is particularly important for the community chiefs who must maintain the continuity of their line and symbolically emphasize their separateness from the rest of the community through, for example, a specific living pattern. As one moves through the social world of the Hesquiat, separateness gives way to nonseparateness. The distant social view of Hesquiat is a blending of the individual with his ancestors and descendants. Symbolically, the past and the future merge in the peripheral areas of one’s social and symbolic world. Conclusion Through the course of this paper I developed a series of socio-cultural and symbolic statements based on kinship terminology. I have considered the kinship terminological system, distribution of kin terms, and from these data formulated social implications and related world view hypotheses. The latter are offered as an attempt to under stand the symbolic structure of Hesquiat culture as that structure is projected through lexical data. Although the specific comments about the symbolic categories in Hesquiat world view may be humanistically, or poetically, oriented, I think there is a need for such statements in anthropology. In this regard I fully agree with Cora Du Bois’ recent statement

Zugriffsbeschränkung

Nutzungslizenz

fullscreen: Anthropos, 79.1984

Zeitschrift

Zeitschriftenband

Zeitschriftenheft

Zeitschriftenartikel

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Zitieren und Nachnutzen

Zeitschriftenband

Zeitschriftenartikel

Bildanzeige

Bildfragment

Zitierlinks

Zitierempfehlung