259
NOTES
There are several instances where Faure distorts the anthropological literature completely. The “frontier” which Pasternak (1969) refers to, for example, has to do with the socio-political consequences of a certain economic relationship between man and his use of specific strategic resources, namely water and land. Land reclamation is not an accurate translation of this frontier situation. Faure also reads Freedman's (1958:2) interpretation of a passage by Fei (1946: 1) superficially and without much understanding of its context or rhetorical intent. Freedman's purpose in quoting Fei was to argue that the function of the lineage as a political and local organization transcends its identity "in name” as a descent group. But it should be noted also that Freedman deliberately distorted Fei as well. Had Faure actually read Fei, he would have also discovered that the phenomenon which Fei (1946:5) was describing was not even a descent group at all, which should make it quite enigmatic indeed. Sometimes among the peasants, the clan is found, but it is of another kind. In Yunnan, for instance, I have seen that in villages local organization is formed in terms of clan which includes even members of different surnames. Functionally these are not strictly kinship groups. I shall leave open as to the nature of the so-called clan-village. I rather suspect that such an organization among the peasants is a local organization, not a kinship organization.
When reading Fried as he does Freedman, Faure confuses the model for empirical reality. Underlying the petty disputes over the definition of lineages and clans as analytical constructs, Fried (1970) was trying to make a more important point about the political functions of a genealogy in allocating differential access to scarce strategic resources (i.e., lineage property), this according to Fried being more important than the existence of property per se. The relative distinction between stipulated and demonstrated descent must be understood in this light.
Sheer numbers never mean anything. Even in Faure's (p. 96) analysis of a Chinese funeral, there is no a priori reason to believe that the lineage or village should have any role or obligation to play in ritual preparations. The scale of any such operation is always determined by the family of the deceased. “Work” is delegated among volunteers within the community (not necessarily a territorial one), whether it be neighbours, colleagues, or friends. Correspondingly, compensation for services rendered is made either as payment or as fa see.
I suspect that variations in village organization and relationships within village clusters were shaped during the formative period prior to the time when the village had any formal identity. The diversity of local experience can only be attributed to the diversity of interaction within different villages. Rules prohibiting intermarriage in Man Uk Pin and the lack of an ancestral hall in Wong Keng Tei are other examples of local phenomena which must be understood in reference to the way the villagers themselves define or interpret the nature of their own community.
See Strathern's (1984) study of the "community" in an English village.
The whole problem with Faure's description of “lineage-building” is that it is too easy to project a genealogical structure onto residence patterns, especially with help from Block Crown Lease Demarcation District Maps and the like. As for the Sha Tin Wai example, I doubt whether Faure bothered to match up the registered ownership of houses with its actual inhabitants or even to seek informant testimony with regard to this period of household mobility. In practice, villages rarely update actual ownership records unless there is a conveyance of sale or other transaction that requires re-registration. That registered ownership is usually a couple of generations behind is thus the norm rather than the exception.
259
NOTES
There are several instances where Faure distorts the anthropological literature completely. The “frontier" which Pasternak (1969) refers to. for example, has to do with the socio-political consequences of a certain economic relationship between man and his use of specific strategic resources, namely water and land. Land reclamation is not an accurate translation of this frontier situation. Faure also reads Freedman's (1958:2) interpretation of a passage by Fei (1946: 1) superficially and without much understanding of its context or rhetorical intent. Freedman's purpose in quoting Fei was to argue that the function of the lineage as a political and local organization transcends its identity "in name” as a descent group. But it should be noted also that Freedman deliberately distorted Fei as well. Had Faure actually read Fei, he would have also discovered that the phenomenon which Fei (1946:5) was describing was not even a descent group at all, which should make it quite enigmatic indeed. Sometimes among the peasants, the clan is found, but it is of another kind. In Yunnan, for instance, I have seen that in villages local organization is formed in terms of clan which includes even members of different surnames. Functionally these are not stictly kinship groups. I shall leave open as to the nature of the so-called clan-village. I rather suspect that such an organization among the peasants is a local organization, not a kinship organization.
When reading Fried as he does Freedman, Faure confuses the model for empirical reality. Underlying the petty disputes over the definition of lineages and clans as analytical constructs, Fried (1970) was trying to make a more important point that about the political functions of a genealogy in allocating differential access to scarce strategic resources (i.e. lineage property), this according to Fried being more important than the existence of property per se. The relative distinction between stipulated and demonstrated descent must be understood in this light.
Sheer numbers never niean anything. Even in Faure's (p. 96) analysis of a Chinese funeral, there is no a priori reason to believe that the lineage or village should have any role or obligation to play in ritual preparations. The scale of any such operation is always determined by the family of the deceased, “Work” is delegated among volunteers within the community (not necessarily a territorial one), whether it be neighbours, colleagues or friends. Correspondingly, compensation for services rendered is made either as payment or as fai see.
* I suspect that variations in village organization and relationships within village clusters were shaped during the formative period prior to the time when the village had any formal identity. The diversity of local experience can only be attributed to the diversity of interaction within different villages. Rules prohibiting intermarriage in Man Uk Pin and the lack of an ancestral hall in Wong Keng Tei are other examples of local phenomena which must he understand in reference to the way the villagers themselves define or interpret the nature of their own community.
See Strathern's (1984) study of the "community" in an English village,
The whole problem with Faure's description of “lincage-building” is that it is too easy to project a genealogical structure onto residence patterns, especially with help from Block Crown Lease Demarcation District Maps and the like. As for the Sha Tin Wai example, I doubt whether Faure bothered to match up the registered ownership of houses with its actual inhabitants or even to seek informant testimony with regard to this period of household mobility. In practice, villages rarely update actual ownership records unless there is a conveyance of sale or other transaction that requires re-registration. That registered ownership is usually a couple of generations behind is thus the norm rather than the
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.