RIVIÈRE - Dialetical Societies (review)

7/29/2019 RIVIRE - Dialetical Societies (review)

1/9

Dialectical Societies (Review Article)

Dialectical Societies: The Ge and Bororo of Central Brazil. by David Maybury-LewisReview by: Peter RiviereMan, New Series, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Sep., 1980), pp. 533-540Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and IrelandStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2801349 .

Accessed: 20/01/2013 09:38

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 of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Irelandis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve

and extend access toMan.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Sun, 20 Jan 2013 09:38:33 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=raihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2801349?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2801349?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rai


2/9

DIALECTICAL SOCIETIESReview rticlePETER RIVIiREUniversityfOxford

MAYBURY-LEwIs,DAVID ed.). Dialectical ocieties:heGe and Bororof entralBrazil. xvi, 340 pp., illus.,maps, tables, bibliogr. Cambridge, Mass.,London:HarvardUniv.Press,979. I5

The contribution f South American thnographyo socialanthropology asbeen slow in coming,and even very recently he editor of a collectionofpapers n that ubcontinentaw fit o subtitle he volumeEthnologyf he eastknown ontinentLyon I 974). While theremaybea number f reasons or his,undoubtedly mainone is the slow startmadeby ethnographersn thearea.Even the pioneering ffortsf Curt Nimuendajiuwent virtually nnoticeduntilthe fortunate oincidence f his nterestn theGe-speaking eoples andhis association with Lowie. In the last decade the situationhas changeddramatically,nd while up to I970 therewas a relativedearth fpublishedworks on Lowland South American ndians, heyhave since become morenumerous nd their ualityhas beenof an increasingly igh standard. ndeedthedecadeended nanexceptional lourish iththemore-or-lessimultaneousappearance fStephenHugh-Jones'shepalm ndthe leiades, hristineHugh-Jones's rom heMilk River, othofwhich deal with theTukanoanBarasana,andthevolume reviewedhere.Dialectical ocietiessdedicated o thememory fNimuendaju, ndmanyofthecontributionsreexplicitly uilton hisearlier fforts.he various uthorsare at pains to give himcreditwhere t is due, correcthimas necessary,utabove all rescue the Ge fromthe anomalous position into which latercommentators ad forced hem n using Nimuendaju'smaterial o fueltheirpointless ebates.This volumeshouldfinally ayto rest heparalleldescent ftheApinayeand theconjecturesboutwhy and how hunters nd gathererswitha low level ofmaterial ulturehave suchcomplex social organisation.These aregood reasons orwelcoming he rrival fthis ollection, nd otherswill begiven below,but firstomegeneral nd not uncritical omments re norder.Perhapsthe long wait for this volume raisedexpectations oo highfor tcannotbe said that thasachieved ll itmighthave done.This work sthefirst,and one regrettablyuspects he ast, ombined effort f the members ftheHarvard CentralBrazil Project.This programmewhich developed out ofDavid Maybury-Lewis's wn researchesmong theSherente nd Shavante,involved six Americansand two Brazilians, part from the project eaderMan N.S.) 5, 533-40.

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


3/9

534 PETER RIVILREhimself. o begin with, both the Bororo and Nambikwara were includedwith theGe, and while the atterhave been excluded the Bororo have heldtheir place-although both Maybury-Lewisand Chris Crocker find itnecessary o make excuses for theirpresence.That this is unnecessary asrecently een demonstrated y research mong the Panara (Kreen-Akarore)whichhas revealed mongthese ndisputably e-speaking eople nstitutionsvery imilar o thosereported or heBororo (Heelas I980).The basicfieldwork or heprojectwas carried utinthe 960's, but by theend of thatdecade the factionalismo inherentn Ge societieshad emergedamong the researchers.Herein lies the main, if not totally unexpected,disappointment. here is very little dialogue between the contributorsalthough omehave clearly o-operatedmorecloselythanothers. he resultis thatwe are notprovidedwiththe tightly ontrolled omparative tudy fGe society hatmighthavebeenhopedfor.The authorshavegonetheir wnways,oftenwithonlyminimalreferenceoone another'swork, o thatwhileeach article is good in its own rightthat extra somethinghas failed tomaterialise. hisisbest llustratedythetwoattemptsta general xplanationof Ge society, heone by Maybury-Lewisnd the otherby TerryTurner.

Turner's wo chapters epresenthe argest ingle ontribution othevolume.Inthefirstfthesehe sets uta generalmodel forGe and Bororosocieties,ndin thesecondtests t against heKayapo case.These chapters renotfortheweak-heartedince mixture f Parsonian ndMarxist anguageoftenmakesthe rgument ifficultofollow, nd ttends o become thatmore mpenetrablejustat thepointswheretheargument eeds to be clearest. hismystificationis a pity inceTurnerhas someextremelynterestinghings osaywhich haveimportance utside he Ge context.It is difficulto summarisehis ideas but in brief he is arguing that thefundamentalnstitutionn Ge society s uxorilocality, y means ofwhich aman'sdominance ver hiswife nddaughters ithin henuclear amily an betranslatednto thecontrolthat hewife'sfather xercises ver hisdaughter'shusband within the extended family.These extended familiesform theperipheral egments f thosefamouscircularor semi-circular illages.Themechanismby which the relationships etweenthese units, hat of spouse-transfer slightly misleadinglycalled spouse-exchange by Turner), aremaintained is provided by the communal institutionswhich are thecharacteristiceature fGe socialorganisation. owever,Turnerargues, hestructuresf these eflect,nturn, he tructuref thehousehold rrangements,and have as their organising principle the patternof dominance andsubordination etween senior and unior age-grades. o put it in Turner'swords:

althoughthe effective asis for thispattern the relationship f hierarchy etweenage-grades] stheprinciple f uxorilocalresidence nd therelationship etween thewife'sparents



4/9

PETER RIVItRE 5 3 5on theone hand and the daughter nd daughter's usbandon the other, he extended-familyhousehold is not the primary etting or the realization nd expression f the hierarchy fdominance and subordination eneratedfrom t, ust as it is not the primary ocus for thesocialspecification f the tructure f extended-familyelations er e.Both theovert relationofdominance and the structure f relations hroughwhich it s generated re more directlyand fully xpressed t the communal level of relationsI 67).This summary oes little redit o the complexity f the argument nd theintricacy f the proof. Nor does it draw attention o the wide range ofphenomena, ncluding he seasonal reks,which Turner s able to incorporateinhis model. The problem,however, s to know ust how generally pplicablethe model is. Turnerhimself emonstratestsadequacywithreferenceo the

Kayapo, but this s not particularly elpful ince the model presumablywasdeveloped with the Kayapo in mind in the firstplace. Maybury-Lewisexpresses ome hesitancy bout uxorilocality s a mechanism hroughwhichmenexercise ontrolbutotherwise oneofthe contributors asses ommenton the model.Withoutgoinginto the matter oo deeplyand merelyusingtheShavanteand Kayapo as examples t is possibleto demonstrate ome quite significantdifferencesn theorganisationfuxorilocal households. he Shavantefavourthemarriage fa groupof brotherswith a groupofsisters,nd suchunionsmust nevitablyweaken thedominant positionof the father-in-law ho isfaced with a solidary etof sons-in-law.Among theKayapo, it is not onlyprohibited orbrothers o marry isters, rulewhich effectivelyreaksup thefraternalroup,but there s also a conventional ttitude f restraint etweenco-sons-in-lawhat urtherreventshepossibilityfanyconcerted ppositionto thefather-in-law.t snotobviousthatTurner'smodelcan accountforbothcases.There are also some observations rom Guiananperspectivehat re worthmaking. hroughoutmuchofthe nteriorf heGuianas he ypical ettlementbears muchin commonwith theextended-familyouseholdof theKayapoand otherGe.Although, orvarious easons, uianavillages reoften nhabitedby bilateralkindreds, hetendency owards uxorilocal residence rovidesamatrilateral lavourwhich hasbeen mistakenn thepastformatriliny. hefather's ontrolover his daughter forwhich he often has to relyon theemotive tiesbetweenthe womenandher mother nd sisters)s at the root ofthisuxorilocality ut it is less certain hanTurnerappears o make itamongtheKayapo.This fitswithTurner's rgumenthat xorilocality othgeneratesand is enforced y theoverarching ommunal nstitutions.uch institutionsarenot found n the Guianas nd villages here re much smaller han hose fthe Ge. Gross (I979) has recentlypointed to the cross-cuttingies ofmembershipn various nstitutionsohelp explainthe ize ofGe villages, ndin some ways thisGluckmanesque nterpretationnderliesTurner's modeltoo. At the ametime tmightbe notedthatwhile Turner makes heKayaposeemrule-bound, amberger nheraccountof the amepeople presentshemas havingconsiderable reedom fchoice n theirmovements. do not thinkthis s necessarily problemsince suspect hat here re lessons o be learntaboutGe uxorilocality rom hehighlymobile Guianan ndians.



5/9

5 36 PETER RIVIEREMaybury-Lewis,orhispart, ees llGe societies sworking utthepossibilitiesintrinsico the principles fantithesisndcomplementarity.hat duality s apervasivenotion n Ge thought annotbe denied, nd everywriter n thesepeople, ndnotjust he ontributorso thepresent olume,hasdrawn ttentionto it. Maybury-Lewis'smain focus s on theCentralGe, the Shavante andSherente, nd he beginsbydemonstratinghe atter re bestunderstoodwithintheanalytical ramework e employed nhisaccountofthe Shavante I967).He takesup theproblemofGe uxorilocality,ndwhileaccepting hat t is asignificantan-Ge nstitutionenies hat t is adaptiveor carries ny practicaladvantages.nsteadhe locates ts rationale n thesymbolic ignificancefthevillage layout.All Ge societies,whether heirvillagesare circularor semi-circular, istinguish etween the centre ssociatedwith men and public life,and theperipheryssociatedwith women and domestic ife.So 'when menleave thispublic,malesphere ogeton with theprivate, omestic ide oftheirlives, heygo todo so intheirwives'houses' 234). It s notclearthat his struefor llGe,asNimuendaj(u'sccountof theessential ndcontinuing mportanceof the maternal household for a Ramkokamekra man indicates I 946).However, even if it were true, t is not explained why uxorilocality snecessarilyntailed inceother rrangements ould be equallyfeasible.An important spectof the centre/peripheryistinctions itsassociationwithpolitical ctivity.Amongthe CentralGe,political ife akesplace in thecentre,while the NorthernGe try, ome with more success hanothers, olimitpoliticalactivity o therelationship etween extended families n theperiphery,hus eavingthecentre ree orceremonial ife nd the creation fharmoniousrelations. urthermore,nd thispointwill be returned o, theNorthernGe emphasise heprivate nd physical spectof the individualascontrastedwith hispublicand ceremonialpersona, he former elated o theperiphery,he atter o the centre fthevillage.Concentricdualism s not theonly formof dualismhere, nd while it isimportant mong the NorthernGe in maintainingwhat Maybury-Lewisrefers o as two levels public/private,tc.), n the case of theCentralGe thedominantopposition s thatbetweenfactions, ecruited,t least n principle,patrilineally. his form of opposition s counterweighted y cross-cuttingmoieties fwhich the riterion ormembershipsage. t spatrilinymongtheCentralGe andmatrilinymongthe Bororo which inks he centrewith theperiphery,nd creates single,totalsystem n contrastwith the two levelschemeoftheNorthernGe.

AlthoughMaybury-Lewisuses the termpatrilinywhen referring o thelinkagebetweencentre ndperiphery mong theCentralGe,the word, as henotes,has to be usedwith extreme aution. n theGe context he conceptofunilinealdescent as it is normallyconceived proved useless, ven in thosesocieties uch sthe havante, herente nd Bororothat eem o becharacterisedbythisnotion.Crockerwrites:



6/9

PETER RIVItRE 537Bororo societydoes rest n a categorical ntithesis etween male and female,which has tsexpressionnnativeconceptualization f theradicallydifferentiatedature f the relation f

a childwithhis father nd thatwith hismother.But theepistemological oundation ftheserelations s not a 'physical', genealogicalreferent, ut a symbolic,moralone. To anticipatelater rguments,heBororo clan s ndeedperceived sbased on commonsubstances, ut onesoflogical identity, ot physical tuff256).AlthoughCrockergoes on to write hat orvariousreasons heBororo do notentirely ontradict raditional nthropological remisses, hey by no meanspresent straightforwardase ofmatrilineality.his s even more o inthe aseof the NorthernGe who, in thepast,wereclassifieds matrilineal, utare infact ognatic.Thispointdeserves ome attention.As mentioned bove, the NorthernGe conceiveof the ndividual s beingcomposedof two aspects, physical eingand a socialpersona, erivedfromdifferentources. n this core heGeare not lone nLowlandSouthAmerica.For example, among some people of the Guianas the so-called couvade isdirectly oncernedwith theproblemofcreating physical nd non-physicalbeing Riviere 974: Riviere& Campbell 977). Seeger ndothers averecently tated hat the societies f thecontinent re structuredn terms fsymbolic dioms that-and this s the differenceromEuropeanand Africansymbols-have no concernwith the definitionfgroups nd the transferfgoods,but withtheconstructionf theperson nd thefabricationfthebody'(I979: io). The point swell made,buta two-wayflow sinvolved, s theGematerialmakesclear.The social personaresults romrecruitmentn certaingroupswhichthusmaintain hemselves ytheenrolment f ndividuals.AmongtheNorthernGe physicalubstancesregardedsderiving rom heparents theremay be more thanone genitor),but the sourceof the socialpersonavaries n an interesting ay.Thus amongthe Kraho and theKrtkati,a boyreceives isname(s), nd with this ocialroles, rom manwho belongstotherelationshipategorywhich ncludes he pecifications other's rotherandgrandfathers.n Apinayeboylikewisereceives is name from memberof themother's rother nd grandfatherategory lthough n thiscase it isthrough hemediation fsomeone,deally father'srother, ho becomeshisadoptivefather. mong theKayapo,the taskofintroducing boy to publiclifefallsdirectly o an adoptive or 'false' father. hese differencesre by nomeans thnographicminutiae ecause hey hrownew ight, rshadow, n thewhole vexedquestionof Crow-Omaha terminologies. lthough twill not,the Ge material houlddemonstrate,or nce and for ll,the purious alidityof this ypology.Despitethe ack ofunilineal escent,he NorthernGe groups mploywhatarecommonlycalledCrow-Omaha terminologies.hus theKayapo have anOmaha terminology, he Kraho a Crow terminology,while the Apinayeoscillatebetweenbothtypes. his variation snotrelated o any nstitutionaldifferencesince thesegroupsall sharea common set of institutions.hetraditionalpproach o Crow-Omahaterminologiesasbeengenealogical, utLave (withreferenceo theKrlkati) howsthatthismethod s inappropriatebecause t leavesa whole and vitalpartof thesocialorganisation ntouchedandunexplained. tisnecessaryo includethe ystem f name transmissionn



7/9

538 PETERRIVItREorder o get thefullpicture. his Da Mattadoes from hevantage ointof thevariable Apinaye system.He focuses ttention n invariantterms n theNorthernGe relationship erminologiesndmakes hepointthat hese ermsare equally capable ofgenerating ither Crow or an Omaha terminology.The wayinwhichthe ocial persona stransmitteds thedecidingfactor.n theKayapo case, heroleof ocial procreatorstakenby an adoptivefathernd thisgives the terminology ts Omaha features.Among the Kraho, the role isperformed y a mother'sbrother nd a Crow systemresults.Among theApinaye, oth anadoptivefather nd a mother's rother re nvolved, nd thesystemscapable ofexhibiting itherCrow or Omaha features epending nwhichofthese ndividuals s stressed.

Itmightbe asked t thispoint ftheNorthernGe do not n facthaveunilinealdescentdisguised s nametransmission.a Matta facesust thisquestion ndnotes the similarity f the NorthernGe system o a unilinealdescentone.However,he argues:it is necessary o differentiateetween a typeof social continuity ealized through anidentificationfpaterand genitor or between mater nd genetrix), s in unilineal ystems,and the typeof continuity chieved by the NorthernGe. ... Althoughthe formalresultmightbe thesame, incea single principle ould be seen to operate n bothtypes f systems,the ideologies of each type are sufficiently ifferent o establish a crucial ethnographicdistinction etweenthem. would say,therefore,hatthe continuityn unilineal ystems sobtainedthrough continuumordered n temporalterms .. while continuity mong theNorthernGe is obtainedthrough ubstitutionI 27).

Lave echoes this when she refers o the Krikatiname-giver nd name-receiver sa single ocialpersonage'. healso stresseshat heres a highdegreeofgenealogical mnesia, ndcontinuitys achieved hrough ame transmission.However, Lave sees this s a continuity ased on repeated hort yclesratherthan omesortof inearprogression.Whether his mageis the correct ne isa query thatarisesboth from her own evidence and thatof Melatti withreferenceo theKraho.Given the nature fname transmissionndthefact fuxorilocalresidence,herewill be a tendency ormale names o concentratena natalhouseholdbecause groupofbrothers ill transferheirnamesback totheir sisters' ons. On the otherhand,women's names,which go to theirbrothers'daughters,will be dispersed mong the varioushouseholds ntowhich themen have married. his point sspelt utconcisely yMelatti:

When a man leaves his maternalhousehold to takeup residencewith hiswife,he leavesbehindpartofhissocialpersonality,ncarnated n his sister'son,towhom he preferentiallytransmits is name.Moreover,he takes withhim to his new place of residencepartof thesocial personality f his sister,whose name is given to his own daughter. n thisway, thetransferf names acts ike a compensation or hetransferf residence.Given thepreferentialrules for name transmission,ertainmale names tend to accumulate in certain domesticgroupsor residentialegments,while femalenames,which follow men as theymove fromone residence o another, endto be spreadthroughoutKraho society 77-8).



8/9

PETER RIVItRE 539In these erms, he ystem ppears ess ikeone of short yclesbetweenmother'sbrother nd sister'son,or spatially romHouse A to House B and back toHouse A. Rather t is a schemeof continuity,ust as effective s unilinealdescent, whereby social personae succeed one another in orderlylinearprogression.Given their ocial nstitutionst squiteeasy o appreciatewhy theGe mightbe concernedwith the problem of continuity. n the field of kinshipuxorilocality enies t. As Turnerpoints ut, uxorilocal residence as certainadvantages n terms f family olidarity ver virilocality, ut only across asmall genealogical ange nd shallow genealogicaldepth.The system f nametransmissionompensates or hisfeature f the residential ractice.AlthoughCrocker has a differentxplanationforBororo uxorilocality which there sno space to discuss ere)toa degreehe seems o be saying he ame thing n anearlier rticlewhenhe writes: The two idioms of blood and nameconstituteaxes running t right nglesto one another, he first hrough ime and theotherthrough pace' (i 977: 255). On the otherhand itmightbe possible opredict hat where uxorilocal residences not combined with an interestnsocialor individual ontinuityuchalternativeystemsftransmission ouldbe superfluousndprobablynot occur. This is ust the case n the Guianas.

This reviewhasconcentratedn a ratherimitednumber fthemes,nd othersmightusefully ave been tackled. orexample, herehas beenno space to dealwith thetopicsof age and sex which most contributors emonstrate o befundamental rinciplesn theorganisation fGe society.On the otherhand,peeringout of the forest t theGe, one cannothelp being struckby howunimportantmarriageappearsto be in the total schemeof things. f thevolume tself ontains lotof oose endswaiting o beknotted ogether,t doesindicate hatthe Ge are tailor-made or comparative tudy nd succeeds ndemonstratinghegreat potential f thisapproach.Those who are scepticalabout whetherany advanceshave been made in the subjectover the lastgenerationhouldcompareDialectical ocieties ithAfricanystemsfkinshipandmarriage.he silent ejectionfAfricanmodels s well asmany ther ime-honoured approaches and concepts is the clearest ndication that SouthAmerican thnography ascome ofageand isready o contributeo thewideranthropological ebate.

REFERENCESCrocker, hristopher. I977. Whyare the Bororomatrilineal?ctes u XLIIe CongresInternationalesAm&ricanistes,45-5 .Gross, Daniel R. I979. A new approach to Central Brazil social organization. n Brazil:anthropologicalerspectives:ssaysnhonorfCharlesWagleyeds)M. L.Margolis W. E.Carter. ewYork:ColumbiaUniv. Press.Heelas,Richard . I980. The social rganizationf thePanara, Ge tribe fCentral razil.Thesis;Univ. ofOxford.



9/9

540 PETERRIVItREHugh-Jones,hristine.979. From heMilkRiver: patial ndtemporalrocessesnnorthwestAmazonia. ambridge: niv.Press.Hugh-Jones,tephen. 979. Thepalm ndthePleiades:nitiationndcosmologynnorthwestAmazonia. ambridge: niv.Press.Lyon,Patricia . ed.) 1974. Native outhAmericans:thnologyfthe eastknownontinent.Boston: ittle, rown& Co.Maybury-Lewis,avid I967. Akwe-Shavanteociety.xford: larendon ress.Nimuendajiu,urt 946. TheEastern imbira.erkeley LosAngeles: alifornianiv.Press.Riviere,eter974. Thecouvade: problemeborn. an N.S.) 9, 23-35.Riviere,eter AlanCampbell977. A fieldtudyftheOyampi ndians fAmapa,NorthBrazil. inal eport o the .S.R.C. n Grant R276i/i.Seeger, nthonyt l. I979. A construSaoapessoa as ociedadesndigenas.oletimoMuseuNacional, ntropologia2.

This content downloaded on Sun 20 Jan 2013 09:38:33 AM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

RIVIÈRE - Dialetical Societies (review)

Documents

Transcript of RIVIÈRE - Dialetical Societies (review)