On Centrism and Dualism - Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin

INTRODUCTION
historically with images that stress oneness: as mountains, stable and round; as umbrellas,
round and shading; or as banyan trees, 14 rooted, protecting and overarching. ‘Centrist’
societies are said to regard men and women qualitatively as very much the same sort of
creature: as descendants from a common ancestral source. ‘Centrist’ societies are said to
stress the unity of the sexes as brothers and sisters and not their difference as man/woman or
husband/wife.
ERRINGTON argues that the multiple permutations that express these basic ideas of social
organization in a variety of contexts may give the impression of noncomparability. Yet, she
claims that a House-centric perspective will reveal that most island Southeast Asian societies
can be viewed as transformations of each other and that they are, thus, compareable.
In my discussion of ERRINGTON’S comparative model I will concentrate on those aspects of
her model that are said to constitute its characteristic features: houses, siblingship, and
marriage (cf. CARSTEN 1995a: 122). While exploring these contexts it became evident that the
relationships hierarchy/seniority and complementarity/siblingship are crucial elements for a
proper understanding of her model. Therefore these central relations will be introduced in
some detail.
My exploration of ERRINGTON’S comparative approach aims at identifying and summarizing
her model’s theoretical premises. At the same time I am intending to highlight the symbolic
significance of cross-sex siblingship for island Southeast Asian societies. My in-depth
discussion of cross-sex siblingship aims at understanding how the House’s unity is imagined
and expressed in ERRINGTON’S model. Furthermore I want to stress that ERRINGTON’S major
contribution to the anthropology of Southeast Asia lies in her attempt to highlight the
relevance of these cognatic cross-sex relations. Concluding I will argue that the idea of unity,
imagined via cross-sex siblingship, represents common theme in ERRINGTON’S model, that
unites ‘Centrist’ and ‘Eastern Indonesian’ societies structurally and identifies them as
transformations of each other.
In the concluding chapter I will discuss some other theoretical concepts that also seem to be
of relevance for ERRINGTON’S characterization of island Southeast Asian societies, without
being explained by her explicitly. Furthermore, I will affirm some already stated criticism
made by various scholars pertaining to ERRINGTON’S heuristic perspective. My final
discussion will add some further points to this already existing corpus of criticism. Thereby, I
will concentrate on her comparative approach and her conception of ‘Centrist’ societies, an
14 Ficus benghalensis
10