Potlatching 

Learning how another culture’s kinship system works is as difficult as learning another language. Robin Fox became aware of this challenge during his research among the Tory Islanders of Ireland (Map 6.1) (Fox 1995 [1978]). Some Tory Island kinship terms are similar to American English terms; for example, the word muintir means “people” in its widest sense, as in English. It can also refer to people of a particular social category, as in “my people,” and to close relatives. Another similarity is in gaolta, the word for “relatives” or “those of my blood.” Its adjectival form refers to kindness, like the English word kin, which is related to “kindness.” Tory Islanders have a phrase meaning “children and grandchildren,” also like the English term descendants. One major differ

Learning how another culture’s kinship system works is as difficult as learning another language. Robin Fox became aware of this challenge during his research among the Tory Islanders of Ireland (Map 6.1) (Fox 1995 [1978]). Some Tory Island kinship terms are similar to American English terms; for example, the word muintir means “people” in its widest sense, as in English. It can also refer to people of a particular social category, as in “my people,” and to close

all cultures have different kinship, or a sense of being related to another person or persons. Cultures also provide guidelines about who are kin and the expected behavior of kin. Starting in infancy, people learn about their particular culture’s  kinship system , the predominant form of kin relationships in a culture and the kinds of behavior involved. Like language, one’s kinship system is so ingrained that it is taken for granted as something natural rather than cultural.

This chapter first considers cultural variations in three features of kinship systems. It then focuses on a key unit of domestic life: the household. The last section provides examples of contemporary change in kinship, particularly marriage patterns and

relatives. Another similarity is in gaolta, the word for “relatives” or “those of my blood.” Its adjectival form refers to kindness, like the English word kin, which is related to “kindness.” Tory Islanders have a phrase meaning “children and grandchildren,” also like the English term descendants. One major difference is that the Tory Island word for “friend” is the same as the word for “kin.” This usage reflects the cultural context of Tory Island with its small population, all related through kinship. So, logically, a friend is also kin.

How Cultures Create Kinship

1. 6.1 Define the three ways cultures create kinship.

In all cultures, kinship is linked with modes of livelihood and reproduction (Figure 6.1). Nineteenth-century anthropologists found that kinship was the most important organizing principle in nonindustrial, non-state cultures. The kinship group performs the functions of ensuring the continuity of the group by arranging marriages; maintaining social order by setting moral rules and punishing offenders; and providing for the basic needs of members by regulating production, consumption, and distribution. In large-scale industrial/digital societies, kinship ties exist, but many other kinds of social ties draw people together as well.

How Cultures Create Kinship

1. 6.1 Define the three ways cultures create kinship.

In all cultures, kinship is linked with modes of livelihood and reproduction (Figure 6.1). Nineteenth-century anthropologists found that kinship was the most important organizing principle in nonindustrial, non-state cultures. The kinship group performs the functions of ensuring the continuity of the group by arranging marriages; maintaining social order by setting moral rules and punishing offenders; and providing for the basic needs of members by regulating production, consumption, and distribution. In large-scale industrial/digital societies, kinship ties exist, but many other kinds of social ties draw people together as well.

Figure 6.1

Modes of Livelihood, Kinship, and Household Structure

Nineteenth-century anthropologists also discovered that definitions of who counts as kin in the cultures they studied differed widely from those of Europe and the United States. Western cultures emphasize primary “blood” relations, or relations through birth from a biological mother and biological father (Sault 1994). “Blood” is not a universal basis for kinship, however. Even in some cultures with a “blood”-based understanding of kinship, variations exist in defining who is a “blood” reong the Inuit, someone might say that a certain person “used to be” his or her cousin.lative and who is not. For example, in some cultures, male offspring are considered of one “blood,” whereas female offspring are not.among the Inuit of northern Alaska, behavior is a nonblood basis for determining kinship (Bodenhorn 2000). In this context, people who act like kin among the Inuit, someone might say that a certain person “used to be” his or her cousin.

SHARING-Many cultures emphasize kinship ties based on acts of sharing and support. These relationships may be either informal or ritually formalized. Godparenthood and blood brotherhood are examples of sharing-based kinship ties that are ritually formalized.

KINSHIP THROUGH FOOD SHARING  Sharing-based kinship is common in mainland Southeast Asia, Australia, and Pacific island cultures (Carsten 1995). Among inhabitants of one of Malaysia’s many small islands, sharing-based kinship starts in the womb when the mother’s blood feeds the fetus. After birth, the mother’s breast milk nourishes the infant, and it establishes a crucial tie between milk-giver and child. Breastfeeding is also the basis of the incest rule. People who have been fed from the same breast are kin and may not marry. After the baby is weaned, its most important food is cooked rice. Sharing cooked rice is another way that kinship ties are created and maintained, especially between women and children. Men are often away on fishing trips, in coffee shops, or at the mosque, and so they are less likely to establish rice-

sharing kinship bonds with children.

ADOPTION AND FOSTERING  Another form of sharing-based kinship is the transfer of a child or children from the birth parent(s) to the care of someone else. Adoption is a formal and permanent form of child transfer. Common motivations for adoption include infertility and the desire to obtain a particular kind of child (often a son). Motivations for the birth parent to transfer a child to someone else include a premarital pregnancy in a disapproving context, having “too many” children, and having “too many” of a particular gender. Among the Maasai pastoralists of East Africa, a woman with several children might give one to a friend, neighbor, or aged person who has no child to care for her or him.

Judith Modell, cultural anthropologist and adoptive parent, studied people’s experiences of adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents in the United States (Modell 1994). She found that the legal process of adoption constructs the adoptive relationship to be as much like a biological one as possible. In closed adoption, the adopted child receives a new birth certificate, and the birth parent ceases to have any relationship to the child. A recent trend is toward open adoption, in which adoptees and birth parents have information about each other’s identity and are free to interact with one another. Of the 28 adoptees Modell interviewed, most were interested in searching for their birth parents. The search for birth parents involves an attempt to discover “who I really am.” For others, such a search is backward looking instead of being a path toward identity formation. Thus, in the United States, adoption legalizes sharing-based kinship but does not always replace a sense of descent-based kinship for everyone involved.Fostering a child is similar to a formal adoption in terms of permanence and a sense of kinship. Or it may be temporary placement of a child with someone else for a specific purpose, with little or no sense of kinship. Child fostering is common throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Parents foster out children to enhance the child’s chances for formal education or so that the child will learn a skill, such as marketing. Most foster children go from rural to urban areas and from poorer to better-off households. Fieldwork conducted in a neighborhood in Accra, Ghana (Map 6.4), sheds light on the lives of foster children (Sanjek 1990). Child fostering in the neighborhood is common: About one-fourth of the children were foster children. Of the foster children, there as many girls as boys. School attendance is biased toward boys. All of the boys were attending school, but only 4 of the 31 girls were. An important factor affecting the treatment of the child is whether the fostered child is related to his or her sponsor. Although 80 percent of the foster children as a whole were kin of their sponsors, only 50 percent of the girls were kin. People who sponsor nonkin girls make a cash paymen

ADOPTION AND FOSTERING  Another form of sharing-based kinship is the transfer of a child or children from the birth parent(s) to the care of someone else. Adoption is a formal and permanent form of child transfer. Common motivations for adoption include infertility and the desire to obtain a particular kind of child (often a son). Motivations for the birth parent to transfer a child to someone else include a premarital pregnancy in a disapproving context, having “too many” children, and having “too many” of a particular gender. Among the Maasai pastoralists of East Africa, a woman with several children might give one to a friend, neighbor, or aged person who has no child to care for her or him.

Judith Modell, cultural anthropologist and adoptive parent, studied people’s experiences of adoptees, birth parents, and adoptive parents in the United States (Modell 1994). She found that the legal process of adoption constructs the adoptive relationship to be as much like a biological one as possible. In closed adoption, the adopted child receives a new birth certificate, and the birth parent ceases to have any relationship to the child. A recent trend is toward open adoption, in which adoptees and birth parents have information about each other’s identity and are free to interact with one another. Of the 28 adoptees Modell interviewed, most were interested in searching for their birth parents. The search for birth parents involves an attempt to discover “who I really am.” For others, such a search is backward looking instead of being a path toward identity formation. Thus, in the United States, adoption legalizes sharing-based kinship but does not always replace a sense of descent-based kinship for everyone involved.

Fostering a child is similar to a formal adoption in terms of permanence and a sense of kinship. Or it may be temporary placement of a child with someone else for a specific purpose, with little or no sense of kinship. Child fostering is common throughout sub-Saharan Africa. Parents foster out children to enhance the child’s chances for formal education or so that the child will learn a skill, such as marketing. Most foster children go from rural to urban areas and from poorer to better-off households. Fieldwork conducted in a neighborhood in Accra, Ghana (Map 6.4), sheds light on the lives of foster children (Sanjek 1990). Child fostering in the neighborhood is common: About one-fourth of the children were foster children. Of the foster children, there were twice as many girls as boys. School attendance is biased toward boys. All of the boys were attending school, but only 4 of the 31 girls were. An important factor affecting the treatment of the child is whether the fostered child is related to his or her sponsor. Although 80 percent of the foster children as a whole were kin of their sponsors, only 50 percent of the girls were kin. People who sponsor nonkin girls make a cash payment to the girl’s parents. These girls cook, do housecleaning, and assist in market work by carrying goods or watching the trading area. Fostered boys do not perform such tasks because they attend school.

RITUALLY ESTABLISHED KINSHIP  Ritually defined ties between adults and children born to other people are common among Christians, especially Catholics, worldwide. Relationships between godparents and godchildren often involve strong emotional ties and financial flows from the former to the latter.Among the Maya of Oaxaca, Mexico (see Map 4.3), godparenthood is both a sign of the sponsor’s status and the means to increased status for the sponsor (Sault 1985). A parent’s request that a particular person sponsor his or her child is a public acknowledgment of the sponsor’s standing. The godparent gains influence over the godchild and can call on the godchild for labor. Being a godparent of many children means that the godparent can amass a large labor force when needed and gain further status. Most godparents in Oaxaca are husband–wife couples, but many are women alone, a pattern that reflects the high status of Maya women.

The third major basis for forming close interpersonal relationships is through marriage or other forms of “marriage-like” relationships, such as long-term cohabitation. The following material focuses on marriage.TOWARD A DEFINITION  Anthropologists recognize that some concept of marriage exists in all cultures, though it may take different forms and serve different functions. What constitutes a cross-culturally valid definition of marriage is, however, open to debate. A standard definition from 1951 is now discredited: “Marriage is a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both parents” (Barnard and Good 1984:89). This definition says that the partners must be of different genders, and it implies that a child born outside a marriage is not socially recognized as legitimate. Exceptions exist to both these features cross-culturally. Regarding the gender of partners, same-gender (or same-sex, or gay marriages) are increasingly recognized as legal around the world, from those first to do so (Denmark, Norway, and Holland) to many other countries that now do. The concept of marriage, and its legality, is a lively area of debate in and beyond anthropology (Feinberg 2012).

Regarding the “legitimacy of offspring,” many cultures do not define the legitimacy of children on the basis of whether they were born within a marriage. Women in the Caribbean region, for example, typically do not marry until later in life. Before that, a woman has sequential male partners with whom she bears children. None of her children is considered more or less “legitimate” than any other.

Other definitions of marriage focus on rights over the spouse’s sexuality. But not all forms of marriage involve sexual relations; for example, the practice of woman–woman marriage exists among the Nuer of South Sudan (see Map 13.6) and some other African groups (Evans-Pritchard 1951: 108–109). In this type of marriage, a woman with economic means gives gifts to obtain a “wife,” goes through the marriage rituals with her, and brings her into the residential compound just as a man would who married a woman. This wife contributes her productive labor to the household. The two women do not have a sexual relationship. Instead, the woman who marries into the household will have sexual relations with a man. Her children, though, will belong to the compound into which she married.

The many practices that come under the heading of marriage make it impossible to find a definition that will fit all cases. One might accept the following as a working definition of  marriage : a more or less stable union, usually between two people, who may be, but are not necessarily, coresidential, sexually involved with each other, and procreative with each other.

SELECTING A SPOUSE  All cultures have preferences about whom one should and should not marry or with whom one should and should not have sexual intercourse. Sometimes these preferences are informal and implicit, and other times they are formal and explicit. They include both rules of exclusion (specifying whom one should not marry) and rules of inclusion (specifying who is a preferred marriage partner).

An  incest taboo , or rule prohibiting marriage or sexual intercourse between certain kinship relations, is one of the most basic and universal rules of exclusion. In his writings of the 1940s, Claude Lévi-Strauss proposes a reason for the universality of incest taboos by saying that, in nonstate societies, incest avoidance motivated men to exchange women between families. In his view, this exchange is the foundation for all social networks and social solidarity beyond the immediate group. Such networks promote trade between areas with different resources and peace through ties established by bride exchange. So, for him, the incest taboo has important social and economic functions: It impels people to create social organization beyond the family.

Contemporary genetic research suggests an alternate theory for universal incest taboos. It says that larger breeding pools reduce the frequency of genetically transmitted conditions. Like the theory of Lévi-Strauss, the genetic theory is functional. Each theory attributes the universal existence of incest taboos to their adaptive contribution to human survival and success, though in two different ways. Anthropological data support both theories, but ethnographic data provide some puzzles to consider.

The most basic and universal form of incest taboo is against marriage or sexual intercourse between fathers and their children and between mothers and their children. Although most cultures forbid brother–sister marriage, a few exceptions exist. The most well-known example of brother–sister marriage as an accepted practice comes from Egypt at the time of the Roman Empire (Barnard and Good 1984:92). Brother–sister marriage was the norm among royalty, and it was common among the general population, with between 15 and 20 percent of marriages between full brothers and sisters.

Further variations in close-relation marriage arise with regard to cousins. Incest taboos do not universally rule out marriage with cousins. In fact, some kinship systems promote cousin marriage, as discussed next.

Many preference rules exist cross-culturally concerning whom one should marry. Rules of  endogamy , or marriage within a particular group, stipulate that the spouse must be from a defined social category. In kin endogamy, certain relatives are preferred, often cousins. Two major forms of cousin marriage exist. One is marriage between  parallel cousins , either between children of one’s father and one’s father’s brother or between children of one’s mother and one’s mother’s sister—the term parallel indicates that the linking siblings are of the same gender (Figure 6.4). Parallel-cousin marriage is favored by many Muslim groups in the Middle East and northern Africa. The second form of cousin marriage is between  cross-cousins , either between children of one’s father and one’s father’s sister or between children of one’s mother and one’s mother’s brother—the term cross indicates the different genders of the linking siblings. Hindus of southern India favor cross-cousin marriage. Although cousin marriage is preferred, it nonetheless is a minority of all marriages in the region. A survey of several thousand couples in the city of Chennai (formerly called Madras) in southern India showed that three-fourths of all marriages involved unrelated people, whereas one-fourth were between first cross-cousins or between uncle and niece, which is considered to be the same relationship as that of cross-cousins (Ramesh et al. 1989).

Readers who are unfamiliar with cousin marriage may find it objectionable on the basis of the potential genetic disabilities from close inbreeding. A study of thousands of such marriages in southern India, however, revealed only a small difference in rates of congenital problems compared to cultures in which cousin marriage is not practiced (Sundar Rao 1983). Marriage networks are diffuse, extending over a wide area and offering many options for “cousins.” This situation contrasts to the much more closed situation of a single village or town. In cases where cousin marriage exists among a small and circumscribed population, the possibility of negative genetic effects is high.Endogamy may also be based on location. Village endogamy is preferred in the eastern Mediterranean among both Christians and Muslims. It is also the preferred pattern among Muslims throughout India and among Hindus of southern India. Hindus of northern India, in contrast, forbid village endogamy and consider it a form of incest. Instead, they practice village  exogamy , or marriage outside a defined social group. For them, a spouse should live in a far-off village or town. In India, marriage distance is greater in the north than in the south, and northern brides are thus far less likely to be able to maintain regular contact with their birth family. Many songs and stories of northern Indian women convey sadness about being separated from their birth families.

Status considerations often shape spouse selection (Figure 6.5

Subtypes of status-based hypergyny and hypogyny occur on the basis of factors such as age and even height. Age hypergyny refers to a marriage in which the bride is younger than the groom, a common practice worldwide. In contrast, age hypogyny is a marriage in which the bride is older than the groom. Age hypogyny is rare cross-culturally but has been increasing in the United States due to the marriage squeeze on women who would otherwise prefer a husband of equal age or somewhat older.

Physical features, such as ability, looks, and appearance, are factors that may be explicitly or implicitly involved in spouse selection. Facial beauty, 

The role of romantic love in spouse selection is debated by biological determinists and cultural constructionists. Biological determinists argue that feelings of romantic love are universal among humans because they play an adaptive role in uniting males and females in offspring care. Cultural constructionists, in contrast, argue that cross-culturally romantic love is an unusual factor influencing spouse selection (Barnard and Good 1984:94). The cultural constructionists point to variations in male and female economic roles to explain cross-cultural differences in the emphasis on romantic love. Romantic love is more likely to be an important factor in relationships in cultures where men contribute more to livelihood and where women are therefore economically dependent on men. Whatever the cause of romantic love, biological or cultural or both, it is an increasingly common basis for marriage in many cultures (Levine et al. 1995).

Within the United States, microcultural variations exist in the degree to which women value romantic love as a basis for marriage (Holland and Eisenhart 1990). One study interviewed young American women entering college from 1979 to 1981 and again in 1987 after they had graduated and begun their adult lives. The research sites were two southern colleges in the United States, one attended mainly by White Euro-Americans and the other by African Americans. A contrast between the groups of women emerged. The White women were much more influenced by notions of romantic love than the Black women were. The White women were also less likely to have strong career goals and more likely to expect to be economically dependent on their spouse. The Black women expressed independence and strong career goals. The theme of

romantic love supplies young White women with a model of the heroic male provider as the ideal, with her role being one of attracting him and providing the domestic context for their married life. The Black women were brought up to be more economically independent. This pattern is related both to African traditions in which women earn and manage their own earnings and to the racially

Brideprice , or bridewealth, is the transfer of goods or money from the groom’s side to the bride’s parents. It is common in horticultural and pastoralist cultures. Brideservice, a subtype of brideprice, is the transfer of labor from the groom to his parents-in-law for a designated period. It is practiced in some horticultural societies, especially in the Amazon.

Many marriages involve balanced gifts from both the bride’s and the groom’s sid

discriminatory job market in the United States that places African American men at a severe disadvantage.

Arranged marriages are formed on the basis of parents’ considerations of what

romantic love supplies young White women with a model of the heroic male provider as the ideal, with her role being one of attracting him and providing the domestic context for their married life. The Black women were brought up to be more economically independent. This pattern is related both to African traditions in which women earn and manage their own earnings and to the racially discriminatory job market in the United States that places African American men at a severe disadvantage.

Arranged marriages are formed on the basis of parents’ considerations of what

Japan are the family’s reputation and social standing; the absence of undesirable traits, such as a case of divorce or mental illness in the family; education; occupation; and income.

MARRIAGE GIFTS  Most marriages are accompanied by exchanges of goods or services between the families of the bride and groom (Figure 6.6). The two major forms of marital exchanges cross-culturally are dowry and brideprice.  Dowry  is the transfer of goods, and sometimes money, from the bride’s side to the new married couple for their use. The dowry includes household goods such as furniture, cooking utensils, and, sometimes, rights to a house. Dowry is the main form of marriage transfer in farming societies throughout Eurasia, from Western Europe through the northern Mediterranean and into China and India. In much of India, dowry is more accurately termed groomprice, because much of the goods and money pass not to the new couple but rather to the groom’s family (Billig 1992). In China during the Mao era, the government considered dowry a sign of women’s oppression and made it illegal. The practice of giving dowry in China has returned with increased personal wealth and consumerism, especially among the newly rich urban populations (Whyte 1993).

side. A longstanding pattern in the United States places the major burden of the costs of the wedding and honeymoon on the bride’s side, with the groom’s side responsible for paying for the rehearsal dinner the night before the wedding. A trend toward shared costs by the bride and groom may indicate more equal relations in the marriage as well.

FORMS OF MARRIAGE  Cultural anthropologists distinguish two forms of marriage on the basis of the number of partners involved.  Monogamy  is marriage between two people—a male or female if the pair is heterosexual, or two people of the same gender in the case of a homosexual pair. Heterosexual monogamy is the most common form of marriage cross-culturally, and in many countries it is the only legal form of marriage. spouses, a pattern allowed in many cultures. Two forms of polygamous marriage exist. The more common of the two is  polygyny , marriage of one man with more than one woman.  Polyandry , or marriage between one woman and more than one man, is rare. The only place where polyandry is 

In casual conversation, North Americans might use the words family and household interchangeably to refer to people who live together. Social scientists, however, propose a distinction between the two terms. A  family  is a group of people who consider themselves related through kinship. In North American English, the term may include both “close” and “distant” relatives. All members of a family do not necessarily live together or have strong bonds with one another. But they are still “family.”

A related term is the  household , either a person living alone or one or more persons who occupy a shared living space and who may or may not be related by kinship. Most households consist of members who are related through kinship, but an increasing number do not. An example of a nonkin household is a group of friends who live in thesame apartment. This section of the chapter looks at household forms and organization cross-culturally and at relationships between and among household members.

The Household: Variations on a Theme

Anthropologists define three forms of households, and they study the concept of household headship.

Household organization is divided into types according to how many married adults are involved. The  nuclear household  (which many people call the nuclear family) is a domestic group that contains one adult couple (married or “partners”), with or without children. An  extended household  is a domestic group that contains more than one adult married couple. The couples may be related through the father–son line (making a patrilineal extended household), through the mother–daughter line (a matrilineal extended household), or through sisters or brothers (a collateral extended household). Polygynous (multiple wives) and polyandrous (multiple husbands) households are complex households, domestic units in which one spouse lives with or near multiple partners and their children.The precise cross-cultural distribution of these various types of households is not known, but some broad generalizations can be offered. First, nuclear households are found in all cultures but are the preferred household type in only about one-fourth of the world’s cultures (Murdock 1965 [1949]:2). Extended households are the most important form in about half of all cultures. The distribution of these two household forms corresponds roughly with the modes of livelihood (see Figure 6.1). The nuclear form is most characteristic of economies at the two extremes of the continuum: foraging groups and industrial/digital societies. This pattern reflects the need for spatial mobility and flexibility in both modes of livelihood. Extended households constitute a substantial proportion of households in horticultural, pastoralist, and agricultural economies.

Changing Kinship and Household Dynamics

1. 6.3 Illustrate how kinship and households are changing.

This section provides examples of how kinship and household patterns are changing. Many of these changes have roots in colonialism, whereas others are the result of recent changes caused by globalization.

Change in Descent

Matrilineal descent is declining worldwide as a result of both European colonialism and contemporary Western globalization. European colonial rule in Africa and Asia contributed to the decline in matrilineal kinship by registering land and other property in the names of assumed male heads of household, even where females were the heads (Boserup 1970). This process eroded women’s previous rights and powers. Western missionaries contributed further to transforming matrilineal cultures into patrilineal systems (Etienne and Leacock 1980). For example, European colonial influences led to the decline of matrilineal kinship among Native North Americans. Before European colonialism, North America had one of the largest distributions of matrilineal descent worldwide. A comparative study of kinship among three reservation-based Navajo groups in Arizona shows that matrilineality is stronger where conditions most resemble the pre-reservation era (Levy et al. 1989).

Among the Minangkabau of Indonesia (review Culturama, this chapter), three factors explain the decline of matrilineal kinship (Blackwood 1995):

1. Dutch colonialism promoted the image of male-headed nuclear families as an ideal.

1. Islamic teachings idealize women as wives and men as household heads.

1. The modernizing Indonesian state has a policy of naming males as household heads.

Change in Marriage

Although the institution of marriage in general remains prominent, many of its details, including courtship, the marriage ceremony, and marital relationships, are changing. New forms of communication are profoundly affecting courtship. In a village in western Nepal (see Map 5.5) people’s stories of their marriages reveal that arranged marriages have decreased and elopement has increased since the 1990s.

Nearly everywhere, the age at first marriage is rising. The later age at marriage is related to increased emphasis on completing a certain number of years of education before marriage and to higher material aspirations, such as being able to own a house. Marriages between people of different countries and ethnicities are increasing, partly because of growing rates of international migration. Migrants take with them many of their marriage and family practices. They also adapt to rules and practices in their area of destination. Pluralistic practices evolve, such as conducting two marriage ceremonies—one conforming to the “original” culture and the other to the culture in the place of destination.

A marriage crisis is a cultural situation in which many people who want to marry cannot do so for one reason or another. Marriage crises are more frequent now than in the past, at least as perceived and reported by young people in the so-called marriage market. Throughout much of sub-Saharan Africa, many young men are unable to raise enough money for the brideprice and other marriage expenses. The reason these days often has to do with high rates of unemployment. A case study in a town of about 38,000 people in Niger, West Africa, illustrates these points (Masquelier 2005). Among the Mawri, who are Muslim, marriage is the crucial ritual that changes a boy into a man. The economy has been declining for some time, and typical farm or other wages are worth less than they were in earlier times. Marriage costs for the groom, however, have risen. While wealthy young men can afford to give a car to the bride’s parents, most young Mawri men cannot afford even a standard brideprice. They remain sitting at home in their parents’ house, something that, ordinarily, only females do. The many young, marriage-age women who remain single gain a reputation of being immoral, occupying a new and suspect social space between girl

and wife. In China, a different kind of marriage crisis exists and is growing. Population experts project that, by 2020, about 2 million men in China will not be able to find a woman to marry. This situation is due to the one-child policy, the preference for sons, and the resulting unbalanced sex ratio (Global Times 2010).

Weddings are important, culture-revealing events. Style changes in weddings worldwide abound, and they all mean something in terms of the choices people make to mark the event. Factors to consider in examining changes in wedding styles are the ceremony, costs, appropriate clothing, and the possibility of a honeymoon. The Western-style white wedding, so-named because the bride wears a white dress, is spreading around the world, though with fascinating local

adaptations in terms of its features, including what the bride and groom wear, the design of the wedding cake, floral displays, and more. Throughout Asia, advertisements and upscale stores display the Western-style white wedding gown, but not in India, where white clothing for women signifies widowhood and is inauspicious. A resurgence of local, folksy styles is occurring in some contexts. In Morocco, for example, an urban bride may wear a Western-style white gown for one part of the wedding ceremony and an “exotic” Berber costume (long robes and ornate silver jewelry characteristic of the mountain pastoralists) at another stage of the ceremony. The blending of Western and non-Western elements signals a family’s complex identity in a globalizing world.

This projection finds strong confirmation in the changes that have occurred in household structure among the Kelabit (kell-uh-bit) people of highland Borneo since the early 1990s (Amster 2000). One Kelabit settlement was founded in 1963 near the Indonesian border. At the time, everyone lived in one longhouse with over 20 family units. It was a “modern” longhouse, thanks to roofing provided by the British army and the innovation of private sleeping areas. Like more traditional longhouses, though, it was an essentially egalitarian living space within which individuals could freely move. Today, that longhouse is no more. Most of the young people have migrated to coastal towns and work in jobs related to the offshore oil industry. Most houses are now single-unit homes with an emphasis on privacy. The elders complain of a “bad silence” in the village. No one looks after visitors with the old style of hospitality. There is no longer one common longhouse for communal feasts and rituals.

Kelabit Houses

International migration is another major cause of change in household formation and internal relationships (discussed further in Chapter 12). A dramatic decline in fertility can occur in one generation when members of a farming household in, for example, Taiwan or Egypt migrate to England, France, Canada, or the United States. Having many children makes economic sense in their homeland, but not in the new destination. Many such migrants decide to have only one or two children. They tend to live in small, isolated nuclear households. International migration creates new challenges for relationships between parents and children. The children often become strongly identified with the new culture and have little connection with their ancestral culture. This rupture creates anxiety for the parents and conflict between children and parents over issues such as dating, dress, and career goals.The shape of households is also changing. In the United States, at the beginning of the twenty-first century, three kinds of households are most common: households composed of couples living in their first marriage, single-parent households, and households formed through remarriage. A rising fourth category is the multigenerational household, a form of extended household, in which an adult child lives with his or her parent or parents. In the United States, the economic downturn appears to be related to the fact that the number of Americans living in multigenerational households rose by 5 percent from 2007 to 2008 (Pew Center 2010). The increase in multigenerational households began in the 1980s with the influx of immigrants, but it clearly accelerated during the economic crisis. Now 16 percent of the population lives in homes with multiple generations. Marriage age for young adults has risen as well, and these unmarried young people are most likely to live with their parent or parents. A fifth category is also emerging, related to the ever-rising age at which many women have children. Called late-forming families, this reproductive pattern corresponds with many women’s career aspirations (Konvalinka 2013). One downside, in terms of child care, is that children in late-forming families cannot benefit from care and socialization from grandparents since they are often quite old by the time the grandchildren are growing up. Kinship, households, and domestic life are certainly not dull or static topics. Just trying to keep up with changing patterns in North America is a daunting task, to say nothing of tracking changes, and their causes, worldwide.

In the early 1800s, when French political philosopher Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and characterized it as a “nation of joiners,” he implied that people in some cultures are more likely to join groups than are people in other cultures. The questions of what motivates people to join groups, what holds people together in groups, and how groups deal with leadership and participation have intrigued scholars in many fields for centuries.

This chapter covers nonkin groups and nonkin microculture formation. Chapter 1 defines several factors related to microcultures: class, “race,” ethnicity, indigeneity, gender, age, and institutions such as prisons and retirement homes. This chapter looks at how microcultures shape group identity and organization and the relationships among different groups in terms of hierarchy and power. It first examines a variety of social groups ranging from small scale to large scale and then considers inequalities among social groups. The last section presents the concept of civil society and examples of it.

A  social group  is a cluster of people beyond the household unit who are usually related on a basis other than kinship, although kinship relationships may exist between people in the group. Two basic categories exist: the  primary group , consisting of people who interact with each other and know each other personally, and the  secondary group , consisting of people who identify with one another on some common ground but who may never meet with one another or interact with each other personally.

Members of all social groups have a sense of rights and responsibilities in relation to the group. Membership in a primary group, because of the face-to-face interaction, involves more direct accountability about rights and responsibilities than does membership in a secondary group.

Modes of livelihood affect the formation of social groups, with the greatest variety of groups found in agricultural and industrial/digital societies (Figure 7.1). One theory explaining this pattern is that mobile populations, such as foragers and pastoralists, are less likely to develop enduring social groups beyond kin relationships simply because they have lower population density and less continuous social interaction than more settled populations have. Although foragers and pastoralists have fewer types of social groups, they do not completely lack social groupings. A prominent form of social group among foragers and pastoralists is an  age set , a group of people close in age who go through certain rituals, such as circumcision, at the same time.

Figure 7.1

Modes of Livelihood and Social Groups

Many informal and formal groups have been prominent throughout sub-Sahara Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia, in accordance with the generalization that settled populations have the social density to support such groups. In contrast, such groups were less prominent in South Asia, a region that includes Pakistan, India, Nepal, Bhutan, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, until the later part of the twentieth century. In Bangladesh (Map 7.1), for example, a densely populated and agrarian country of South Asia, indigenous social groups were rare. The most prominent ties beyond the immediate household were kinship based (Miller and Khan 1986). In spite of the lack of indigenous social groups, Bangladesh has gained world renown since the later twentieth century for its success in forming local groups through an organization called the Grameen Bank, which offers microcredit (small loans) to poor people to help them start small businesses. Likewise, throughout the rest of South Asia, since the later twentieth century, the rise of numerous active social groups is remarkable, including those dedicated to preserving traditional environmental knowledge, promoting women and children’s health and survival, advocating for lesbian and gay rights, and poverty alleviation. The explanation for the rise of many of these groups lies in the global trend of nongovernmental groups to agitate for change in government policies and programs and to address problems that governments have overlooked.

Map 7.1

Bangladesh

The People’s Republic of Bangladesh is located on a deltaic floodplain with rich soil and risk of flooding. One of the world’s most densely populated countries, Bangladesh has around 160 million people living in an area about the size of the state of Wisconsin. Bangladesh is the world’s third largest Muslim-majority country and the eighth largest country in the world in terms of population.

This section describes a variety of social groups, starting with the most face-to-face, primary groups comprising two or three people based on friendship. It then moves to larger and more formal groups, such as countercultural groups and activist groups.

Friendship refers to close social ties between at least two people in which the ties are informal, voluntary, and involve personal, face-to-face interaction. Generally, friendship involves people who are nonkin, but in some cases kin are also friends. (Recall the Tory Islanders discussed in Chapter 6.) Friendship fits into the category of a primary social group.

One question that cultural anthropologists ask is whether friendship is a cultural universal. Two factors make it difficult to answer this question. First, friendship is an understudied topic in cultural anthropology, so insufficient cross-cultural research exists to answer the question definitively. Second, defining friendship cross-culturally is problematic. It is likely, however, that something like “friendship” is a cultural universal but shaped in different degrees from culture to culture (see Think Like an Anthropologist).

SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF FRIENDSHIP  People choose their friends, and friends remain so on a voluntary basis. Even so, the criteria for who qualifies as a friend may be culturally structured. For instance, gender segregation may limit cross-gender friendships and promote same-gender friendships, and racial segregation limits cross-“race” friendships. Another characteristic of friendship is that friends are supportive of each other, psychologically and sometimes materially. Support is mutual, shared back and forth in an expectable way as in balanced exchange (see Chapter 3). Friendship generally occurs between social equals, although there are exceptions, such as friendships between older and younger people, between a  supervisor and a staff worker, or between a teacher and a student.

Sharing stories is often a basis of friendship groups. According to a study that focused on interactions among men’s friendship groups in rumshops in Guyana (guy-AH-nuh) (Map 7.2), Indo-Guyanese men who have known each other since childhood spend time every day at the rumshop, eating, drinking, and regaling each other with stories (Sidnell 2000). Through shared storytelling about village history and other aspects of local knowledge, men display their equality with each other. The pattern of storytelling, referred to as “turn-at-talk,” in which efforts are made to include everyone as a storyteller in turn, also serves to maintain equality and solidarity. These friendship groups are tightly knit, and the members can call on one another for economic, political, and other kinds of support.

People in the Flats, especially women, maintain a set of friends through exchange: “swapping” goods (food, clothing) needed by someone at a particular time, sharing “child keeping,” and giving or lending food stamps and money. Such exchanges are part of a clearly understood pattern—gifts and favors go back and forth over time. Friends thus bound together are obligated to each another and can call on each other in time of need. In opposition to theories that suggest the breakdown of social relationships among the very poor, this research documents how poor people strategize and cope through social ties.

FRIENDSHIP AMONG THE URBAN POOR IN THE UNITED STATES  Carol Stack (1974) wrote a landmark book in the early 1970s showing how friendship networks promote economic survival among low-income, urban African Americans. She conducted fieldwork in “The Flats,” the poorest section of a Black community in a large midwestern city. She found extensive networks of friends “supporting, reinforcing each other—devising schemes for self-help, strategies for survival in a community of severe economic deprivation” (1974:28).

In the intervening decades since the time of Stack’s research, many other studies have documented the positive aspects of friendship among people of all social classes. Friendship, however, has its downside, since no one can be friends with everyone. So some people can feel left out. Bullying, or behavior that belittles and often viciously excludes individuals, can be considered the harsh opposite of befriending someone. While many sociologists and psychologists have studied bullying, cultural anthropologists have done so far less.

Clubs and fraternities/sororities are social groups that define membership in terms of a sense of shared identity and objectives. They may comprise people of the same ethnic heritage, occupation or business, religion, or gender. Although many clubs appear to exist primarily to serve functions of sociability and psychological support, deeper analysis often shows that these groups have economic and political roles as well.

College fraternities and sororities are highly selective groups that serve a variety of explicit functions, such as entertainment and social service. They also form bonds between members that may help in securing jobs after graduation. Few anthropologists have studied the “Greek system” on U.S. campuses. An exception is Peggy Sanday, who was inspired to study college fraternities after the gang rape of a woman student by several fraternity brothers at the campus where she teaches. Her book Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus (1990) explores initiation rituals and how they are related to male bonding solidified by victimization and ridicule of women. Gang rape, or a “train,” is a prevalent practice in some, not all, fraternities. Fraternity party invitations may hint at the possibility of a “train.” Typically, the brothers seek out a “party girl”—a somewhat vulnerable young woman who may be especially needy of acceptance o

especially high on alcohol or other substances (her drinks may have been “spiked”). They take her to one of the brothers’ rooms, where she may or may not agree to have sex with one of the brothers, and she often passes out. Then a “train” of men have sex with her. Rarely prosecuted, the male participants reinforce their sense of privilege, power, and unity with one another through a group ritual involving abuse of a female outsider.

In many indigenous Amazonian groups, the men’s house is fiercely guarded from being entered by women. If a woman trespasses on a male territory, men punish her by gang rape. One interpretation of this cultural practice is that men have a high degree of anxiety about their identity as fierce warriors and as sexually potent males (Gregor 1982). Maintaining their identity as fierce and forbidding toward outsiders involves taking an aggressive position in relation to women of their own group.

Cross-culturally, women do not tend to form androphobic (“man-hating” or otherwise anti-male) clubs, the logical parallel of gynophobic (“woman-hating” or otherwise anti-female) men’s clubs. College sororities, for example, are not mirror images of college fraternities. Although some sororities’ initiation rituals are psychologically brutal to the pledges, bonding among the members does not involve abusive behavior toward men.

Several kinds of groups comprise people who, for one reason or another, are outside the “mainstream” of society and resist conforming to the dominant cultural pattern. The so-called hippies of the 1960s were one such group. One similarity among these groups, as with clubs and fraternities, is the importance of bonding through shared initiation and other rituals.

YOUTH GANGS  The term  youth gang  refers to a group of young people, found mainly in urban areas, who are often considered a social problem by adults and law enforcement officials (Sanders 1994).

Youth gangs vary in terms of how formally they are organized. Like clubs and fraternities, gangs often have a recognized leader, formalized rituals of initiation for new members, and symbolic markers of identity, such as tattoos or special clothing. An example of an informal youth gang with no formal leadership hierarchy or initiation rituals is that of the “Masta Liu” in Honiara, the capital city of the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (Jourdan 1995) (Map 7.3). Unemployment is the primary unifying feature of the male youths who become Masta Liu. Most have migrated to the city from the countryside to escape what they consider an undesirable lifestyle there: working in the fields under control of their elders. Some Liu live with extended kin in the city; others organize Liu-only households. They spend their time wandering around town, referred to locally as going wakabaot, in groups of up to 10:They stop at every shop on their way, eager to look at the merchandise but afraid to be kicked out by the security guards; they check out all the cinemas only to dream in front of the preview posters … not even having the $2 bill that will allow them to get in; they gaze for hours on end, and without moving, at the electronic equipment displayed in the Chinese shops, without saying a word: One can read in their gaze the silent dreams they create. (1995:210)This country consists of nearly 1,000 islands. Its capital, Honiara, is located on the island of Guadalcanal. The population is nearly 600,000. Most of the people earn a living through small-scale farming and fishing. Commercial exploitation of local timber has led to severe deforestation. Over 70 languages are spoken, and an additional four have recently gone extinct. Most people are Christian, mainly Anglican. The Solomons were the site of some of the bitterest fighting during World War II.Why, then, did young men join an urban gang? The research revealed that many gang members had a particular personality type called a defiant individualist. The defiant individualist type has five characteristics:

1. Intense competitiveness

1. Mistrust of others

1. Self-reliance

1. Social isolation

1. A strong  survival instinct

Countercultural Groups

Several kinds of groups comprise people who, for one reason or another, are outside the “mainstream” of society and resist conforming to the dominant cultural pattern. The so-called hippies of the 1960s were one such group. One similarity among these groups, as with clubs and fraternities, is the importance of bonding through shared initiation and other rituals.

YOUTH GANGS  The term  youth gang  refers to a group of young people, found mainly in urban areas, who are often considered a social problem by adults and law enforcement officials (Sanders 1994).

A Cambodian boy dances to hip hop music in Phnom Penh, the capital city. Established by a former U.S. gang member who was deported after being convicted of armed robbery, the Tiny Toones center teaches disc-jockey skills and rapping to nearly 400 children. Tiny Toones and its founder, Tuy Sobil, better known as Kay Kay, have won praise for helping drug addicts and poor street kids transform their lives.

Youth gangs vary in terms of how formally they are organized. Like clubs and fraternities, gangs often have a recognized leader, formalized rituals of initiation for new members, and symbolic markers of identity, such as tattoos or special clothing. An example of an informal youth gang with no formal leadership hierarchy or initiation rituals is that of the “Masta Liu” in Honiara, the capital city of the Solomon Islands in the South Pacific (Jourdan 1995) (Map 7.3). Unemployment is the primary unifying feature of the male youths who become Masta Liu. Most have migrated to the city from the countryside to escape what they consider an undesirable lifestyle there: working in the fields under control of their elders. Some Liu live with extended kin in the city; others organize Liu-only households. They spend their time wandering around town, referred to locally as going wakabaot, in groups of up to 10:

They stop at every shop on their way, eager to look at the merchandise but afraid to be kicked out by the security guards; they check out all the cinemas only to dream in front of the preview posters … not even having the $2 bill that will allow them to get in; they gaze for hours on end, and without moving, at the electronic equipment displayed in the Chinese shops, without saying a word: One can read in their gaze the silent dreams they create. (1995:210)

Map 7.3

The Solomon Islands

This country consists of nearly 1,000 islands. Its capital, Honiara, is located on the island of Guadalcanal. The population is nearly 600,000. Most of the people earn a living through small-scale farming and fishing. Commercial exploitation of local timber has led to severe deforestation. Over 70 languages are spoken, and an additional four have recently gone extinct. Most people are Christian, mainly Anglican. The Solomons were the site of some of the bitterest fighting during World War II.

Street gangs are a more formal variety of youth gang. They generally have leaders and a hierarchy of membership roles and responsibilities. They are named, and their members mark their identity with tattoos or “colors.” Much popular thinking associates street gangs with violence, but not all are involved in violence. An anthropologist who did research among nearly 40 street gangs in New York, Los Angeles, and Boston learned much about why individuals join gangs, providing insights that also contradict popular thinking (Jankowski 1991). One common perception is that young boys join gangs because they are from homes with no male authority figure with whom they identify. In the gangs studied, about half of the gang members were from intact nuclear households. Another common perception is that the gang replaces a missing feeling of family. This study showed that the same number of gang members reported having close family ties as those who did not.

Why, then, did young men join an urban gang? The research revealed that many gang members had a particular personality type called a defiant individualist. The defiant individualist type has five characteristics:

1. Intense competitiveness

1. Mistrust of others

1. Self-reliance

1. Social isolation

1. A strong survival instinct

A structurist view suggests that poverty, especially urban poverty, leads to the development of this kind of personality as a response to the prevailing economic obstacles and uncertainty. To explain the global spread of urban youth gangs, structurists point to widespread economic changes in urban employment opportunities. In many countries, a declining urban industrial base has created persistent poverty in inner-city communities. At the same time, schooling and the popular media promote aspirations for a better life. Urban gang members, in this view, are the victims of large structural forces beyond their control that both inspire them to want aspects of a successful lifestyle and prevent them from achieving the legal means to obtain their aspirations. Many of these youths want to be economically successful, but social conditions channel their interests and skills into illegal pursuits rather than into legal pathways to achievement.

BODY MODIFICATION GROUPS  One of the many countercultural movements in the United States includes people who have a sense of community strengthened through forms of body alteration. James Myers (1992) did research in California among people who feel that they are a special group because of their interest in permanent body modification, especially genital piercing, branding, and cutting. Fieldwork involved participant observation and interviews: Myers was involved in workshops organized for the San Francisco sadomasochist (SM) community; he attended the Fifth Annual Living in Leather Convention held in Portland, Oregon, in 1990; he spent time in tattoo and piercing studios; and he talked with students and others in his hometown who were involved in these forms of body modification. The study population included males and females, heterosexuals, gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and SMers. The single largest group was SM homosexuals and bisexuals. The study population was mainly White, and most had either attended or graduated from college Myers witnessed many modification sessions at workshops: Those seeking modification go up on stage and have their chosen procedure done by a well-known expert. Whatever the procedure, the volunteers exhibit little pain—usually just a sharp intake of breath at the moment the needle passes through or the brand touches skin. After that critical moment, the audience breathes an audible sigh of relief. The volunteer stands up and adjusts his or her clothing, and members of the audience applaud. This public event is a kind of initiation ritual that binds the expert, the volunteer, and the group together. Pain is an important part of many rites of passage. In this case, the audience witnesses and validates the experience and becomes joined to the initiate through witnessing t

1. 7.2 Define what is included in the term social stratification.

Social stratification  consists of hierarchical relationships among different groups, as though they were arranged in layers, or strata. Stratified groups may be unequal on a variety of measures, including material resources, power, human welfare, education, and symbolic attributes. People in groups in higher positions have privileges not experienced by those in lower echelon groups, and they are likely to be interested in maintaining their privileged positions. Social stratification appeared late in human history, most clearly with the emergence of agriculture. Now some form of social stratification is nearly universal.

Analysis of the categories—such as class, “race,” gender, age, and indigeneity—within stratification systems reveals a crucial difference among them in the degree to which membership in a given category is an  ascribed position , based on qualities of a person gained through birth, or an  achieved position , based on qualities of a person gained through action. Ascribed positions may be based on one’s “race,” ethnicity, gender, age, or physical ability. These factors are generally out of the control of the individual, although some flexibility exists for gender (through surgery and hormonal treatments) and for certain kinds of physical conditions. Also, one can sometimes “pass” as a member of another “race” or ethnic group. Age is an unusual ascribed category because an individual goes through several status levels as they move through the life cycle. Achievement as a basis for group membership means that a person’s membership in the group is based on some valued attainment. Ascribed systems are thus more “closed,” and achievement-based systems are more “open,” in terms of mobility, either upward or downward, within the system. Some scholars of social status believe that modernization during the twentieth century and increased social complexity led to a rise in achievement-based positions and a decline in ascription-based positions. The material that follows explores how social categories define group membership and relations of inequality among groups.

Societies place people

nto categories—student, husband, child, retired person, political leader, or member of Phi Beta Kappa—referred to as a person’s  status , or position or standing in society (Wolf 1996). Each status has an accompanying role, which is expected behavior for someone of a particular status, and a “script” for how to behave, look, and talk. Some statuses have more prestige attached to them than others. Within societies that have marked status positions, different status groups are marked by a particular lifestyle, including the goods they own, their leisure activities, and their linguistic styles. The maintenance of group position by the higher status categories is sometimes accomplished by exclusionary practices in relation to lower-status groups through a tendency toward group in-marriage and socializing only within the group. Groups, like individuals, have status, or standing, in society.

Four major ascribed systems of social stratification are based on divisions of people into unequally ranked groups on the basis of, respectively, “race,” ethnicity, gender (defined in Chapter 1), and caste, the last a ranked group determined by birth and often linked to a particular occupation and to South Asian cultures. Like status and class groups, these four categories are secondary social groups, because no one can have a personal relationship with all other members of the entire group. Each system takes on local specificities, depending on the context. For example, “race” and ethnicity are interrelated and overlap with conceptions of culture in much of Latin America, although what they mean in terms of identity and status differs in different countries in the region (de la Cadena 2001). For some, the concept of mestizaje (mes-tee-SAH-hay), from the word mestizo, literally means “racial” mixture. In Central and South America, it refers either to people who are cut off from their Indian roots or to literate and successful people who retain some indigenous cultural practices. One has to know the local system of categories and meanings attached to them to understand the dynamics of inequality that go with them.Systems based on differences defined in terms of “race,” ethnicity, gender, and caste share some important features with each other and with class-based systems. First, they relegate large numbers of people to particular levels of entitlement to livelihood, power, security, esteem, and freedom (Berreman 1979 [1975]:213). This simple fact should not be overlooked. Second, those with greater entitlements dominate those with lesser entitlements. Third, members of the dominant groups tend to seek to maintain their position, consciously or unconsciously. They do this through institutions that control ideology among the dominated and through institutions that physically suppress potential rebellion or subversion by the dominated (Harris 1971, quoted in Mencher 1974:469). Fourth, in spite of efforts to maintain systems of dominance, instances of subversion and rebellion do occur, indicating the potential for agency among the oppressed

RACE”  Racial stratification is a relatively recent form of social inequality. It results from the unequal meeting of two formerly separate groups through colonization, slavery, and other large-group movements (Sanjek 1994). Europe’s “age of discovery,” beginning in the 1500s, ushered in a new era of global contact. In contrast, in relatively homogeneous cultures, ethnicity is a more important distinction than “race.” In contemporary Nigeria, for example, the population is largely homogeneous and ethnicity is the more salient term (Jinadu 1994). A similar situation prevails in other African states as well as in the Middle East, Central Europe and Eurasia, and China.

A key feature of racial thinking is its insistence that behavioral differences among peoples are “natural,” inborn, or biologically caused. Throughout the history of racial categorizations in the West, such features as head size, head shape, and brain size have been accepted as reasons for behavioral differences. Writing early in the twentieth century, Franz Boas contributed to de-linking supposed inborn, racial attributes from behavior (review Chapter 1). He showed that people with the same head size but from different cultures behaved differently and that people with various head sizes within the same cultures behaved similarly. For Boas and his followers, 

culture, not biology, is the key explanation for behavior. Thus, “race” is not a biological reality; there is no way to divide the human population into “races” based on certain biological features. Yet social race and racism exist. In other words, in many contexts the concept of “race” has a social reality in terms of people’s entitlements, status, and treatment. In spite of some progress in reducing racism in the United States in the twentieth century, racial discrimination persists.