UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

An approach to the quantitative study of kinship in a western-type society Inglis, Gordon Bahan 1964

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
UBC_1964_A8 I5.pdf [ 4.32MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 1.0104935.json
JSON-LD: 1.0104935+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0104935.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0104935+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0104935+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0104935+rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 1.0104935 +original-record.json
Full Text
1.0104935.txt
Citation
1.0104935.ris

Full Text

AN APPROACH. TO: .THE QUANTITATIVE: STUDY OF KINSHIP:; IN.:A TOSTERN^TYPE- SOCIETY by GORDON BAHAN INGLIS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1959 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l m e n t of the Requirements f o r the Degree of MASTER OF ARTS i n the Department of ANTHROPOLOGY and SOCIOLOGY We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia August, 1964 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of • British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that per mission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publi cation of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission* Department of A]^rn>iio/>o*ogy V r a c / » ^ i f y The University of British Columbia, Vancouver 8, Canada Date S**,o/. za,  i i . ABSTRACT This t h e s i s i s concerned w i t h i ; h o development of some methods and con cepts by which k i n s h i p behaviour i n Western urban s o c i e t i e s may be s t u d i e d q u a n t i t a t i v e l y , and w i t h the data d e r i v e d from an experimental a p p l i c a t i o n of them. Questionnaires f i l l e d out by 185 students i n the i n t r o d u c t o r y course i n Anthropology were analyzed. In the l i g h t of t h i s a n a l y s i s , the inadequacies of some d e f i n i t i o n s and uses of the term "kindred" are demonstrated, and the concepts of " p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d " and " e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d " are suggested. In an approach t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the importance of k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , k i n i terminology and the naming of c h i l d r e n are considered, and a "kin-use index" i s d e r i v e d f o r the q u a n t i t a t i v e expression of dependence upon k i n f o r support. F i n d i n g s s t r e s s the importance of the nuclear f a m i l y , and suggest a m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s i n k i n s h i p knowledge and behaviour. The i n f l u e n c e of p r o p i n q u i t y and s e p a r a t i o n upon k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s explored by means of an a p p l i c a t i o n of the concept of p h e r i c d i s t a n c e and the development of a numerical index of i n t e r a c t i o n between kinsmen. Again the f i n d i n g s show a n u c l e a r f a m i l y p a t t e r n w i t h a m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s . A l s o con s i d e r e d i n t h i s connection are f i n d i n g s t h a t suggest an u x o r i l o c a l p a t t e r n o f res i d e n c e . I n c o n c l u s i o n , the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s are discussed i n com p a r i s o n w i t h the model of American k i n s h i p presented by T a l c o t t Parsons, and some suggestions about the a p p l i c a t i o n of modifi e d v e r s i o n s of the methods and concepts used i n t h i s study are made. i i i . TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 I THE NATURE OF THE SAMPLE 7 I I KIN RECOGNIZED 14 1. K i n Groupings 14 2. The P o t e n t i a l Kindred 18 3. The E f f e c t i v e Kindred 23 I I I KIN RELATIONSHIPS 28 1. Terminology. 28 2. F i c t i v e K i n 31 3. Naming 34 4. Commensali t y 36 5. S e r v i c e and Support 36 IV PROPINQUITY AND KIN RELATIONSHIPS 39 1. Method and Expectations 39 2. P r o p i n q u i t y and the E f f e c t i v e Kindred 41 3. P r o x i m i t y and Contact 41 4. Sex, P r o p i n q u i t y , and I n t e r a c t i o n 47 V CONCLUSION 50 LITERATURE CITED 58 APPENDIX (The Questionnaire used i n the Study) 59 i v . LIST OF TABLES I Age of Informants 8 I I Year of U n i v e r s i t y 8 I I I Occupations 8 IV R e l i g i o n 9 V (a) Permanent Residence 9 V (b) Present Residence 9 VI Place of B i r t h 10 V I I (a) Parents' Place of B i r t h 11 V I I (b) Length o f Parents' Residenoe i n Canada 12 V I I I Parents' R e l i g i o n 12 IX Socioeconomic Status 13 X Range of the P o t e n t i a l Kindred 19 X I S i z e of P o t e n t i a l Kindred 21 X I I P o t e n t i a l Kindred and R e l i g i o n . . . . . . . . . . 21 X I I I P o t e n t i a l Kindred and R u r a l or Urban B i r t h 22 XIV P o t e n t i a l Kindred and S o c i a l Status 23 XV S i z e of E f f e c t i v e Kindred 26 XVI R e l a t i o n s h i p s Discontinued, by Category 27 XVII T e r m i n o l o g i o a l D i s t i n c t i o n Between A f f i n e s and Consanguines i n the F i r s t Ascending Generation. 29 X V I I I F i o t i v e K i n 33 XIX Source o f Informants' Names . . . . . 34 XX K i n as a Source of Names 35 XXI S e r v i c e and Support 38 XXII Discontinuance of R e l a t i o n s h i p s , by Area 42 X X I I I I n t e r a c t i o n Indexes, by Area ( e i g h t - p o i n t s c a l e ) 45 XXIV Average I n t e r a c t i o n Indexes f o r A l l Areas 47 XXV Parents' Parents L i v i n g i n Same C i t y as Parents 48 F i g u r e 1 Chart (adapted from Parsons 1943:23) 52 1 INTRODUCTION The study here reported vas planned as an investigation of kinship "behaviour among a group of middle class residents of Vancouver, with particular emphasis upon demography and upon the exchange among kinsmen of tangible assistance and support. The study was intended to test no particular hypothesis, but rather to investigate the valid i t y of certain assumptions about North American kinship that are to be found i n our system of folk-belief and - at least implicitly - i n some of the professional literature. An important ideal i n our folk-system concerns the independence of the nuclear family. Emphasis upon separate households, upon self-determination, and upon privacy for the nuclear family unit reinforce the idea of i t s independence. It i s obvious, however, that no such unit oan be truly independent, except possibly through subsisting by the efforts of i t s members alone, remote from other human beings. In reality, the nuclear family i n our society i s embedded i n a complex network of relationships, linking i t , as a unit and through i t s individual members, to other units and individuals of the larger society. How much of this network is a kin network? What part do friendly and pseudo-kin relationships play? Talcott Parsons, i n an artiole on the kinship system of the contemporary United States, writes: "...the typical conjugal family lives i n a home segregated from those of both pairs of parents ( i f living) and i s economically independent from both" (1943;27). How many "independent" households are set 2 up on. funds borrowed from or given by the parents of the marriage partners? To what extent i s the material basis for the new family's way of l i f e provided by wedding presents, and to what extent is i t enabled to maintain a way of l i f e because of the provision of "baby-sitting" and other services by kin and friends? Parsons' paragraph continues: "In a very large proportion of cases the geographical separation i s considerable" (1943:27). How large a proportion of cases, and how great i s the separation? Questions such as these must be answered with some precision before valid generalizations about our kinship system oan be made, and i t was as an exploration of some of them that the present study took shape. A questionnaire was drawn up i n which informants were asked to supply, anonymously, the following data: (a) age, religion, plaoe of birth, and so on, for themselves and both of their parents, (b) the present location of, and the extent of their contaot with, as many of their kinsmen as they could remember, (c) the source of their own names, and the terms of address commonly used by them for their parents and collaterals i n the f i r s t ascending generation, (d) statements about commensality and the sources from which they would seek assistance and financial support i n oase of need. (See Appendix for a f u l l copy of the questionnaire.) I n i t i a l l y , i t was planned to collect a number of responses to this questionnaire and to use the results as a guide to more intensive investiga tion by means of interviews. As the work progressed, two factors emerged to change this plan. F i r s t , the questionnaire, although possessing many flaws that are now obvious, seemed to provide by i t s e l f data of a quantity and type to be worthy of more extensive analysis than was originally intended. Second, the few experimental interviews conducted took so long that i t became apparent that the collection of the sort of information desired from a significant 3 number of informants by this method would demand muoh more time than a single investigator could devote to the project. 1 Thus, this report i s based upon questionnaires completed by students i n the Introductory Anthropology olass. Some dozen interviews, formal and informal, with members of the class and with others, are drawn upon i n speculating about the interpretation of the data derived from the questionnaires. Before proceeding with the report, some further defence of this method of approach seems desirable. It i s my opinion that in this, as i n most other areas of anthropological investigation, the pressing current need i s for quantitative information. If we wish to claim any validity for qualitative statements about behaviour, attitudes, or beliefs, relating to kinship or to any other aspect of human social action, those statements must be based upon clearly quantifiable data. If we are to say, for example, that the North American nuclear family i s an independent unit, we must also be able to say of what this independence consists, and what measurements may be applied to ascertain i t . Because so much of North American social action - at least among the middle and upper socioeconomic strata - is carried on with a well-nigh unparalleled degree of privacy, direct observation of behaviour w i l l not provide an adequate quantitative base for generalizations about many aspeots of our society. Informants can be asked to report behaviour, but the inter view method is fraught with d i f f i c u l t i e s besides those already mentioned. * A related problem whioh might be expected to have been of more importance i f I had been depending solely upon interviews to get information about numbers of kin is desoribed by Helen Codere i n writing of a genealogical study among her students at Vassar: "Collecting genealogies i n an inter view was experimented with, but proved to be impractical, principally because i t seemed impossible to control i n any non-interfering way the flood of reminiscence and reflection about self, kin, and sooiety that the interview situation touched off. There were so many digressions that the interviewee was understandably never ready to vouch for completeness and was never able to keep that goal i n mindtt (1955t67). 4 If i t i s desired to explore very far the complexities and inter-relationships of even a limited segment of social action, the demands on the time of the investigator make a team approach -the only efficient one, with a resulting diminution i n consistency of interpretation. Finding members of our bustling society who are wi l l i n g to spend the time required of good informants may present a real problem; i f they are found, the group of talkative informants so formed can hardly be represented as •typical of their society. There is also the question of how far the information gained from interviews represents statements about actual behaviour and how far i t represents the values of the informant and the norms of his society. It may be expected that face-to-face confrontation w i l l lead the informant to reflect upon the impression he i s making on the interviewer, and upon the "right" answers to his questions. The limitations already mentioned on the possibility of observation make checking the accuracy of interview responses d i f f i c u l t . In short, the ordinary methods of anthropological field-work cannot be depended upon to yiel d from complex western societies the kind of results yielded by the same methods employed among societies of smaller size composed of non-literate people. It is my opinion that some of these d i f f i c u l t i e s can be avoided by an approach like the one employed in this study. It i s apparent that, although as many sociological studies are conducted among university students as among convicts and slum-dwellers, there i s a strong professional feeling that suoh studies are i n some way less creditable than others. Certainly, the d i f f i c u l t i e s of reaching and establishing rapport are less with a student group than with almost any other, but d i f f i c u l t y of access can hardly be taken as a measure of the value of a study. Indeed, i f the need for the large-scale collection of quantifiable data be admitted, the aooessibility of these informants must be a strong argument in favour of their use. 5 It i s true, of course, that a group of university students do not con stitute a sample "typical" of their society. However, sampling methods that are feasible for a small-scale study are unlikely to produce a group of informants that is muoh better i n this regard. In sum, I f e e l that whatever the students used i n this study may lack i n desirability as a group of informants is more than made up for by the faot that, since they are them selves engaged i n introductory studies in the social sciences, they can be made aware of the importance of care and accuracy i n giving information. The su i t a b i l i t y of using informants of this age group for a study of this kind w i l l be discussed later. One of the major drawbacks to the questionnaire as a method of collecting , data of any depth is the d i f f i c u l t y of presenting instructions i n such a way as to ensure consistency and accuracy of responses. Printed directions that attempt to allow for a l l possible misinterpretations beoome tedious to read, and a comprehensive questionnaire i s l i k e l y to be unwieldy and discouraging 2 to even a cooperative informant. However, when questionnaires are adminis tered to a large group under the direction of an investigator who i s f u l l y familiar with the questions and the purposes of the investigation, and who "works through" the items with the group, many of these d i f f i c u l t i e s can be avoided. Printed directions oan be kept to a minimum, and the director of the questionnaire can, by vocal emphasis, i l l u s t r a t i o n , and repetition, deliver a set of carefully prepared instructions much more eff i c i e n t l y than he could i n print. If points are missed or inadequately covered, the inform ants oan ask for c l a r i f i c a t i o n . 2 Ideally, questions should be presented i n such a way as not to require instructions. However, framing such questions to e l i c i t information of the sort dealt with here i s , i f not impossible, at least well beyond the capabilities of this writer. 6 It'seems to me t h a t t h i s method of a d m i n i s t e r i n g a q u e s t i o n n a i r e , through the s t i m u l a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n a group a c t i v i t y and the encouragement of the person a d m i n i s t e r i n g i t , provides f o r the informants much more m o t i v a t i o n t o respond than they would have i f they were to complete the q u e s t i o n n a i r e i n p r i v a t e . A t the same time, anonymity i s preserved, and i t seems reasonable t o expeot t h a t the informants w i l l f e e l able t o respond more f r a n k l y than they might i n a f a c e - t o - f a c e encounter. The r a t h e r lengthy q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n t h i s study was presented i n a s i n g l e l e c t u r e p e r i o d . I t now appears t h a t a b e t t e r method might have been t o present a s e r i e s of s h o r t e r questionnaires during p o r t i o n s of a number of l e c t u r e p e r i o d s . One of the problems w i t h the l a r g e r questionnaire i s the f a c t t h a t some informants can complete some seotions f a s t e r than other informants, and i t becomes d i f f i c u l t t o keep the a t t e n t i o n of the whole group fooussed on the same s e c t i o n . A l s o , the i n t e r e s t and p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f the informants could, presumably, be maintained a t a more c o n s i s t e n t l e v e l during s h o r t e r s e s s i o n s . On the other hand, p o s i t i v e aspects of the method t h a t was employed are, f i r s t , t h a t the questionnaires could be completed anonymously, and second, t h a t a l l of the r e q u i r e d data were obtained from each informant who completed a q u e s t i o n n a i r e . I f i t had been administered i n s e c t i o n s , some system of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of informants would have been neoessary, and i t might be expected t h a t i r r e g u l a r attendance a t l e o t u r e periods would r e s u l t i n gaps i n the i n f o r m a t i o n obtained from some informants. O v e r - a l l , I f e e l t h a t , i n s p i t e of the inadequacies of t h i s study a l r e a d y touched upon, and more t h a t w i l l be d e a l t w i t h l a t e r i n the r e p o r t , the method of i n v e s t i g a t i o n used has much to recommend i t . A t the very, l e a s t , data such as these, c o l l e c t e d from a large number of i n d i v i d u a l s and t a b u l a t e d , i s a major p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r any study i n depth of many aspects of s o c i a l a c t i o n i n a l a r g e , complex, urban s o c i e t y . 7 I THE NATURE OP THE SAMPTfF, Completed q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were o o l l e o t e d from a t o t a l of 248 informants. Since the married informants, 19 men and 6 women, because of the wide range i n t h e i r ages, d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a sub-group w i t h i n the l a r g e r sample, but ra t h e r a s e t of 25 s p e c i a l oases, t h e i r q uestionnaires were e l i m i n a t e d . To f u r t h e r i n c r e a s e the homogeneity of the sample, the qu e s t i o n n a i r e s of 20 males and 15 females born outside o f Canada were a l s o e l i m i n a t e d , l e a v i n g a t o t a l sample of 188; 107 females and 81 males, a l l s i n g l e and a l l born i n Canada. These 188 informants formed a homogeneous group according t o a v a r i e t y of other c r i t e r i a . Eighty-one per oent of them were between 19 and 22 years of age (see Table I ) , eighty-two per oent were r e g i s t e r e d i n t h e i r second or t h i r d year o f u n i v e r s i t y (see Table I i ) , and only twelve per oent had ever been employed on other than a "summer j o b " b a s i s (see Table I I I ) . Most claimed P r o t e s t a n t r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n s (see Table IV"). Ninety-two per cent claimed t h e i r parents' home as t h e i r permanent residenoe (see Table V ( * ) ) • Most had been born i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and most had been born i n urban areas (see Table V I ) . TABLE I - Age of Informants Age Males Females Total % of Total 18 4 6 10 5.32 19 13 38 51 27.13 20 18 33 51 27.13 21 16 17 33 17.55 22 11 6 17 9.04 23 4 2 6 3.19 24 5 0 5 2.66 25 5 0 5 2.66 26 3 0 3 1.58 - 27 1 1 2 1.06 28 0 1 1 .53 29 1 1 2 1.06 45 0 1 1 .53 No response 0 1 1 .53 ~6T" 107 188 99.97 TABLE II - Year of University Year Males Females Total % of Total 1st 2 5 7 3.72 2nd 46 70 116 61.70 3rd 20 19 39 20.75 4th 12 13 25 13.29 5th 1 0 1 .53 ~8T~ 107 188 99.99 TABLE III - Occupations Occupation Males Females Total % of Total Teaohing 1 5 6 3.19 Clerioal 1 5 6 3.19 Technical 4 0 4 2.13 Nursing 0 1 1 2.66 Labour 5 0 5 .53 Armed Service 1 0 1 .53 No Occupation 69 96 165 87.75 81 107 188 99.98 9 TABLE 17 - R e l i g i o n R e l i g i o n Males Females T o t a l % o f T o t a l U n i t e d Churoh 18 38 56 29.79 A n g l i c a n 13 22 35 18.62 Other P r o t e s t a n t 11 19 30 15.96 Roman C a t h o l i o 8 7 15 7.98 Others 0 6 6 3.19 None * 25 11 36 19.15 No response 6 4 10 5.32 81 107 188 100.01 Th i s i n c l u d e s those r e p o r t i n g "none", " a t h e i s t " , and "agnostio". TABLE V (a) - : Permanent Residence i . L p o a t i o n Place Males Females T o t a l % of T o t a l Greater Vancouver 61 78 139 73.93 Other i n B.C. 12 26 38 20.21 Ontario 3 1 4 2.13 Nova S o o t i a 0 1 1 .53 None 2 0 2 1.06 No response 3 1 4 2.13 81 107 188 99.99 i i . Type Household Males Females T o t a l % of T o t a l Parents 75 98 173 92.02 Fr i e n d s 1 0 1 .53 Independent 5 9 14 7.45 81 107 188 100.00 TABLE V (b) - Present Residence Household Males Females T o t a l % of T o t a l Parents 47 64 111 59.04 Other K i n 1 3 4 2.13 Fr i e n d s 3 2 5 2.66 Independent 30 38 68 36.17 "8T~ lot 188 100.00 10 TABLE VI - Place of B i r t h B i r t h p l a o e Males Females T o t a l % of T o t a l Greater Vancouver 45 52 97 51.60 Other B.C. 15 25 40 21.28 A l b e r t a 5 5 10 5.32 Saskatchewan 2 4 6 3.19 Manitoba 3 7 10 5.32 Ontario 7 6 13 6.91 Quebec 3 3 6 3.19 Nova S c o t i a 0 1 1 .53 New Brunswick 1 1 2 1.06 No response 0 3 3 1.58 81 107 188 99.98 Urban 61 91 152 18.62 R u r a l 20 15 35 80.85 No response 0 1 1 .53 81 107 188 100.00 As might be expected, the parents of the informants c o n s t i t u t e d a l e s s homogeneous grouping than d i d the informants themselves. Twenty-six per cent of a l l parents were born outside of Canada, and although most of the parents, too, were born i n urban areas, more parents than informants were born i n r u r a l areas (see Table V I I ( a ) ) . As might be expected from the f a c t t h a t a l l of the informants were Canadian-born, p r a c t i c a l l y a l l of the parents not born i n Canada have l i v e d here f o r twenty years or more (see Table V I I ( b ) ) . I n r e l i g i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n , the parents show much the same proport i o n s as the informants themselves, although fewer parents than informants are described as having no r e l i g i o n (see Table V I I I ) . TABLE V I I (a) - Parents' Place of B i r t h P lace of B i r t h Canada Other B r . Commonwealth U.S.A. Other No response Male Informants Father Mother 53 16 4 8 0 " 8 T 63 8 1 7 2 ~ 8 l - Female Informants Father Mother 65 18 6 17 1 ToT 92 6 2 6 1 Tor T o t a l Father" Mother 118 34 10 25 1 155 14 3 13 3 W % o f T o t a l Father Mother 62.77 18.09 5.32 13.29 .55 100.00 82.45 7.45 1.58 6.91 1.58 99.97 Urban R u r a l No response 44 35 2 81 39 0 107 71 36 0 107 112 74 2_ 188 113 74 1_ "188" 59.57 39.36 1.06 99.99 60.10 39.36 .53 99.99 TABLE V I I (b) - Length of Parents' Residence i n Canada Approximate Male Informants Female Informants T o t a l % of T o t a l Date of A r r i v a l Father Mother Father Mother Father Mother F a t h e r Mother 1890 - 1900 -1 0 0 0 1 0 1.45 - 1901 - 1910 6 2 4 2 10 4 14.49 13.33 1911 - 1920 10 6 5 3 15 9 21.74 30.00 1921 - 1930 8 8 19 4 27 12 39.13 40.00 1931 - 1940 0 0 9 3 9 3 13.04 10.00 1941 - 1950 1 0 2 0 3 0 4.35 - 1951 - 1960 1 0 0 0 1 0 1.45 - Ho response 1 0 2 2 3 2 4.35 6.67 28 16 41 14 69 30 100.00 100.00 TABLE V I I I - Parents' R e l i g i o n R e l i g i o n U n i t e d Church A n g l i c a n Other P r o t e s t a n t Roman C a t h o l i c Others None No response Male Informants Father Mother 20 26 15 18 12 17 9 8 0 0 16 5 9 7 81 Female Informants Father Mother 30 34 17 21 24 29 8 7 7 7 19 16 2 2 107 107 T o t a l Father Mother 50 60 32 39 if S 7 7 35 21 11 9 188 188 % of T o t a l Father .Mother 26.60 31.90 17.02 20.75 19.15 19.69 9.04 7.98 3.72 3.72 18.62 11.17 5.85 4.79 100.00 .99.98 IS My original plan was to pursue this study among the "middle class", or people of average sooioeoonomio status, but any attempt at this sort of selection of informants had to be discarded as the study developed into i t s present form. However, since there is ample reason to believe that socio economic status i s an important factor i n kinship behaviour,^ some attempt w i l l be made here to consider i t . As a rough measurement of the socio economic status of the natal families of the informants, their fathers* occupations have been classified according to Otis Dudley Duncan's population decile scale (Reiss 1961j263 - 275). The results of this classification are shown i n Table EC. TABLE IX - Socioeconomic Status Population Male Female Decile Rank Informants Informants Total % of Total 10 16 33 49 30.06 9 16 12 28 17.18 8 16 7 23 14.11 7 5 11 16 9.82 6 5 6 11 6.75 5 4 8 12 7.36 4 2 1 3 1.84 3 2 5 7 4.29 2 2 6 8 4.91 1 1 5 6 3.68 69 94 163 * 100.00 * Because of the vagueness of some responses, not a l l fathers • occupations could be cl a s s i f i e d . cf. Young and Willmott, 1962; F i r t h 1956. 14 II KIN RECOGNIZED 1. Kin Groupings Kinship, which may be defined as socially recognized biological relation ship, provides the individual with ready-made avenues for social interaction. A kinship system, by prescription and proscription, by ascription and provision for the achievement of status and role, channels the interaction among kinsmen into a discernible pattern. Of the American (i.e. United States) kinship system, Schneider and Homans write; "The American kinship system i s marked by bilateral descent, and the nuclear family and the kindred are the basic kin groups. Marriage is monogamous, residence neolooal, and inheritance by p o l i t i c a l or other office simply through kinship t i e s . The range of kinship i s narrow, and kinship tends to be sharply divorced from other institutions suoh as the occupational system..." (1955jll94). Taloott Parsons has described the same system as an "open, multilineal, conjugal system" (1943:24). I am not aware of any similar descriptions of a specifically Canadian system, and this study i s in no sense an attempt to describe one. It i s an attempt to examine oertain aspects of whatever system exists i n the society of which my informants are a part, and to draw some comparisons with existing studies of systems that may be assumed to be similar. The questionnaire used i n this study oontained a blank chart upon which informants were asked to enter, by category, as many of their kinsmen as they could, along with information about each kinsman1s location and the extent of 15 contact between him and the informant. The chart included spaces designated for the named categories of own siblings, mother, father, siblings of both parents, paternal and maternal cousins, four grandparents, and grandparents' siblings. Spaces entitled "other" provided room for any other categories of relationship, and there was provision for the spouses and offspring of kin in the named categories. Sinoe this study has come to foous on kin contaots and the potential use of kin as sources of assistance, deceased kinsmen have been excluded from ^ consideration. Apparently because of poor arrangement of categories on the chart, a number of informants neglected to enter their parents on i t , although they had given information about them earlier; since the importance to these informants of their natal families is clearly established by suoh data as the high percentage claiming their parents' home as their own permanent residenoe and by other data to be dealt with later, parents have also been excluded i n any consideration of the total numbers of kin recognized. The resulting data show, for eaoh informant, as far as he was able to report i t , the group of people, exoluding his parents, with whom he recognized a kin relationship, and with whom there i s some potential for his interaction. There is some question about the best term for this group. In her Vassar study, Codere has used "kin-group" for the total group of li v i n g and dead relatives reported by each of her informants, and she makes comparisons with "the kin-group of primitive and folk societies" (1955:68). With this terminology, there i s danger of oonfusing the kinds of groupings referred to. 1 No provision was made in the chart for re-marriages after divoroe or the death of one marriage partner. Only three informants reported the results of such arrangements (two sets of "mother's" siblings, for example) and these have been excluded in any consideration of the particular categories of kin affected. This seems to be a low proportion of re-marriages, and I suspect that some informants may have negleoted to include this kind of information because of the d i f f i c u l t y of f i t t i n g ' i t into the chart provided. 16 George Peter Murdock defines kin groups as "social groupings based on kinship t i e s " (1960:41). Paul Bohannan gives a clearer definition when he writes: "A kinship group is a number of roles bound together i n socially recognized kinship relationships and syndromes; i t is an entity i n the "real" world i n the sense that people who play the roles recognise i t i n their daily lives and perhaps give i t a name. The kinship group must be distinguished from the kinship category, which is a group of kinsmen who happen to be called by the same term. It must also be distinguished from a kin ship network, whioh is oomposed of the biological relationships among human beings. There are two kinds of kinship groups. One is oalled a family; i t contains affines as well as consanguines. The other oan be called the consanguine kinship group; i t contains no affines"(1963:72). It i s clear that i n this study and Codere's we are concerned with groups containing "affines as well as consanguines". The question remains: are we dealing with kinship groups? Murdock appears to think so: "The commonest type of bilateral kin group...is the kindred. In our society, where i t s members are collec t i v e l y called "kinfolk" or "relatives", i t includes that group of near kinsmen who may be expected to be present and participant on important ceremonial occasions, such as weddings, christenings, funerals, Thanksgiving and Christmas dinners, and "family reunions". Members of a kindred v i s i t and entertain one another freely, and between them marriage and pecuniary transactions for profit are ordinarily taboo. One turns to them for aid when one finds oneself in d i f f i c u l t i e s . However much they may disagree or quarrel, they are expected to support one another against criticism or affronts from outsiders. The kindred i n other societies has comparable characteristics" (1950:56-57). This definition of the kindred i s unsuitable for the present purpose and, i n many ways, inconsistent with "common knowledge" about Western kinship. The qualification of "near" kinsmen, and the specification of the kinds of behaviour expected of members of the kindred suggest that i t is a kinship group as defined by Bohannan. However, the collective terms "kinfolk" and "relatives" make i t clear that Murdock i s referring to a group 17 of people who simply happen t o he r e l a t e d i n some way t o a given i n d i v i d u a l , which i s more l i k e Bohannan's " k i n s h i p network". As Murdook h i m s e l f p o i n t s out (1960:60), kindreds "can never he the 2 same f o r any two i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h the exception of own s i b l i n g s " , and th u s , f o r obvious reasons, kindreds "oan r a r e l y a c t as a c o l l e c t i v i t y " (1960:61). I n view of t h i s , i t i s d i f f i o u l t to understand why he suggests t h a t members must "support one another a g a i n s t c r i t i c i s m s or a f f r o n t s from o u t s i d e r s " , f o r they are d e f i n e d as "members" or " o u t s i d e r s " only by reference t o a given i n d i v i d u a l . Bohannan's d e s c r i p t i o n of the same k i n d of grouping i n our s o c i e t y seems t o me to be p r e f e r a b l e , although I f e e l t h a t he does not o a r r y i t f a r enough: "The E n g l i s h word " f a m i l y " i s , i n popular usage, extended t o i n c l u d e any group of kinsmen. "Family business", '^family c o u n c i l " , and " f a m i l y p i c n i o " are examples i n which the word i s used f o r any group o f people, t r a c i n g k i n s h i p l i n k s t o one another, who c a r r y out some a c t i v i t y . "Family" groups of t h i s s o r t are l i m i t e d by nonkinship f a c t o r s - personal i n t e r e s t and p r o p i n q u i t y b e i n g the secondary l i m i t i n g f a c t o r s a f t e r the primary o r i t e r i o n of k i n s h i p i t s e l f . They are groups of kinsmen, but they are not k i n s h i p groups - membership may be r e s t r i c t e d , but i t i s not compulsory. K i n s h i p , i n such a group, i s a c r i t e r i o n f o r admission, not an o r g a n i z i n g p r i n c i p l e " ( 1 9 6 3 : 1 2 4 ) . We can d i s t i n g u i s h i n our s o o i e t y three kinds of grouping. There i s the nuclear f a m i l y which i s a k i n s h i p group by Bohannan's d e f i n i t i o n ; there i s the group formed by a l l the people w i t h whom a given ego oan traoe a r e l a t i o n s h i p , whioh i s Bohannan's " k i n s h i p network"; and there i s the group of kinsmen w i t h whom a given ego has s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , which i s n e i t h e r . I n the s t r u c t u r a l l y normal oase, these three groupings may be thought o f , I t might be p e d a n t i c a l l y argued t h a t not even the kindreds of two s i b l i n g s would be i d e n t i c a l , f o r each would c o n t a i n the o t h e r . I n t h i s paper I s h a l l f o l l o w the convention of us i n g " n a t a l f a m i l y " and "oonjugal f a m i l y " f o r the two ego-oriented n u c l e a r f a m i l i e s . Whenever the.term "nuclear f a m i l y " i s used i n r e l a t i o n t o the present informants, i t o b v i o u s l y r e f e r s t o the n a t a l f a m i l y since none of the informants are married. 18 from ego's p o i n t of view, as ooneentrio c i r o l e s . The important f a c t i s t h a t the l a t t e r two are not "groups" to a l l the "members" but only t o ego. I am r e l u o t a n t t o add oonfusion by o o i n i n g new terms, so I s h a l l r i s k the l e s s e r oonfusion of q u a l i f y i n g o l d ones* I s h a l l use the term p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d t o designate the l a r g e s t c i r c l e , i n c l u d i n g a l l those persons w i t h whom ego recognizes a k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p ; and e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d t o designate the seoond c i r c l e , i n c l u d i n g those members of the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d w i t h whom ego a o t u a l l y has some s o r t of i n t e r a c t i o n . 2. The P o t e n t i a l Kindred As f a r as I am aware, there i s nothing i n our system o f f o l k - b e l i e f t h a t defines the l i m i t s of the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d . Rather, we recognize merely degrees of " d i s t a n c e " of r e l a t i o n s h i p . By the use of m o d i f i e r s l i k e "second" and "once removed", the term "oousin" i s capable of extension t o in c l u d e almost any c o l l a t e r a l a t any g e n e a l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e . Thus, there seems t o be no reason t o set up, f o r t h i s study, any a r b i t r a r y l i m i t s . The e f f e o t i v e k i n d r e d , of course, i s defined by eaoh i n d i v i d u a l and h i s kinsmen, f o r beyond the nuc l e a r f a m i l y - o r perhaps the extended f a m i l y - there are no p r e s c r i p t i o n s f o r behaviour between kinsmen apart from vague f o l k - s a y i n g s o f the "blood i s t h i c k e r than water" type. S o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n may be continued or di s c o n t i n u e d a t the choice of the i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. The range of k i n repo r t e d by my informants i s , as Parsons and Romans and Schneider r e p o r t e d f o r the Amerioans, narrow. Few kinsmen were reported beyond f i r s t c o usins, but most informants reported k i n i n the c a t e g o r i e s w i t h i n t h a t range (see Table X ) . Thus, i t appears t h a t , although the l i m i t s of the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d are not p r e s c r i b e d , the customary l i m i t s may be discerned e m p i r i c a l l y w i t h some p r e c i s i o n . Emphasis upon the nuclear f a m i l y i s apparently the major f a c t o r here. TABLE X - Range of the P o t e n t i a l Kindred Categories Named on Questionnaire Own s i b l i n g s , t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g F a t h e r s ' s i b l i n g s and t h e i r spouses P a t e r n a l cousins, t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g Mothers' s i b l i n g s and t h e i r spouses Maternal oousins, t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g F a thers' f a t h e r s F a t h e r s ' mothers F a t h e r s ' f a t h e r s ' s i b l i n g s , t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g F a t h e r s ' mothers' s i b l i n g s , t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g Mothers' f a t h e r s Mothers' mothers Mothers' f a t h e r s ' s i b l i n g s , t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g Mothers' mothers' s i b l i n g s , t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g T o t a l Number oT K i n Reported 608 960 2,073 1,030 2,233 27 42 153 109 39 72 130 259 Informants Average Number  Repo r t i n g per Informants Number Per cent Reporting 170 90.43 163 86.70 149 164 154 27 42 35 26 39 72 28 54 79.26 87.23 81.91 14.36 22.34 18.62 13.83 20.74 38.30 14.89 28.72 3.57 5.89 13.91 6.28 14.50 1.00 1.00 4.37 4.19 1.00 1.00 4.64 4.80 Other Categories  Reported by Informants Mother's s t e p - s i s t e r M2nd Cousins" (no other d e s i g n a t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p ) Father's s i s t e r ' s husband's s i s t e r Mother's mother's oousin 1 1 1 1 .53 .53 .53 .53 20 Eaoh marriage p a r t n e r c a r r i e s w i t h him d e t a i l e d knowledge of h i s own n a t a l f a m i l y . This knowledge i s passed on t o h i s o f f s p r i n g , but most of i t i s apparently not t r a n s m i t t e d t o the next descending generation. This i s con s i s t e n t w i t h Parsons* d e s c r i p t i o n of the American system as M a 'conjugal' system t h a t i s 'made up' e x c l u s i v e l y o f i n t e r l o c k i n g oonjugal f a m i l i e s " (1943:24). Some i n d i c a t i o n of a m a t r i l a t e r a l emphasis i s gi v e n by the f a c t t h a t t e n per oent more of the informants reported mothers' parents' s i b l i n g s than r e p o r t f a t h e r s ' parents' s i b l i n g s . The f a c t t h a t more of the informants' mothers were Canadian-born, along w i t h a probable lower average age a t marriage f o r women would help t o aocount f o r t h i s . F u r t h e r i n d i c a t i o n s o f a m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s and t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s w i l l be discussed l a t e r . I f the customary range of the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d i s taken as e s t a b l i s h e d , i t would appear t h a t i t s s i z e i s dependent l a r g e l y upon the v a g a r i e s of f e r t i l i t y , and i n f l u e n c e d by geographical s e p a r a t i o n and whatever personal s e l e c t i o n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p s have been made by the two ascending generations of ego's l i n e a l k i n . C o r r e l a t i o n of the s i z e of the p o t e n t i a l kindreds r e p o r t e d w i t h r e l i g i o n , r u r a l or urban b i r t h , and s o c i a l s t a t u s suggest t h a t such f a c t o r s as these may a l s o have some i n f l u e n c e , but more p r e c i s e measure ments f o r a l a r g e r sample would be r e q u i r e d before g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s could be made. I n Tables X I I , X I I I , and XIV, the numbers i n v o l v e d are too small and the c o r r e l a t i o n s not d e f i n i t e enough t o draw any c o n c l u s i o n s . I n any d i s c u s s i o n of the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d i t must be borne i n mind t h a t the age of the informants i s a l s o a f a c t o r . As an i n d i v i d u a l grows from childhood t o adulthood t o o l d age, h i s knowledge of k i n may in c r e a s e ; almost o e r t a i n l y new i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be added t o the t o t a l by b i r t h . As Table X I shows, a m a j o r i t y of these informants have a p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d of from eleven t o f i f t y persons. I t might be expected t h a t a group l e s s homogeneous i n age would a l s o be l e s s homogeneous i n s i z e of p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d . 21 TABLE X I - S i z e o f P o t e n t i a l Kindred Number Pemale of K i n Male Informants Informants T o t a l [eoognized Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per oent 1 a. 10 3 3.75 0 _ 3 1.62 11 - 20 14 17.50 20 19.05 34 18.38 21 - 30 20 25.00 24 22.86 44 23.78 31 - 40 9 11.25 18 17.14 27 14.59 41 - 50 12 15.00 14 13.33 26 14.05 51 - 60 8 10.00 8 7.62 16 8.65 61 - 70 7 8.75 6 5.71 13 7.03 71 - 80 1 1.25 3 2.86 4 2.16 81 - 90 3 3.75 4 3.81 7 3.78 91 - 100 2 2.50 4 3.81 6 3.24 101 - 110 1 1.25 1 .95 2 1.08 111 120 0 mm 1 .95 1 .54 141 150 0 mm 1 .95 1 .54 191 - "200 0 - 1 .95 1 k .54 80 100.00 105 99.99 185 99.98 Average s i z e of P o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d 39.61 42.94 41.50 Range 4 - 9 5 1 1 - 1 9 9 4 - 199 "^Beoause o f i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s i n r e p o r t i n g , the p o t e n t i a l kindreds o f three informants could not be c a l c u l a t e d . TABLE X I I - P o t e n t i a l Kindred and R e l i g i o n Number % of of K i n ToEal Roman C a t h o l i c P r o t e s t a n t None Others Recognized Sample No. % No. No." % No. % 1 - 10 1.62 1 6.67 0 2 5.56 0 mm 11 - 20 18.38 0 - 24 20.34 5 13.89 5 31.25 21 - 30 23.78 4 26.67 24 20.34 10 27.78 6 37.50 31 - 40 14.59 3 20.00 16 13.56 3 8.33 4 25.00 41 - 50 14.05 0 - 17 14.41 9 25.00 0 — 51 - 60 8.65 0 - 13 11.02 4 11.11 0 _ 61 - 70 7.03 0 - 11 9.32 2 5.56 0 — 71 - 80 2.16 0 - 4 3.40 0 - 0 — 81 - 90 3.78 3 20.00 3 2.55 1 2.78 0 — 91 - 100 3.24 2 13.33 3 2.55 0 - 1 6.25 101 - 110 1.08 0 - 2 1.70 0 - 0 - 111 - 120 .54 1 6.67 0 - 0 - 0 - 141 - 150 .54 1 6.67 0 mm 0 mm 0 191 - 200 .54 0 - 1 .85 0 - 0 - 15 100.01 118 100.04 36 100.01 16 100.00 TABLE X I I I - P o t e n t i a l Kindred and R u r a l or Urban B i r t h Number One Parent Ego and One Both Parents of K i n % of T o t a l A l l Urban R u r a l Ego R u r a l Parent R u r a l jRural A l l R u r a l Recognized Sample No. % No. % NoT^ No. No. % NbT 1 - 10 1.62 0 3 5.88 0 _ 0 _ 0 - 0 — 11 - 20 18.38 18 23.35 6 11.76 1 11.11 5 38.46 3 10.34 1 8.33 21 - 30 23.78 21 29.58 13 25.49 3 33.33 1 7.69 3 10.34 3 25.00 31 - 40 14.59 14 19.72 4 7.84 3 33.33 1 7.69 4 13.79 1 8.33 41 - 50 14.05 10 14.08 8 15.69 1 11.11 2 15.38 4 13.79 1 8.33 51 - 60 8.65 2 2.82 6 11.76 1 11.11 0 - 5 17.24 2 16.66 61 - 70 7.03 1 1.41 5 9.80 0 - 1 7.69 3 10.34 3 25.00 71 - 80 2.16 2 2.82 1 1.96 0 - 0 - 1 3.45 0 - 81 - 90 3.78 3 4.23 1 1.96 0 - 1 7.69 2 6.90 0 - 91 - 100 3.24 0 2 3.92 0 - 2 15.38 2 6.90 0 - 101 - 110 1.08 0 1 1.96 0 - 0 - 1 3.45 0 - 111 - 120 .54 0 1 1.96 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 141 - 150 .54 0 0 _ 0 _ 0 _ 0 - 0 - 191 - 200 .54 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 99.98 "7T~ l o o . o i 51 99.98 99.99 13 99.98 ~*2T~ 99.99 12 99.99 to to 23 TABLE XIV - P o t e n t i a l Kindred and S o o i a l Status D e c i l e Ranks D e c i l e Ranks D e c i l e Ranks Number of K i n % of T o t a l 1 t o 3 4 to 7 8 to 10 Recognized No. No. No. % 1 - 10 1.62 0 _ 0 - 2 2.00 11 - 20 18.38 1 4.76 8 19.07 23 23.00 21 - 30 23.78 5 23.81 7 16.69 25 25.00 31 - 40 14.59 3 14.28 9 21.45 13 13.00 41 - 50 14.05 2 9.52 7 16.69 13 13.00 51.- 60 8.65 2 9.52 4 9.52 7 7.00 61 - 70 7.03 0 - 2 4.76 10 10.00 71 - 80 2.16 1 4.76 1 2.38 2 2.00 81 - 90 3.78 2 9.52 1 2.38 3 3.00 91 - 100 3.24 3 14.28 1 2.38 1 1.00 101 - 110 1.08 1 4.76 1 2.38 0 - 111 - 120 .54 0 - 0 - 1 1.00 141 - 150 .54 1 4.76 0 _ 0 - 191 - 200 .54 0 - 1 2.38 0 - 99.98 21 99.97 ~42*~ 100.08 100 100.00 3. The E f f e c t i v e K i n d r e d The e f f e o t i v e k i n d r e d i s made up of those k i n w i t h whom ego has a c t u a l s o c i a l oontaot, and i t i s formed mainly, by a process of mutual s e l e c t i o n by i n d i v i d u a l s . ^ I n ohildhood, ego has l i t t l e or no opportunity f o r s e l e c t i o n , but i n t e r a c t s w i t h k i n s e l e c t e d by h i s parents, and p o s s i b l y h i s grandparents. As he becomes a d u l t , he makes h i s own s e l e c t i o n , and e i t h e r continues or d i s  continues the r e l a t i o n s h i p s s e l e c t e d f o r him i n h i s childhood. Because of the age of the informants used i n t h i s study, we may assume t h a t the e f f e c t i v e  kindreds they r e p o r t o o n s i s t p a r t l y of r e l a t i o n s h i p s s e l e o t e d f o r them, and p a r t l y of t h e i r own s e l e c t i o n . The k i n char t on the questionnaire used i n t h i s study provided spaces i n which the informants were asked t o g i v e , f o r each kinsman entered, informa t i o n about h i s present l o c a t i o n , m a r i t a l s t a t u s , and number of o f f s p r i n g . 3 "One-sided'' s e l e c t i o n i s p o s s i b l e , t oo, of course; as, f o r example, when an i n d i v i d u a l f o r c e s an unwanted r e l a t i o n s h i p upon another, t r a d i n g on the vague norms o f p r o p r i e t y and o b l i g a t i o n a s s o c i a t e d w i t h k i n s h i p . 24 Informants were a l s o asked to i n d i c a t e whether they corresponded w i t h the kinsman or had d i r e c t contact w i t h him " f r e q u e n t l y " , " o c c a s i o n a l l y " , or "never". I n c a l c u l a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d , a l l kinsmen entered were counted along w i t h t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g , w i t h the exceptions noted i n S e c t i o n 1 of t h i s chapter} i n c a l c u l a t i n g the e f f e o t i v e k i n d r e d , a l l those f o r whom the informant ohecked the "never" column f o r both correspondence and d i r e c t oontaot were e l i m i n a t e d . For ego's own s i b l i n g s and parents' parents' s i b l i n g s , a rep o r t of no i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l h i m s e l f i s taken t o mean t h a t the informant a l s o has no contact w i t h t h a t kinsman's spouse and o f f s p r i n g , i f any. For parents' s i b l i n g s , a r e p o r t of no contact w i t h the i n d i v i d u a l i s taken t o mean no contact w i t h h i s spouse, i f any. Dealing w i t h cousins, however, was not so simple. P r e l i m i n a r y draughts of the questionnaire and experimental i n t e r v i e w s made i t c l e a r t h a t t o ask f o r i n f o r m a t i o n on each i n d i v i d u a l cousin and h i s spouse and o h i l d r e n would be to present many informants w i t h an extremely d i f f i c u l t t a s k . I t was f e l t t h a t the questionnaire was al r e a d y r a t h e r long, and a s k i n g f o r the same in f o r m a t i o n f o r cousins as f o r other c a t e g o r i e s might cause some informants t o w i t h h o l d t h e i r cooperation. Thus, i t was decided to ask the informants t o give only the t o t a l number of cousins and t h e i r spouses and o f f s p r i n g , d i v i d i n g them i n t o " p a t e r n a l " and "maternal" c a t e g o r i e s . The informants were then asked to give the number w i t h whom they had correspondence or d i r e c t c o n t a c t . Beoause of t h i s method, a problem i n c a l c u l a t i o n a r i s e s . I f , f o r example, an informant r e p o r t s t e n i n d i v i d u a l s i n one of the "c o u s i n " c a t e  g o r i e s , and r e p o r t s correspondence w i t h three and d i r e c t oontact w i t h s i x , there i s no way of knowing whether the three he corresponds w i t h are a l s o represented i n the s i x d i r e c t c o n t a c t s . Thus, he may have no i n t e r a c t i o n a t a l l w i t h from one t o f o u r i n d i v i d u a l s out of the t o t a l of t e n . The only 25 f e a s i b l e s o l u t i o n was t o t r e a t eaoh correspondence and each oontact as r e p r e s e n t i n g a s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l . F o r t u n a t e l y , r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o r r e s  pondence w i t h people i n t h i s category was reported, so the inaocuraeies r e s u l t i n g from t h i s method of a n a l y s i s were minimized. Nevertheless, f i g u r e s f o r cousins and the t o t a l e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d f i g u r e s must be regarded as estimates o n l y . I do f e e l , however, t h a t they probably represent f a i r l y c l o s e estimates i n most oases. The d i f f e r e n c e between the p o t e n t i a l kindreds and the e f f e c t i v e kindreds ranged from none t o e i g h t y - f o u r , w i t h an average d i f f e r e n c e of 14.90, or t h i r t y - f i v e per oent of the average p o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d . The male informants showed a seven per cent greater average d i f f e r e n c e than the females (see Table XV). R e l a t i o n s h i p s were d i s c o n t i n u e d i n most c a t e g o r i e s , w i t h grandparents showing the lowest r a t e of discontinuance, and own s i b l i n g s the next lowest. This i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h what has al r e a d y been noted on the s t r u c t u r e of the k i n d r e d and nu c l e a r f a m i l y . The m a t r i l a t e r a l emphasis i s shown aga i n by the f a o t t h a t mothers 1 s i b l i n g s show a r a t e of discontinuance of 16.91 per cent as compared w i t h 28.49 per oent f o r f a t h e r s ' s i b l i n g s , and mothers' parents' s i b l i n g s a r a t e of 40.44 per cent as compared w i t h 51.09 per cent f o r t h e i r p a t r i l a t e r a l counterparts (see Table X V I ) . 26 TABLE XV - S i z e of E f f e o t i v e Kindred E f f e c t i v e Male Informants Female Informants T o t a l K i n d r e d Number Per cent Number Per cent Number Per oent 1 - 10 15 18.75 11 10.48 26 14.05 11 - 20 27 33.75 33 31.43 60 32.43 21 - 30 14 17.50 24 22.86 38 20.54 31 - 40 13 16.25 18 17.14 31 16.75 41 - 50. 4 5.00 7 6.67 11 5.95 51 - 60 3 3.75 3 2.86 6 3.24 61 - 70 0 - 2 1.91 2 1.08 71 - 80 3 3.75 3 2.86 6 3.24 81 - 90 1 1.25 1 .95 2 1.08 91 - 100 0 - 1 .95 1 .54 100 - 101 0 •- 0 - - - 111 - 120 0 - 1 .95 1 .54 151 - 160 0 - 1 .95 1 .54 80 100.00 105 100.01 185 . 99.95 Average P o t e n t i a l k i n d r e d 39.61 42.94 42.04 Average E f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d 24.23 29.41 27.14 D i f f e r e n c e 15.38 (38.58$) 13.53 (31.58$) 14.90 (35.03#) TABLE XVI - R e l a t i o n s h i p s Discontinued, by Category- Males Females T o t a l Number i n R e l a t i o n s h i p s Number i n R e l a t i o n s h i p s Number i n . R e l a t i o n s h i p s  Category Category" D i s c o n t i n u e d " Category" Discontinued ua-cegory DDiscontJinuea Own s i b l i n g s 144 2 ( 1.39$) 194 9 ( 4.64$) 338 11 ( 3.85$) Fathers • s i b l i n g s 232 76 (32.76$) 277 69 (24.9$ ) 509 145 (28.49$) P a t e r n a l oousins 759 409 (53.89$) 1,314 686 (52.21$) 2,073 1,095 (52.82$) Mothers' s i b l i n g s 242 56 (23.14$) 308 37 (12.01$) 550 93 (16.91$) Maternal oousins 972 455 (46.81$) 1,261 , 416 ,(32..99$), 2,233 871 (39.01$) F a t h e r s 1 f a t h e r s 9 0 - 18 1 ( 5.56$) 27 1 ( 3.70$) Fath e r s • mothers 20 1 ( 5.00$) 22 0 - 42 1 ( 2.38$) Fathers• s i b l i n g s f a t h e r s • 16 10 (62.50$) 34 18 (52.94$) 50 28 (56.00$) Fat h e r s • s i b l i n g s mothers" 12 5 (41.67$) 30 14 (46.67$) 42 19 (45.24$) Mothers• f a t h e r s 13 0 - 26 0 - 39 0 - Mothers• mothers 31 0 - 41 0 - 72 0 - Mothers• s i b l i n g s fathers« 14 5 (35.71$) 33 19 (57.58$) 47 24 (51.06$) Mothers 1 s i b l i n g s mothers» 29 15 (51.72$) 60 16 (26.67$) 89 31 (34.83$) Note: The two categ o r i e s of cousins include spouses and o f f s p r i n g . A l l other c a t e g o r i e s inolude only i n d i v i d u a l s i n the named r e l a t i o n s h i p t o ego. 28 I I I KBf RELATIONSHIPS 1. Terminology Schneider and Homans w r i t e : "Perhaps the fundamental c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the American system of terms f o r kinsmen i s the presence of a wide v a r i e t y of a l t e r n a t e terms" (1955:1195). They go on to s t a t e t h a t : "The d i s t i n c t i o n we f i n d most u s e f u l i n d e a l i n g w i t h t h i s e f f l o r e s  cence of terminology i s one we b e l i e v e t o be u n i v e r s a l f o r k i n s h i p terms. Eaoh term has two aspects o r f u n c t i o n s ; f i r s t , an .ordering or c l a s s i f y i n g aspect and, second, a r o l e or r e l a t i o n s h i p - d e s i g n a t i n g aspeot"(1955:1195). That i s , any term places a kinsman i n a category or o l a s s o f kinsmen, and, a t the same time, i t designates the r o l e the kinsman i s expected t o play i n r e l a t i o n t o the user of the term. Schneider and Homans p o i n t out t h a t the a l t e r n a t e terms do not re-order the r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n the American system; they "never transgress the b a s i c scheme of Eskimo-type c l a s s i f i c a t i o n " . Rather, "the d i f f e r e n t a l t e r n a t e s designate d i f f e r e n t r o l e s or r e l a t i o n s h i p s or, more p r e c i s e l y i n some cases, d i f f e r e n t l y emphasized aspects of a given r e l a t i o n s h i p " (1955:1197). On the questionnaire used i n t h i s study, informants were asked t o give the forms of address which they "most commonly" used f o r mother, f a t h e r , and most o f t h e i r u ncles and aunts. They were a l s o asked i f they used any other form f o r some of t h e i r uncles and aunts, and whether they commonly made any d i s t i n c t i o n between parents' s i b l i n g s and parents' s i b l i n g s ' spouses. I t i s c l e a r from the data d e r i v e d t h a t i t i s not customary t o make any 29 d i s t i n c t i o n i n terms o f address between parents 1 s i b l i n g s and parents' s i b l i n g s ' spouses (see Table X V I I ) . This i s not t o say t h a t no d i s t i n c t i o n of any k i n d i s made, but r a t h e r t h a t the a f f i n e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y "absorbed" i n t o the system t o make the use of the term of address acceptable. TABLE XVII - Terminologioal D i s t i n c t i o n  Between A f f i n e s and Consanguines i n the F i r s t Ascending Generation No d i s t i n c t i o n No k i n term f o r a f f i n e s No response or s p e c i a l cases * Males 78 2 Females 99 4 T o t a l 177 107 188 Per cent  of~TotaT 94.15 2.66 3.19 100.00 Two informants report e d u s i n g terms i n languages other than E n g l i s h I do not have enough data from the questionnaire t o g e n e r a l i z e , but I f e e l t h a t what data there are plus inferences t h a t may be drawn from "common" knowledge" suggest t h a t i n t h i s area the ord e r i n g aspect of our k i n s h i p terminology i s f u l l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Parsons' c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of a "c o n j u g a l " system. On the own-generation l e v e l , where no terms o f address are commonly used, the d i s t i n c t i o n i s made i n terms of reference between members of one's own n a t a l f a m i l y ("brother", " s i s t e r " ) and i n d i v i d u a l s who "marry i n t o " i t ("brother-in-law", " s i s t e r - i n - l a w " ) . On the l e v e l of the f i r s t ascendant generation, a f f i n e s and consanguines are c l a s s i f i e d together as "uncle" and "aunt", since p a i r s of them c o n s t i t u t e n uclear f a m i l i e s l i n k e d to ego's own. I t i s membership i n , or li n k a g e t o , ego's n a t a l f a m i l y t h a t i s s t r e s s e d . 30 Among the a l t e r n a t e forms o f address open f o r most, and p o s s i b l y a l l , c a t e g o r i e s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p i s the use of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s f i r s t name w i t h no k i n term attached. This i s appa r e n t l y most oommon among members of the same generation, and from upper generations to lower, and thus seems t o imply e q u a l i t y or s u p e r i o r i t y of s t a t u s . Although most o f my informants s t a t e d t h a t t h e i r "most oommon" form of address f o r uncles and aunts was the k i n term p l u s the name, twenty-seven per cent s t a t e d t h a t they most commonly use the uncle's or aunt's name alone. Only three r e p o r t e d u s i n g the term alone. Schneider and Homans r e p o r t t h a t , f o r t h e i r samples "The p a t t e r n seemed t o be t h a t wherever there was strong a f f e o t , e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negat i v e , the "uncle" form would be dropped and the f i r s t name alone used. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i f we t h i n k of these term3 as s t a t u s designators., the f i r s t name may imply e i t h e r the e q u a l i t y o f the speaker w i t h the person r e f e r r e d t o or the i n f e r i o r i t y of the l a t t e r . Where the a f f e c t was m i l d , one way or the other, and the r e l a t i v e s tatuses were simply those expected i n the k i n s h i p norms, the uncle term was used " (1955:1200). Both the st a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s and the i n f l u e n c e of a f f e c t are shown i n the responses of those of my informants who reporte d addressing some of t h e i r uncles and aunts i n a manner d i f f e r e n t from the one they had reported as "most common". One male informant, f o r example, who used the "term plus name" form f o r most of h i s uncles and aunts c a l l e d one uncle by h i s f i r s t name because he had "only met him r e o e n t l y " , implying t h a t they had met as near-equals r a t h e r than as a d u l t and o h i l d . Another r e p o r t e d u s i n g names alone f o r most uncles and aunts, but the term and the name f o r "the married ones", which a l s o i m p l i e s a d i f f e r e n c e i n s t a t u s . Of twenty-two informants, e i g h t gave age s i m i l a r i t y or d i f f e r e n c e as a reason f o r u s i n g a v a r i a n t form of address f o r some uncles and aunts, and eleven gave answers i n v o l v i n g f a m i l i a r i t y or f r i e n d l i n e s s . 31 Schneider and Homans sum up t h e i r f i n d i n g s on the subject thus: "Whenever uncles or aunts were designated by t h e i r f i r s t names alone, the r e l a t i o n s h i p seemed t o be predominantly a person-to-person r e l a t i o n s h i p and whatever elements of k i n s h i p were i n i t were kept a t an i m p l i c i t level"(1955s1201). In an attempt t o explore the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h i s , I c o r r e l a t e d the inci d e n c e of the use o f f i r s t names alone as the "most common" form f o r uncles and aunts w i t h the use of k i n f o r s e r v i c e and support. The o r i t e r i a of measurement f o r s e r v i c e and support w i l l be explained i n S e c t i o n 5 of t h i s chapter, but f o r the present i t w i l l s u f f i c e to say t h a t a numerical index of support from k i n was d e r i v e d . An index of s i x means complete r e l i a n c e on k i n f o r a l l types of support i n v e s t i g a t e d . The average k i n index f o r the whole group i s 3.73; f o r those u s i n g the name alone f o r uncles and aunts i t i s 3.25, a d i f f e r e n c e of e i g h t per cent. For the whole group, the index f o r the use of unoles and aunts i s .32, and f o r the "name alone" group i t i s .20, a d i f f e r e n c e o f two per cent. . These f i g u r e s are f a r from c o n c l u s i v e , and the o r i t e r i a of measurement are l a c k i n g i n p r e c i s i o n , but there does seem t o be some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t f o r m a l i t y of r e c o g n i t i o n and the use of k i n f o r s e r v i c e and support may be r e l a t e d f a c t o r s . 2. F i c t i v e K i n A phenomenon t h a t seems to u n d e r l i n e the importance of k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s the existence of f i c t i v e k i n . I t i s apparently a common p a t t e r n f o r c h i l d r e n t o o a l l some clo s e f r i e n d s of t h e i r parents by the k i n terms "uncle" and "aunt", and i t i s e q u a l l y apparent t h a t a t l e a s t some of these f i c t i v e k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s p e r s i s t i n t o the young adulthood of the s u b j e c t s , f o r more than h a l f of my informants reported them (see Table XVTII). I t may be assumed t h a t the t i t l e s " M i s t e r " and "Mrs." plus the surname are considered too fo r m a l 32 f o r c h i l d r e n t o use f o r t h e i r parents* c l o s e f r i e n d s , and f i r s t names alone do not give r e c o g n i t i o n t o the status d i f f e r e n c e consequent to the d i f f e r e n c e i n age. The use of the k i n terms oan be a s o l u t i o n t o a problem i n e t i q u e t t e as w e l l as a r e c o g n i t i o n of a k i n - l i k e r e l a t i o n s h i p . However, the process can be seen as i n some ways opposite t o the use of names alone f o r " r e a l " unoles and aunts. The c h i l d i s enoouraged t o use an "honorary" k i n term f o r a non-kinsman i n r e c o g n i t i o n of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h a t person and the o h i l d ' s parents. As forms of address, the terms "uncle" and "aunt" appear t o be the only ones i n our system oapable of such ext e n s i o n . They, and the term.3 f o r l i n e a l k i n i n ascending generations, appear t o be the o n l y ones commonly used as terms of address. The terms f o r l i n e a l k i n above ego c u s t o m a r i l y r e f e r not t o a category but r a t h e r to c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s ; t h a t i s , ego has one f a t h e r and one mother, two grandfathers and two grandmothers, and so on. 1 Two informants s t a t e d t h a t they would c a l l upon t h e i r f i c t i v e k i n f o r support, but no adequate p r o v i s i o n was made on the questionnaire f o r r e p o r t  i n g t h i s , and no estimate can be made of how common i t might be. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t s m a l l p o t e n t i a l kindreds are " f i l l e d out" by the adoption of f i c t i v e k i n . Rather, t h e i r e xistence seems to be merely evidence of s e l e c t e d a s s o c i a t i o n s by ego's parents. One informant added a note i n her questionnaire t o the e f f e c t t h a t her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h a f i o t i v e "uncle" and "aunt" was c l o s e r than t h a t w i t h her " r e a l " uncles and aunts, and two or three others expressed s i m i l a r sentiments d u r i n g i n f o r m a l i n t e r v i e w s . Another i n d i c a t e d t h a t she extended the terms t o the " r e a l " unoles and aunts of her c l o s e s t f r i e n d , which seems t o be a way o f expressing a s i b l i n g - l i k e r e l a t i o n s h i p between her and her f r i e n d . 1 I have not i o e d some extension of parent and grandparent terms t o non-kin, but I have no i d e a o f how prevalent i t i s . I t seems t o be oonfined to " s p e c i a l oases", but some i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the phenomenon would be of v a l u e . 33 On the s u b j e c t of f i c t i v e k i n , Schneider and Homans w r i t e j " I t i s true t h a t oourtesy aunts and unoles occur, but there i s never any doubt about t h e i r s t a t u s as courtesy k i n and n o t , ' r e a l " k i n ! . " From personal experience I have noted young c h i l d r e n who do not understand the d i f f e r e n c e , and young a d u l t s who are m i l d l y s u r p r i s e d when the d i f f e r e n c e i s brought t o t h e i r a t t e n t i o n . F u r t h e r , the evidence c i t e d above shows th a t some f i o t i v e k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be maintained by an i n d i v i d u a l w h i l e h i s " r e a l " r e l a t i o n  ships are d i s c o n t i n u e d . The statement by Schneider and Homans may be l i t e r a l l y t r u e f o r a d u l t s , but i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s are m i s l e a d i n g . I see nothing i n the f i n d i n g s of Schneider and Homans, i n my own, or i n personal experience t o suggest t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between an i n d i v i d u a l and h i s f i c t i v e uncles and aunts need be m a t e r i a l l y any d i f f e r e n t from the " r e a l " r e l a t i o n s h i p ; - . TABLE X V I I I - F i o t i v e K i n Number of F i c t i v e K i n Male Informants Female Informants T o t a l 0 38 44 82 1 13 10 23 2 10 20 30 3 2 3 5 4 8 11 19 5 2 1 3 6 2 7 9 7 0 1 1 8 1 3 4 9 0 0 0 10 1 2 3 20 0 1 1 "many" 2 3 5 no response 2 1 3 81 107 188 34 3. Naming The custom o f demonstrating respect o r a f f e c t i o n f o r someone by g i v i n g h i s name t o one's o f f s p r i n g i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d . Of the informants used i n t h i s study, s i x t y - f i v e per cent were aware t h a t t h e i r own names had been ohosen i n t h i s way. Some i n d i c a t i o n of the importance of k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s g i v en by the f a c t t h a t of the informants so named, eighty-seven per oent, or f i f t y - s i x per oent of a l l the informants, were named i n honour of kinsmen (see Table X I X ) . TABLE XIX - Source of Informants 1 Names Per cent Males Females T o t a l of Sample Not "named f o r " anyone 20 39 59 31.38 Do not know 5 1 6 3.19 "Named f o r " k i n 44 61 105 55.85 "Named f o r " others k 11 6 17 9.04 No response 1 0 1 .53 81 107 188 99.99 * "Others" i n c l u d e f r i e n d s , s a i n t s , movie a c t o r s , e t c . From d i s c u s s i o n s w i t h married informants I am l e d to b e l i e v e t h a t the choice of which kinsman i s t o be honoured by g i v i n g h i s name to a hew baby i s the source o f much argument and a n x i e t y . The choice of a name from one " s i d e " of the f a m i l y may be taken as a s l i g h t by the other " s i d e " . Even i f i t i s deoided t h a t a name w i l l be s e l e c t e d f o r i t s own sake, the names of kinsmen and f r i e n d s must be c a r e f u l l y reviewed t o discover whether one of them may happen to bear the same name and b e l i e v e t h a t he i s being honoured. A f a i r l y l a r g e number of my informants were named a f t e r t h e i r own parents. Disoussions w i t h married informants suggest t h a t t h i s may not be a f i r s t c h o i c e , but i t i s a " s a f e " choice, u n l i k e l y t o offend anyone. However, successive b i r t h s of same-sexed s i b l i n g s present the problem anew without t h i s avenue of escape. From the present data, there seems t o be no i n d i c a t i o n t h a t one " s i d e " or " l i n e " i s favoured i n the choioe o f names, although there i s a s l i g h t preponderance of names i n the male l i n e . What does seem t o be c l e a r l y shown agai n i s the importance of the nuclear f a m i l y , f o r s i x t y - s e v e n per cent of the choices represent e i t h e r one of the parents or e l s e a member of one of the parents' n a t a l f a m i l i e s (see Table XX). No c o r r e l a t i o n i s apparent between the s i z e of the p o t e n t i a l or e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d and the choice of names * TABLE XX - K i n as a Source of Names Source of Name Male Informants Female Informants T o t a l Mother Mother's n a t a l f a m i l y Mother's mother's mother Mother's mother's s i s t e r Mother's c o u s i n Mother's f r i e n d 2 10 2 16 14 1 1 2 5 18 24 1 1 2 7 Father Father's n a t a l f a m i l y Father's brother's son Father's mother's f a t h e r Father's f a t h e r ' s mother Father's f r i e n d 20 10 2 1 3 16 0 0 1 0 23 26 2 1 1 4 4 U n c l a s s i f i e d k i n (unoles, grandparents, e t c not i d e n t i f i e d by " l i n e " ) 5 21 ~80~ 26 TO "BT" 36 4. Commensality On the que s t i o n n a i r e informants were asked whom they i n v i t e d most o f t e n t o meals a t t h e i r homes, and to whose home they were most o f t e n i n v i t e d . T his was in c l u d e d when my i n t e n t i o n was to c o l l e c t responses from a l e s s homogeneous sample and t o conduct i n t e r v i e w s w i t h married oouples. Since so many of the present group of informants l i v e w i t h t h e i r parents or are i n temporary q u a r t e r s , the question of commensality i s not an appropriate one. 5. S e r v i c e and Support Informants were asked f o u r questions about s e r v i c e and support. In the f i r s t , they were asked t o t e l l from whom they would seek a s s i s t a n c e i n c a r r y  i n g out some small personal business i f they were i n c a p a c i t a t e d through i l l n e s s or i n j u r y . F i n a n c i a l a f f a i r s were g i v e n as an example on the qu e s t i o n n a i r e , and some personal purchasing was mentioned i n the o r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . I n the other three questions, informants were asked to t e l l from whom they would seek to borrow a small sum of money, a medium sum, and a la r g e sum. In each question, they were requested t o i n d i c a t e a f i r s t , second, and t h i r d choice, assuming f o r the l a t t e r two responses t h a t t h e i r f i r s t choices f o r some reason could not o a r r y out the request. I t i s apparent now t h a t the i n c l u s i o n of these questions a t the end of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e was i n a d v i s a b l e , f o r the informants came t o them a f t e r spending up t o f o r t y minutes s t r u g g l i n g to give k i n s h i p i n f o r m a t i o n . Although i t was emphasized i n the o r a l i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t they were t o con s i d e r a l l sources of a s s i s t a n c e , i n c l u d i n g f r i e n d s and o f f i c i a l agencies, the previous emphasis on k i n could not be completely n e u t r a l i z e d . The r e s u l t s would probably be more dependable had these questions been given s e p a r a t e l y or a t the beginning of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Beoause of t h i s arrangement, k i n may be over-emphasized i n the informants' responses, but there i s no reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n 37 of choioes w i t h i n the e f f e o t i v e k i n d r e d would be a f f e c t e d . To t a b u l a t e the responses i n t h i s s e c t i o n , a simple s i x - p o i n t s c a l e has been used. Numerioal values were assigned t o the choioes; three f o r a f i r s t c hoice, two f o r a second, and one f o r a t h i r d . Thus, a "kin-use index" of s i x would i n d i c a t e that the informant had named k i n as a source of a s s i s t a n c e i n a l l three c h o i c e s . Again, the importance of the nuclear f a m i l y i s emphasized. The average kin-use index f o r t h i s grouping i s n e a r l y three times t h a t f o r any other. A g a i n , too, the m a t r i l a t e r a l emphasis i s shown, w i t h the average index f o r mothers' k i n n e a r l y twice t h a t f o r f a t h e r s * . A most i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g i s i n the order of importance of sources of a s s i s t a n c e . I n s p i t e of the p o s i t i o n i n g o f the questions and the emphasis on k i n s h i p throughout the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , k i n other than members o f ego's n a t a l f a m i l y have a lower index of use than e i t h e r f r i e n d s or o f f i c i a l agencies l i k e banks or f i n a n c e com panies. The index i s so low - only 8.67 per cent of a l l choioes - t h a t i t does not seem worthwhile to c o r r e l a t e k i n use w i t h such other f a c t o r s as s i z e of the e f f e o t i v e k i n d r e d . The female informants show a s l i g h t l y but c o n s i s t e n t l y higher index o f k i n use and a lower index of use of f r i e n d s than the males. One of the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g the r e s u l t s i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s , of course, the age of the informants, f o r they are j u s t emerging from almost complete dependence upon parents who are at or near the peak of t h e i r p r o d u c t i v i t y . However, the f a c t t h a t the informants would apparently t u r n to f r i e n d s before other k i n f o r a s s i s t a n c e i s not without s i g n i f i c a n c e . I f the same questions could be asked of the informants* parents themselves, the r e s u l t s would be most i n t e r e s t i n g . TABLE XXI - Service and Support Males Service Females T o t a l Males Small Sum Females T o t a l Males Medium Sum Females T o t a l Males Large Sum ,Females T o t a l Nuclear f a m i l y 3.77 3.85 3.81 3.19 3.45 3.32 3.G7 3.51 3.29 2.21 2.58 2.40 Mother 1s k i n .23 .24 .24 .14 .23 .19 .32 .25 .29 .16 .19 .18 F a t h e r 1 s k i n .15 .10 .13 .10 .07 .09 .14 .11 .13 .09 .15 .12 U n s p e c i f i e d k i n k .12 .26 .19 .12 .18 .15 .14 .27 .21 .11 .18 .15 T o t a l k i n 4.27 4.45 4.37 3.55 3.93 3.75 3.67 4.14 3.92 2.57 3.10 2.85 Fr i e n d s ** 1.28 1.25 1.27 2.00 1.74 1.87 .96 .87 .92 .43 .30 .37 Others .07 .14 .11 .20 .14 .17 1.02 .79 .91 2.26 2.08 2.17 No response .37 .13 .25 .26 .19 .23 .32 .23 .28 .74 .52 .63 5.99 5.97 6.00 6.01 6.00 6.02 5.97 6.03 6.03 6.00 6.00 6.02 Averages f o r A l l Types of Service and Support Nuclear f a m i l y 3.21 Other k i n .52 Friends 1.11 Others .84 No response .35 6.03 k K i n outside the nuclear f a m i l y not i d e n t i f i e d by " l i n e " kk I n c l u d i n g fianoees and, p o s s i b l y , f i o t i v e k i n kk& O f f i c i a l agencies and p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s suoh as banks, c r e d i t unions, government agenoies, and so on. 39 IV PROPINQUITY AND KIN RELATIONSHIPS 1. Method and E x p e c t a t i o n s There i s l i t t l e doubt t h a t i t i s e a s i e r t o i n t e r a c t w i t h a person who i s c l o s e at hand than w i t h one who i s f a r away. There i s a l s o l i t t l e doubt t h a t members of the a f f l u e n t s o c i e t i e s of the West have a greater oppor t u n i t y f o r geographical m o b i l i t y than other peoples. For these reasons, i t may be expected t h a t the t y p i c a l informant l i v i n g i n Vancouver would have knowledge o f groups of k i n who l i v e i n d i s t a n t places, and w i t h whom he has l i t t l e o r no contact. I t may a l s o be expected t h a t , on the whole, the frequenoy and i n t e n s i t y of contact between kinsmen would d i m i n i s h w i t h i n c r e a s i n g geographical s e p a r a t i o n . There i s nothing s t a r t l i n g about these e x p e c t a t i o n s ; they amount t o l i t t l e more than t r u i s m s . However, i f such statements are t o be made w i t h any s c i e n t i f i c v a l i d i t y , i t i s necessary t o develop some system of measurement t o make q u a n t i t a t i v e statements p o s s i b l e . I n t h i s chapter I s h a l l explore some o f the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of t h i s k i n d of a n a l y s i s . I t seems t o me t h a t the concept of pherio d i s t a n c e , or distance measured i n the l e n g t h of time i t takes to oover i t , ^ i s a u s e f u l s t a r t i n g p o i n t . The only plaoe I have seen t h i s term used i s i n a mimeographed p r e l i m i n a r y draught of a paper by A.P. Vayda (1959). The term i s not l i s t e d i n any of the standard d i c t i o n a r i e s . Vayda c i t e s M i l i t a r y O r g a n i z a t i o n and Sooiety by S t a n i s l a w Andrzejewski (Routledge, London, 1954, p. 191J a s T u s source. This book i s not a v a i l a b l e i n the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia l i b r a r y . 40 In our s o c i e t y , probably the most important c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n t r a v e l are the c o s t , and the time r e q u i r e d t o make the journey. I n a more ambitious study, i t might be worthwhile t o develop a v a r i a t i o n on the pheric d i s t a n c e ooncept which would i n c l u d e the cost f a c t o r i n order to make more p r e c i s e any c a l  c u l a t i o n s o f the ease of a c c e s s i b i l i t y o f k i n . However, f o r the present purposes I have contented myself w i t h l a y i n g out f i v e geographical areas, basing the f i r s t three on p h e r i c d i s t a n c e , by automobile, from Vancouver. According t o a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the Canadian Automobile A s s o c i a t i o n , an average speed of f i f t y m i l e s an hour i s a reasonable estimate f o r highway t r a v e l , and t h i s f i g u r e was used i n the c a l c u l a t i o n . The f i v e areas are as f o l l o w s : Area 1 - W i t h i n approximately one hour's d r i v e , or f o r t y m i l e s . V i s i t i n g i s p o s s i b l e on any day. Approximate l i m i t s are Haney, Langley, White Rock, e t c . Area 2 - From one hour's to approximately s i x hours' d r i v e , o r 300 m i l e s . V i s i t i n g i s p o s s i b l e on week-ends. This area i n c l u d e s a l l of Vancouver I s l a n d served by main roads, and extends to Hundred M i l e House; Vernon; Wenatchee, Washington; Olympia, Washington; e t c . Area 3 - From s i x to approximately eighteen hours' d r i v e , or 900 m i l e s . V i s i t i n g would r e q u i r e at lease three days, and two days' d r i v e each way i s most l i k e l y f o r most of the area. This i n c l u d e s the r e s t of B r i t i s h Columbia, A l b e r t a , Washington, and Oregon, and extends i n t o Montana and Idaho. Area 4 - The r e s t of North America. Area 5 - South America and Overseas. The f o r t y - m i l e r a d i u s f o r Area 1 i s t o a l l o w f o r urban t r a f f i c c o n d i t i o n s . Places d i f f i c u l t o f aocess because of s p e c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are placed i n the a p p r o p r i a t e area by a rough c a l c u l a t i o n of e x t r a time. For example, the S e c h e l t P e n i n s u l a i s g e o g r a p h i c a l l y i n Area 1, but i s c l a s s e d as Area 2 because of the f e r r y schedule. F o r a l l c a t e g o r i e s of k i n named i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e except cousins, the informants were asked to give the l o c a t i o n of eaoh kinsman entered, and t o i n d i o a t e whether they corresponded o r had d i r e c t contact w i t h him 41 " f r e q u e n t l y " , " o c c a s i o n a l l y " , or "never", i n the f i r s t step of the a n a l y s i s o f data from the q u e s t i o n n a i r e , each kinsman entered was assigned t o one of the f i v e areas. 2. P r o p i n q u i t y and the E f f e c t i v e Kindred As has been noted, an important f e a t u r e of our k i n s h i p system i s the f a c t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be continued o r d i s c o n t i n u e d a t the choice of the i n d i v i d u a l s concerned. A r e l a t i o n s h i p may be maintained over d i s t a n c e by correspondence or v i s i t i n g , or i t may be allowed t o l a p s e . Table XXII shows the r a t e of discontinuance of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , by k i n c a t e g o r i e s , f o r the f i v e areas. As expected, the average r a t e of d i s c o n t i n u  ance r i s e s w i t h i n c r e a s i n g distance from ego. However, i n twelve instances out of f o r t y , the r a t e i s a c t u a l l y lower i n one area than i n the one immediately preoeding i t . Since the number of informants i s small and some of them olaim permanent residence outside of Area 1, the p i c t u r e may be some what d i s t o r t e d . I t might be t h a t w i t h a l a r g e r sample, a l l having permanent residence i n the same c i t y , a more c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n of discontinuance would be seen. I t seems s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t i n a l l areas the male informants show a higher r a t e of discontinuance than do the females; f o r a l l areas combined, the females have a r a t e of discontinuance of 19.01 per cent oompared to the males' r a t e of 22.69 per cent. The m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s i n discontinuance of r e l a t i o n  ships has been mentioned i n S e c t i o n 3 of Chapter I I . 3. P r o x i m i t y and Contact That the i n f l u e n c e of geographical s e p a r a t i o n renders the c o m p l e x i t i e s of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s even more complex was brought out c l e a r l y i n some of the i n t e r v i e w s oonduoted i n connection w i t h t h i s study. One informant, a married woman of 36, whose permanent residence i s i n Vancouver, reported TABLE XXII - Discontinuance of R e l a t i o n s h i p s , by Area Kinsmen Own brothers Own s i s t e r s Fathers* brothers F a t h e r s 1 s i s t e r s Mothers 1 brothers Mothers* s i s t e r s Fathers* f a t h e r s * s i b l i n g s F athers' mothers* s i b l i n g s Mothers* f a t h e r s * s i b l i n g s Mothers* mothers' s i b l i n g s Area 1 0 0 11.27 3.80 8.04 5.62 25.00 44.44 43.75 23.81 0/121 ( 0/89 ) ( 8/71 ) ( 3/79 ) ( 9/112) ( 5/89 ) ( 1A ) ( 5/9 ) ( 7/16 ) ( 5/21 ) Area 2 Area 3_ Area 4 0 ( 0/24 ) 0 ( 0/13 ) 13.64 ( 3/22 0 ( 0/25 ) 9.09 ( 2/22 ) 16.67 ( 2/l2 17.24 ( 5/29 ) 14.58 ( 7/48 ) 37.93 (22/58 ) 15.38 ( 4/26 ) 24.24 ( 8/33 ) 32.69 (17/52 ) 4.55 ( 1/22 ) 29.41 (20/68 ) 22.41 (13/58 ) 2.86 ( 1/35 ) 28.57 (12/42 ) 22.35 (19/85 ) 33.33 ( 2/6 ) 60.00 ( 6/l0 j 46.67 ( 7/15 ) 18.18 ( 2/11 ) 50.00 ( 2/4 ) 33.33 ( 2/6 ) 25.00 ( 2/8 ) 66.67 ( 4/6 ) 63.64 ( 7 / l l ) 10.00 ( 1/10 ) 20.00 ( 2/10 ) 36.84 ( 7/l9 ) Area 5 20.00 60.00 50.00 60.04 35.71 20.00 80.00 66.67 66.67 61.54 ( 1/5 ( 5/5 (20/40 ) (32/53 ) ( 5/14 ) ( 3/15 ) (12/15 ) ( 8/12 ) ( 4/6 ) (16/26 ) Male informants Female informants T o t a l 7.14 6.94 Averages ( A l l Categories) (20/280) 15.38 (12/78 ) 32.46 (37/114) (23/331) 5.09 ( 6/118) 18.31 (26/142) 29.32 (39/133) 29.27 (60/205) 75.00 (42/56 ) 45.92 (62/135) 7.04 (43/611) 9.08 (18/196) 24.61 (63/256 29.29 (99/338) 54.45 (104/191 ) to 43 o c c a s i o n a l contact w i t h a male maternal c o u s i n a few years younger than h e r s e l f whose permanent residence i s i n A l b e r t a . This man makes o c c a s i o n a l business t r i p s to Vancouver, and, on each occasion, c a l l s on the informant. During these v i s i t s , he always shares a t l e a s t one meal w i t h the informant and her f a m i l y , and sometimes stays w i t h them overnight. He c a r r i e s news of a group of the informant's k i n i n A l b e r t a w i t h whom she has no i n t e r a c t i o n , and h i s v i s i t s are apparently enjoyed by both p a r t i e s . However, when the q u e s t i o n was pursued, the informant suggested t h a t her r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h her c o u s i n would be q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t one i f they l i v e d i n the same c i t y . She pointed out t h a t i n p o l i t i o a l and r e l i g i o u s o p i n i o n , and i n many other respeots, she and her cousin d i f f e r w i d e l y . As the r e l a t i o n s h i p now stands, she apparently enjoys f u l f i l l i n g o b l i g a t i o n s of h o s p i t a l i t y t o her c o u s i n , and m a i n t a i n i n g through him i n d i r e c t contact w i t h other k i n . However, she f e e l s t h a t i f they should f i n d themselves l i v i n g i n the same o i t y , t h e i r many d i f f e r e n c e s would make i t u n l i k e l y t h a t they would main t a i n anything more than minimal con t a c t . Two other female informants, 18 and 19 years o l d , reported t h a t although they m a i n t a i n no r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h many of t h e i r k i n i n North America, they each correspond w i t h g e n e a l o g i c a l l y more d i s t a n t k i n i n I r e l a n d and Germany. Both g i r l s are p l a n n i n g to t r a v e l i n Europe, and both expressed t h e i r i n t e n  t i o n o f v i s i t i n g as many k i n as p o s s i b l e w h i l e t h e r e . These i n t e n t i o n s are apparently not e n t i r e l y motivated by the hope of f r e e accommodation and h o s p i t a l i t y , but a l s o by a f e e l i n g o f excitement a t the thought of possessing r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n f o r e i g n p l a c e s . One male informant reported t h a t , although he would "have nothing t o do w i t h " a number of h i s f i r s t oousins i n Vancouver, he looked forward w i t h pleasure to meeting some second cousins who were planning t o immigrate from S c o t l a n d . Another informant w i t h an unusual sur name reported t w i c e r e c e i v i n g telephone c a l l s from American t o u r i s t s w i t h the 44 same name who had found her l i s t i n g i n the telephone d i r e c t o r y and hoped t o traoe a k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to her» Apparently geographical s e p a r a t i o n oan s t i m u l a t e and help to maintain e f f e c t i v e k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s as w e l l as causing them to l a p s e . I t i s not p o s s i b l e to express the complexities and nuanoes of a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i n simple, q u a n t i t a t i v e terms. However, one aspect of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s - frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n - lends i t s e l f t o q u a n t i f i c a t i o n and may serve as a rough i n d i c a t o r o f the i n t e n s i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . An o b j e c t i v e measurement o f the frequency of i n t e r a c t i o n among kinsmen would y i e l d i n f o r m a t i o n about the h a b i t s of the informants, but f o r a s t r u c  t u r a l a n a l y s i s i t i s the informants' own ideas of the frequenoy t h a t i s important. Two contacts a week w i t h an uncle might be frequent to one informant and i n f r e q u e n t to another. I t i s f o r t h i s reason t h a t the inform ants i n t h i s study were asked whether they had d i r e c t contact w i t h each kinsman entered on t h e i r q u e s tionnaires "never", " o c c a s i o n a l l y " , or " f r e q u e n t l y " . Since s o o i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be maintained over d i s t a n c e by m a i l , the informants were asked to make the same assessment of t h e i r correspondence w i t h kinsmen outside of Area 1. These s u b j e c t i v e estimates o f the frequenoy of i n t e r a c t i o n have been converted i n t o n u m e r i c a l values on an e i g h t - p o i n t s c a l e which w i l l be r e f e r r e d to h e r e a f t e r as the " i n t e r a c t i o n index". In Area 1, frequent contact was assigned a value o f eight,and o c c a s i o n a l contact a value of f o u r ; i n a l l areas, a response of "never" was assigned a value of zero. I n Area 2, where d i r e c t contact i s s t i l l r e l a t i v e l y easy, but may be supplemented by c o r r e s  pondence, d i r e c t contact was counted w i t h values of s i x , three, and zero; and correspondence w i t h values o f two, one, and zero. I n Areas 3 and 4, correspondence and d i r e c t contact were counted e q u a l l y , a t values of f o u r , two, and zero. F i n a l l y , i n Area 5, where d i r e c t oontact i n v o l v e s the TABLE X X I I I - I n t e r a c t i o n Indexes, by Area ( e i g h t - p o i n t soale) Kinsmen Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 Area 5 Own brothers 7.73 5.25 5.23 3.73 "4.20 Own s i s t e r s 7.69 5.64 5.55 5.17 2.80 Father s 1 brothers 4.07 3.24 2.25 1.90 1.75 F a t h e r s ! s i s t e r s 4.91 3.12 2.91 2.47 1.45 Mothers' brothers 5.18 3.77 2.12 2.66 2.71 Mothers* s i s t e r s 6.07 4.11 2.33 2.85 2.73 Fathers* f a t h e r s 6.54 5.40 4.00 4.00 - F a t h e r s ' mothers 6.32 5.38 4.22 3.00 0.00 Mothers 1 f a t h e r s 7.30 4.71 1.60 4.00 - Mothers' mothers 7.40 6.00 4.22 4.17 6.00 F a t h e r s ' f a t h e r s ' s i b l i n g s 4.00 2.00 1.20 1.07 .60 Fat h e r s ' mothers' s i b l i n g s 2.22 2.45 1.50 1.67 1.25 Mothers' f a t h e r s • s i b l i n g s 2.25 2.37 1.67 1.09 .67 Mothers' mothers' s i b l i n g s 3.81 3.60 3.00 2.21 1.23 Averages Male informants 5.76 3.74 2.41 2.11 .94 Female informants 6.24 4.28 2.69 2.69 2.08 T o t a l 6.03 4.06 2.51 2.51 1.76 46 g r e a t e s t amount of expense and time, correspondence was weighted more h e a v i l y , a t s i x , three, and zero; d i r e c t oontact was given l e s s importance a t two, one, and zero. I n a more ambitious study, along w i t h the e l a b o r a t i o n of the p h e r i c d i s t a n c e concept a l r e a d y mentioned, a more p r e c i s e s e t of o r i t e r i a f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n index c o u l d probably be worked out. For example, the weighting of the values f o r correspondence and d i r e c t contact has been done a r b i t r a r i l y here; perhaps i n t e r v i e w s i n depth would provide the b a s i s f o r a more accurate system of a s s i g n i n g v a l u e s . However, i n s p i t e of the o r u d i t y of the measurement, I f e e l t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n index as I have employed i t i s of some value i n a p r e l i m i n a r y study, and i t has the v i r t u e of s i m p l i c i t y . Table X X I I I shows i n t e r a c t i o n indexes f o r named categories of k i n i n the f i v e areas. Again according to expectations, the average index shows a steady d e c l i n e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from Area 1. As w i t h the r a t e s of discontinuance, i n some instances - 10 out of 56 - the index i s higher i n one area than i n the area immediately preceding i t . The f a c t o r s suggested as h e l p i n g t o account f o r t h i s p a t t e r n under r a t e s of discontinuance might a l s o be o p e r a t i n g here. I n a l l areas, the female informants show a higher i n t e r a c t i o n index than the males. Average i n t e r a c t i o n indexes f o r a l l areas (Table XXIV") are c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the n u c l e a r f a m i l y p a t t e r n noted above. Own s i b l i n g s show the highest index, parents' parents the next h i g h e s t , and parents' s i b l i n g s the next. The m a t r i l a t e r a l emphasis i s demonstrated a g a i n i n t h a t mothers' parents, s i b l i n g s , and parents' s i b l i n g s show higher indexes than t h e i r p a t r i l a t e r a l c o u n t e r p a r t s . 47 TABLE XXIV - Average I n t e r a c t i o n Indexes f o r A l l Areas I n t e r a c t i o n Kinsmen Indexes Own brothers Own s i s t e r s 6.75 ] 6.62 ; 6.69 Fa t h e r s ' F a t h e r s ' brothers s i s t e r s 2.73 ; 3.17 ; 2.95 Mothers 1 Mothers' brothers s i s t e r s 3.64 ; 4.58 ; 4.10 Fa t h e r s ' Fathers• f a t h e r s mothers 5 . 3 5 ; 5.09 ; ' 5.19 Mothers' Mothers,' f a t h e r s mothers 5.82 ; 6.85 ; 1 6.46 Fathers • F a t h e r s ' f a t h e r s ' mothers • s i b l i n g s s i b l i n g s 1 . 3 0 ; 1 . 8 6 ; ' 1.55 Mothers' Mothers * f a t h e r s ' mothers• s i b l i n g s s i b l i n g s 1.72 2.70 1 2.35 4. Sex, P r o p i n q u i t y , and I n t e r a c t i o n A m a t r i l a t e r a l emphasis has been noted i n a number of d i f f e r e n t connec t i o n s above, and the apparent greater r e c o g n i t i o n and use o f k i n by female informants has been pointed out. Table XXV, showing the p r o p o r t i o n o f informants' s u r v i v i n g parents' parents l i v i n g i n the same o i t y or town as the informants' parents, demonstrates another i n t e r e s t i n g d i f f e r e n c e by sex. S i x t y - f i v e per cent of s u r v i v i n g mothers' parents l i v e i n the same c i t y as the informants' parents, oompared t o t h i r t y - n i n e per cent o f s u r v i v i n g f a t h e r s ' parents. I am aware of no suggestion o f a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n i n the stu d i e s from the Un i t e d S t a t e s . However, Young and W i l l m o t t r e p o r t of t h e i r s t u d i e s of an E n g l i s h working- c l a s s group: "The f i g u r e s . . .show t h a t twice as many married women as men l i v e i n the same d w e l l i n g as t h e i r parents, and n e a r l y twice as many i n the same s t r e e t or b l o c k . This suggests t h a t residence i s (to use an a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l term) more o f t e n , m a t r i l o c a l , than ' p a t r i l o o a l ' i n as much as couple3 more o f t e n l i v e near t o the w i f e ' s parents than t o the husband's. We can, so f a r as t h i s d i s t r i c t i s concerned, corroborate Gorer's previous f i n d i n g s t h a t there i s 'a marked tendenoy towards m a t r i l o o a l i t y i n the E n g l i s h working olass'..."(1962:36,37). The s c a l e w i t h i n which".:this " m a t r i l o o a l i t y " i s described i s smaller i n the E n g l i s h sample than i n mine; Young and W i l l m o t t w r i t e of residence i n the same house, s t r e e t , or b l o c k , w h i l e my f i g u r e s show only residence i n the same c i t y o r town. However, i f we assume t h a t my informants have acoess to a greater amount and extent of geographio m o b i l i t y , the f i g u r e s r e t a i n t h e i r i n t e r e s t . TABLE XXV - Parents' Parents L i v i n g i n Same C i t y as Parents F a t h e r s ' f a t h e r F a t h e r s ' mother Mothers 1 f a t h e r Mothers' mother Male Informants Female Informants T o t a l Number i n T o t a l i n Number i n T o t a l i n Number i n f a t a l i n Same CrEy date gory Same Ci"6y Category Same C i t y Category 3 6 10 21 9 (33$) 20 (30$) 13 (77$) 31 (68$) 10 8 15 26 18 (55$) 22 (36$) 26 (57$) 41 (63$) 13 14 25 47 27 (48$) 42 (33$) 39 (64$) 72 (65$) A f u r t h e r q u e s t i o n i s r a i s e d by these f i n d i n g s . Bethnal Green, where Young and W i l l m o t t conducted t h e i r study, was a " s e t t l e d " community, and long-term residence spanning generations was the r u l e (1962:104-107). In 49 t h i s s e t t i n g , the terms " p a t r i l o c a l " and " m a t r i l o o a l " have some s u i t a b i l i t y . However, pers o n a l observation leads me t o b e l i e v e t h a t i n the Vancouver area i t i s not unoommon f o r r e t i r e d parents t o take up residenoe near t h e i r married o f f s p r i n g , perhaps moving a considerable distance t o do so. I f t h i s were a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t phenomenon, the r e s u l t i n g residenoe p a t t e r n would be i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e "on the ground" from m a t r i l a t e r a l or p a t r i l a t e r a l patterns as the terms are used by Young and W i l l m o t t , but the terms them selves would h a r d l y be a p p r o p r i a t e . There i s nothing i n my data to suggest the manner i n which s i x t y - f i v e per oent of the s u r v i v i n g mothers' parents happen to l i v e i n the same c i t y as the informants' parents, save the f a c t t h a t more of the informants' mothers than f a t h e r s were born i n Canada. I t may be t h a t males tend t o be more mobile and, upon marriage, to take up residence u x o r i l o c a l l y . However, p a r t of the p a t t e r n oould be acoounted f o r by ageing parents s e t t l i n g near a married daughter to spend t h e i r r e t i r e m e n t . I f the former p a t t e r n i s more common, and something l i k e m a t r i l o c a l residenoe as Young and W i l l m o t t use the term i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y more p r e v a l e n t among Vanoouverites, t h i s f a c t would help to account f o r the m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s noted e a r l i e r , f o r the present informants might be expected to have greater access to knowledge of t h e i r mothers' k i n , and g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y f o r making use of t h a t knowledge. 50 V CONCLUSION I f e e l t h a t t h i s study, i n s p i t e of i t s inadequacies, has some v i r t u e as a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , both i n the methods employed and i n some of the f i n d i n g s . The kin-use index, i n t e r a c t i o n index, and the pherio area concept oould, w i t h s u i t a b l e e l a b o r a t i o n and m o d i f i c a t i o n , be u s e f u l t o o l s i n f u r t h e r study. With the use of a s i m p l i f i e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and more s o p h i s t i c a t e d a n a l y t i c a l techniques - p o s s i b l y employing oomputing machines - a l a r g e body o f q u a n t i t a t i v e data c o u l d be c o l l e c t e d which would be of con s i d e r a b l e value i n d i s o e r n i n g patterns of k i n s h i p behaviour i n Western s o c i e t i e s . Even the r a t h e r sparse data presented here a l l o w some inferences to be drawn about the nature of the k i n s h i p system from whioh they are d e r i v e d , and embolden the w r i t e r t o speculate upon some p o s s i b l e m o d i f i c a t i o n s i n the s t r u c t u r a l model presented by T a l o o t t Parsons. Parsons begins h i s a r t i o l e w i t h an a n a l y s i s of k i n s h i p terminology, observing t h a t , s i n c e the d i f f e r e n c e s of terminology between E n g l i s h and other modern European languages are s l i g h t , and the terminology has been " e s s e n t i a l l y s t a b l e " f o r a long time, " a l l a n a l y s i s of terminology can do i s i n d i c a t e a very broad type w i t h i n whioh the more d i s t i n c t i v e l y American system f a l l s " (1943j24). His statement t h a t the Amerioan system i s "a 'conjugal' system t h a t i s •made up' e x c l u s i v e l y of i n t e r l o c k i n g c o n jugal f a m i l i e s " has been quoted above. 51 He goes on t o state» "The p r i n o i p l e of s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n of these f a m i l i e s i s founded on the f a c t t h a t , as a consequence o f the i n c e s t tabu, ego i s always i n the s t r u c t u r a l l y normal case a member not of one, but o f two conjugal f a m i l i e s . . . Moreover, he i s the only common member of the two f a m i l i e s " (1943:24,25). Parsons f o l l o w s the convention of c a l l i n g these two f a m i l i e s the " f a m i l y of o r i e n t a t i o n " and the " f a m i l y of p r o c r e a t i o n " . He presents a diagram, a s i m p l i f i e d v e r s i o n of which appears i n Figure 1, and s t a t e s : "From ego's p o i n t of view, then, the core of the k i n s h i p system i s c o n s t i t u t e d by f a m i l i e s 1 and 2 i n the diagram, i n the one case h i s f a t h e r , mother, brothers and s i s t e r s , i n the other, h i s spouse (wife o r husband aocording t o ego's s e x ) , sons and daughters... These two conjugal f a m i l i e s may con v e n i e n t l y be t r e a t e d as c o n s t i t u t i n g the 'inner o i r o l e ' of the k i n s h i p s t r u o t u r e . . . "How; each member of ego's i n n e r k i n s h i p c i r o l e i s the con n e c t i n g l i n k w i t h one other t e r m i n o l o g i c a l l y reoognized co n j u g a l f a m i l y . Moreover, he l i n k s the f a m i l y of o r i e n t a t i o n or p r o c r e a t i o n , as the case may be, w i t h only one f a r t h e r conjugal f a m i l y , and each i n d i v i d u a l w i t h a separate one" (1943:25). The "outer c i r c l e " of f a m i l i e s i n Parsons' diagram oontains the n a t a l f a m i l i e s of ego's parents, the conjugal f a m i l i e s of h i s s i b l i n g s and o f f  s p r i n g , and h i s " i n - l a w " f a m i l y . "... i f we take the t o t a l i n n e r and outer c i r c l e group o f ego's k i n as a 'system', i t i s a r t i c u l a t e d t o another e n t i r e l y d i s t i n c t system of the same s t r u o t u r e by every p e r i p h e r a l r e l a t i v e ( i . e . who i s not a connecting l i n k between the inner and outer c i r c l e s ) , except i n the d i r e c t l i n e o f desoent. The consequence i s a maximum d i s p e r s i o n o f the l i n e s of descent and prevention of the s t r u c t u r i n g o f k i n s h i p groups on any other p r i n c i p l e than the 'onion' p r i n c i p l e , which i m p l i e s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y i n c r e a s i n g • d i s t a n t n e s s ' w i t h each c i r c l e of l i n k e d conjugal f a m i l i e s " (1943:26). He p o i n t s out t h a t the s t r u o t u r e may be thrown i n t o r e l i e f i n another way by r e c a l l i n g t h a t "ego's f a m i l y of o r i e n t a t i o n and h i s i n - l a w f a m i l y are, from the p o i n t of view of h i s c h i l d r e n , both f i r s t ascendent f a m i l i e s whose members are e q u a l l y grandparents, aunts and uncles" (1943:26). (adapted from Parsons 1943:24) 53 Parsons then t u r n s t o "a d i f f e r e n t order o f evidenoe" t o explore the d i s t i n c t i v e l y Amerioan v e r s i o n of the system he has o u t l i n e d . He suggests t h a t t h i s p a t t e r n of "an e s s e n t i a l l y open system, w i t h a primary s t r e s s on the conjugal f a m i l y and corresponding absence of groupings of c o l l a t e r a l s c u t t i n g aoross conjugal f a m i l i e s " (1943:28), has e x i s t e d since the k i n s h i p terminology took shape. However, he f e e l s t h a t the American system has become more "symmetrically m u l t i l i n e a l " than i t s European forebears i n whioh, i n the past, i n h e r i t a n c e of "home, source of economic support, and s p e c i f i c oooupational s t a t u s " played a p a r t (1943:27,28). He recognizes the probable existenoe of devianoe from the p a t t e r n he i s d e s c r i b i n g as "Amerioan" on the b a s i s o f r e g i o n a l , o c c u p a t i o n a l , and status d i f f e r e n c e s , and s t a t e s t h a t the p a t t e r n d e s c r i b e d " i s most conspicuously developed i n the urban middle c l a s s areas of the s o c i e t y " (1943:29). Parsons goes on: " I n approaching the f u n c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s of the c e n t r a l American k i n s h i p type, the f o c a l p o i n t of departure must l i e i n the c r u c i a l f a c t t h a t ego i s a member not of one but of two conjugal f a m i l i e s . This f a c t i s of course of c e n t r a l s i g n i f i c a n c e i n a l l k i n s h i p systems, but i n ours i t a cquires a s p e c i a l importance because of the s t r u c t u r a l prominence of the conjugal f a m i l y and i t s p e c u l i a r i s o l a t i o n . I n most k i n s h i p systems many persons r e t a i n throughout l i f e a fundamentally s t a b l e - though changing - s t a t u s i n one or more extended k i n s h i p u n i t s . In our system t h i s i s not the case f o r anyone" (1943:29). He f e e l s t h a t , because of the s t r u c t u r a l i s o l a t i o n of the nucl e a r f a m i l y and the f a c t t h a t the married couple do not have k i n t i e s w i t h other a d u l t s comparable t o the t i e between them, "the marriage bond i s , i n our s o c i e t y , the main s t r u c t u r a l keystone of the k i n s h i p system". Upon marriage, the i n d i v i d u a l becomes " d r a s t i c a l l y segregated" from h i s n a t a l f a m i l y , and h i s " f i r s t k i n s h i p l o y a l t y " i s t o h i s spouse and o f f s p r i n g (1943:30). Thus f a r , Parsons' model i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the dataderived from t h i s study. However, i n d i s c u s s i n g f u r t h e r the i m p l i c a t i o n s of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s 54 "segregation" from h i s n a t a l f a m i l y , he s t a t e s ; "Since a l l known k i n s h i p systems impose an i n c e s t tabu, the t r a n s i t i o n from a sexual i n t r a f a m i l i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the sexual r e l a t i o n s h i p o f marriage - g e n e r a l l y t o a p r e v i o u s l y r e l a t i v e l y unknown person - i s g e n e r a l . But w i t h us t h i s t r a n s i t i o n i s accompanied by a process of "emancipation" from the t i e s both t o parents and s i b l i n g s , whioh i s con s i d e r a b l y more d r a s t i c than i n most k i n s h i p systems, e s p e c i a l l y i n t h a t i t a p p l i e s to both sexes about e q u a l l y , and i n c l u d e s emancipation from s o l i d a r i t y w i t h a l l members of the f a m i l y or o r i e n t a t i o n about e q u a l l y , so there i s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n t i n u i t y w i t h any k i n s h i p t i e s e s t a b l i s h e d by b i r t h f o r anyone" (1943:32). I n the f o r e g o i n g chapters, I have'drawn a t t e n t i o n t o what I have termed a m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s or emphasis i n the f i g u r e s presented f o r the p o t e n t i a l  k i n d r e d , the e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d , f o r k i n use and i n t e r a c t i o n , and I have suggested the p o s s i b i l i t y of a s t a t i s t i c a l bias i n favour of " m a t r i l o o a l 1 1 - or perhaps more a c c u r a t e l y , u x o r i l o c a l - residence p a t t e r n s . A l l of t h i s suggests s t r o n g l y t h a t the mothers of my informants were not "emancipated" as f u l l y as t h e i r f a t h e r s . F u r t h e r , the d i f f e r e n c e s between my male and female informants i n k i n use, i n d i s c o n t i n u i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , and i n i n t e r  a c t i o n indeces suggest t h a t the p a t t e r n i s being repeated i n t h e i r generation. The i n t e r a c t i o n indexes and r a t e s of disoontinuanoe of r e l a t i o n s h i p s s t r o n g l y suggest, too, t h a t the parents of my informants have not "emanci pated" themselves e q u a l l y from s o l i d a r i t y w i t h a l l members of t h e i r n a t a l f a m i l i e s ; r a t h e r , they suggest what was t e n t a t i v e l y r e f e r r e d to as an "extended f a m i l y " p a t t e r n , w i t h parents' parents showing a lower r a t e of d i s  continuance and higher i n t e r a c t i o n indexes than parents' s i b l i n g s . . F i n a l l y , I do not understand the statement t h a t "there i s r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c o n t i n u i t y w i t h any k i n s h i p t i e s e s t a b l i s h e d by b i r t h f o r anyone", unless i t be taken to mean t h a t the nature of an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h h i s k i n changes as he moves through the l i f e c y c l e , and s u r e l y t h i s i s true of any k i n s h i p system. A t another p o i n t , Parsons s t a t e s that the American k i n s h i p system "does 55 not, as do so many k i n s h i p systems, place a s t r u c t u r a l premium on the r o l e of e i t h e r sex i n the maintenance of the c o n t i n u i t y of k i n s h i p r e l a t i o n s 1 ' (1943:33). Commenting upon the same p o i n t i n her g e n e a l o g i c a l study, Eelen Codere w r i t e s : "There seems to be an American c u l t u r a l myth t h a t women are the custodians of k i n s h i p l o r e . I f t h i s i s so, these genealogies would be f u l l e r than those of young c o l l e g e men of a s i m i l a r socioeconomic group. Yftiile t h i s has not been d i r e c t l y t e s t e d , there i s an i n d i r e c t t e s t t h a t y i e l d s f a i r l y c o n c l u s i v e r e s u l t s . These women students seem to know as muoh about t h e i r f a t h e r s ' side of the f a m i l y as they do about t h e i r mothers'. This could h a r d l y be the case i f there were a major d i f f e r e n c e i n the degree t o which the sexes possessed and t r a n s m i t t e d such knowledge..." (1955:68). Throughout the data I have presented, there are a number of s t a t i s t i c a l i n d i c a t i o n s - some s l i g h t , and some pronounced - t h a t seem t o challenge these statements. The p o t e n t i a l kindreds of my female informants are s l i g h t l y l a r g e r ; the number of informants r e p o r t i n g maternal k i n i s s l i g h t l y l a r g e r than those r e p o r t i n g p a t e r n a l k i n ; more maternal k i n are r e p o r t e d than p a t e r n a l k i n . D i f f e r e n c e s i n r a t e of discontinuance, i n t e r a c t i o n , and k i n - use have been mentioned above. I t i s my o p i n i o n t h a t the d i f f e r e n c e s between my f i n d i n g s and the s t a t e  ments of Parsons and Codere r e s u l t from the f a c t t h a t I have t r i e d t o explore aspects of our k i n s h i p behaviour t h a t have not, as f a r as I am aware, been given much a t t e n t i o n ; t h a t i s , the s e l e c t i o n and r e j e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n the k i n s h i p network, and the r e l a t i v e i n t e n s i t y of the s e l e c t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The m a t r i l a t e r a l b i a s i n the p o t e n t i a l kindreds i s s l i g h t ; i t becomes much more n o t i c e a b l e i n the e f f e c t i v e kindreds and i n the indexes measuring the nature o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t seems to me t h a t t h i s i s an aspect of our system t h a t would me r i t f u r t h e r study. For most k i n s h i p systems d e s c r i b e d i n the a n t h r o p o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e , a s t a t i c model i s adequate f o r most purposes of the d e s c r i p t i o n , since a 56 s t a b l e framework i s provided by k i n groupings t h a t cut across nuclear f a m i l y u n i t s , and i n d i v i d u a l s move through a set o f a s c r i b e d statuses i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e i r k i n during t h e i r l i f e c y c l e . I n our system, however, the o n l y k i n grouping t h a t i s recognized as a u n i t by a l l of i t s members i s the n u c l e a r f a m i l y . The i n d i v i d u a l i s born i n t o one of these, and, i n the s t r u c t u r a l l y t y p i c a l case, becomes a partner i n the establishment of another by marrying someone whom he has ohoseh f o r h i m s e l f from among non-kin. The f a m i l y i n t o which he i s born i s l i n k e d t o a number of other n u c l e a r f a m i l i e s through k i n t i e s of h i s parents; as the i n d i v i d u a l grows toward m a t u r i t y , he r e j e c t s some of these and maintains o t h e r s . I n a sense, then, each i n d i v i d u a l creates h i s own network of k i n r e l a t i o n s h i p s , p a r t l y from the network l e f t him by h i s parents. This prooess i s subject to a high degree of p r e d i c t a b i l i t y i n some of i t s aspects. F o r example, f i r s t cousins c o n s t i t u t e the l a r g e s t category i n the p o t e n t i a l kindreds of my informants, and remain a l a r g e category i n the e f f e c t i v e k i n d r e d s , but p r a c t i c a l l y no parents' oousins are reported. Thus i t appears t h a t , by the time these young informants have near-adult o f f s p r i n g of t h e i r own, t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h t h e i r f i r s t cousins w i l l have d e c l i n e d d r a s t i c a l l y i n importance. Other aspects of the process of s e l e c t i o n , however, are l e s s e a s i l y d i s c e r n i b l e . I t seems to me t h a t informants of the age and k i n s h i p s t a t u s of the ones used i n t h i s study are v a l u a b l e ones f o r a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n , f o r by t h e i r r e p o rts we can see something of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the e f f e c t i v e kindreds of one generation and the next. However, t o d e s c r i b e our k i n s h i p system adequately, i t would be necessary t o c o l l e c t data from groups of informants a t key p o i n t s along the l i f e c y o l e . Then, a q u a n t i t a t i v e a n a l y s i s along the l i n e s o f the one essayed i n t h i s paper would provide the b a s i s f o r a dynamic model t h a t would r e v e a l more of the e s s e n t i a l a t t r i b u t e s of our system. 57 F i n a l l y , I would suggest t h a t , because of the s t r u c t u r a l i s o l a t i o n of the n u c l e a r f a m i l y i n our s o c i e t y , and the importance of the s e l e c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , along w i t h data presented here on f i c t i v e k i n and the use of f r i e n d s f o r a s s i s t a n c e and support, any study of our k i n s h i p system must pay some a t t e n t i o n to f r i e n d l y and " k i n - l i k e " r e l a t i o n s h i p s between people who are not b i o l o g i c a l l y r e l a t e d . LITERATURE CITED BOHANNAN, PAUL 1963 S o c i a l Anthropology. New York, H o l t Rinehart and "Winston. CODERE, HELEN 1955 A ge n e a l o g i c a l study of k i n s h i p i n the Un i t e d S t a t e s . P s y c h i a t r y 18:65-79. FIRTH, RAYMOND 1956 Two s t u d i e s of k i n s h i p i n London. London Sohool of Economics monographs on s o o i a l anthropology. London, Athlone P r e s s . MURDOCK, GEORGE PETER 1960 S o c i a l s t r u o t u r e . New York, Maomillan. PARSONS, TALCOTT 1943 The k i n s h i p system of the contemporary U n i t e d S t a t e s . American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 45:22-38. REISS, ALBERT J . JR., e t a l 1961 Occupation and s o c i a l s t a t u s . Glencoe, Free P r e s s . SCHNEIDER, DAVID M. and HOMANS, GEORGE C. 1955 K i n s h i p terminology and the Amerioan k i n s h i p system. American A n t h r o p o l o g i s t 57:1194-1208. VAYDA, ANDREW P. 1959 Expansion and warfare among swidden a g r i c u l t u r a l i s t s . Mimeographed p r e l i m i n a r y draught. YOUNG, MICHAEL and WILLMOTT, PETER 1962 Family and k i n s h i p i n Ea s t London. Harmondsworth, Penguin Books. APPENDIX A f a c s i m i l e o f the q u e s t i o n n a i r e used i n the study ANTHROPOLOGY 59 March, 1964 1. Sext Male Female 2. M a r i t a l S t a t u s : S i n g l e Married Divorced, separated, widowed, e t c . 3. Age: 4. Plaoe of B i r t h : R u r a l Urban 5. R e l i g i o n : 6. Education: (a) Year of U n i v e r s i t y (b) Majors 7. Ocoupation: 8. What occupation do you hope to enter a f t e r U n i v e r s i t y ? 9. Present residence: (a) With parents (b) With other r e l a t i v e s (c) W ith f a m i l y f r i e n d s (d) Independent S p e c i f y I d e n t i f y by f i o t i t i o u s i n i t i a l s o r pseudonym 10. Permanent residence; ( l o c a t i o n ) (a) As i n #9 above (o) Other (b) In Greater Vancouver but d i f f e r e n t from #9 S p e c i f y 11. Permanent residence; (type) (a) With parents (b) With other r e l a t i v e s S p e c i f y (c) With f a m i l y f r i e n d s I d e n t i f y (d) Other by f i o t i t i o u s i n i t i a l s or pseudonym 60 12. F a t h e n (a) Place of B i r t h R u r a l Urban (b) Approximate date of a r r i v a l i n Canada (c) N a t i o n a l or ethnio o r i g i n (d) R e l i g i o n Occupation 13. Mother: (a) Place of B i r t h R u r a l Urban (b) Approximate date of a r r i v a l i n Canada (o) N a t i o n a l o r ethnio o r i g i n (d) R e l i g i o n Category : ID •n ID ca aJ © o o Ma ri ta l St at us  (H us ba nd  o r Wi fe  De oe as ed ) L o c a t i o n Nu mb er  o f Of fs pr in g Coi poi rres ader 5- 103 C< anta c t Other Ma ri ta l St at us  (H us ba nd  o r Wi fe  De oe as ed ) Nu mb er  o f Of fs pr in g Ne ve r Oo oa si on al  Fr eq ue nt  Ne ve r Oo oa si on al  Fr eq ue nt  14. Ego«s o f f s p r i n g 15. Ego * s s i b l i n g s Other 61 Category: X CD CO x> CD 09 sS <D O CD Q CO aS +> •H U CD -d «H (D •H CO ^ a) CD O CD at ca 3 L o c a t i o n o cP V. SH CD a ,Q CO » o Corres- 8 pondenoe S3 CO as o o o •s CD 3> CD U Contact o •H CO 0) o o O •s CD CD SH Other 16. Father 17. Father's s i b l i n g s 18. (a) T o t a l number of p a t e r n a l cousins (b) T o t a l number of o f f s p r i n g of p a t e r n a l cousins (o) How many people i n (a) and (b) above do you correspond with? R e g u l a r l y O c c a s i o n a l l y (d) How many people i n (a) and (b) above do you see? R e g u l a r l y O c c a s i o n a l l y Other 62 Category: X CO CO TJ CD CO at CD O CD P v—s Ma ri ta l St at us  (H us ba nd  o r Wi fe  De oe as ed ) L o o a t ion Corres pondence Contact Other Ma ri ta l St at us  (H us ba nd  o r Wi fe  De oe as ed ) o a •rl J-. J-. a> a, ,Q CO a=H S O % CD Oo oa si on al  Fr eq ue nt  Ne ve r Oc ca si on al  Fr eq ue nt  19. Mother 20. Mother«s s i b l i n g s 21. (a) T o t a l number of maternal cousins (b) T o t a l number of o f f s p r i n g of maternal cousins (c) How many people i n (a) and (b) above do you correspond with? R e g u l a r l y Oooasionally (d) How many people i n (a) and (b) above do you see? R e g u l a r l y O c c a s i o n a l l y Other 63 Category: K CO CO TJ CD CO at CD O CD Q ' CO 3 +> CO r H at -P •H • U a <B& <+4<D •HW •3MS CD UO OO f CO s L o c a t i o n r . r . CD a 3<VH g o Corres pondence ! Contact t Other r H 1 •H CO aS O O O CD a> &. r l CD r H O •H CO al o o o $ CD CD 1* 22. Father»s f a t h e r 23. Father's f a t h e r ' s s i b l i n g s 24. Father's mother 25. Father's mother's s i b l i n g s 26. Mother•s f a t h e r 27. Mother's f a t h e r ' s s i b l i n g s 28. Mother's mother 29. Mother's mother's s i b l i n g s 30. A l l other kinsmen 64 31. Are you framed a f t e r " anybody? (a) No (b) Don't know (o) Yes S p e c i f y 32. I f you have c h i l d r e n , are they "named after"'anybody? (a) No (b) Yes S p e c i f y 33. What do you commonly o a l l your f a t h e r when speaking to him? ( F i r s t name, " f a t h e r " , "dad", e t c . ) 34. What do you commonly c a l l your mother when speaking t o her? ( F i r s t name, "mother", "mom", e t c . ) 35. What do you commonly (a) "Uncle" or "aunt" plus f i r s t name c a l l most of your uncles and aunts when (b) "Unole" o r "aunt" alone speaking t o them? (c) F i r s t name alone (d) Other S p e c i f y 36. Do you c a l l some of your uncles and/or aunts (a) No by a d i f f e r e n t term from the one l i s t e d i n 35? Which one(s)? (b) Yes Why the d i f f e r e n c e ? 37. When speaking t o them, do you commonly make any d i s t i n c t i o n i n terms between uncles/aunts "by blood" and unoles/aunts "by marriage"? (a) No (b) Yes S p e c i f y ^ 38. Are there people whom you c a l l (or c a l l e d ) "uncle" or "aunt" who are not r e a l l y r e l a t e d t o you by "blood" or marriage? (a) No (b) Yes How many? 65 39. I f you have c h i l d r e n , are there people whom they c a l l "unole" or "aunt" who are not r e a l l y r e l a t i v e s ? (a) Ho (b) Yes How many? 40. To whose home are you i n v i t e d most o f t e n f o r meals? (a) a r e l a t i v e S p e c i f y (b) a f r i e n d I d e n t i f y by f i o t i t i o u s i n i t i a l s o r pseudonym <°) 0 t h e r S p e c i f y 41. Whom do you i n v i t e most o f t e n to have meals a t your home? (a) a r e l a t i v e S p e c i f y (b) a f r i e n d I d e n t i f y by f i c t i t i o u s i n i t i a l s or pseudonym ( c ) Other S p e c i f y 42. I f you were t e m p o r a r i l y i n c a p a c i t a t e d through an i l l n e s s or i n j u r y , and needed somebody t o conduct some personal business f o r you ( d e a l i n g w i t h insurance company, e t c . , ) whom would you ask? 1. 2. _ 3. ( L i s t three i n order of preference. I d e n t i f y r e l a t i v e s by category, f r i e n d s by f i c t i t i o u s i n i t i a l s , e t c ) 43. I f you needed t o borrow a sm a l l sum of money, whom would you ask? 1. 2. 3. ( L i s t three i n order of preference. I d e n t i f y as above) 44. I f you needed to borrow a medium-sized sum of money, whom would you ask? 1. 2. 3. ( L i s t three i n order of preference. I d e n t i f y as above.) 45. I f you needed to borrow a large sum of money, whom would you ask? 1. 2. 3. ( L i s t three i n order of preference. I d e n t i f y as above.) Note; In items 18 and 21, the word " r e g u l a r l y " i s a m i s p r i n t f o r " f r e q u e n t l y " , l e f t unchanged from an e a r l i e r draught of the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . This was expl a i n e d o r a l l y t o the informants. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

    

Usage Statistics

Country Views Downloads
United States 8 1
Russia 4 0
Japan 3 0
City Views Downloads
Mountain View 5 0
Unknown 4 1
Ashburn 3 0
Tokyo 3 0

{[{ mDataHeader[type] }]} {[{ month[type] }]} {[{ tData[type] }]}
Download Stats

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0104935/manifest

Comment

Related Items