Chapter III. Kinship, Marriage, and Domestic Social Organisation

When Lewis Henry Morgan first described and classified Karen kinship on the basis of Sgaw, Pwo and “Karen” kin terms provided by the Reverends Mason, Wade and Van Meter respectively (1871:441ff.; 518), he categorically labelled them as “classificatory” systems. Morgan, however, acknowledged that they also shared in some of the features which he took as the hallmarks of “descriptive” systems. Morgan’s classification of kinship systems has, of course, since undergone considerable re-evaluation and many of the systems which he called “descriptive” have now come to be known as “cognatic” systems.

Following these changes and more particularly following Murdock’s assessment of Southeast Asian kinship (1960), the systems of the Sgaw and Pwo are now paradoxically recognised as “cognatic” or “bilateral” (Lebar, Hickey and Musgrave [1964:61]; Hinton [1975:44]; Hamilton [1976:93]; Marlowe [1979: 177–78]; Mischung [1980:97]; Madha [1980:60–1]). It is clear from the lists of kin terms provided by Mason, Wade and Van Meter and those available in the contemporary ethnography of the Karen that these terminological systems are remarkably similar, despite the fact that they have been drawn from communities widely separated in time and space. Palokhi Karen kinship terms are no exception to this apparent general stability in Karen terminological systems; specifically, they resemble the Sgaw systems of Mason, Madha and Marshall (1922:135–6). Although the inventories of terms provided by these writers are somewhat abbreviated where affinal terms are concerned, the overall concordance in consanguineal and the few affinal terms between these inventories and Palokhi kin terms is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of fundamental similarities. I present below a list of Palokhi Karen kin terms, in Table 3.1, and some observations on their general applications in address and reference.

A number of these terms are modified in order to specify more precisely who is being addressed or to whom reference is being made. Thus, the term phy may be modified by phado’ (“big”, “great”) to refer to, or address, male lineal kin traced bilaterally in the third ascending generation as there is no specific term for these categories of kin. The term phi is similarly modified for female kin in these generations. The terms phy and phi are also applied to collateral kin and non-kin in the second ascending generation, but only in direct address. When referred to, they are identified teknonymously where the terms phy and phi are prefixed by the names of their eldest grandchildren if they have grandchildren; if they only have children and no grandchildren, then they are referred to teknonymously where the terms pa and mo are prefixed by the names of their eldest children. Teknonymy in either of these forms may also be used in address but this is associated with a certain degree of formality which is rare in Palokhi. In the same way, collateral kin and non-kin in the first ascending generation are addressed by the terms phati or mygha, depending on their sex, and referred to teknonymously in which case the referential terms would take the form pa and mo prefixed by the names of their eldest children. As a general rule, then, kin and non-kin in ascending generations are usually never referred to, much less addressed, by their own names.

In contrast to the terms for kin in ascending generations (and in descending generations), there are comparatively far more terms for kin within ego’s own generation and this is a feature common to virtually all terminological systems whether cognatic or non-cognatic. These terms deserve special attention because together with associated generic kin terms they denote certain classes of kin which are an important consideration in the way that the Palokhi Karen formulate their marriage rules.

As with other Sgaw Karen, the Palokhi Karen have a term which specifically distinguishes the members of a sibling set from all other kin, dau’pywae. It is a compound term derived from the terms for elder male and female sibling, waecau’ and waenau, reduced to wae, and the single term for younger sibling, py, which does not make a distinction between the sexes as do the terms waecau’ and waenau. The term dau’ is a grammatical conjunction meaning “and”, “together” or “with”. When it occurs preposed before two nouns, the compound term so formed denotes a group or set whose attributes are defined by the postposed categories. The term dau’pywae means “elder and younger siblings”.^[1] It does not include the parents of the siblings. Indeed there is no term for the nuclear or stem family although the members of a household are collectively called doe’ pho, xau’ pho which literally means “children of the house, children of the steps”, where “steps” is a common synecdoche in Karen for house and household. Where it has been reported, the term dau’pywae has generally been glossed as “siblings” or “brothers and sisters” (Hamilton [1976:98]; Marlowe [1979:169]; Madha [1980:202]), but Iijima (1970:31) states that the “Dopuweh … is almost identical with a family although it is based on a matrilineage” (see also Iijima [1979:107]). This very singular interpretation which Iijima places on the term dau’pywae is supported neither in other accounts of Karen kinship (Mischung [1980:97 n. 47]; Madha [1980:203–4]) nor, indeed, by my informants.

Within the dau’pywae, the two principal features of the kin terms used by siblings are, first, a distinction in relative age and, second, a sex distinction in the terms for elder siblings and an absence of such a distinction in the terms for younger siblings. Younger siblings, regardless of sex, are called py, although where it is necessary to indicate the sex of younger siblings, the term py may then be qualified by the sex categories phau’khwa (“male”) and phau’my (“female”). The terms waecau’, waenau and py are used in reference and address although it is not uncommon to hear siblings using their names in addressing, or referring to each other. There are two other terms, in addition to these, which distinguish first and last born siblings, and these are waeko’ and pysoeda.^[2] The terms ko’ and soeda are also used by parents to refer to their eldest and youngest children in which case the respective terms are phoko’ and phosoeda.^[3]

The Palokhi Karen also have a term, dau’takhwa, which defines groups of consanguines consisting of related dau’pywae, that is, groups of parallel or cross cousins.^[4] This term is applied bilaterally. The general term dau’takhwa is usually modified by an ordinal number which indicates the degree of removal between ego and his, or her, cousins, for example toetakhwa (“first cousins”), khitakhwa (“second cousins”) and soe’takhwa (“third cousins”). It is rare, however, for the Palokhi Karen to indicate degrees of removal beyond that of third cousins (although in theory this system of indicating degrees of removal could be extended indefinitely), thus suggesting that for all practical purposes this is the “cut-off” point in the recognition of cousinship. The terms of address for ego’s dau’takhwa, of whatever degree, are the same as the terms used within the dau’pywae, except that the use of the appropriate terms (waecau’/waenau or py, that is, elder or younger) depends — at least in theory — not on the relative ages of the persons concerned, but on the relative ages of their respective parents or grandparents. In practice, however, relative age more often than not overrides what in theory is the generational basis on which the address system for dau’takhwa rests. Thus, those of “senior” or “elder” dau’takhwa will often be addressed by name or even the term py if they are younger than ego. Nevertheless, as with members of a dau’pywae, ego is as likely to refer to members of his, or her, dau’takhwa by name as he or she is likely to do so by kin terms.

I come now to affinal kin terms in Palokhi kinship nomenclature. Affines in general are termed do’ or dau’do’ (see also Marshall [1922:315]), but there are also specific terms for certain categories of affinal kin just as there are for consanguineal kin. As the list of kin terms shows, there are two general terms for “spouse” and a set of specific terms for “husband” and for “wife”. The differentiation or elaboration in spouse terms, including those for “husband” and “wife” are striking, to say the least, when compared with all other kin terms which do not show such elaboration. The two paired terms phau’mypgha and phau’khwapgha are terms which denote the married status of women and men, and as such they contrast with the paired terms mykoe’nau and phau’khwa which mean “unmarried” women and men. Pgha in both terms (and in the generic term tapypgha) means “mature” or “old” and it is the same lexeme in the term for “to marry”, thau pgha. Thau, itself, means “to rise”, “to ascend” or “to raise up”; it also has a specific connotation of “to grow” and is invariably used to refer to the growth of rice and other swidden crops in agricultural ritual texts. The term thau pgha and the various spouse terms containing pgha, therefore, mean rather more than “to marry” or “married”. These terms imply the achievement of adult status at marriage or, perhaps, even a “growing” into this status through marriage. The terms phau’mypgha and phau’khwapgha, thus, are not merely kin terms. They are also terms which encode the idea of a socially recognised adult status. These two terms are used as general terms of reference. The terms ma and wa, on the other hand, are both terms of address and reference. Pghaghane, however, is a term of reference that is said to be used in a very specific context — when one’s spouse is present. It literally means “that person”.

The Palokhi Karen say that they do not use the names of their spouses, or spouse terms, in reference or address (although names are used when courting) if others are present because they feel “embarrassed” or “ashamed” (mae’chgha’) to do so, and that they therefore use the term pghaghane. In general, however, it appears to be used by newly married spouses who may, indeed, be embarrassed to use proper spouse terms in public, at least initially, while the use of proper names (by which they are known to others) seems to be inappropriate or incongruous in the context of marriage. It is worth noting that the term pghaghane is not the third person singular pronoun which is ‘oe’wae in Sgaw Karen (see also Jones [1961:18]); it is a fully deictic term. Pgha (tonally different from pgha, “old”, “mature”) means “people” in a generic sense and gha refers to “person” of indefinite number, while ne is the locative “there”. It would appear, therefore, that the use of the deictic pghaghane represents a means of interposing a certain distance between newly-wed spouses in public situations before they have become accustomed to, or comfortable with, behaving as a “couple” according to social expectations.

If indeed newly-wed spouses are concerned with maintaining a certain “social distance” in public, as a result of an ambivalence experienced in the transition between unmarried to married statuses and roles, then the use of the term pghaghane as part of a particular repertoire in sociolinguistic behaviour is entirely appropriate. Quite apart from the social expectations attaching to the condition of being unmarried or married, the logic of the kinship system and its terminology, as I argue later, in fact stresses as it were the conjunctiveness of the conjugal bond in opposition to other kin ties and social relationships. The term pghaghane, from this perspective, may well be regarded therefore as a linguistic solution to an ambivalence in the transitional situation experienced by newly married spouses.

When a child is born, however, spouses then refer to each other in one of two ways. The first is by referring to each other as “male child’s mother” (phokhwa mo), “male child’s father” (phokhwa pa) or “female child’s mother” (phomy mo), “female child’s father” (phomy pa), according to the sex of the child. This form of teknonymy also constitutes the form of address used by spouses and, thus, supersedes those used prior to the birth of a child, that is ma and wa. Alternatively, spouses may refer to each other teknonymously through the use of the name of the child. The basis of teknonymous reference (which is also used by others with respect to the two spouses) in this form is always the name of the eldest surviving child. If there is only one child, and the child dies, then the referential and addressive system employed by spouses reverts back to that used before the child was born. Where others are concerned, the spouses would then be addressed and referred to by their proper names.

The term for the parents of both spouses is mipgha and this is used only in reference. The terms of address for the parents of one’s spouse are pa and mo, the same terms used for one’s own parents. The reciprocals of the referential term, mipgha, are ma’ (daughter’s husband or “son-in-law”) and dae’ (son’s wife or “daughter-in-law”). The corresponding terms of address are phokhwa and phomy (or, more generally, pho) which are also used for one’s own children.

Perhaps the most interesting set of kin terms, apart from spouse terms, are the terms for affines within ego’s generation. These terms may be categorised according to whether the kin they describe are related to ego by an affinal link (the marital tie) and a consanguineal link, in that order (that is, working outwards from an ego-centric point of view), or by a consanguineal link followed by an affinal link.

In the first category are the siblings of one’s spouse. This category of affines is not fully distinguished, terminologically, from ego’s own siblings and it follows the set of sibling terms in the distinction that is drawn between the sexes for elder siblings but not for younger siblings. Thus, the referential term for a spouse’s elder male sibling is wae, as against waecau’ for one’s own elder male sibling. However, the terms of address for both are the same, that is waecau’. In the case of one’s spouse’s elder female sibling, the referential and addressive terms are identical to that for one’s own elder female sibling, namely, waenau. Younger siblings of one’s spouse, regardless of sex, are called pyde in reference and address. As with the term for younger siblings, this term may be modified to indicate the sex of the younger sibling of one’s spouse, in which case the terms would be pydekhwa and pydemy. There is, however, one important difference between the use of these terms as affinal and consanguineal kin terms. Whereas their use as consanguineal terms hinges upon the fact of relative age differences between siblings, their use as affinal terms over-rides these very differences between ego and ego’s spouse’s siblings. Thus, if a man were older than his wife’s elder siblings, he would use the terms waecau’ and waenau in address; similarly, even if he were younger than the siblings of his wife, he would address them by the term pyde.

In the second category of affines, the spouses of one’s younger siblings are sex distinguished. The husband of a younger sister is called ca’li, and the wife of a younger brother is called demy. The reciprocals of these terms are, of course, wae and waenau in reference, and waecau’ and waenau in address as I have already described above. It is worth noting that ego’s spouse refers to, and addresses, this second category of affines by the same terms as ego. That is, terminologically, ego’s spouse’s affines are equated with ego’s own affines in this category.

Sociologically, however, there are no significant differences in the relations that exist between a person and his, or her, affines in both categories and those between his, or her, spouse’s affines — beyond that which is conditioned by residential arrangements, which I discuss in the section on marriage and residential patterns. The significance of this feature of affinal kin terms, therefore, lies not so much in what is revealed about affinal relations but, rather, in what is revealed about the conjugal bond within the Palokhi kinship system.

The homology between the terms for siblings-in-law and the terms for siblings is not an altogether unusual feature of cognatic systems. In the Palokhi system, this homology in itself is not necessarily significant however. What is significant is the congruence in the use of affinal kin terms by spouses on the basis of this homology. The use of affinal kin terms rather than names (which contrasts with the more open choice between the use of names and kin terms within the dau’pywae) for siblings-in-law, the fact that the use of these terms overrides relative age differences, and the equation of spouse’s affines with own affines all point to the “assimilation” of spouses to each other’s position vis-a-vis their respective dau’pywae and affines. This “assimilation” of spouses in fact is no other than what Burling has called “zero degree genealogical distance” in discussing the nature of the marital tie in the context of English kinship terminology (1970:29). Alternatively, we may say that the terminological system for affines of both categories, which turns on ego’s spouse’s position relative to ego’s spouse’s siblings and affines “marks” out the distinctiveness of the conjugal bond in opposition to all other kin links in the kinship system.

While the evidence from the terminological system is sufficient, in itself, to warrant this conclusion, nevertheless, we shall see that the naming system and teknonymy in Palokhi lend further support to this conclusion.