2. Philosophy - Stefano Franchi

218
S TRUCTURES (AND SPACES)
The problem can only be solved by abandoning a search based on a direct relationship be-
tween the empirical, historical data and the various kinship terms and postulating, instead,
an underlying system of relations governing the use (e.g. the meaningfulness) of such
terms.
His analysis of the kinship systems finds a formal, abstract structure constituted by
four terms: brother, sister, father and son. The different relations existing between pairs of
terms of the system (Lévi-Strauss calls them “attitudes,” like “warm and familiar” or “rigid
and antagonist”) are mutually constraining so that he can formulate a general law of the fol-
lowing form: “The relation between maternal uncle and nephew is to the relation between
brother and sister as the relation between father and son is to that between husband and
wife. Thus if we know one pair of relations it is always possible to infer the other.” 8 In other
words, the dazzling multitude of kinship systems can be explained as the result of the com-
bination of a relatively small number of basic attitudes between pairs of terms of the sys-
tem. It is the relations among the terms, and not the terms themselves (consistently with the
dictates of Troubetzkoy’s structural linguistics mentioned above) that provide an explana-
tion of the surface, empirically given phenomena.
On the basis of this analysis, Lévi-Strauss can extrapolate a general explanation for the
kinship systems: “The primitive and irreducible character of the basic unit of kinship is ac-
tually a direct result of the incest taboo. This is really saying that in human society a man
must obtain a woman from another man who gives him a daughter or a sister.” 9 It is impor-
tant to underline the dynamic character of this explanation: since the exchange of women
from one group to the other will be reciprocated in the next generation, it follows that kin-
ship systems, in Lévi-Strauss’ view, operates as an active set of rules that dictate the tem-
poral development of the society at issue. In other words: a kinship system is not
constituted by a set of constraints that limit an originary freedom to choose one’s partner,
a freedom owned by a subject who ultimately will exercise it anyway, although within the
socially imposed laws. Rather, the opposite is true: the marriage rules, if seen as rules reg-
8. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale…, 52; Engl. tr. 42.
9. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Anthropologie Structurale…, 56; Engl. tr. 46.