Households: Changing Form and Function

Author(s): Eric J. Arnould and Robert McC. Netting

Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 23, No. 5 (Oct., 1982), pp. 571-575
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2742397
Accessed: 07/12/2010 22:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.

http://www.jstor.org
in age, sex, and race are manipulatedmuch moreeffectively,
as theyare more familiarand accessiblewithinthe national
culture.
The contributions by sociologistsand organizationexperts
rangedover a broad territory.Michael Useem discussedthe
Britishcorporateelites,whichconstitutea networkof inter-
lockingboards of directorsstructuredso as to maximizethe
flowof information. He describeda networkwhichgenerates
an ideologyand a subcultureof its own,basicallyto facilitate
the transmission of information but also as a means of con-
solidatingclass power.
Peter Abell and Raul Carvajal discussedpower fromthe
perspectiveof operationsresearch.Abell provideda mathe-
matical model of decisionmaking,and Carvajal describeda
methodology forremedialplanningin Mexican state organi-
zations. Startingwith a mathematician'sconceptualframe-
work, he discovered anthropologicalprinciplesrelating to
patron-client networks.Interestingly, the strengthof anthro-
pology in this contextis seen to reside not in interviewing
techniques,but in certainkeyanalogicalconcepts.
Louis Goodman analyzed the decision-making process in
multinationalcorporations.He began by providinga review
of economictheoriesof the firmand proceededto classifythe
stagesin decisionmakingfromtop to bottomand fromcenter
to periphery.From thisa typologyof the exerciseof powerin
complexbusinessorganizations emerged.
If the organizershad to startall over,theywouldpose such
majortheoreticalquestionsas thefollowing at theoutset:
Households:
Changing
FormandFunction
byERIC J.ARNOULD and ROBERT McC. NETTING
Department of Anthropology, Universityof Arizona,Tucson, hold organization and between transgenerational transmission
Ariz. 85721, U.S.A. 2 II 82
Nineteen anthropologistsand historiansmet October 9-15,
1981,underthe auspices of the Wenner-Gren Foundationfor
AnthropologicalResearch at the Seven Springs Conference
Center,Mt. Kisco, N.Y., to discuss the changingformand
functionof households.The overallaim of the conference was
to movescholarlydebatebeyondtheclassification and analysis
of householdsystemsin termsof genealogicalor coresidential
types to the processualthemesof what householdsdo, what
functionstheyperform, and how and whytheyalter through
time.
The participantsweresocial historiansand anthropologists
withcommonresearchinterestsin the household.They were
invited to presentnewly analyzed evidence of documented
changein householdsize or compositionin a singlesocietyor
ofsignificantdifferences
emerging froma controlledcomparison
of householdsin contrasting communities.The universalitvof
the household,its utilityas a unit of analysis,its adaptive
potential,itsinteractionwithmoreinclusivesocialand cultural
systems,and relationshipsbetweenhouseholdtasks (produc-
tion,distribution,transmission, reproduction,and coresidence Peter Kunstadter(Universityof Hawaii East-West Center):
[Wilk and Netting])and householdorganizationwere among
the planned topics of discussion.Formal sessions were also
organized to examine issues raised in previouslycirculated PeterLaslett (CambridgeGroupfortheHistoryof Population
papers. The firsttwo days of discussionswere devoted to
definitionaland methodologicalquestions:what definitions of Olga F. Linares (SmithsonianTropical Research Institute):
householdhave been employedby the participantsin their
own recentwork,how usefultheyhave been in analysis,what
1982
Vol. 23 * No. 5 * October
1. What are the relationships betweenpowerand ideology?
Betweencultureand ideology?What is the natureof power?
2. What is the relationshipbetweena formalorganization
and the societyat large? Can an institutionbe understood
independentof its surrounding cultureor socioculturalforma-
tion?If not (as mostanthropologists wouldthink),howcan we
cope withthe "forest"withoutlosingsightof the "trees"?
The fact that thesemajor questionsemergedin a seriesof
protracted,and sometimesheated,discussionsbetweensocial
scientistsfromdifferent disciplinestestifiesto the existenceof
a commonbasis of theoreticalconcerns-a fact we tend to
forgetin our parochial preoccupationsas anthropologists,
etc. In thissensetheconference
sociologists, was a steptowards
theunification of thesocial sciences.
Methodological stylesoriginatinginverydifferent intellectual
traditionswere not the only handicap to communication be-
tweenthe membersof different disciplinesat the conference.
There weresourcesof mutualirritation whichsomehowhelped
to spark the arguments:for example,sociologiststended to
limittheiraims, whileanthropologists tendedto flyoffin all
theoreticaldirections.To someextent,thiswas becauseofa set
of initial misunderstandings; the nonanthropologists thought
that theywereexpectedto charta new area in whichanthro-
pologistswereto work,whilethe anthropologists thoughtthat
theirtheoreticalguidancewas to be central.Although,in the
end, a betterunderstanding of the scope of the various disci-
plineswas probablyachieved,thereis roomforfurther and-
perhaps-better-defined effrots
interdisciplinary on thesubject
ofpowerand formalorganizations.
techniquesof data collectionhave been employed,and what
are the distinctiveproblemsof ethnographicand historical
investigations.On the third dav, substantivematerial was
presentedon the relationships betweenproductionand house-
of propertyand coresidence.One day of discussions was
devotedto intrahousehold distributionof goods and services,
poolingof income,and consumption.There was also consider-
ation of the relationshipsbetween the householdand more
inclusivesocial unitssuch as the estate,the local community,
the nation,and the worldeconomicsystem.On the fifthand
finalday of the meeting,confereesdelved into the symbolic
aspects of the householdas seen in both Euro-Americanand
East Asian traditions.
The participantsand theirpaperswereas follows:
AnthonyT. Carter (Universityof Rochester): Household
histories
WilliamA. Douglass (Universityof Nevada): Sheep ranchers
and sugar growers:Propertytransmissionin the Basque
immigrant familyof theAmericanWest and Australia
Brian L. Foster (ArizonaState University):Family structure
and thegenerationof Thai social exchangenetworks
Eugene A. Hammel (Universityof California,Berkeley):On
the *** of investigatinghouseholdformand function
David Herlihy (Harvard University):The structureof the
earlymedievalfamilyEvidencefromhagiography
Householdcompositionand socioeconomicchange:Lua' and
Karen in northwestern Thailand
and Social Structure)
Developmentcyclesamong the Diola of Senegal: What are
thedependentvariables?
571
Orvar Lofgren(Instituteof European Ethnology,University
ofLund): Familyand household:Images and realities
RobertS. Merrill(Universityof Rochester)
ArthurD. Murphy (Universityof Georgia), with Robert
Hackenbergand Henry A. Selby: The household in the
secondarycitiesof theThirdWorld
Robert McC. Netting,co-organizer(Universityof Arizona),
withRichardWilk: Households:Changingformsand func-
tions
Andrejs Plakans (Iowa State University):Serfemancipation
and the changingstructureof ruraldomesticgroupsin the
Russian Baltic provinces:A preliminary surveyof relevant
factorsin nineteenth-century sources
Martine Segalen (Centred'EthnologieFrangaise): Nuclear is
not independent:Organizationof the householdin present-
day Bigoudencountry
HenryA. Selby(University ofTexas), withArthurD. Murphy,
Ignacio Cabrera,and Aida Castaneda: Battlingpovertyfrom
below: A profileof thepoor in two Mexicancities
RichardR. Wilk,co-organizer (Universityof California,Santa
Cruz): Householdsin process:Domestic organization,land
pressure,and cash cropsamongthe Kekchi Maya of Belize
ArthurP. Wolf (StanfordUniversity):Family and life cycle
in ruralChina
Sylvia Yanagasiko (StanfordUniversity):Explicating resi-
dence: A culturalanalysis of changinghouseholdsamong
Japanese-Americans
Eric J. Arnould,rapporteur(Universityof Arizona): Market
developmentand changing relations of reproductionin
Zinder,NigerRepublic
Conferenceparticipantsaccepted an approach that dis-
tinguishedhouseholds as culturally defined, task-oriented
residenceunits fromfamiliesconceivedas kinshipunits that
need notbe localized.Nonrelativeswholive together, servants,
and lodgers who cooperate in some commonactivities are
householdmembers,whereasnonresidentkin are usually (but
not always) affiliatedprincipallywithotherhouseholds.Both
historians,whose field was conventionallyconcernedwith
states,politicalleaders,and social classes,and anthropologists,
whose disciplinehad concentratedon tribes,descentgroups,
and communities, agreed that the householdas a significant
social unit had been neglected.Family history(Stone 1977,
Shorter1975) has too oftenconcentratedon literaryevidence
for the psychologicalinteractionsof familymembersrather
than the more objective, quantitativelyverifiablefacts of
householdmembership. The flexibilityof the householdgroup,
itsmultitudeofrolesand tasksencompassedwithina relatively
limitedrepertoire ofshapesand sizes,makeit an effective focus
forinterdisciplinaryresearchin a widevarietyofsocialsettings.
The confereeswanted to test the extentto whichhousehold
organizationrespondedto changes in the socioeconomicen-
vironmentas well as the degreeto whichrules and ideals of
householdformationpreservecertain formalsimilaritiesfor
longperiodsin particularethnicor regionalcontents.In addi-
tion to the search fora commongroundon definitional and
methodologicalissues (Hammel, Wilk and Netting,Carter,
Foster),fourmajororientations in householdresearchemerged
fromthe conference.These concernsare illustratedin the
papersand the discussionsand debatestheyprecipitated.
Classification and method.Criticismsof empiricaland posi-
tivistapproachesto thehouseholdled scholarsto abandonany
restrictive,unitarydefinitionof the household.There is no
criterionor set of criteriaby whichthehouseholdmightbe
defined.Instead,studentsofhouseholdsystemsmustrecognize
that even single societiesare likely to contain varyingfre-
quencies of a range of householdorganizations,and scholars
will have to explicatethe precisemeaningof the social units
they are calling householdsin the elucidationof particular
problems.
572
The householddoes, however,seem to be a usefulunit of
analysis recognizablyand regularlyoccurringsomewherebe-
tween the individualand the largercommunity(Hammel).
Our participantswere thereforewillingto retain the 1972
Hammel-Lasletthouseholdtypologyas a heuristicdevice for
consistentreporting and comparisonof data. They werenone-
thelessaware of theproblematicgenealogicaland coresidential
criteriathistypologyemploys(Yanagisako 1979,Carter).The
compromiseposition adopted towards household typologies
servesto guard against the twinpitfallsto be avoided if the
householdis not to becomeanother"odd-job" word in social
science: reification,on the one hand, and irreplicability of
results,on the other.
Many definitionalissues were raised by conferees.The
critique of the coresidencecriterionwas perhaps the most
thoroughgoing. This critiqueparallelsYanagisako's (1979) ob-
jection to the genealogicalbias in familystudies. Hammel
illustrateda numberof problemswith this criterionforusers
of archivalcensusmaterials.For medievalBalkan tax lists,for
example,householdboundariesmustbe inferred fromminimal
indicationsof male kinshipties. Slightchangesin assumptions
about boundaryplacementproducemassive variationin the
inferredincidenceof zadruga-type joint households.Douglass,
in remarksabout Basque and Siciliancensuses,added evidence
showinghow secular and ecclesiasticalauthoritiesemployed
different criteriaofcoresidencein countinglong-term migrants.
It becameobviousthat historians,who are necessarilylimited
to the coresidentslisted in census documents,may reach dif-
ferentconclusionson household structurethan do anthro-
pologists,who can take intoaccountmigrantswhoseeconomic
contributionsand eventual returnmaintaina householdin
theirabsence.
Hammel also noted that thereare no methodsfordeciding
how largea proportionof a sampleof households,takenat an
undefined pointin thedomesticcycleofeach froma population
whosesize is unknown,is enoughto concludethat the popu-
lation as a whole conformsto a certainhouseholdsystem.A
15% difference in theproportions ofone householdtypeat two
pointsin time mightbe due merelyto chance. Wolf pointed
out that samplinghousehold size in China after the great
periodicnatural disasterswould produce very different pic-
turesof thehouseholdsystemfromthemultiple-family system
whichin factprevailedthere.Merrilladded thatchancedemo-
graphic fluctuationswill compromiseany householdsystem
at some point unless multiplestrategiesof recruitment are
broughtintoplay. Africanethnographic data provideparticu-
larly rich examples of the varietyof recruitment strategies
available whichare not necessarilyrevealed in census data.
These factorsand otherscompoundsamplingerrorin census
data, usuallyin variousunpredictableways. Resolutionof the
samplingproblemrequires collectionof a large numberof
cases at severalpointsin time,a solutionnot oftenavailable to
eitherhistoriansor anthropologists. Merrilland Hammelwere
hopefulthatcomputersimulationwouldprovidea partialreso-
lutionofthissortofproblem.Our approximations ofhousehold
formand functionare, like theblindmen'sconflicting descrip-
tions of an elephant,very much dependenton our limited
temporaland observationalperspectives.Nevertheless,the
householdis a moresalient,serviceable,and readilycomparable
social unitthanotherscustomarily chosenforanalysis.
Carter,Douglass, Wilk, Kunstadter,and Segalen provided
ethnographic examplesof the inappropriateness of coresidence
alone as the criterionfor householdmembership.In India,
North America,Belize, Thailand, and France, long-termor
temporarymigrantscontinueto participatein pooling,distri-
bution,reproduction, and inheritance.Their migrantstatusis
not oftenaccuratelyreflectedin census records,nor are the
other tasks they performas membersof households.These
authorsand Wilk,in particular,pointout that regionalavail-
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 abilityofvaluedresourcesis an important variabledetermining
local residencechoices.
In his paper, Arnouldshowedthat Hausa employa multi-
variatedefinition of householdmembership in whichthe tasks
of social reproductionare the most fundamentalelements.
Onlywhenjuniorhouseholdmemberscease contributing to the
marriage,birth, and tax payments of the multiple-family
householdare theseindividuals,includingmigrants, considered
to have a domesticunitseparatefromtheparentalhousehold.
Althoughthereis considerablevariationin the degreeof co-
operationamong agnaticallyrelated familyclustersin the
performance ofhouseholdtasks,the ideologyof thetraditional
multiple-family gida is maintainedunlesscooperationin repro-
ductivetasks is brokenoff.A somewhatdifferent definitional
issue was taken up by Foster. Drawing on graph-theoretical
models and recentnetworkresearch,he constructedsupra-
householdstructures fromhouseholdunitsby representing aid
relationshipin graph form.This mode of analysis of Thai
villagesocietyalso throwslighton the divisionof labor in the
performance of householdtasks by severalrelatedhouseholds.
Anthropologicalanalysis by synchronic,cross-sectional
methodsis not,however,an adequate substitutefora detailed
longitudinalreconstruction of household change, a method
used successfullyby historianswhere annual censuses exist
(Mitterauerand Sieder 1979). Carteradvocated the formula-
tion of specifichousehold historiesincludingthe temporal
movementsof people in and out of residence,householdposi-
tions,and kinshipstatuses.Such a chronology wouldalso con-
tain information on the changingsize of the household,its
access to resources,and changingproducer/consumer ratios.
Yanagisako warnedthat use of the coresidencecriteriontends
to drawa functionalboundaryaroundgroupsof people which
in the case of JapaneseAmericansis not confirmed by emic
conceptsofhouseholdorganization.Mutual helpand authority
patternspersistedbeyond the breakup of stem families.She
argued that empiricalstudy of householdsmust be supple-
mentedby culturalanalysiswherepossible.As Hammel sug-
gested,householdsmay in some instancesbe statisticalout-
comesof the action of otherpowerfulculturalvalues such as
genderconstructs.
In Yanagisako's view and that of Plakans and Herlihy,his-
torians must supplementenumerationswith other sorts of
recordsif theyare to reconstruct kinshipand othercultural
systems.Herlihy,forexample,has used thelives ofIrishsaints
as a sourceconcerningearlymedievalhouseholdrelationships
and mentionedthatphilosophicaltractstreatingthe familyas
a culturalideal are available in the West froman earlydate.
Cross-sectionalstudiesand culturaltraditions.
The firstof the
foursubstantiveorientationsin householdresearchis that of
cross-sectional and comparativestudiesin whichexplanatory
weightis placed upon long-standing culturaltraditionsto ex-
plicate macro-levelpatterns of householdorganizationand
process.This approach tends to view householdformas an
independentratherthan a dependentvariable.Most conferees
were willingto grantthat thereare long-termregionalregu-
laritiesin householdorganizationwhichseem to some degree
independentof ecologicalcircumstance.Laslett and Hammel
wentfartherthan most in extendingHajnal's (1965) observa-
tions on marriagepatternsto hypothesizethat Eastern and
WesternEuropean householdsystemsare distinguished along
a rangeofcovariantcriteria.These axes includean intergrading
of simple,stem,and multiple-family householdsas one moves
fromWesternto EasternEurope, withaccompanyingchanges
fromlate marriageand frequentcelibacyto earlyand universal
marriage.Wolfproposedthata similarcontrastcouldbe drawn
between the traditionalChinese multiple-or grand-family
householdsystemand the Japanesestem householdsystem.
Kunstadterprovideddata fromThailandpositingsimilarlong-
standing differences in household systems between groups
Vol. 23 N 5 * October
No. 1982
whichlive in close proximityand practicesimilarproductive
strategies.Recent modernizationand urbanizationhave not
eliminated distinctivehousehold traits of differentethnic
groups.Plakans and Segalen objected to the overgeneralized
characterof the Laslett/Wolfformulations. The formerre-
mindedconferees ofthepaucityofdata available fromEastern
Europe and the scope of changefollowing collectivization,and
the latteremphasizedthe diversityof local systemsin France.
However,it maybe useful,as Wolfsuggests,to employa postu-
lation of stable, long-termculturalpreferencesin household
patterningto explorethe effectsof familyhouseholdsystems
upon individuallife-course decisions.
Historicalstudiesand culturalcontinuities.A secondapproach
whichtends to overlap with the firstis that of longitudinal
studies which emphasizeculturalconservatismin household
organization.This approachis characteristic of Laslett's evi-
dence forthe persistenceof simple-family dominancethrough-
out therecordedhistoricaldemography ofEngland.His recent
discussionof "noumenalnorms" and the autonomyof rules
governingideal residencedecisionswhichare imbeddedduring
early socialization(Laslett 1981) makes the same point. Pat-
ternsof authoritywithinthe householdand locallydistinctive
customsresultingin historicallyconsistentrates of bastardy
show similarculturalcontinuitythat is little influencedby
exogenousvariables.Models of modernization whichpredicta
necessarymovementfrommultipleextendedformsof family
householdorganizationto a simple nuclear type oftenlack
explanatory power.In cases suchas thatofa ruralTaiwan area
between1906 and 1946, therewas a remarkablestabilityof
familytype,with50-60% representing stemor grandformsof
the multiple-family household.Wolfgave evidenceof both the
persistenceofa domesticcyclebased on strongculturalvalues
and the differences in residentialhistoriesof sons born either
earlyor late intotheirfamiliesof origin.
Taking a symbolicperspective,Yanagisako showedhow co-
residencehas becomedisaggregated fromotherhouseholdtasks
among second-generation Japanese-Americans. At the same
time,thevalues associatedwiththeconceptofkazuko(family),
loyaltyand generalsupport,have not been diluted. Shared
meaningscharacterizea distinctiveset of familyrelationships,
while decisionsas to coresidenceare responsiveto more im-
mediateeconomicconditions.Such studiesprovidean antidote
foroverlydeterministic and mechanicalmodelsof household
change.
Cross-sectionaland processualstudies.The thirdand by far
the most popular currentline of researchis particularistic
studiesofadaptationand covariationamonghouseholdswithin
a givencultureor historicalperiod.As Lofgrenpointedout,this
approachaims to generalizeat thelevelofprocess,ratherthan
at the level of forms,and to providea generativeapproachto
householddynamicsin whichsystemspotentialities ratherthan
systemstypesare explored.Merrillemphasizedthe adaptive
potentialof the householdin the face of demographicvari-
ability.Eclecticin theoryand method,suchstudiesrangefrom
Wilk's analysis of the relationshipsamong crops, man/land
ratio,labor schedulingand diversity,and householdsize and
structures amongKekchiMaya shifting cultivatorsto Murphy
and Selby's analyses of survival strategiesof thousandsof
marginal,poor, and middle-classMexican householdspartici-
patingin urbancash economies.
Amongthe many themestouchedupon by confereesis the
dimensionof householdprocessesdefinedby the creationand
negotiationof powerand social inequalitywithinand between
households.It is a dimensionofhouseholddynamicswhichlinks
householdsto widersystemsof social stratification, and one
whichcomesintoplay mostprominently whenthe old "moral
economy"~ is breakingdownand somehouseholdsbecomemore
successfulat takingadvantage of new resourcesand oppor-
tunitiesthanothers.
573
 At theintrahousehold level,a numberofparticipantsfocused
upon the three-wayrelationshipbetweenage and gendercon-
structsand power.Cartershowedthat the value placed upon
seniorityin Maharashtra joint-familyhouseholds is oper-
ationalizedin theformation ofmarriagequeuesand playsa key
role in generatingthe diversityof partitionstrategiesand
actual decisions.Wilkdemonstrated thata similarvalue allows
seniormen in Kekchi householdclusters,but not in single-
familyhouseholds,to benefitdisproportionately fromjunior-
male labor despitea competingvalue of egalitarianlabor ex-
changeamongmen.Linaresarguedfromherextensivedata on
theDiola ofSenegalthatIslamicgenderconstructs, whichhave
recentlybeen introducedto the Diola, have led to differential
access of men and womento new plow technologiesand cash
crop opportunities in Islamicizedcommunities. Access to land
and labor resourcesin pagan communitiesis moreegalitarian
and intergender cooperationmore extensive.Selby's Zapotec
case materialconcerningthe normsof postmaritalresidence
indicatesthat althoughmen make rules in Zapotec society,
women are oftenvery successfulat makingdecisionswhich
violatetherulesin theinterestofinterhousehold poweradvan-
tages.In short,theseparticipantsarguedthatthereis disagree-
ment and ongoingconflictin communitiesand withinhouse-
holdsoverthedefinition ofappropriatepoolingand transmission
behaviors.Such strugglesare the stuffof householdprocesses.
Arguingat a moregenerallevel,Herlihy,Selby,Murphy,and
Nettingcontendedthat thereis a regularcross-cultural asso-
ciationof householdsize, controlof resources,and power,al-
thoughthe causal connectionsamongthesefactorsare dialec-
tical ratherthan unidirectional.Production,recruitment, and
transmission strategiesmay be quite variableand providean
arenaofcompetition amonghouseholdsin thesamecommunity.
Adoption,fosterage, and incorporation of lodgersand servants
are common methods of recruitmentboth in 14th-century
Tuscany and in 20th-century Taiwan. Murphyindicatedthat
high fertility is a more commonlyemployedstrategyamong
upwardlymobile householdsof urban Mexico,.while Filipino
householdsrestrainfertility and add adult workers.Exceptions
to the widespreadassociationbetweenwealthand household
size can be found,but Herlihyexplainedcases suchas thelarge
familiesofpoorTuscan sharecroppers in termsofspecificlabor
needsand the requirements of estatemanagers.
Wolf'sdata on modernmainlandChinadrewattentionto the
relationshipbetween state power and household processes.
Some mightagreewithHammelthatthesphereofautonomous
householdactionhas erodedbeforetheonslaughtofstatepower
in the last two centuries.Postrevolutionary China providesa
testcase fromwhichmoresanguineconclusionscan be drawn.
Chinesefamilyreform has resultedin legalizeddivorce,monog-
amy,a one-child-per-couple rule,drasticallylater age at mar-
riage, officialabolition of ancestor worship,and an almost
completeloss ofcontroloverproductiondecisionsat thehouse-
hold level. OthertraditionalChinesepatternspersistin andro-
centrism,partible inheritance,surname exogamy,nepotism,
mother-in-law/daughter-in-law conflict,and aversion to di-
vorce. The traditionalobligationof the youngestchildrento
supportaged parentshas even been reinforced by the state.
Historicalprocessualstudies.Longitudinalstudiesof house-
holdsas processeshave beenundertakenby a fewscholarswith
exceptionally gooddata,botharchivaland ethnographic, among
them Douglass, L6fgren,Segalen, and Plakans. This line of
inquiryendeavorsto deal withtwo kindsofprocesses-covari-
ation and diversityat a point or pointsin timeand gradual,
cumulativechangein householdformand organizationthrough
time.Douglass showedhownewproductionstrategiesin North
Americaand Australiahave led Basque immigrants to create
multiple-family households although stem familiesare the
Basque normin Europe. The prevalenceof patrilineallyex-
tendedfamilyhouseholdsamongBasque emigresheepranchers
574
and sugarcanegrowersmay reflectin part a culturalcommit-
mentto an Old Worldpattern,but it is also adaptive to par-
ticular economicconditionsin very different host societies.
Transferring thepatrimonywithina stemfamilywas not seen
by themigrantBasques themselves as intentionally conforming
to a Basque culturalideal. Douglass pointedout thata house-
hold typemay persistwithoutbeinginstitutionalized and may
serve very different purposes in its originaland immigrant
settings.
L6fgren'sworkdocumentsthe decliningstatus of the ubiq-
uitous lodgers and servantsin peasant householdsand the
increasingsocialdistancewhichis negotiatedbetweencoresident
kin and nonkinas an overall systemof social stratification
developsin the Swedishcountrysidewith the growthof land
scarcityand commercialagriculturein the t9th and 20th
centuries.Thoughthefarmhouseholdhad muchthe same size
and compositionin 1800and in 1890,its internalstructurehad
been alteredfroma singlewell-integrated unitto one in which
the nuclearfamilyof the farmerwas segregatedand socially
differentiated fromthe groupof servants.The same cleavage
had earlieraffectedthe urban bourgeoisie,and the Victorian
familyideals of privacy,propriety,and home-centered emo-
tional warmthcreatedpowerfulnew symbolsof domesticlife
thatcontinuedto affecthouseholdbehavior.
Segalen demonstratedhow wage employment opportunities
and nuclearfamilynormshave generatednew neolocal resi-
dence patterns among rural Bretons who were formerly
peasants.She also showedhowgardeninghas been transformed
froma cash-producingto a redistributive resourceamongst
householdswhich send out wage earners.Though younger
familiessubscribeto modernFrench standardsby building
separatemodernhouses,theycontinueto spend a great deal
of time eating, working,and socializingin the neighboring
dwellingsof theirparents.The new residentialand productive
strategiesmay even strengthenlong-standingpatterns of
intergenerational cooperationand distribution.
Longitudinaland comparativestudiesofhouseholdprocesses
hold promisein clarifyingthe problemsencounteredin dis-
tinguishing betweenthetaskand kincomponents ofhouseholds
and the dangersin too readilyassumingculturalsignificance
fromdemonstrable genealogicalconnection.Plakansis pursuing
the novelproblemof workingout a kinshipsystemfromlong-
termBaltic censusmaterialswhichcontainrelativelycomplete
genealogicalinformationabout Latvian serf and freed serf
householderson thegreatGermanestates.His data, like those
of manyhistorians,pose special problemsbecause thereis no
contemporary ethnographicpopulationfromwhichto derive
clues about the meaningof genealogicaldata. It seems, for
example,that non-kinwerefillingspots formerly occupiedby
coresidentkin of the head in thesehouseholdsafterserfeman-
cipationin 1817. There is also some indicationof exchangeof
junioragnatic relativesbetweenhouseholds.Perhaps because
of outmigration, the proportionof multiplefamiliesper farm-
stead declinedand theproportionof simplefamiliesincreased.
Other links such as these can also be drawn, but Plakans
believesthe questionof theirculturalsignificance may onlybe
answeredwithsupplementary sourcessuchas parishregistries,
diaries,and the like. Successfulstudies of this type are the
most likelyto providegeneralizationsat the level of process
about systempotentialities, but carefulcontrolof covariation
at each pointin timeis necessaryto avoid
betweencommunities
attributingpreexistentecologicaland historicalvariabilityto
new exogenousinfluences forchangeaffecting all communities
in a sample.
Conclusion.The conferenceprovideda forumin which a
greatmanytopicsin contemporary householdresearch,onlya
fewof whichare mentionedin this report,wereaddressed.A
volumewhichprovidesample scope forthe explorationof the
state of the art of householdstudiescoveredin the conference
paperswillappear in 1983.
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY
 Conferees addressed many of the themes outlined in
Yanagisako's (1979) earlierreviewarticle.Above all, themeet-
ingprovidednewimpetusforthestudyofhouseholdsas process
and provideda corrective to thetypologicalbias in muchearlier
work.Actionswhichdefinethehouseholdare as changeableas
the units themselves.Householdsmay adapt, accommodate,
defend,or revolutionize theirstrategiesin responseto changing
ecologicaland politicalconditions.Formsmaypersistwhilenew
meaningsare attached to them,and old meaningsmay cling
to newformsof householdorganization.It is neverpossibleto
predicta prioriwhatis negotiable,whatis normative, or what
is acceptedas given and naturalby actors. Studies of house-
holds as loci of decisionmaking,and studiesthat take cogni-
zance of theirparticularhistorieswhereverpossible,hold out
greatpromisein assessingthe causes and consequencesof ex-
changeand negotiationwhichare at the heartof everysocial
system.Social scientistsmay then be in a betterpositionto
look outwardand see how householddynamicsstructurethe
largersocial field,and to look inward and see what effect
householdprocesseshave upon the lifecoursesof individuals.
ReferencesCited
HAJNAL,JOHN. 1965. "European marriagepatternsin perspective,"
in Population in history.Edited by D. V. Glass and D. E. C.
Eversley,pp. 101-40. Chicago: Aldine.
LASLETT, PETER. Editor. 1972. Houtsehold and familyin past time.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
--. 1981. Typologiesof the family.MS.
MITTERAUER, MICHAEL, and REINHARD SIEDER. 1979. The develop-
mental process of domestic groups: Problems of reconstruction
and possibilities of interpretation.Journal of Family History
4:257-84.
SHORTER, E. 1975. The makingof the modernfamily. New York:
Basic Books.
STONE, LAWRENCE. 1977. Thefamily,sex, and marriagein England,
1500-1800. New York: Harper and Row.
YANAGISAKO,SYLVIA. 1979. Family and household:The analysis of
domesticgroups.Annual ReviewofAnthropology 8:161-206.

OurReadersWrite corresponding withany Brazilianagency,alwaysuse registered

or insured mail, never send the originalswithoutkeeping
copies, and ask for the nu'merosde protocolowhen sending
In view of the constantdifficulties encounteredby Brazilian the completedforms(these are the numberswhich identify
and foreignanthropologists, linguists,and other scientistsin the files).
obtainingauthorizationfromthe Fundacao Nacional do Indio All enquiriesto the FUNAI should be addressedto Pres-
(FUNAI) to undertakeresearchamongthe BrazilianIndians, idente,Fundacao Nacional do Indio, Setor de Indu'stria-Lote
we believethe timehas come to communicateto the scientific 750 Quadra 4, 71.200 Brasilia,D.F., Brasil.
community at large the natureof the problemand the best All enquiriesto the CNPq shouldbe addressedto Presidente,
way to obtaintheneededauthorizations. The presentsituation, ConselhoNacional de DesenvolvimentoCientificoe Tecnolo-
whichhas caused seriousdelaysin reachingthe fieldand writ- gico, Edificio CNPq, Av. W3 Norte, Quadra 507/B, 70.740
ing dissertations, resultingin tremendousfinancialand emo- Brasilia,D.F., Brasil.
tional costs to fellowshipholdersand in some cases in the The CNPq formsare fairlystraightforward but requirethe
abandonmentof the discipline,was criticizedin a resolution establishment of some tie witha Brazilianresearchinstitution.
of the businessmeetingof the AmericanAnthropological As- The institution desirablewill vary accordingto the geograph-
sociationin 1980. Althoughbureaucraticdifficulties are not ical and theoreticalarea of the applicantand shouldbe nego-
new, the natureof these difficulties has become more serious tiatedas earlyas possible.The FUNAI formsrequirein addi-
and has involvedforcedmodification of projects,surveillance tion a statementof sound mentaland physicalhealthfroma
of anthropologists in the field,accusationsagainst scientists physicianand proof of vaccinationagainstsmallpox,typhus,
and institutions withoutthe rightof appeal, and the refusal tetanus,yellowfever,and a negativeskintest or X-ray indi-
to renew certainauthorizationsgrantedfor short periods- cating an absence of tuberculosis.All applicant documents
withoutwhichfieldworkof the sort traditionalin and essen- should be sent to the CNPq, witha copy to the FUNAI.
tial to good anthropology is impossible. One monthaftersendingthe completedforms,and againfive
Authorizations and renewalsare stillpossibleto obtain.Con- monthsafter,anotherlettershouldbe sent to enquireif any
siderableadvancedplanningand tact are absolutelynecessary, additional informationis required. Six months after sub-
however.It is essentialthat graduate studentsintendingto mittingthe formsand receivinga receipt,it is sometimes
work in Brazil be quite competentin Portuguese,that they advisable to come to Brazil, specificallyto Brasilia,to nego-
establishgood contactswiththe Brazilianscientific community, tiate the finalstages of the authorization. Scientistsmay find
and that theyexercisemorethanthe usual tact withthe cen- that they have to change geographicareas or societies,but
traladministration of the FUNAI and local functionaries. The these are best discussedin person.The delays in these cases
Conselho Nacional de DesenvolvimentoCientificoe Tecno- should not exceed two or three monthsin Brazil, months
logico (CNPq) appoints a supervisorfor every foreignre- whichshould be spentvisitingBrazilianinstitutions, consult-
searcherin Brazil. We recommendthat the researchervisit ing the rapidlyincreasingBrazilianbibliography, and attending
this advisor and maintainregularcontactwith him through scientific meetings.
everystageof the work.The researchershouldalso advise the Finally,it shouldbe emphasizedthatthe National Museum
Commissionon IndigenousAffairs(Comissao de AssuntosIn-
and the BrazilianAnthropological Associationare stronglyop-
digenas) of the BrazilianAnthropological Associationof any
posed to the policieswhichhave resultedin the difficulties re-
problemshe or she may be having.
Authorization for foreigners to do researchin the Brazilian searchers face. Over a periodof years we have been pressuring,
interiorin Indian areas mustbe concededboth by the CNPq negotiating, and openlyfighting againstthem,but withoutany
and by the FUNAI. Each agencyrequiresthatall papersand significant change in the overall picture.Our dismay,chagrin,
supportingdocumentsbe submittedto it at least six months and occasionaldespairhave led us to believethattheprepara-
before the intendeddate of the fieldwork.It is advisable, tion of anthropologists to work with Brazilian Indians will
therefore, for the studentto beginhis paperworkforauthor- have to includemoreseriousattentionto thebureaucraticpro-
ization approximately one year beforehe plans to begin the cedureswhichhave been establishedand to a carefulprepara-
actual fieldresearch.The applicantshouldwriteto the agen- tion of studentsto confrontthe extremelycomplexand del-
cies for information on the most recentregulationsand ask icate social arenas in thisfield.
for copies of regulationsand forms.Self-addressedenvelopes ANTHONY SEEGER and EUNICE DURHAM
and international postal voucherswill help speed a reply.In MuseuNacional.Rio de Janeiro. Brazil.17 ii 82
Vol. 23 * No. 5 * October
1982 575