ABSTRACT

One conclusion that emerges, almost by necessity, from the case studies assembled in this volume is that kinship comes in a variety of packages and with a multitude of meanings attached. This statement not only is self-evident, but was to be expected. Following the characterisation of ‘kinship at large’ set up in Chapter 1 anything else would be a surprise. Instead of insisting on universal characteristics as a precondition for the analytical validity of kinship, variation is viewed as a practical necessity resulting from detailed fieldwork and observation of social reality that does not a priori privilege certain aspects of social relatedness over others. However, the celebration of diversity of ethnographic detail carries a variety of potential pitfalls and dangers. First, it is obviously of little interest to the non-regional specialist if a particular case study speaks only to itself (and the few other studies conducted in the area). Second, if we are too content with ethnographic diversity, the legitimate question arises: where does this leave the anthropology of kinship (or of any other aspect, for that matter)? Some might argue that the deconstruction of concepts such as kinship-triggered by the seeming nonuniformness of the subject-is a noble goal in itself. Without denying the usefulness of periodically interrogating the conceptual tool kit of anthropology and of getting rid of concepts and terms that hide more than they reveal, it seems to me that to probe for structural and processual similarities and differences is one of the legitimate (and necessary) endeavours of the discipline.1