Section II: Case Study:Parallel-Cousin Marriage
From WikEd
Founded on the previously developed themes marriage of patrilateral parallel cousins is posed as an example which lends itself to displaying the limits of objectivism challenging the idea in marriage of a unilinial or one line discrete descent as well as that of marriage exchange theory as a way of understanding marriage.
The pitting of the line of endogamy or marriage within a specific group by custom as opposed to exogamy or marriage outside of a specific group by custom or law sets the background for an example set on the foundation of the previous section presenting social engagement framed in game and exchange theories along with the implications demonstrated in the social practice concerning honor.
Boudieu points out that marriage set as a comparative across cultures with such theories as alliance or unilineral descent fail in actual universality thought they are perceived as universal within their specific domain. Such theories remain bounded as theories associated with a specific region, people or culture in which they are normalized. This complicates the ability to obtain objective response of participants because of the various meanings that are culturally defined. In terms of limits of objectivism Boudieu utilizes the illustrations in this section of the complexity of the question of the varied meanings of marriage of patrilateral cousins, the changing nature of official kin as opposed to practical kin and finally what he terms officializing strategies or how power positions and representation vary with time situation, place and actors
With regard to the state of the question there is the point of interpretation is predicated on the social structure and various underlying relationship in the community.
In considering kin the rendering of and process of marriage relationship varies dependent on the underlying purpose and intent of the marriage as well as other aspects of the life of the community. Where practical kin has to do with the connectedness of individuals and is often implicit serving a particular function. Official kin on the other hand has to do with the social structure in the ordering of the community. These Boudieu notes are that which would be visible to the anthropologist but do not necessarily display the dynamic relationships. To set the official as a static closed system limits ones ability to fathom the practical thus limits ones position of objectivism and the ability to see the maintenance of relationships.
The structures of a group can not be bounded simply by physical boundaries but rather is a function of the relationship. Boudieu illustrates that within the closest of communities there are tensions and the group relation are founded on overcoming these tensions of individual relationships through or founded on common intention to a common purpose maintaining the groups and collective relationship and official position. This is the key to “Officializing Strategies” that define the group position or norm. Along these official positions individual may lie along a continuum from on the compliance end as a responsible participant to on the non-compliant an irresponsible participant with set somewhere between that individual that is a well meaning rule breaker. In the development and maintenance of the official positions “officializing strategies” are utilized by the members of the community demonstrating various power structures resident in the community being applied in such a manner to maintain the various aspects of the community. The issue is that many structures are developed and maintained via an unofficial or may be implicated to official whereas practically they are supported via an unofficial process. This factor is not apparent as one accepts the official but presents a limited representation under mining objectivism.
