What do you think?
Rate this book
Las estructuras elementales del parentesco
Método de investigación según algunos, concepción del mundo según otros, el movimiento estructuralista, surgido de la aplicación de una modelo lingüístico a la etnología, ha promovido en los últimos decenios, sobre todo por obra de Claude Lévi-Strauss y sus discípulos, un poderoso y revolucionario movimiento intelectual cuya influencia se hace sentir cada vez más en todas las ciencias del hombre.
«La grandeza de Levi-Strauss -dice un eminente pensador francés, Jean Lacroix- el secreto de su inmenso auditorio en el extranjero y en Francia, consiste en la realización de una obra rigurosa, estrictamente científica, y en reflexionar al mismo tiempo sobre esta obra, explorar su método, extraer la filosofía que se encarna en ella... Estamos en presencia de una gran obra científica y filosófica que se afirma y profundiza al par que se precisa, y no puede uno enfrentarse con ella, aunque solamente fuera para discutir algunas derivaciones, sin comenzar por deberle mucho.» Las estructuras elementales del parentesco es el «clásico» del estructuralismo contemporáneo.
575 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1947
36 people are currently reading
1107 people want to read
About the author
Claude Lévi-Strauss
227 books874 followersClaude Lévi-Strauss was a French anthropologist, well-known for his development of structural anthropology. He was born in Belgium to French parents who were living in Brussels at the time, but he grew up in Paris. His father was an artist, and a member of an intellectual French Jewish family. Lévi-Strauss studied at the University of Paris. From 1935-9 he was Professor at the University of Sao Paulo making several expeditions to central Brazil. Between 1942-1945 he was Professor at the New School for Social Research. In 1950 he became Director of Studies at the Ecole Practique des Hautes Etudes. In 1959 Lévi-Strauss assumed the Chair of Social Anthroplogy at the College de France. His books include The Raw and the Cooked, The Savage Mind, Structural Anthropology and Totemism (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Some of the reasons for his popularity are in his rejection of history and humanism, in his refusal to see Western civilization as privileged and unique, in his emphasis on form over content and in his insistence that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind.
Lévi-Strauss did many things in his life including studying Law and Philosophy. He also did considerable reading among literary masterpieces, and was deeply immersed in classical and contemporary music.
Lévi-Strauss was awarded the Wenner-Gren Foundation's Viking Fund Medal for 1966 and the Erasmus Prize in 1975. He was also awarded four honorary degrees from Oxford, Yale, Havard and Columbia. Strauss held several memberships in institutions including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Some of the reasons for his popularity are in his rejection of history and humanism, in his refusal to see Western civilization as privileged and unique, in his emphasis on form over content and in his insistence that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind.
Lévi-Strauss did many things in his life including studying Law and Philosophy. He also did considerable reading among literary masterpieces, and was deeply immersed in classical and contemporary music.
Lévi-Strauss was awarded the Wenner-Gren Foundation's Viking Fund Medal for 1966 and the Erasmus Prize in 1975. He was also awarded four honorary degrees from Oxford, Yale, Havard and Columbia. Strauss held several memberships in institutions including the National Academy of Sciences, the American Academy and Institute of Arts and Letters, the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and the American Philosophical Society (Encyclopedia of World Biography).
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews
January 13, 2015
Uncle Claude don't say nothin' with 10 words when he can do it with 20, nor with 20 when he can use 200.
April 25, 2013
Lévi-Strauss’s mammoth study of kinship, originally published in 1947, is a major tour-de-force, an encyclopaedic work of great theoretical insight, and perhaps the best work ever written on the topic. I decided to return to it, oddly, not because I was interested particularly in the marriage-rules which constitute its topic, but because I was interested in exchange, for it is perhaps the book that establishes the phenomenon of exchange as being at the heart of human life.
The inspiration for the book is L’Essai sur le Don written by Emile Durkheim’s nephew, Marcel Mauss. Lévi-Strauss devotes his excellent Chapter 5 to this book, but Mauss’s spirit permeates his entire whole work. If, like me, one was first impressed Lévi-Strauss primarily because of his later work on myth, it is important to note that this too was inspired by Mauss.
According to Lévi-Strauss, marriage, in all its multifarious forms, consists of exchange. Specifically, it consists in the exchange of women. Lest feminists should throw up their hands at this point and indicate that this implies that women are mere chattels, one could reply with two points. First, women actually have been chattels in most historically known societies, and there is not much point in denying it. But second, one could just as easily show that men are everywhere being exchanged between women, but this would require another book of the same length which would be a mirror image of the first (p132).
The introduction to Lévi-Strauss’s argument has to do with the near-universality of the incest taboo which he hopes to explain. Monkeys and apes, he claims, do not have an incest taboo, while human beings almost always do. The famous exceptions (ancient Egypt, Peru and Hawaii) and less famous ones (the Azande and in parts of Madagascar and Burma) are few and are indeed exceptional and they should not should not distract the theorist from the much more general rule P9-10.
The impact of the incest taboo is considerable. If a man may not have sex with his mother, his daughter or his sister, then he must mate with somebody else’s female relatives. “Like exogamy, the prohibition of incest is a rule of reciprocity, for I will give up my daughter or my sister only on condition that my neighbour does the same.” p62. To prohibit a man from committing incest is therefore to create an exchange of women between men. And indeed, he points out that marriage usually forms only one moment in a more general exchange of gifts of which our own "wedding presents" are only one rather simple example p63ff
After this introduction, the first major section of the book deals with what he calls “restricted exchange”. He explains, “The term ‘restricted exchange’ includes any system which effectively or functionally divides the group into a certain number of pairs of exchange-units so that, for any one pair X-Y there is a reciprocal exchange relationship. In other words, where an X man marries a Y woman, a Y man must always be able to marry an X woman.” P146
The argument therefore becomes more complex as he explains how different peoples make the simple notion of exchange found in the introduction more complicated. In Chapter 4, he considers the notion of exogamy (marrying out of the group) which is the most basic elaboration of the incest taboo. And he looks too at endogamy, for just as exogamy creates a wider society beyond the family, so endogamy (prohibition on marriage) serves to indicate and create the external boundary of community and society. And indeed, in my home in Northern Ireland, where a rule of endogamy roams free, it serves to divide society into hostile groups just as Lévi-Strauss suggests.
Kinship is one of the more difficult areas of social anthropology, and from Chapter 6 onwards, we see why this is. In that chapter, the discussion turns first to “dual organization” where (in Australia, but also elsewhere) society is divided into two marriage classes (moieties)whose members must take spouses only from the opposite moiety.
Beyond this, we become concerned here with the common and often important distinction made between parallel-cousins (the children of two brothers or two sisters) and cross-cousins (the children of a brother and sister). And as every anthropologist knows, there is a very common preference in many parts of the world for cross-cousin marriage, and a corresponding hostility to marriage between parallel-cousins.
The difficulty for the newcomer (or even an old-comer) to this discussion arises not least from the tangle of relationships that cross-cousin marriage involves. “For example, there is nothing to prevent the father’s sister from being at one and the same time the mother’s brother’s wife, if she marries her cross-cousin; a grandmother (if the mother-in-law (if someone marries the father’s sister’s daughter); and a wife (if somebody has a marriage claim to the maternal uncle’s widow)”p120
Lévi-Strauss points out the fairly obvious fact (once you have put down your slide-rule) that a parallel cousin, in a dual organization system (whether these be organized patrilineally or matrilineally), is part of one’s own exogamous moiety, while cross-cousins are in different moieties. Cross-cousin marriage, however, is not at all confined to those societies which possess dual organization, and it seems likely that dual organization only occasionally coincides with cross-cousin marriage. Lévi-Strauss argues that there is, in fact, a great deal of similarity between dual organization and cross-cousin marriage. But while the former indicates a whole class of individuals whom one may marry, the latter designates one or a very few individuals. In fact, the two ideas may be regarded as variations on a theme of reciprocity, where in each case women are exchanged between, in one case, moieties and, in the other case, a more narrowly defined kinship group.
His discussion of cross-cousin marriage however, is at the heart of his discussion of exogamy and the prohibition of incest. “It is precisely because cross-cousin marriage disregards the biological factor that it should be able to establish that the origin of the incest prohibition is purely social, and furthermore to reveal what its real nature is. It is not enough to repeat that the prohibition of incest is not based on biological grounds. What then is its basis?” In general, the prohibited degrees of kinship, taken as a whole, are biologically closer than the permitted degrees. But this is not so in the case of cross-cousin marriage “for if we can understand why degrees of kinship which are equivalent from a biological point of view are nevertheless considered completely dissimilar from the social point of view, we can claim to have discovered the principle, not only of cross-cousin marriage, but of the incest prohibition itself”.p122
He concludes that “cross-cousin marriage is seen as the elementary formula for marriage by exchange,” p129 “It does express the law that a man cannot receive a wife except from the group from which a woman can be claimed, because in the previous generation a sister of a daughter was lost, while a brother owes a sister (or a father a daughter) to the outside world if a woman was gained in the previous generation. P130”
He now continues to pursue this heavy-duty anthropology, looking specifically at Australian kinship. Australian kinship is organized most simply into matrilineal moieties (i.e. involving dual organization), but some tribes, however, divide these further so that they have four sections and even eight subsections (or classes) in all.
Lévi-Strauss quotes Kroeber with approval. Kroeber believes that land occupation is primary, and therefore that the patrilineal horde, the land-holding group, is the most important unit in the system. This means that the whole paraphernalia of exogamy, dual organization, and clans are epiphenomena, secondary to the basic structures, the most important of which he sees as the rule of residence.
Kroeber writes “I submit that, in addition to unilateral descent reckoning, much of the formalized social organization of primitive peoples is in the nature of unconscious experiment and play of fashion rather than the core of substance of their culture. In certain cases, as in Australia, it may well represent the pinnacle of their achievement, just as experiment and play with abstractions, word and plastic forms resulted in the pinnacles of Greek civilization, while science technology, and the control or exploitation of nature are those of our own. But pinnacles are end products, not bases.” (Kroeber 1938 p 309 qutd pp 150-151) And Kroeber elsewhere describes the complex forms of social organization in certain primitive societies with “the play of earnest children”. (1942, 215 qtd p151).
Lévi-Strauss uses this idea to consider the manner in which Australian kinship fluctuates and adjusts itself over time, with one group improvising ideas and practices about kinship and marriage in part by borrowing from another. 152ff
He describes several systems, but, to give an idea of what is involved, here is his abstraction of a four class system (the Keriera system):
If a man: marries a woman: the children are
Durand of Paris Dupont of Bordeaux Dupont of Paris
Durand of Bordeaux Dupont of Paris Dupont of Bordeaux
Dupont of Paris Durand of Bordeaux Durand of Paris
Dupont of Bordeaux Durand of Paris Durand of Bordeaux
P161
The book goes on at very great length to look beyond the “restricted” forms of exchange (which Australian systems of kinship typify) towards marriages involving more and more complex, “generalized”, forms of exchange, where the exchange is not between specified individuals or groups.
Between the often difficult and highly technical arguments about specific kinship systems found (as well as in Australia) in China, India and elsewhere, there are occasional and, by comparison, lighter chapters dealing with side issues.
The book’s title self-consciously echoes that of Durkheim’s celebrated study of religion, for Levi Strauss sees kinship and marriage rules (rather than the religion) of “primitive peoples” as the clue to kinship more generally. However, though Lévi-Strauss clearly regards “primitive peoples” as a distinct body of peoples who have features in common, he was also one of those who helped dig anthropology and western culture generally out of that particular racist hole.
In the 7th chapter, entitled “The Archaic Illusion”, he shows that primitive people do not in fact resemble modern children. Here, with great perception, he shows why, the world over, the practices of foreigners do appear to resemble childishness. “Every newborn child”, he says, “provides in embryonic form the sum total of possibilities, but each culture and period of history will retain and develop only a chosen few of them” p93. And he gives an example of Johnny, a four-year-old Egyptian boy, who imagined he lived in two worlds, one occupied by his father, the other by his mother; one where he went when the sea was calm and he could swim; the other where he went when the sea was rough and swimming was forbidden. As he grew up, Johnny dropped his vision of these two worlds, and was embarrassed if asked to talk about it. Lévi-Strauss notes that there was, in Johnny’s imagination, the basis of a world view appropriate to a dual descent system. He comments: “If Johnny had been a little Australian aborigine he could have elaborated the same fantasy, but he would not have been ashamed of it later. It would have progressively found basis in the official dualism of his society”. p96
The Elementary Structures of Kinship is not a book for the faint-hearted. Not only does Lévi-Strauss compare the kinship systems themselves, but he also assesses the alternative views of other writers found in relation to each of the societies he discusses. Those who do not want to plough through a 500+ page volume devoted to detailed analysis of the marital practices of distant peoples, will find the concluding chapter a great relief. Comparatively easy to read, this Conclusion sums up the overall argument in a lucid manner.
Lévi-Strauss became a cult figure much later in his life, not least because of his work on mythology and totemism, but the ground for this later work, and the respect he gained from fellow professionals comes largely from his early work on kinship. The man simply was a giant, and this book is his masterpiece.
The inspiration for the book is L’Essai sur le Don written by Emile Durkheim’s nephew, Marcel Mauss. Lévi-Strauss devotes his excellent Chapter 5 to this book, but Mauss’s spirit permeates his entire whole work. If, like me, one was first impressed Lévi-Strauss primarily because of his later work on myth, it is important to note that this too was inspired by Mauss.
According to Lévi-Strauss, marriage, in all its multifarious forms, consists of exchange. Specifically, it consists in the exchange of women. Lest feminists should throw up their hands at this point and indicate that this implies that women are mere chattels, one could reply with two points. First, women actually have been chattels in most historically known societies, and there is not much point in denying it. But second, one could just as easily show that men are everywhere being exchanged between women, but this would require another book of the same length which would be a mirror image of the first (p132).
The introduction to Lévi-Strauss’s argument has to do with the near-universality of the incest taboo which he hopes to explain. Monkeys and apes, he claims, do not have an incest taboo, while human beings almost always do. The famous exceptions (ancient Egypt, Peru and Hawaii) and less famous ones (the Azande and in parts of Madagascar and Burma) are few and are indeed exceptional and they should not should not distract the theorist from the much more general rule P9-10.
The impact of the incest taboo is considerable. If a man may not have sex with his mother, his daughter or his sister, then he must mate with somebody else’s female relatives. “Like exogamy, the prohibition of incest is a rule of reciprocity, for I will give up my daughter or my sister only on condition that my neighbour does the same.” p62. To prohibit a man from committing incest is therefore to create an exchange of women between men. And indeed, he points out that marriage usually forms only one moment in a more general exchange of gifts of which our own "wedding presents" are only one rather simple example p63ff
After this introduction, the first major section of the book deals with what he calls “restricted exchange”. He explains, “The term ‘restricted exchange’ includes any system which effectively or functionally divides the group into a certain number of pairs of exchange-units so that, for any one pair X-Y there is a reciprocal exchange relationship. In other words, where an X man marries a Y woman, a Y man must always be able to marry an X woman.” P146
The argument therefore becomes more complex as he explains how different peoples make the simple notion of exchange found in the introduction more complicated. In Chapter 4, he considers the notion of exogamy (marrying out of the group) which is the most basic elaboration of the incest taboo. And he looks too at endogamy, for just as exogamy creates a wider society beyond the family, so endogamy (prohibition on marriage) serves to indicate and create the external boundary of community and society. And indeed, in my home in Northern Ireland, where a rule of endogamy roams free, it serves to divide society into hostile groups just as Lévi-Strauss suggests.
Kinship is one of the more difficult areas of social anthropology, and from Chapter 6 onwards, we see why this is. In that chapter, the discussion turns first to “dual organization” where (in Australia, but also elsewhere) society is divided into two marriage classes (moieties)whose members must take spouses only from the opposite moiety.
Beyond this, we become concerned here with the common and often important distinction made between parallel-cousins (the children of two brothers or two sisters) and cross-cousins (the children of a brother and sister). And as every anthropologist knows, there is a very common preference in many parts of the world for cross-cousin marriage, and a corresponding hostility to marriage between parallel-cousins.
The difficulty for the newcomer (or even an old-comer) to this discussion arises not least from the tangle of relationships that cross-cousin marriage involves. “For example, there is nothing to prevent the father’s sister from being at one and the same time the mother’s brother’s wife, if she marries her cross-cousin; a grandmother (if the mother-in-law (if someone marries the father’s sister’s daughter); and a wife (if somebody has a marriage claim to the maternal uncle’s widow)”p120
Lévi-Strauss points out the fairly obvious fact (once you have put down your slide-rule) that a parallel cousin, in a dual organization system (whether these be organized patrilineally or matrilineally), is part of one’s own exogamous moiety, while cross-cousins are in different moieties. Cross-cousin marriage, however, is not at all confined to those societies which possess dual organization, and it seems likely that dual organization only occasionally coincides with cross-cousin marriage. Lévi-Strauss argues that there is, in fact, a great deal of similarity between dual organization and cross-cousin marriage. But while the former indicates a whole class of individuals whom one may marry, the latter designates one or a very few individuals. In fact, the two ideas may be regarded as variations on a theme of reciprocity, where in each case women are exchanged between, in one case, moieties and, in the other case, a more narrowly defined kinship group.
His discussion of cross-cousin marriage however, is at the heart of his discussion of exogamy and the prohibition of incest. “It is precisely because cross-cousin marriage disregards the biological factor that it should be able to establish that the origin of the incest prohibition is purely social, and furthermore to reveal what its real nature is. It is not enough to repeat that the prohibition of incest is not based on biological grounds. What then is its basis?” In general, the prohibited degrees of kinship, taken as a whole, are biologically closer than the permitted degrees. But this is not so in the case of cross-cousin marriage “for if we can understand why degrees of kinship which are equivalent from a biological point of view are nevertheless considered completely dissimilar from the social point of view, we can claim to have discovered the principle, not only of cross-cousin marriage, but of the incest prohibition itself”.p122
He concludes that “cross-cousin marriage is seen as the elementary formula for marriage by exchange,” p129 “It does express the law that a man cannot receive a wife except from the group from which a woman can be claimed, because in the previous generation a sister of a daughter was lost, while a brother owes a sister (or a father a daughter) to the outside world if a woman was gained in the previous generation. P130”
He now continues to pursue this heavy-duty anthropology, looking specifically at Australian kinship. Australian kinship is organized most simply into matrilineal moieties (i.e. involving dual organization), but some tribes, however, divide these further so that they have four sections and even eight subsections (or classes) in all.
Lévi-Strauss quotes Kroeber with approval. Kroeber believes that land occupation is primary, and therefore that the patrilineal horde, the land-holding group, is the most important unit in the system. This means that the whole paraphernalia of exogamy, dual organization, and clans are epiphenomena, secondary to the basic structures, the most important of which he sees as the rule of residence.
Kroeber writes “I submit that, in addition to unilateral descent reckoning, much of the formalized social organization of primitive peoples is in the nature of unconscious experiment and play of fashion rather than the core of substance of their culture. In certain cases, as in Australia, it may well represent the pinnacle of their achievement, just as experiment and play with abstractions, word and plastic forms resulted in the pinnacles of Greek civilization, while science technology, and the control or exploitation of nature are those of our own. But pinnacles are end products, not bases.” (Kroeber 1938 p 309 qutd pp 150-151) And Kroeber elsewhere describes the complex forms of social organization in certain primitive societies with “the play of earnest children”. (1942, 215 qtd p151).
Lévi-Strauss uses this idea to consider the manner in which Australian kinship fluctuates and adjusts itself over time, with one group improvising ideas and practices about kinship and marriage in part by borrowing from another. 152ff
He describes several systems, but, to give an idea of what is involved, here is his abstraction of a four class system (the Keriera system):
If a man: marries a woman: the children are
Durand of Paris Dupont of Bordeaux Dupont of Paris
Durand of Bordeaux Dupont of Paris Dupont of Bordeaux
Dupont of Paris Durand of Bordeaux Durand of Paris
Dupont of Bordeaux Durand of Paris Durand of Bordeaux
P161
The book goes on at very great length to look beyond the “restricted” forms of exchange (which Australian systems of kinship typify) towards marriages involving more and more complex, “generalized”, forms of exchange, where the exchange is not between specified individuals or groups.
Between the often difficult and highly technical arguments about specific kinship systems found (as well as in Australia) in China, India and elsewhere, there are occasional and, by comparison, lighter chapters dealing with side issues.
The book’s title self-consciously echoes that of Durkheim’s celebrated study of religion, for Levi Strauss sees kinship and marriage rules (rather than the religion) of “primitive peoples” as the clue to kinship more generally. However, though Lévi-Strauss clearly regards “primitive peoples” as a distinct body of peoples who have features in common, he was also one of those who helped dig anthropology and western culture generally out of that particular racist hole.
In the 7th chapter, entitled “The Archaic Illusion”, he shows that primitive people do not in fact resemble modern children. Here, with great perception, he shows why, the world over, the practices of foreigners do appear to resemble childishness. “Every newborn child”, he says, “provides in embryonic form the sum total of possibilities, but each culture and period of history will retain and develop only a chosen few of them” p93. And he gives an example of Johnny, a four-year-old Egyptian boy, who imagined he lived in two worlds, one occupied by his father, the other by his mother; one where he went when the sea was calm and he could swim; the other where he went when the sea was rough and swimming was forbidden. As he grew up, Johnny dropped his vision of these two worlds, and was embarrassed if asked to talk about it. Lévi-Strauss notes that there was, in Johnny’s imagination, the basis of a world view appropriate to a dual descent system. He comments: “If Johnny had been a little Australian aborigine he could have elaborated the same fantasy, but he would not have been ashamed of it later. It would have progressively found basis in the official dualism of his society”. p96
The Elementary Structures of Kinship is not a book for the faint-hearted. Not only does Lévi-Strauss compare the kinship systems themselves, but he also assesses the alternative views of other writers found in relation to each of the societies he discusses. Those who do not want to plough through a 500+ page volume devoted to detailed analysis of the marital practices of distant peoples, will find the concluding chapter a great relief. Comparatively easy to read, this Conclusion sums up the overall argument in a lucid manner.
Lévi-Strauss became a cult figure much later in his life, not least because of his work on mythology and totemism, but the ground for this later work, and the respect he gained from fellow professionals comes largely from his early work on kinship. The man simply was a giant, and this book is his masterpiece.
February 1, 2008
Oedipus.
October 20, 2021
(I read it in French, the English translation is The Elementary Structure of Kinship.) I explained in my review of Durkheim's The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life why I am currently reading some of the classic theoretical writings of anthropology or sociology. (Lévi-Strauss refers to his work with both terms, and I think correctly; the difference is less one of what they study than of an invidious distinction between "primitive" and "advanced" or "developed" cultures. I know as a (retired) cataloger that it is impossible to separate the two fields in the Dewey Decimal system, for example, because they deal with the same subjects. To his credit, given when he was writing, whenever Lévi-Strauss uses the term "primitif" or "primitives" for a culture or people, as opposed to a particular trait in the sense of original or prior in time, he almost always puts the word in quotation marks.) After reading a few books, principally by Durkheim and Malinowski, I set the project aside for a while to deal with other reading projects, and am coming back to it now.
Although Lévi-Strauss had already authored (or co-authored with his wife) a study and several articles based on their joint fieldwork, Les structures élémentaires de la parenté was his first major theoretical work and established his reputation among academic anthropologists (his reputation with the general public derived from his later and more popular Tristes tropiques). The book was written in 1948 and published the following year; the edition I read is the revised edition from 1967. The revision consists almost entirely in defending the original work against criticisms. I might add that it took me several hours to find a free (pirated?) copy on the Internet.
He presents the work as an inquiry into the nature and origins of the incest taboo. (Remember that it was written in the heydey of Freudianism.) He begins by saying that it seems in some form or other to be almost the only truly universal trait among all cultures that have been studied, and that in an extended sense it is fundamental to understanding the structures of cultures. (He even goes so far as to agree with Freud that it is the origin of culture.) In the first chapters, he argues against previous explanations, such as the views that it is instinctual or that it was based on biology (recessive genes, etc.) as well as the Freudian explanations He points out in the first place that it was not found among animals and that it could not be an instinct because it requires knowledge of the existence of the relationship. He also points out that inbreeding is not always disadvantageous, or is only a disadvantage for a small number of generations, depending on the frequency and type of recessive genes in the population, and in the long run could even have the opposite effect of removing undesirable recessive traits from the population. He then proposes a social explanation, that the taboo serves to prevent violence between neighboring families over mates and creates alliances between them.
After these preliminaries, he proposes to study the question in the extended form of what he calls "elementary structures of kinship." He defines these as marriage rules based solely on considerations of real or classificatory kinship, as opposed to "complex structures" based on other factors (status, wealth, romantic attraction and free choice, and so forth, as in our own society.) In particular, he poses the question of why, when to a modern Westerner, and in genetic terms, all first cousins are equally closely related, a large majority of "primitive" cultures forbid marriage between parallel cousins as "incest" and allow, prefer or even require marriage between cross cousins, and other cultures also prohibit marriage between patrilateral cross cousins but require it between matrilateral cross cousins and (less often) vice versa. Part One of the book is devoted to what he calls "Exchange restreint", where wives are exchanged between two groups, either directly between families or more formally between two or more classes or moieties (dualism). He considers this exchange as similar to, or in fact part of, a whole complex of gift-exchanges. He emphasizes what he calls "reciprocity" as the basic structure, and shifts between talking about reinforcing solidarity within or between groups and fairly allocating scarce resources (potential wives.) Actually, he seems to identify the two functions. He uses the example of "classic" Australian kinship patterns, and also considers some apparent exceptions such as the Murngin pattern -- this section becomes very technical and detailed, and also at times very polemical with regard to other anthropologists, and I couldn't always follow his arguments.
Perhaps this is the place to note that, to be frank, the book is not at all well-organized. He frequently interrupts his argument to go off on a tangent. At one point, he inserts an entire chapter discussing and rejecting the comparison which was popular at the time of "primitives" with children and neurotics of our own culture. I'm glad he did, because this was one of the most interesting chapters in the book (I recently watched a "TED talk" which presented exactly the same idea as he does here as a brand new thought) -- but it had virtually no connection with the argument it interrupted. Even more problematic is that in the revised edition his replies to criticisms, often quite lengthy, usually come before he reaches the arguments that were being criticized, so it is far from obvious what he is talking about. He also refers frequently to cultures by name, such as "the Murngin system" or "the Katchin system" before he actually discusses them; professional anthropologists -- the intended audience -- would of course have been familiar with them, since they were the subject of controversy at the time, but I again had no idea what he was talking about until he described them in a later chapter.
Part Two is devoted to what he calls "Exchange generalisé", where instead of two (or an even number of) exogamic groups there are three or more groups organized in such a way that men in group A marry women in group B, men in group B marry women in group C, and men in group C marry women in group A (and so on, for whatever number of groups there are) to form a circular exchange which returns to the original state after a certain number of generations. He illustrates this with a number of cultures in Asia and again there are exceptions and a lot of polemics. He then analyzes Chinese customs in a couple of chapters and suggests a widespread original substratum of generalised exchange. Then he moves on to India and connects these cultures with the theorized original culture, and gives a speculative explanation of the origins of the caste system in the effects of "hypergamy" or "anisogamy" (marriage between unequal groups in a hierarchy) followed by endogamy of the top groups. (of course I have insufficient background to even begin to evaluate any of this, but it was very interesting. In the course of these discussions, he touches on marriage between generations such as "avuncular" systems, the transition to modern "complex" structures and many other things. At some point he also introduces what seems like another tangent but is actually one of his fundamental ideas, the distinction between "harmonic" and "dysharmonic" cultures (cultures which are matrilineal and matrilocal or patrilineal and patrilocal are "harmonic", cultures which are matrilineal and patrilocal or patrilineal and matrilocal are "dysharmonic") and argues that "exchange restreint" occures in dysharmonic cultures and "exchange generalisé" in harmonic cultures.
In his "Conclusion" he sums up the developments and links them to the original problem of incest taboos. His theory is that incest taboos whether simple or in the more generalised form of exogamic groups is not a negative prohibition in essence but a positive prescription, not a question of "thou shalt not" but a question of what should happen -- marriage outside the family as a means of forming alliances and solidarity within and between groups, which, together with language, is the source of human culture. He gives an anecdote in which Margaret Mead questioned a native informant about why marriage was forbidden between brother and sister. He seemed at first not to even understand the question or even the possibility, but when she asked what he would say to someone who wanted to marry his own sister, he didn't talk about "immorality" or "taboo" or anything similar; he said, I'd ask him, don't you want brother-in-laws?
Overall, I would say that Lévi-Strauss uses the question of the incest taboo as a hook for what is essentially a theoretical study of elementary structures of kinship, as the title suggests. This is a book written for a particular academic/professional group; for the general reader, the basic ideas are eventually obvious enough but I would pass lightly (I can't bring myself to use the word "skim") over the details and especially the polemics.
Although Lévi-Strauss had already authored (or co-authored with his wife) a study and several articles based on their joint fieldwork, Les structures élémentaires de la parenté was his first major theoretical work and established his reputation among academic anthropologists (his reputation with the general public derived from his later and more popular Tristes tropiques). The book was written in 1948 and published the following year; the edition I read is the revised edition from 1967. The revision consists almost entirely in defending the original work against criticisms. I might add that it took me several hours to find a free (pirated?) copy on the Internet.
He presents the work as an inquiry into the nature and origins of the incest taboo. (Remember that it was written in the heydey of Freudianism.) He begins by saying that it seems in some form or other to be almost the only truly universal trait among all cultures that have been studied, and that in an extended sense it is fundamental to understanding the structures of cultures. (He even goes so far as to agree with Freud that it is the origin of culture.) In the first chapters, he argues against previous explanations, such as the views that it is instinctual or that it was based on biology (recessive genes, etc.) as well as the Freudian explanations He points out in the first place that it was not found among animals and that it could not be an instinct because it requires knowledge of the existence of the relationship. He also points out that inbreeding is not always disadvantageous, or is only a disadvantage for a small number of generations, depending on the frequency and type of recessive genes in the population, and in the long run could even have the opposite effect of removing undesirable recessive traits from the population. He then proposes a social explanation, that the taboo serves to prevent violence between neighboring families over mates and creates alliances between them.
After these preliminaries, he proposes to study the question in the extended form of what he calls "elementary structures of kinship." He defines these as marriage rules based solely on considerations of real or classificatory kinship, as opposed to "complex structures" based on other factors (status, wealth, romantic attraction and free choice, and so forth, as in our own society.) In particular, he poses the question of why, when to a modern Westerner, and in genetic terms, all first cousins are equally closely related, a large majority of "primitive" cultures forbid marriage between parallel cousins as "incest" and allow, prefer or even require marriage between cross cousins, and other cultures also prohibit marriage between patrilateral cross cousins but require it between matrilateral cross cousins and (less often) vice versa. Part One of the book is devoted to what he calls "Exchange restreint", where wives are exchanged between two groups, either directly between families or more formally between two or more classes or moieties (dualism). He considers this exchange as similar to, or in fact part of, a whole complex of gift-exchanges. He emphasizes what he calls "reciprocity" as the basic structure, and shifts between talking about reinforcing solidarity within or between groups and fairly allocating scarce resources (potential wives.) Actually, he seems to identify the two functions. He uses the example of "classic" Australian kinship patterns, and also considers some apparent exceptions such as the Murngin pattern -- this section becomes very technical and detailed, and also at times very polemical with regard to other anthropologists, and I couldn't always follow his arguments.
Perhaps this is the place to note that, to be frank, the book is not at all well-organized. He frequently interrupts his argument to go off on a tangent. At one point, he inserts an entire chapter discussing and rejecting the comparison which was popular at the time of "primitives" with children and neurotics of our own culture. I'm glad he did, because this was one of the most interesting chapters in the book (I recently watched a "TED talk" which presented exactly the same idea as he does here as a brand new thought) -- but it had virtually no connection with the argument it interrupted. Even more problematic is that in the revised edition his replies to criticisms, often quite lengthy, usually come before he reaches the arguments that were being criticized, so it is far from obvious what he is talking about. He also refers frequently to cultures by name, such as "the Murngin system" or "the Katchin system" before he actually discusses them; professional anthropologists -- the intended audience -- would of course have been familiar with them, since they were the subject of controversy at the time, but I again had no idea what he was talking about until he described them in a later chapter.
Part Two is devoted to what he calls "Exchange generalisé", where instead of two (or an even number of) exogamic groups there are three or more groups organized in such a way that men in group A marry women in group B, men in group B marry women in group C, and men in group C marry women in group A (and so on, for whatever number of groups there are) to form a circular exchange which returns to the original state after a certain number of generations. He illustrates this with a number of cultures in Asia and again there are exceptions and a lot of polemics. He then analyzes Chinese customs in a couple of chapters and suggests a widespread original substratum of generalised exchange. Then he moves on to India and connects these cultures with the theorized original culture, and gives a speculative explanation of the origins of the caste system in the effects of "hypergamy" or "anisogamy" (marriage between unequal groups in a hierarchy) followed by endogamy of the top groups. (of course I have insufficient background to even begin to evaluate any of this, but it was very interesting. In the course of these discussions, he touches on marriage between generations such as "avuncular" systems, the transition to modern "complex" structures and many other things. At some point he also introduces what seems like another tangent but is actually one of his fundamental ideas, the distinction between "harmonic" and "dysharmonic" cultures (cultures which are matrilineal and matrilocal or patrilineal and patrilocal are "harmonic", cultures which are matrilineal and patrilocal or patrilineal and matrilocal are "dysharmonic") and argues that "exchange restreint" occures in dysharmonic cultures and "exchange generalisé" in harmonic cultures.
In his "Conclusion" he sums up the developments and links them to the original problem of incest taboos. His theory is that incest taboos whether simple or in the more generalised form of exogamic groups is not a negative prohibition in essence but a positive prescription, not a question of "thou shalt not" but a question of what should happen -- marriage outside the family as a means of forming alliances and solidarity within and between groups, which, together with language, is the source of human culture. He gives an anecdote in which Margaret Mead questioned a native informant about why marriage was forbidden between brother and sister. He seemed at first not to even understand the question or even the possibility, but when she asked what he would say to someone who wanted to marry his own sister, he didn't talk about "immorality" or "taboo" or anything similar; he said, I'd ask him, don't you want brother-in-laws?
Overall, I would say that Lévi-Strauss uses the question of the incest taboo as a hook for what is essentially a theoretical study of elementary structures of kinship, as the title suggests. This is a book written for a particular academic/professional group; for the general reader, the basic ideas are eventually obvious enough but I would pass lightly (I can't bring myself to use the word "skim") over the details and especially the polemics.
June 21, 2025
Un trabajo exhaustivo que parte del tabú del incesto y te guía a través de debates sociológicos muy en caliente de la época y páginas, páginas y muchas páginas de análisis sobre estructuras de intercambio matrimonial en sociedades a través del globo. Como bien dice Lévi-Strauss en un momento, este no es un análisis cualquiera, el tabú del incesto es más que algo anecdótico que surgió antaño por casualidad, es la piedra fundamental del cual se deduce el paso de un estado primitivo a un estado cultural, es la naturaleza dominándose a sí misma a través de la cultura, es la sociedad modelándose y fortaleciéndose a través de la inclusión de sus individuos, el tabú del incesto es menos una propiedad negativa (prohibición de relacionarse con parientes cercanos) y más una propiedad positiva (intercambio matrimonial entre distintos clanes) de la cultura que formamos.
Un libro denso y científico pero fundamental en la historia de la sociología y las ciencias humanas.
Un libro denso y científico pero fundamental en la historia de la sociología y las ciencias humanas.
November 28, 2025
what a drag
November 9, 2007
Do yourself a favor and google his theories instead. It might have been groundbreaking but the text is still b o r i n g.
September 14, 2025
Levi-Strauss fails to get from here to there. The negation of the negation doesn’t transform the now to the origins of the beginnings of the foundations of the primitive.
The elemental forms never get revealed. The Jungian archetypes aren’t universal while Freud’s taboos and totems lead to convoluted pseudo-science that is impossible to refute. Levi-Strauss universal foundational elementary structures would often sound like Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar and at one time Levi-Strauss notes that what he is doing for kinship structures is what grammarians try to do for grammar. Levi-Strass’ structures are a pile of non-refutable hypothesizes stacked such that they aren’t really saying anything that we didn’t already know and pretends a magic of a groundless grounding with deepities (a Daniel Dennett neologism).
Levi-Strauss asks are societies created by societal norms or are the societal norms needed to support the societies? He says “culture is that which exists to perpetuate itself.” That means tautologically anything that is must have been meant to be and the current culture must be as it is. This book attempts to deconvolve the relevant contributions but never gets that the conclusion is within the premise. This book is asking the wrong question and frames it such that there is only his answer.
It doesn’t matter how the author slices the data and mixes and matches non compatible abstract entities to form his preferred story; the story he is telling doesn’t reach an objective nor universal nor foundational nor elemental structure.
There’s a danger to this author’s preferred story telling method. He picks his preferred school of thought: sociology, anthropology, or psychology to fill the gap as he binds his truths. I’m pretty sure at one time he mentioned that when all the tradeable non-family females are no longer available then homosexuality becomes the choice. He also said one of his structures of relationships were based on 3 because 3 is lucky for the Chinese.
In this book Freud was quoted to have said about the incest taboo that it was universally prohibited thus making it universally desirable within the unconscious. Levi-Strauss has a double bind throughout all his descriptive structures while separating ‘bone’ from the ‘blood’. There’s often a fascist verse Marxist socialist structure Levi-Strauss describes especially when you realize that fascism is about race and Marxism is about class strata. At times this book would often read as if it was resolving the dispute between Right Hegelians and Left Hegelians.
For Levi-Strauss the form doesn’t precede matter since there is no substance and his abstract of abstracts does not point back to the resolution of the dialectic. Just in case it wasn’t obvious, the first paragraph in this review is a pointing back to Hegel and Levi-Strauss is misusing Hegel.
This book is boring. I liked Durheim’s book on religion, and I even liked Freud’s book on Taboos and Totems. Maybe because I go in knowing that religion is make-believe while Levi-Strauss is creating a make-believe world supported by what he believes describes the now. Frazer’s “Golden Bough” did that same thing. The problem of projecting the now back to the past to impute intentions and meaning is fraught with ambiguities. He can’t get here to there without preconceived notions which aren’t necessarily true.
I’ll warn you. This book has just enough to keep the reader's attention, but bores with details, creates silly narratives, and hovers towards pseudo-science.
The elemental forms never get revealed. The Jungian archetypes aren’t universal while Freud’s taboos and totems lead to convoluted pseudo-science that is impossible to refute. Levi-Strauss universal foundational elementary structures would often sound like Noam Chomsky’s universal grammar and at one time Levi-Strauss notes that what he is doing for kinship structures is what grammarians try to do for grammar. Levi-Strass’ structures are a pile of non-refutable hypothesizes stacked such that they aren’t really saying anything that we didn’t already know and pretends a magic of a groundless grounding with deepities (a Daniel Dennett neologism).
Levi-Strauss asks are societies created by societal norms or are the societal norms needed to support the societies? He says “culture is that which exists to perpetuate itself.” That means tautologically anything that is must have been meant to be and the current culture must be as it is. This book attempts to deconvolve the relevant contributions but never gets that the conclusion is within the premise. This book is asking the wrong question and frames it such that there is only his answer.
It doesn’t matter how the author slices the data and mixes and matches non compatible abstract entities to form his preferred story; the story he is telling doesn’t reach an objective nor universal nor foundational nor elemental structure.
There’s a danger to this author’s preferred story telling method. He picks his preferred school of thought: sociology, anthropology, or psychology to fill the gap as he binds his truths. I’m pretty sure at one time he mentioned that when all the tradeable non-family females are no longer available then homosexuality becomes the choice. He also said one of his structures of relationships were based on 3 because 3 is lucky for the Chinese.
In this book Freud was quoted to have said about the incest taboo that it was universally prohibited thus making it universally desirable within the unconscious. Levi-Strauss has a double bind throughout all his descriptive structures while separating ‘bone’ from the ‘blood’. There’s often a fascist verse Marxist socialist structure Levi-Strauss describes especially when you realize that fascism is about race and Marxism is about class strata. At times this book would often read as if it was resolving the dispute between Right Hegelians and Left Hegelians.
For Levi-Strauss the form doesn’t precede matter since there is no substance and his abstract of abstracts does not point back to the resolution of the dialectic. Just in case it wasn’t obvious, the first paragraph in this review is a pointing back to Hegel and Levi-Strauss is misusing Hegel.
This book is boring. I liked Durheim’s book on religion, and I even liked Freud’s book on Taboos and Totems. Maybe because I go in knowing that religion is make-believe while Levi-Strauss is creating a make-believe world supported by what he believes describes the now. Frazer’s “Golden Bough” did that same thing. The problem of projecting the now back to the past to impute intentions and meaning is fraught with ambiguities. He can’t get here to there without preconceived notions which aren’t necessarily true.
I’ll warn you. This book has just enough to keep the reader's attention, but bores with details, creates silly narratives, and hovers towards pseudo-science.
December 18, 2023
Insightful!
The Elementary Structures of Kinship, written by Claude Lévi-Strauss, is a work in the field of anthropology and a cornerstone of structuralist theory. First published in 1949, this book revolutionized how anthropologists understand kinship systems and their role in the broader social and cultural fabric of societies.
Lévi-Strauss's analysis is deeply comprehensive, delving into the complexities of kinship systems across various cultures. He employs a structuralist approach, seeking to uncover the underlying patterns and functions of kinship systems, rather than just describing their outward forms. This approach allows him to draw fascinating connections between seemingly disparate societies.
One of the key contributions of the book is the introduction of the concept of the 'elementary structures' of kinship. Lévi-Strauss argues that all kinship systems, despite their diversity, are built upon a small set of basic rules and categories. This insight offers a powerful tool for understanding how different societies organize and understand familial and social relationships.
The book is also notable for its discussion of the 'alliance theory' in anthropology. Lévi-Strauss suggests that kinship systems are primarily concerned with the establishment of alliances between groups, rather than just the regulation of marriage and descent. This idea has had a profound impact on subsequent anthropological thought.
However, the book can be challenging to read. Lévi-Strauss's writing is dense and often assumes a high level of familiarity with anthropological theory. The sheer breadth of data and examples he presents can be overwhelming, though they also contribute to the depth and persuasiveness of his argument.
In conclusion, this book is a landmark in anthropological theory, offering deep insights into the nature of human societies. It is essential reading for students of anthropology and social theory, though its complexity might be daunting for the casual reader.
The Elementary Structures of Kinship, written by Claude Lévi-Strauss, is a work in the field of anthropology and a cornerstone of structuralist theory. First published in 1949, this book revolutionized how anthropologists understand kinship systems and their role in the broader social and cultural fabric of societies.
Lévi-Strauss's analysis is deeply comprehensive, delving into the complexities of kinship systems across various cultures. He employs a structuralist approach, seeking to uncover the underlying patterns and functions of kinship systems, rather than just describing their outward forms. This approach allows him to draw fascinating connections between seemingly disparate societies.
One of the key contributions of the book is the introduction of the concept of the 'elementary structures' of kinship. Lévi-Strauss argues that all kinship systems, despite their diversity, are built upon a small set of basic rules and categories. This insight offers a powerful tool for understanding how different societies organize and understand familial and social relationships.
The book is also notable for its discussion of the 'alliance theory' in anthropology. Lévi-Strauss suggests that kinship systems are primarily concerned with the establishment of alliances between groups, rather than just the regulation of marriage and descent. This idea has had a profound impact on subsequent anthropological thought.
However, the book can be challenging to read. Lévi-Strauss's writing is dense and often assumes a high level of familiarity with anthropological theory. The sheer breadth of data and examples he presents can be overwhelming, though they also contribute to the depth and persuasiveness of his argument.
In conclusion, this book is a landmark in anthropological theory, offering deep insights into the nature of human societies. It is essential reading for students of anthropology and social theory, though its complexity might be daunting for the casual reader.
February 27, 2025
There's possibly some flawed anthropological thinking at its core and unseen civilizational, propertarian, and patriarchal biases esp as many of these "primitive" peoples are downstream from a previous civilization. But it's done with such rigor and tries to get at the root while maintaining nuance its really helpful. The troubling of the nature-culture split and focusing on kinship as predicated on difference are pretty convincing. Not to mention the alliance theory. Also just great to get a foundation on what he structuralists were doing. Also wonderful moments when Yams are personed but Euro-conquesters are not in certain ontologies.
November 22, 2025
Clásico del estructuralismo: denso pero luminoso como “visor” para leer las estructuras sociales básicas; me gustó, aunque hoy muchas piezas pueden estar superadas.
Lévi-Strauss parte de la prohibición del incesto para explicar cómo las sociedades generan exogamia y alianzas mediante el intercambio (quién puede casarse con quién), distinguiendo “estructuras elementales” con reglas positivas, por ejemplo, matrimonios con primos cruzados, de sistemas más abiertos. Con mucho ejemplo comparado y un andamiaje casi combinatorio, traduce parentesco en redes de reciprocidad: la clave no es la sangre en sí, sino el patrón de intercambio que ordena grupos y obligaciones.
Más que verdades finales, da criterios para ver: patrones, simetrías, reglas que organizan lo social por debajo de la anécdota. Como no es mi campo, no sé cuánto del state of the art lo da por rebatido, pero se le notan los años (lenguaje, universalismos, sesgos y datos). Aun así, como lente para leer parentesco y alianza sigue siendo potente: te entrena a buscar estructura donde antes solo había costumbre.
Para quien disfrute teoría social “dura” y a estudiantes/curiosos de antropología que quieran un marco para pensar familia, matrimonio y reciprocidad; no a quien busque un manual actualizado o aplicaciones inmediatas sin pasar por la densidad del texto.
Lévi-Strauss parte de la prohibición del incesto para explicar cómo las sociedades generan exogamia y alianzas mediante el intercambio (quién puede casarse con quién), distinguiendo “estructuras elementales” con reglas positivas, por ejemplo, matrimonios con primos cruzados, de sistemas más abiertos. Con mucho ejemplo comparado y un andamiaje casi combinatorio, traduce parentesco en redes de reciprocidad: la clave no es la sangre en sí, sino el patrón de intercambio que ordena grupos y obligaciones.
Más que verdades finales, da criterios para ver: patrones, simetrías, reglas que organizan lo social por debajo de la anécdota. Como no es mi campo, no sé cuánto del state of the art lo da por rebatido, pero se le notan los años (lenguaje, universalismos, sesgos y datos). Aun así, como lente para leer parentesco y alianza sigue siendo potente: te entrena a buscar estructura donde antes solo había costumbre.
Para quien disfrute teoría social “dura” y a estudiantes/curiosos de antropología que quieran un marco para pensar familia, matrimonio y reciprocidad; no a quien busque un manual actualizado o aplicaciones inmediatas sin pasar por la densidad del texto.
April 27, 2014
Davvero interessantissimo, anche se in generale non mi trovo d'accordo con lo strutturalismo di Levi-Strauss, nel caso della parentela lo trovo molto utile e pieno di potenziali risposte alle domande sulla nascita della nostra concezione sociale.
June 19, 2025
Absolutely brilliant, one of the most important theoretical advances ever made in anthropology, despite its current unfashionability.
February 22, 2008
i think everyone should read this book.and know how to draw kinship diagrams.
Displaying 1 - 14 of 14 reviews