FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W1567989871> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W1567989871 endingPage "210" @default.
• W1567989871 startingPage "201" @default.
• W1567989871 abstract "Two major positions have emerged in the debate about the nature of kin- ship. One argues that kinship can only be analysed from the framework of the bio- logical necessities of human reproduction. The other argues that this position is nothing more than ethnocentric view of kinship derived from European culture and that only a broader cultural approach can provide a meaningful analysis of kinship. In this approach it is necessary to analyse kinship around the world from a perspec- tive derived from within each different culture. Recent developments have pointed out the inadequacies of both of these positions and call for a new approach to kin- ship. This article suggests one possible approach that goes beyond the debate be- tween biology and culture. It based upon the complementarity of human social behaviour. Czech Sociological Review, 2001, Vol. 9 (No. 2: 201-210) I would like to begin with a quote from a 1960 article in the journal, Philosophy of Sci- ence, in which Ernest Gellner began a debate about the nature of kinship. Gellner wrote: Suppose an anthropologist observes, in a society he is investigating, a certain kind of recur- ring relationship between pairs of individuals or of groups. (It may be a relationship of au- thority, or a symmetrical one of, say, mutual aid, or of avoidance, or whatnot.) Suppose the autochthonous term for the relationship is blip. The crucial question now is: Under what conditions will the anthropologist's treatment of the blip-relationship fall under the rubric of kinship structure? It will be so subsumed if the anthropologist believes that the blip- relationship overlaps, in a predominant number of cases, with some physical kinship rela- tionship. (Gellner 1960: 187; Italics in original work) That the anthropological study of kinship ultimately rests upon the biological foundation of human reproduction is not a novel idea. Since the modern study of kinship began in the middle of the 19th century there has been an intimate connection between kinship and biological processes. This relationship continues to be expressed today. A number of anthropologists (e.g., Fox, Goodenough, Holy, Scheffler) have agreed with Gellner that the processes of reproduction, birth, and nurturance, in one form or another provide the essential foundation of kinship. Furthermore, the biological processes often are taken to represent human nature and are seen to provide the necessary constant for systematic cross-cultural comparison. Culture, by comparison, is to be considered an epiphenome- non. It is useful for describing particular systems of kinship and describing human behav- ioural variety, but it is dependent upon human nature (defined in biological terms) and cannot serve as the framework for comparison. Comparative analysis is the foundation of science. In kinship, for Gellner, et al., this hinges on biology. On the other side of the debate in the Philosophy of Science were John Barnes and Rodney Needham. They countered Gellner's position by arguing that kinship was primar- ily a matter of culture. It was the interpretation of the processes of reproduction and not" @default.
• W1567989871 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W1567989871 creator A5014560908 @default.
• W1567989871 date "2001-09-01" @default.
• W1567989871 modified "2023-10-04" @default.
• W1567989871 title "The Current Controversy in Kinship" @default.
• W1567989871 cites W1967806022 @default.
• W1567989871 cites W1970013957 @default.
• W1567989871 cites W1984158166 @default.
• W1567989871 cites W2085013190 @default.
• W1567989871 cites W2327311319 @default.
• W1567989871 cites W4229882864 @default.
• W1567989871 doi "https://doi.org/10.13060/00380288.2001.37.12.09" @default.
• W1567989871 hasPublicationYear "2001" @default.
• W1567989871 type Work @default.
• W1567989871 sameAs 1567989871 @default.
• W1567989871 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W1567989871 countsByYear W15679898712019 @default.
• W1567989871 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W1567989871 hasAuthorship W1567989871A5014560908 @default.
• W1567989871 hasBestOaLocation W15679898711 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C119599485 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C144348335 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C148043351 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C19165224 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C53553401 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C119599485 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C127413603 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C144024400 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C144348335 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C148043351 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C19165224 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C53553401 @default.
• W1567989871 hasConceptScore W1567989871C95457728 @default.
• W1567989871 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W1567989871 hasLocation W15679898711 @default.
• W1567989871 hasLocation W15679898712 @default.
• W1567989871 hasOpenAccess W1567989871 @default.
• W1567989871 hasPrimaryLocation W15679898711 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W1550328219 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W1567617646 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2164165414 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2497998320 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2794115831 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2906083980 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2907379684 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W2953194962 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W4253914820 @default.
• W1567989871 hasRelatedWork W72729030 @default.
• W1567989871 hasVolume "37" @default.
• W1567989871 isParatext "false" @default.
• W1567989871 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W1567989871 magId "1567989871" @default.
• W1567989871 workType "article" @default.