|
White Hmong
Kinship: Terminology and Structure
(Hmong World, 1, Yale University Southeast Asian Studies, 1986)
Contents
1
Terms for members of a family
2
Second degree relationship terminology
3
Third degree relatives
4
Biologically distant relatives
5
Discussion
6
Conclusion
7
References
According to Graburn (1971: 2), a society structures its members
into positions based on a number of principles. The many persons to
whom an individual may relate are classified into categories which
determine their behaviour expectations towards one another and
maintain them together as a group. The totality of these
expectations and culturally determined relationships forms the
group's social structure. Thus, an understanding of a society's
structure necessitates the examination of the ways in which its
members form themselves into social groups, the relationships
between the groups, and between individual members, as well as the
types of ideal and actual behaviour found among them.
Kinship is one of the principles by which human societies develop
their social structure. As defined by Murdock (1960:92), kinship is
a "structured system of relationships in which individuals are bound
one to another by complex interlocking and ramifying ties". However,
unlike other forms of social organisation such as the family or the
village community, the interpersonal relationships of a kinship
system do not in all cases lead to the formation of localised social
aggregates closely associated with one another. This is despite the
fact that kinship ties are based on affinal (marital) relationships
between a husband and his wife, and on consanguineal (biological)
relationships between parents and their children who form the
nuclear family, "the basis for kinship in nearly all societies" (Schusky,
1972: 7).
These
mutual relationships are usually differentiated by the terms used by
members of the system to address, or to refer to, one another. Such
kinship terms are essential guides to social behaviour, placing
people into categories and assigning them statues and roles . In the
words of Fortes (1969: 54), a kinship term "is a package of
definitions, rules and directions for conduct... a store of
information but also a tool of action". It forms an intricate part
of what Murdock (op. cit .: 97) recognises as the reciprocal
behaviour characterising every relationship between kinsmen.
Although many ethnographic accounts exist on the Hmong, little
attention has been paid to Hmong kinship terminology, in spite of
its importance in understanding Hmong kinship behaviour and social
structure. Graham (1937: 13-71) and de Beauclair (1956: 20-35), in
their writing about the Ch'uan Miao (Hmong) and the Red Hmong in
South western China, concern themselves mostly with customs in such
areas as marriage, funerals, economy and religious beliefs. Geddes
(1976) in his recent book on the Green Hmong of Northern Thailand
discusses at length their social relationships and groupings, but
does not touch on kinship terminology. Bernatzik (1970: 48 60) and
Heimbach (1969: 493-97) give a list of the most common terms without
elaborating on them, while Copper (1978: 297-320) explains Hmong
social categories with only a few terms mentioned. Only Lemoine
(1972a: 173-181) and Ruey (1960: 143-155) have attempted to analyse
kinship terms used among the Green Hmong of Laos and the "Magpie
Miao" of Southern Szechuan. The literature on the White Hmong so far
concentrates on marriage and funeral customs, or on shamanism only (Bourotte,
1943; Grossin, 1926; Moréchand, 1955 and 1969; and Mottin, 1975). A
tentative discussion of White Hmong kinship terms will be done in
this article in the hope of filling this void.
COMMON KINSHIP
TERMS
The
kinship terms given below are mainly reference terms with a few
address terms. For members of a nuclear family, the terms expected
to be employed are shown on Chart I, which represents a polygynous
household with only primary-degree relationships.
A.
Terms for members of a family
Parents
Fa : txiv. This can also refer
to a husband, depending on who is the speaker.
leej txiv is the term used for
the father of a child. For example, kuv txiv: "my father".
Hu : tus txiv, the husband as
in koj tus txiv, "your husband".
Mo : niam, usually used as a
term of address, and by extension it can also mean "wife". leej niam,
the mother, eg. nws (leej) niam is "his mother".
Wi : poj niam. For example, koj
poj niam: "your wife". Couples with children often address each
other as if they are speaking through their children. Thus, the
husband may call his wife koj niam ("your mother"), and the wife may
address the husband as koj txiv ("your father"). They can refer to
each other as kuv tus txiv ("my husband") or kuv tus poj niam ("my
wife"), but have no direct terms of address, except by using name or
by resorting to the terms of address employed by their children for
them as indicated.
In a polygynous household, the
co-wives are referred to or addressed by the husband, their
children, any third party, or by one another as:
niam hlob for the first wife.
In the case of the children, the term applies only to those who
belong to the other wife or wives.
niam nrab for the second or
middle wife. The word nrab means literally "middle" or "in between",
and when used with the word "wife" it refers to all the wives
between the first and the last or youngest one. Thus, no matter how
many "middle wives" a man has acquired, they are all called niam
nrab.
niam yau for the last wife. yau
means "young" or "junior". Alternatively, she can be addressed as
niam me ("little or junior wife"), and the first wife as niam loj or
"senior wife".
Children
me nyuan is the term for
children in general when the speaker is merely making reference.
This can be broken into:
me tub: son, as in nej cov tub
for "your (plural) sons". me is an endearing word and is often
dropped or replaced by tus meaning "one", eg. kuv tus tub ("my one
son" or "my son".)
me ntxhais or ntxhais:
daughter, eg. tus ntxhais hlob ("oldest daughter"). The terms of
reference used by parents are me nyuam as above or tub ntxhais
("sons and daughters"). Although the word me (meaning "small" or
''little'') can be dropped from tub or ntxhais, it cannot be left
out of the term me nyuam (for "children") even if the latter are
grown-ups.
Br : nus for a female speaker.
Si : muam for a male speaker.
both these two terms yield:
nus muag for "brothers and
sisters". Older and younger brothers are distinguished as nus hlob
and nus yau by their unmarried sisters, and as dab laug by the
married ones. The latter, whether married or not, are in turn
address as muam hlob (for "older sister") and muam yau ("younger
sister") by their brothers, and as muam nrab for any sisters in
between.
When brothers refer to one
another, the term used are:
kwv tij, for all brothers of
the same parents when the speaker is male. This term is a
combination of two other terms:
kwv, younger brother of male
speaker, and
tij laug, older brother(s) of
male speaker.
For sisters, the terms for
mutual address and reference are:
viv ncaus, a term meaning
"sisters" and also used by persons other than those involved in such
relationship. Unlike the general term kwv tij for brother, viv ncaus
cannot be broken up to designate older or younger sister for the
White Hmong. Apparently, the Magpie Hmong (Ruey, op. cit., p. 148)
adopt the term viv for older sister, and ncaus for younger sister.
The White Hmong, however, know only the referent niam laus for older
sister, and niam hluas for younger sister.
As evident in Chart I, there
are no distinguishing terms for the children of the different wives
of a man. Though of different mothers (but the same father), the
children refer to one another as if they all belong to one mother by
the rule that all the sons of a father are kwv tij ("true
brothers"), and his daughters are all viv ncaus to one another.
Together, these sons and daughters constitute a group of nus muag.
By extension and in relationship with the sons and daughters of
their father's brothers, the whole set forms ib cuab kwv tij or a
lineage. This, however, is in the realm of secondary social
relations, and we will now turn to these secondary categories.
B.
Second-degree relationship terminology
In this
grouping fall all those relatives who are related to the primary
relatives of Ego but are excluded from the latter usually by virtue
of the fact that they are born into it. A person, of course, does
not have to be born into a nuclear family to be considered among its
members, since he or she can be adopted from outside but still
treated as a natural part of the group along with all the social
expectations such a membership implies. Murdock (op. cit., p. 94)
identifies 39 potential secondary relatives for every person,
including HuWi (Co-spouse), HuSo or HuDa (by other wives), FaWi
(other than Ego's mother), FaSo (the sons of Ego's father's other
wives), and FaDa (half-sister). However, as we have already seen,
these categories are included with primary relatives in Hmong
kinship terminology, because they are all related to the same
husband or father, For our purpose here, we shall exclude them from
secondary relationships, and retain only the following terms
illustrated in Chart II.
Thus, White Hmong second degree
relatives and their corresponding terminology are:
FaFa : yawg, FaMo : pog.
Together, these terms become pog yawg or "grand-parents". This can
also be taken as ancestors more than one generation above Ego's
father, as the genealogy knowledge of some Hmong is only of this
depth.
FaBr: txiv hlob for "older
father", that is the older brother of one's father according to the
rule of collateral classification. If FaBr is younger than one's
father, the term used is txiv ntxawm, "junior father". When it is
used as a term of address, the word ntxawm is dropped, and only txiv
+ name of the younger uncle is the norm. The same applies to the
term of address for txiv hlob, but in this case txiv is dropped and
only hlob + name is employed. To differentiate between txiv hlob and
txiv ntxawm, Ego's real father is addressed or referred to simply as
txiv with no name or other words attached, as already noted above.
FaSi : phauj. The term muam
phauj (muam meaning "sister") is ordinarily reserved for use during
funeral rites to address those sisters of Ego's father attending the
latter's funeral or the funeral of his brothers and other
classificatory relatives. Unlike terms used for father's older or
younger brothers explained previously, phauj is used for both
younger and older sisters of the father.
MoFa : yawm txiv, MoMo : niam
tais. Their combination gives niam tais yawm txiv for parents-in-law
or Ego's wife's parents.
MoBr : dab laug, whether older
or younger than mother.
MoSi : niam tais, or simply
tais + name of the person being addressed or referred to. Together,
the niam tais (MoSi), dab laug, and niam tais yawm txiv as well as
all their collateral relatives form mother's neej tsa or affined
ties.
SiHu : yawm yij, irrespective
of age in relation to Ego.
SiSo: tub. We have seen with
respect to the nuclear family that tub means "son", and it is used
for SiSo as well as the sons of all collateral relatives (male and
female), because the rule of extension is applied. Thus, SiSo is
regarded as one's own son, or is referred to through one's sister as
if it is the latter addressing her own children. This applies
equally to:
SiDa : ntxbais
BrSo : tub
BrDa: ntxhais
WiSo : tub (of a previous
marriage)
WiDa : ntxhais (if from a
previous marriage)
BrWi : niam tij (if brother is
older than Ego). Niam ntxawm (if brother is younger than Ego). In
this case, the term is used through Ego's children. As far as Ego is
directly concerned, the wife of a younger brother is simply
addressed with the word niam (for "mother" or "married woman")
followed by her husband's name. If Ego is female, all brothers'
wives are referred to as tis nyab or nyab ("sister-in law")
MoHu: txiv if one's mother
remarries after widowhood or divorce irrespective of whether or not
the step father has adopted Ego formally as one of his own children.
Ego's mother's husband simply becomes Ego's father through the
mother. In Hmong customs, the new husband usually adopts his wife's
children from a previous marriage into his own clan if they are of a
different clan, are still dependent on their mother, and are not
claimed by the former husband in the case of a divorce or by the
latter's male relatives if he has died. If the new father and the
wife's children of another marriage are of the same clan, all that
is required is a psychological readjustment between them. Sometimes
this readjustment has to be done through a ceremony or formal
acknowledgment. But such a remarriage is possible only if the new
husband is a younger "brother" (in its broad sense) of the former
husband.
In this way, the lineage can
retain the widow and all her children. Here, the niam tij become
one's poj niam, and the txiv ntxawm ("father's younger brother')
becomes txiv. This practice of levirate is permissible only between
widows of older brothers and the younger brothers or younger
parallel male cousins. Marriage is forbidden between a divorcee or
widow and males of other categories and generations related to the
previous husband .
MoSo: all seen as kwv tij for
Ego regardless of whether or not they are of the same father. This
is true also of MoDa (muam). All of mother's children are related to
one another as brothers and sisters since they have the same mother.
The terms of address and rules of behaviour found in a nuclear
family apply to all children of remarried parents.
WiFa: yawn txiv
WiMo: niam tais
WiBr: dab laug regardless of
age in relation to Wi.
WiSi: niam laus if older than
Wi, niam hluas if younger than Wi.
HuFa: txiv
HuMo: niam. Both HuFa and HuMo
are regarded as one's own parents.
HuBr: txiv laus if Br is older
than Hu. If Ego has children, their term of address hlob ("father's
older brother") can be used in place of txiv laus; txiv hluas if Br
is younger than Hu. For speaker with children, txiv (ntxawm)
("father's younger brother") is used to refer to her husband's
younger brother through the children.
HuSi: no specific term exists,
apart from addressing by name. The term phauj (FaSi) may be used by
a married woman to refer to HuSi through the couple's children,
particularly if the sister is married.
SoWi: nyab
SoSo: xeeb ntxwv. The same term
applies to SoDa and any other descendants below son's generation
onward irrespective of age and sex. Sometimes, the term
tub xeeb ntxwv
is male descendants or grandchildren, and
ntxhais xeeb ntxwv for female descendants. These terms are equally
applicable to DaSo and DaDa.
DaHu: vauv.
This completes kinship
terminology used by the White Hmong for secondary relatives.
Ideally, the Hmong identify more with relatives on the paternal side
than with those related through affinal bonds. One's kin group is
differentiated from other groups by the clan name which one shares
with them. People with a similar clan name are seen as related no
matter how biologically or geographically distant they are from one
another. Maternal relatives belong as a rule to a clan different
from that of one's father and do not share the same sets of
ancestral rites. Thus, the more different the clan name and the
ancestors, the less are the people considered to be related. A clan
name may indicate a common mythical origin, but to be included as a
member of a lineage a man has to possess the same ancestor cult as
other members of the group. Moreover, the male relatives will always
have more significance than female ones, the latter being regarded
as belonging almost exclusively to their husbands' clans after
marriage. Hence, the absence of many kinship terms to differentiate
between female relations when compared with those for male.
C.
Third-degree relatives
According to Murdok (op. cit., p. 95), each secondary relative "has
primary relatives who are neither primary nor secondary relatives of
Ego, and who may thus be termed tertiary relatives" (emphasis
original). Since there are 151 possibilities of such relationships,
it is neither practical nor useful to list them all and to represent
then al a chart. I will confine myself, therefore, to the most
common terms for relatives of this category in the White Hmong
kinship system. Among them ran be found the following:
FaFaFa: yawg koob
FaFaMo: pog koob
FaMoFa: yawm txiv as with MoFa
and WiFa.
FaMoMo: niam tais, similar to
MoMo and WiMo.
MoFaFa: yawm txiv, see FaMoFa,
also for MoMoFa.
MoFaMo: niam tais, which is
also used for MoMoMo.
FaBrSo: kwv, if younger than
Ego, and tij, if older. Together, they and Ego are kwv tij
("brothers") as if they are all born of the same parents.
FaBrDa: muam, if speaker is
male, and viv ncaus if female. Together with a male Ego, they become
nus muag ("brother and sister").
FaSiSo : npawg. This term
applies also to MoBrSo and MoSiSo, provided that speaker is male.
Together, they are cross-cousins. For a female speaker, the word dab
followed by the name of the person being addressed is employed,
although today the use of name has become prevalent except for those
who are very polite and still observe the old terminology.
FaSiDa : muam npawg, similarly
extended to MoSiDa and MoBrDa in the case of a male Ego. For a
female speaker, only the person's name is used, as they are treated
as viv ncaus ("sisters") to one another, even if they are actually
cross-cousins.
MoSiHu : yawm txiv as opposite
of niam tais for MoSi.
MoBrWi : niam dab laug or the
dab laug (MoBr)'s wife.
FaBrWi : niam hlob followed by
name. This term should not be confused with niam hlob used for the
senior wife of a polygynous union since in this case the name of the
person concerned is not attached to the term. The term niam hlob
occurs where FaBr is older than Fa. If younger, the term niam ntxawn
is called for.
FaSiHu : yawg laus, literally
"senior man", regardless of whether Si is older or younger than Fa.
BrSo: nyab, similar to SoWi
since BrSo and So are considered siblings. The same term and rule
are applied to SiSoWi, although SiSo is a cross-cousin for Ego and
is not usually a clan relative, but a relative only through Si.
BrDaHu : vauv, which is used
also for SiDaHu, based on the principle discussed in connection with
BrSoWi and SiSoWi.
FaFaBr : yawg, as for FaFa
MoFaSi : phauj, as for FaSi
MoFaBr : dab laug, as for MoBr
MoMoSi : niam tais, as for MoSi
WiFaFa : yawm txiv, as for WiFa
WiFaMo : niam tais, as for WiMo
WiMoFa : yawn txiv, as for MoFa
WiMoMo : niam tais, as for MoMo
WiSiHu : txiv laus if Ego's
wife is younger than Si and txiv hluas if older.
SiSoWi : nyab, as for SoWi, and
is used further for BrSoWi and SoSoWi.
SiDaHu : vauv, as for DaHu and
applicable a so for BrDaHu and SoDaHu.
SoSoSo : xeeb ntxwv, as for
SoSo, SoDa and SoSoDa discussed earlier.
SoDaSo : the same term as for
SoSoSo and SoDaDa.
SoWiFa : yawg cuas, equally
used for DaHuFa, often with the word cuas followed by the name of
the person.
SoWiMo : pog cuas, as for
DaHuMo.
A glance at these kinship terms
indicates that the Hmong kinship system is not comparable to the
English system, despite the fact that both are patrilineally-based.
In the English model, kinship is looked at through both the father
and the mother, and their children (the nuclear family), embracing
relatives from both the maternal and paternal sides with the s me
classificatory terms with respect to the husband and wife. The
children and the wife assume the father's surname (hence,
patrilineal to this extent), but equal importance (or unimportance,
for that matter) is placed on FaBr and MoBr who are both referred to
as uncle, on MoSi and FaSi both called aunt, on the children of
these uncles and aunts, and on the grandparents of both sides. That
the Hmong model is different seems evident by the fact that
different kinship terms exist to describe each of these
relationships, perhaps with the balance leaning slightly towards
those relatives on the paternal side.
D.
Biologically distant relatives
In
general, it is not possible for a Hmong to remember relatives for
more than four or five generations above or below Ego (Cooper, 1978:
3C8, and Geddes, 1976: 52). This seems to be true of relatives who
are in more than four degree relationship with Ego horizontally. For
this reason, the Hmong do not always have kinship terms for these
biologically distant kin. This applies also to relatives of the
third degree or second degree, so long as they are not clan
relatives. For instance, Ego refers to his sister's son as "son" in
the same way as he does with his brother's son. However, SiSo is
called "son" only by virtue Ego's relationship with his sister
(sibling), and clan and patrilineage. When a relative is too
distant, he or she is often referred to with a kinship term used by
the person in closest relationship with the speaker, eg. MoMoBr =
MoBr. WiMoFa = MoFa, and FaFaBrSoSo = FaBrSo.
Because a person can have
hundreds of those distant relatives, the kinship terms given below
will be limited to those most commonly found in White Hmong society.
Quaternary relatives:
FaFaFaFa: yawg suab
FaFaFaMo: pog suab
FaFaBrSo: txiv hlob or "older
uncle" if Fa is younger; txiv ntxawm if Fa is older. Both are the
same terms as for FaSi.
FaFaBrDa: phauj as for FaSi
MoFaBrSo: dab laug, as for MoBr
MoMoBrDa : niam tais, as for
MoSi or MoMo
SoSoSoSo : xeeb ntxwv, as for
SoSo, SoDa, SoSoSoDa, BrSoSoSo. BrSoSoDa, SiSoSoSo, SiDaSoDa,
etc....
Quinary relatives:
FaFaBrSoSo: tij laug if older
than speaker, and kwv if younger. Together, they are kwv tij
("brothers" in the sense of parallel cousins), as for FaBrSo.
FaFaBrSoDa : muam for male Ego,
and dab + name for female Ego as for FaSiSo, MoSiSo and MoBrSo.
FaFaBrDaDa : muam npawg for
male speaker, and viv ncaus for female speaker, as for FaSiDa or
MoBrDa (cross-cousins).
Six-degree relations:
FaFaFaFaFaFa: no special term,
but included among FaFaFaFa (yawg suab or one of the great
grandfather).
At this generation depth,
hardly any Hmong remember this ancestor, since they have no written
genealogy. Thus, the lack of terminology.
FaFaFaFaFaFa : pog suab or pog
koob, as for FaFaFaMo and FaFaMo. See remark on FaFaFaFaFaFa.
FaFaBrDaDaSo : tub, as for
FaSiSoSo.
FaFaBrDaSoDa : ntxhais, as for
FaSiDaDa.
It can be seen that the further
removed a relative is from Ego, the more common are terms used for
relatives of the second and third degrees. This suggests that
terminology for the more distant relatives is but extension of that
existing for the more prevalent or closer relationships, since the
system of terminology does not adequately cover those relatives in
the fourth to the sixth degree. As the social distance increases
between Ego and his kin, we have to resort to terms employed by
those relatives in primary relationship with Ego to refer to
relatives in tertiary or quaternary relationship. Many more
combinations of these relationships could be listed, but this is not
done here for this simple reason.
DISCUSSION
As
stated by Lemoine (1972a: 178), kinship terminology for the Hmong as
with other peoples exists to help them in referring to their affines
and kin, and to distinguish between these politically, religiously,
and economically. A Hmong marriage unites not only two persons of
the opposite sex, but also two families and clans, even though the
marriage is not one arranged by the parents of the bride and groom.
A man's social status depends on the number of his patrilineal
relatives, those of his wife and mother, and, to a lesser extent,
the descendants of the female relatives an his father's side.
A brief examination of White
Hmong kinship terms reveals that terminology extension through
teknonymy and tekeisonymy seems to be the norm. It is not my purpose
to discover the reasons for the existence of Hmong kinship terms.
Determinants of kinship terminology have been discussed by other
writers and summarised by Murdock (op. cit., pp. 113-183). I have
only tried to list the most common White Hmong kinship terms, and to
see from them how the Hmong kinship system is structured. According
to one writer, the terminology is a method of classification and
what it shows is how various systems classify kin folk and affines
(Morgan, 1870).
It can be seen that the Hmong
more or less group their kin, according to the eight criteria
deduced by Kroeber (19 9: 77-84): (1) different or same generation;
(2) lineal or collateral relation; (3) relative age within the sane
generation; (4) sex of relative; (5) sex of speaker; (6) .sex of
person who is a link between one relative and another; (7)
consanguine or .affinal relationship; and (8) whether a linking
relative is dead or alive. There is a preponderance of kinship terms
based on age (eg. older or younger brother), generation (eg. father,
son, uncle), and sex (brothers, sisters, aunts). Often, a married
woman is an important link between her relatives on her parents'
sides and her affines, as when her brother refers to her son as
"son", not because SiSo has the same social significance as BrSo or
one's own son but because SiSo is referring to through Si; that is,
as if one is speaking as Si; that is, as if one is speaking as Si
referring to her own son. When such a linking relative is distant or
dead, her affines or descendants are usually forgotten unless they
are geographically and socially close to her original kin group, for
instance FaFaBrDaDa.
Classification based on age is
most obvious between older brother (tij laug) and younger brother (kwv),
father's elder brother (txiv hlob) and younger brother (txiv ntxawn).
This importance of age seems less prominent among females relatives,
when there are no separate terms for elder sister and younger sister
and both are simply referred to as viv ncaus ("sisters"). All FaSi
are also collectively called phauj irrespective of whether they are
older or younger than Fa This difference in terminology between male
and female relatives could be attributed to the fact the Hmong
kinship system is patrilineal, considering a daughter as belonging
almost exclusively to her husband's clan once she is married (a
women once married, can never again live and die under the sane
house spirits as her consanguineal kin, whether she later becomes
widowed or divorced-she must carry on under her former husband's
ancestors and spirits).
Terminology differentiation between brothers and male kin of
different ages is perhaps due to the respect for age commonly found
among the Hmong and the Chinese, the latter having exerted much
religious and cultural influence on the former. This respect for
seniority is also shown in the cult of ancestor-worship, although
the Hmong cannot usually remember their ancestors for more than four
or five generations and often do not have kinship terms for these
relatives. This is evidenced by the terms yawg ("grandfather') and
yawg koob ("great grandfather") which are often used
indiscriminately to refer to all ancestors above Ego's father's
generation.
More
significant than classification based on age and sex is
classification based on marriage and descent, or lineal and
collateral relatives. Among relatives classified in this way are
three main groups. In terms of closeness (both with respect to
rituals and affection), we have: (1) the patrilineal relatives, all
male descendants on the paternal side and their close relatives; (2)
the consanguineal and affinal relatives of all females married into
the group; and (3) the descendants and affinal relatives of all
females originating from the group and having married into other
clans. Thus, we can distinguish one group of patrilineal relatives,
and two groups of collateral relatives among the Hmong. All males of
the same generation in the lineal group are referred to as kwv tij
("brothers"), even though they would be more appropriately called
male parallel cousins since many of them do not belong to the same
set of parents. Male and female relatives in this category call one
another nus muag ("brothers and sisters"); and all female relatives
address one another as viv ncaus ("sisters"). It is forbidden for
them to marry one another so long as they belong to the patrilineal
group and have the same clan name.
Thus,
no terms exist for parallel cousins on the male side, eg. Ego and
FaBrSo or FaBrDa (Ego is here either male or female), because all
descendants from the males of the patrilineal group are regarded as
brothers and sisters, but not cousins. This rule, however, does not
apply to what I referred to above as collateral relatives, or
descendants of MoBr, MoSi, and FaSi. MoBrSo and FaSi are all
referred to as npawg ("cousins"), tij npawg if older than male
speaker, and kwv npawg if younger. MoBrDa and FaSiDa are both called
muam npawg ("female cousin") by a male speaker, and viv ncaus (npawg)
(female bilateral cross-cousins) by a female speaker. Nus npawg is
used by female Ego in referring to MoBrSo and FaSiSo, either of whom
can marry Ego. This means that for the White Hmong at least, a male
is allowed to marry either his MoBrDa or his FaSiDa and MoSiDa (all
of whom are his muam npawg), but never his FaBrDa who is considered
his own sister. Hence, distinguishing terms exist only for cross
cousins.
However, going one generation
above Ego and still referring to parallel cousins and cross-cousins,
we find that there is no term which the parental generation can use
to, refer to their cousins' children. BrSo and SiSo are both called
tub (''son") by both male and female speakers; and BrDa and SiDa are
called ntxhais ("daughter"). Here again, the principle of
terminology extension through tekeisonymy (the opposite of teknonymy)
seems to apply. The Hmong practice the levirate and it would be
logical to expect a BrSo to be seen as one's own son. But when this
term is used with SiSo (who is not related to Ego's clan), this is
due to terminology extension, whether the speaker is male or female.
This seems to be a widespread rule in Hmong kinship terminology as
has been shown repeatedly in the course of this discussion.
Because White Hmong distinguish
between lineal and collateral relatives, it can be said that they
have a descriptive kingship system. They also distinguish MoBr (dablaug)
from Fa (txiv) and FaBr (txiv hlob or txiv ntxawm). FaBr is seen as
belonging to the father's generation but is called by a different
term from Fa (txiv). Since FaBr could thus be regarded as Fa, the
Hmong could be said to have a bifurcate merging system of kinship (Schusky,
Op. cit., p. 19-20). Despite this, it is not clear if White Hmong
kinship is of the Eskimo, Hawaiin, Sudanese or Iroquois system on
the basis of cousin terminology. Not all cousins are separated from
siblings (e.g. all FaSiSo, FaSiDa, MoSiSo and MoSiDa) as is the case
of the Hawaiin system. It is obvious now that the Hmong do not
distinguish cousins between one another and between siblings,
according to the Sudanese type. The Iroquois system equates parallel
cousins with siblings, but not cross cousins. This appears closer to
the Hmong system; and yet the Hmong only equate FaBrSo and FaBrDa
with siblings, not MoSiSo and MoSiDa unless these happen to be
related to Ego because their fathers also are from Ego's clan.
Perhaps, it is not that there
is an anomaly within the kinship system of the Hmong, but rather
that these four systems are too narrowly defined so that the Hmong
system does not fit into any of them. As Lowie points out, any given
system is a complex historical growth that cannot be adequately
defined as a whole by some such "catchword" as classificatory,
Hawaiin or what not (Lowie, 1917: 116). Needham echoes this basic
issue when he writes (1971: 15):
There really is no such thing
as an Omaha terminology, except that of the Omaha themselves, and it
leads only to confusion and wrong conclusions to suppose that there
is.
CONCLUSION
However
we may look at Hmong kinship terms and their importance in the
analysis of Hmong kinship structure and classification, there is no
doubt that it is first and foremost based on the family unit and the
patrilineal clan. A Hmong person always feels closer to members of
his nuclear and extended families, and to members of his clan. He
possesses more rights and obligations within these units than with
members of others groups and clans. This seems reflected to some
extent in the kinship terns he uses for his FaBrSo and FaBrDa
("brothers and sisters") as opposed to those for FaSiSo, FaSiDa,
MoBrSo, MoBrDa, and MoSiSo and MoSiDa (npawg: "cousins"). This is if
we accept Radciffe-Brown's proposition that people who are called by
the same term are those who have similar obligations to one another,
since the nomenclature of kinship is often used as a means to
establish and recognize a category to which a person belongs and by
which "the actual social relation between an individual and his
relative, as defined by rights and duties or socially approved
attitudes and modes of behaviour, is then to a greater or less
extent fixed..." (Radcliffe Brown, 1952:63). A term refers to a
category of relatives and different categories will be distinguished
by different terms.
REFERENCES
Bernatzik, H.A. 1970
Akha and Meau (New Haven, HRAF).
Bourotte, B. 1943 "Mariages et funérailles chez les
Mèo Blancs dans la région de Nong-het (Trân Nirh, Laos)", Institut
Indochinois pour l'Étude de l'Homme, Bulletin et Travaux, 6:
35-56.
Cooper, R.G. 1978 "Unity and division in Hmong
social categories in Thailand", in Chen, P.S.J. and Evers, H.D.
(eds.), Studies in ASEAN Sociology (Singapore: Chopmen).
de Beauclair, I. 1956 "Culture traits of
non-Chinese tribes in Kweichow Province" Sinologica, V1):
20-35.
Fortes, M. 1969 (Chicago: Aldine).
Geddes, W.R. 1976 Migrants of the Mountains
(Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Graburn, N. (ed.) 1971 Readings in Kinship and
Social Structure (New York: Harper and Row).
Graham, D.C. 1937 "The customs of the Ch'uan Miao",
Journal of the West China Border Research Society, 9: 13-71.
Grossin, P. 1926 "Les coutumes des Mèos de la
région de Long-Het", Extrême-Asie, July/September: 42-47.
Heimbach, E.E. 1969 White Meo - English
Dictionary (Ithaca: Cornell University Southeast Asia Data paper
No. 75).
Kroeber, A. 1909 "Classificatory systems of
relationships", Journal of the Royal Anthropological Insitute,
39: 77-84. Reprinted in Graburn, N. (ed.), op. cit., pp. 59-64.
Lemoine, J. 1972a Un Village Hmong Vert du Heut
Laos (Paris: Centre National de Recherche Scientifique).
1972b "Les écritures du Hmong", in Bulletin des
Amis Royaume Lao, 7-8: 123-165.
Lowie, R.H. 1917 Culture and Ethnology (New
York: Rolt, Rinehart and Winston).
Morechand, G. 1955 "Principaux traits du Chamanisme
Mèo Blanc en Indochine", Bulletin de l'École Francaise
d'Extrême-Orient (BEFEO), XLVIII(2).
1969 "Le Chamanisme des Hmong", BEFED, LXIV
Morgan, L.H. 1879 "Systems of consanguinity and
affinity in the human family" (Washington: Smithsonian Institution).
Cited by Fox, R. Kinship and Marriage (Penguin, 1967), p.
240.
Mottin, J. 1975 Croyances
(mimeographed report).
Murdock, G.P. 1960 Social Structure (New
York: Macmillan).
Needham, R. 1971 "Remarks on analysis of kinship
and marriage", Needham, R. (ed.), Rethinking Kinship and Marriage
(London: Tavistock).
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1952 Structure and
Function in Primitive Societies (London: Cohen and West).
Ruey, Yih-Fu 1960 "The Magpie Miao of Southern
Szechuan", in Murdock, G.P. (ed.), Social Structure in Southeast
Asia (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
Schusky, E.L. 1972 Manual for Kinship Analysis
(New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston).
|
