Patri-/Matrifocality

Kinship systems based on lineal descent may be father- or mother oriented. As described under Transfer of Status, lineage orientation is analyzed in four different fields, namely:

1. Succession rules to the position of local headmen (R71)
2. Inheritance rules of land (R 73)
3. Postmarital residence rules (R11)
4. Major rule of descent (R43)

Under Kinship Systemit was pointed out that – under pre-industrial conditions – patrilineal descent was much more common than matrilineal descent. Though mothers give birth and nurture the breed, social identity (in terms of names, affiliations, rights and duties) very often is derived from the father's family.

Under conditions of sedentary farming (which applies to about 90 % of the preindustrial population) this asymmetry may be explained by the fact that men claim control over the reproductive capacity of women. This control is easier to handle with power and status descending from father to sons than by any other kinship system.

For a correct interpretation of the map, the following has to be kept in mind: While high country values (green) indicate a clear predominance of patrifocality, the specific content of low country values is not defined. Two examples make this clear:

1. (1) Turkey and Nigeria both show relatively low patridominance. In Turkey, the reality behind the code is a system of bilateral kindreds, i.e. predominantly cognatic rules (except postmarital residence which is patrilocal). In Nigeria, however, the reality behind the same code is a mixture of many forms of descent with a slight preponderance of patrilineal systems.
2. (2) Southeast Asia's low patridominance stands for cognatic societies; low patridominance in the red belt of southern Africa, however, stands for matrifocality.

   

   Zoom (JPG, 1 MB)

The scattergram shows the correlation between „Lineality“ and "Patrilineal status transfer" (the second is identical with "Patridominance" in the map). The two dimensions result from a 5-factor (varimax principal component) analysis of 890 local units with 19 variables. The four indicators of Lineage Structures (R9, R43, R6, R15) exhibit the highest loadings on the factor "Lineage Orientation"; the indicators of Transfer of Status (R43, R11, R73, R71) exhibit the highest loadings on the factor "Patrilineal status transfer".
The vertical Lineage orientation measures the extension and tightness of institutionalized local networks. Higher values indicate stronger lineality, irrespective of matri- or patri-orientation; negative values indicate non-linear (cognatic) rules. The horizontal Patrilineality measures how exclusive social status is transferred along patri-lines.
Inspite of the obvious fact that the two dimensions are not independent, the scattergram is most revealing. While ignoring the negative correlation, the analysis may focus on the distribution of the points in the four quadrants.

1. The points are concentrated mainly in the upper-right quadrant. It means that with regard to intergenerational status transfer the large majority of pre-industrial (mainly agrarian) societies have institutionalized patrilineal rules.
2. Though logically equivalent, matri-oriented rules are rare (upper-left quadrant) which means that societies are rarely organized entirely along matrilineal rules. Not only is the number of such cultural units very limited, but the population size is usually quite small as is indicated by the size of the signatures. They typically are found in sub-Saharan Africa.
3. The points reveal a clear regional pattern. Of all the regions, sub-Saharan Africa is most lineage-oriented (left scale; regional averages are population weighted) irrespective of the group's patri- or matri-orientation. Under Lineage Structures it was argued that lineage organization is a functional equivalent of state organization in societies on a middle level of structural complexity. Roughly speaking, strong lineage organizations prevailed in areas which had no elaborated state institutions before colonial times (Africa, Melanesia). In such cases, patrilineality tends to be an "all-embracing" principle, extending to all relevant domains. The situation is distinctive of those many „tribal“ societies with agricultural and/or cattle breeding economies.
4. Larger societies tend to weaken patrilineal lineage structures. Though East- and South Asian societies maintain patridominance, the lineage factor is less elaborated and inclusive. It semms that the alternative to patrifocality is not matrifocality (though logically possible), but are non-lineal, ego-oriented, bi-linear cognatic systems (lower left). They are characteristic for Southeast Asia and some Westasien units like the Turks, Armenians or Geogians (see Map: Type of kinship system) .

The relevance of lineage organization – and of traditional kinship patterns in general – is not well understood in development theory. Empirical evidence indicates that all-embracing patrilineages are detrimental to development, whereas non-linear (cognatic) kinship organization is favorable for development (Mueller et al: Cultural and political foundations (2002): p. 77-80 ).