The social organization of the Endenese of Central Flores

Abstract

This dissertation, which is concerned with the Endenese language system, focuses on the classification of human beings. For convenience, I call this particular language system the "Endenese kinship language system." Primitives in the Endenese kinship language system consist of two kinds: l) concepts defined in terms of culturally conceptualized human reproduction and 2) concepts defined in terms of prestation. In Endenese cultural dogma, as typically exemplified in Endenese answers to the anthropologist's general questions, every significant relationship is defined in terms of the domain of human reproduction (in other words, "genealogically") while relationships defined in terms of prestation are claimed to be mere "consequences" of the first kind: "affines make gifts.'' In the praxis of the Endenese cultural explanation, as typically exemplified in their spontaneous explanation of specific events, the two kinds of relationship definitions stand at the same level; sometimes an explanatory statement is made such that the second kind of relationship is said t.o give rise to the first kind of relationship: "gifts make affines." Every explanatory statement of classification consists of two kinds of relationship: ( 1) identity (l) and ( 2) difference {D_). If a statement is made such that identity "explains" difference, I call such an explanatory statement an "attributive" classification; if otherwise, a "relational" classification. The most important identity relationship (l} in the Endenese kinship language system is "belong to the same group" (OG/OG) which is defined as a} a genealogical relationship, F/S (and B/B as its logical extension) and b) sharing property. There are three kinds of difference relationship (Ḏ): 1) WG/WT ( wife giver to wife-taker) which is defined as a) a genealogical relationship typically that between MB and ZS, and b} that between a beneficiary of bridewealth and a contributor to bridewealth; 2) WT/WG, which is exactly a converse of WG/WT and 3) relationship between non-relatives (NR/NR). This non-relative relationship is defined as a) that between those who have no genealogical connection and b) that between "buyers" and "sellers." The relationship of "not l" (i.e. not OG/OG) can "explain" the relationship of D_· This is a weak explanatory device, in the sense that the employment of this device is optional and thus up to the explainer. Among the three D_ relationships ( WG/WT, WT/WG and NH/NR}, the second one (WT/WG), especially when couched as a} MZS/MZS or b) sharing the "head" (death-payment) taker, can explain an I_ relationship. The explanatory strength of this device depends upon past kinship history concerning some key alliances. All the significant "kinship" relationships and explanatory devices so far discussed are combined in two Endenese cultural dogma about: 1) agnation and 2) matrilateral cross cousin marriage. However because of l) a relatiive weakness of the first principle as an explanatory device (especially, the weakness of the waja, the patrilineal "group") and 2) the low ratio of matrilateral cross cousin marriages, an Endenese kinship world does not represent itself as a logical whole. To accord the logic of the language system with the world, there a pragmatics of 'saying.' 'Saying' redefines the world so as to be compatible with the language system. Show more