257
from a “lineage-village", the localized lineage represents the empirical reality of the lineage or descent group as a sociological fact. That is to say, from the perspective of any functionalist theory, it is not theory, it is not enough to say that the lineage is symbolically real as a concept or ideology; one has to be able to see its existence in the form of some kind of corporate group, bearing all the social and political functions hypothesized by the model. For Freedman, the sociological reality of the localized lineage comes closer than Fortes "to the ground" insofar as he attaches theoretical significance of the lineage to the maintenance of a landed estate, which remains analytically distinct from the notion of a territorial dominion. It is in reference to the localized lineage (rather than the ideology of descent) that the very phenomenon of a ritualized ancestral cult becomes theoretically relevant. Having said that, it should be clear then that the relationship between the corporate descent group, the economics of the ancestral estate and ritual activity centered upon the ancestral hall is an arbitrary one intelligible only in terms of Freedman's model. For one thing, Freedman's choice of the ancestral hall as a criterion of lineage segmentation was quite obviously fabricated in order to demonstrate the existence of asymmetric segmentation (another illusion), which then served to polarize the divergence between lineages types A to Z. Yet as Faure's data and my own observations suggest, there appears to be a rather early (genealogical) cut-off point after which the establishment of ancestral halls clearly do not follow the pattern of segmentation (in terms of fong) even when there is sufficient corporate wealth to permit such construction. Faure argues that there is a difference between "official" and non-official types of ancestral halls; I argue on the other hand that in all cases, it is the definition of the village which predicates the conditions upon which an ancestral hall is or is not built. By implication, therefore, the corporate cult of the dead centred upon the ancestral hall must be a local (not localized in sociological terms) phenomenon as well which should be seen as analytically distinct from the process of ancestor worship (in terms of tsung) as understood by the worshippers themselves as lines of divinity. Or to put it in another way, there is nothing in the concept of tsung which necessitates the existence of the ancestral hall; the localized corporate cult of the dead centred upon the ancestral hall then should not be confused with ancestor worship from a native's point of view." The cult of the dead as a (sociologically corporate) phenomenon therefore must have a different reason for being, which I now associate with the village.
257
from a “lineage-village", the localized lineage represents the empirical reality of the lineage or descent group as a sociological fact. That is to say, from the perspective of any functionalist theory, it is not theory, it is not enough to say that the lineage is symbolically real as a concept or ideology; one has to be able to see its existence in the form of some kind of corporate group, bearing all the social and political functions hypothesized by the model. For Freedman, the sociological reality of the localized lineage comes closer than Fortes "to the ground" insofar as he attaches theoretical significance of the lineage to the maintenance of a landed estate, which remains analytically distinct from the notion of a territorial dominion. It is in reference to the localized lineage (rather than the ideology of descent) that the very phenomenon of a ritualized ancestral cult becomes theoretically relevant. Having said that, it should be clear then that the relationship between the corporate descent group, the economics of the ancestral estate and ritual activity centered upon the ancestral hall is an arbitrary one intelligible only in terms of Freedman's model. For one thing, Freedman's choice of the ancestral hall as a criterion of lineage segmentation was quite obviously fabricated in order to demonstrate the existence of asymmetric segmentation (another illusion), which then served to polarize the divergence between lineages types A to Z. Yet as Faure's data and my own observations suggest, there appears to be a rather early (genealogical) cut-off point after which the establishment of ancestral halls clearly do not follow the pattern of segmentation (in terms of fong) even when there is sufficient corporate wealth to permit such construction. Faure argues that there is a difference between "official" and non-official types of ancestral halls; I argue on the other hand that in all cases, it is the definition of the village which predicates the conditions upon which an ancestral hall is or is not built. By implication, therefore, the corporate cult of the dead centred upon the ancestral hall must be a local (not localized in sociological terms) phenomenon as well which should be seen as analytically distinct from the process of ancestor worship (in terms of tsung) as understood by the worshippers themselves as lines of divinity. Or to put it in another way, there is nothing in the concept of tsung which necessitates the existence of the ancestral hall; the localized corporate cult of the dead centred upon the ancestral hall then should not be confused with ancestor worship from a native's point of view." The cult of the dead as a (sociologically corporate) phenomenon therefore must have a different reason for being, which I now associate with the village.
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.