1 Introduction

1.1 Precedence and Studieveld

The idea of ‘precedence’ is closely connected with that of the ‘studieveld’ (‘study field’) (Fox 1980) (Fox 1980) (of eastern Indonesia or perhaps Austronesian world). In this sense, it is an “experience-near” category (Geertz 1983) (Geertz 1983).

The idea of ‘precedence’ is closely connected with that of ‘studieveld’ (study field) (Fox 1980) The idea is specific to the studieveld of Eastern Indonesia or, perhaps, Austronesian In this sense, it is “experience-near” (Geertz 1983)

Concerning its closeness to the idea of ‘study field’, there arise two features about ‘precedence’ as an analytical notion: one good and the other bad.

Good news is that the notion of ‘precedence’ goes well with other items derived from the same study field. The notions such as “origin”, botanic metaphors etc fit well with ‘precedence’. Sometimes we even find a native notion of ‘precedence’ (oda in Tana ’Ai (Lewis 1988) (Lewis 1988).

GN: It goes well with other items derived from the same study field The notions such as “origin”, botanic metaphors etc fit well with ‘precedence’ sometimes we even find a native notion of ‘precedence’ (oda in Tana ’Ai (Lewis 1988))

Bad news is that it (the notion of ‘precedence’) tends to lose its beauty when combined with other ‘analytical notions’ derived from other study field, especially ‘hierarchy’ (derived from South Asia (Dumont 1970) (Dumont 1970).

For this ‘precedence’/‘hierarchy’ problem, we have to remember Greg’s beautiful paper, “Distinguishing hierarchy and precedence” (Acciaioli 2009) (Acciaioli 2009). He spent tremendous efforts for tackling this problem, quoting varous ethnographic data.

BN: It tends to lose its beauty when combined with other ‘analytical notions’ derived from other study fields especially ‘hierarchy’ (derived from South Asia) (See Acciaioli 2009)

• For this ‘precedence’/‘hierarchy’ problem,
• we have to remember the tremendous efforts Greg (2009) has taken
• for elucidating the difference between precedence and hierarchy

In one’s field, one finds a lot of asymmetric relations. and one tends to wonder which is Precedence and which is not.

In my field (Ende in Flores) it is WG/WT relation and AG/AG (agnates) relation that baffle me most. Both can be said to be Precedence (see, for example, (Butterworth 2009) (Butterworth 2008)) but they are of quite different natures.

In one’s field, one finds a lot of asymmetric relations and one tends to wonder which is Precedence and which is not

In my field it is WG/WT relation and AG/AG (agnates) relation that baffle me most Both can be said to be Precedence but they are of quite different natures

My aim of this paper is to propose another pair of analytic tools, this time, “experience-distant”one, to be coupled with “experience-near” precedence so that they, coupled together, can shed lights to ‘precedence’/‘hierarchy’ problem.

to propose another pair of analytic tools, “experience-distant” ones, so that they, combined with the’precedence’(and ‘hierarchy’), can shed lights to the precedence/hierarchy problem

In a way, this paper is meant to be a complementary essay to Greg’s. He tried to elucidate the idea of precedence from below (as it were), while I try to do the same from above (as it were).

In a way, this paper is meant to be a complementary essay to Greg’s paper “Distinguishing Hierarchy and Precedence” (Acciaioli 2009) He tried to elucidate the idea of precedence from below (as it were), while I try to do the same from above (as it were)

2 Attributive and relational classifications

2.1 Two ways of classification

introducing a new pair of analytical tools, that is: Attributive classification and Relational classification

My starting point is to regard ‘precedence’ as a kind of classification and, thus, I wish to build a more primitive kind of typology of classification here (than ‘precedence’).

to regard ‘precedence’ as a kind of classification and, thus, I wish to build a more primitive kind of typology of classification here

Without further ado, I contend that classification consists of (1) identification (sameness) and (2) differentiation (difference). Accordingly, there are 2 kinds of classification: (1) one based on sameness and (2) another on difference.

• classification consists of
• 1. identification (sameness) and (2) differentiation (difference)
• There are 2 kinds of classification:
  1. one based on sameness and (2) another on difference

The former, I call “Attributive classification” in which sameness is given and difference is to be inferred; the latter, “Relational classification” in which difference is given and sameness is what is to be inferred.

The former, I call “Attributive classification” in which sameness is given and difference is what is to be inferred the latter, “Relational classification” in which difference is given and sameness is what is to be inferred

2.2 Attributive classification

Now let us start with the attributive classification. Attributive classification is one where each node’s attribute is given and the relation is what is to be inferred.

Each node’s attribute is given Relation between nodes is what is to be inferred

See the diagram below which shows a original situation of attributive classification. Each node has already have its own attribute, here, colour. Some are painted blue, Some white. Note also that there has not been relations between nodes defined yet.

What we have to do is to produce relations from this original situation. There are two rules for attributive classification: (1) Connect differently coloured nodes with a line, and (2) Use as many lines as possible.

1. (Main rule) Connect differently coloured nodes with a line
2. (Auxiliary rule) Use as many lines as possible

See the diagram below for the resultant situation. The attributes (that is, colours) had been alloted to the nodes; now the relations (that is, lines) have been drawn according to the two rules. It is complete now. Thus, in attributive classification, sameness produces difference.

2.3 Relational classification

In relational classification, on the contrary, the relation between nodes is what is given and each node’s attribute is what is to be inferred.

Relation between nodes is given Each node’s attribute is what is to be inferred

Below is the original situation of the relational classification. Here you can ses relations (that is, lines) have been drawn between nodes. But no nodes has its attribute (that is, colour)

Now our task is to procure attributes in this original situation. There are two rules: A main rules is: (1) Paint connected nodes in different colours and a auxiliary rule is: (2) Use as few colors as possible.

(Main) (1) Paint connected nodes in different colours (Auxiliary) (2) Use as few colors as possible

See the figure below for the result. Relations (lines) had been drawn. Now each node has been given its own attribute (colour) according to the rules. Thus, differece produces sameness in relational classification.

2.4 Explanation

The two resultant diagrams are, as you can see, exactly the same; but the difference comes when one tries to explain how come the diagrams have been made.

The two resultant diagrams are exactly the same but the difference becomes obvious when one tries to explain how come the diagrams have been made

First about attributive classification.

In attributive classification, Difference is explained by Sameness (which is the given in this system). (Difference) Why are N1 and N2 connected? Because they are differently coloured (Sameness) Why are N1 and N4 of the same colour?
… (!?) (it’s given)

Difference is explained by Sameness (the given) (Difference) Why are N1 and N2 connected? Because they are differently coloured (Sameness) Why are N1 and N4 of the same colour?
… (!?) (it’s given)

How about relational classification, now. See the diagram below. Remember, first, attributes have been given; and it is only later that relations are made according the rules and the pattern of attribute.

In relational classification, Difference produces sameness; in other words, sameness is explained by difference (the given). In this system, you can answer easily such questions as “Why are N1 and N4 of the same color?” You just say: Because they are connected in such a way that accord with the rules. This explanation will be discussed in details later.

On the other hand, you cannot answer questions such as “Why are N1 and N2 connected?” because relations are what have been given already. It (difference) is not something to be explained in this sysmtem; it’s a given.

Sameness is explained by difference (the given) (Sameness) Why are N1 and N4 of the same color? Because they are connected in such a way that blah blah blah [you mention the rules] — to be described soon (Difference) Why are N1 and N2 connected? … (!?) (it’s given)

The explanation needs a bit more clarification, I suppose. The best and shortest way of saying that N1 and N4 are of the same group is using (what I call) “enemy’s enemy principle”. In our lives, one’s enemy’s enemy sometimes proves to be one’s friend. Let’s assume that connecting lines represent ‘enemy’ relations. Thus, N2 is an enemy of N1 and N2 is also an enemy of N4, and N1 and N4 become friends.

I’ll call “blah blah” part “enemy’s enemy” principle — One’s enemy’s enemy often turns out to be one’s friend Let’s assume that connecting lines represent ‘enemy’ relations Thus, For N1, N4 is an enemy (N2)’s enemy and N1 and N4 become friends

3 Kinship in Ende

3.1 Introduction

Now it’s Ende time.

Ende people live in the central part of Flores. Ende is a patrilineal society, with the idea of asymmetric alliance (mother’s brother’s daughter’s marriage).

Now it’s Ende time Ende people live in the central part of Flores (Propinsi Nusa Tenggara Timur) Ende is a patrilineal society with the idea of asymmetric alliance (mother’s brother’s daughter’s marriage)

3.2 Patrilineality as attributive classification

Ende is a patrilineal society; and patrilineality is the typical example of the attributive classification. Patrilineally related members are regarded as of one and the same group.

in the sense that patrilineally related members are regarded as of one and the same group They share “descent”

• There is no explicit ideology about matrilineality (unlike, for example, the neighbouring Lio people who have the idea of matrilineally inherited substance (tebu))
• Yet, this implicit matrilineality plays an important r^ole in Ende

Now, let’s read connected lines as marriageability. And parallel to the Q and A I mentioned above, the following Q and A will ensue: Why do N1 and N2 marry? Because they are different. Why are N1 and N4 of the same group and there will be no answer.

This is, incidentally, “descent theory”

Difference is marriageability in this complex N1 and N2 marry because they belong different groups

Why do N1 and N2 marry? Because they are different Why are N1 and N4 of the same group … (!?) This is, incidentally, the “descent theory”

3.3 WG/WT as Relational Classification

Next, about Relational classification in Ende.

It is WG/WT relationship that is the Difference relation in Ende, in the sense that WGs (or WTs for that matter) are the archetypal “other”.

It is WG/WT relationship that is the difference relation in Ende, in the sense that WGs (or WTs for that matter) are the archetypal “other”. In other words, marriage is the line connecting the nodes So, WG/WT relation is a relational classfication

It should be noted, in this connection, that In Ende, not only patrilateral parallel cousins (FBS/FBS), but also matrilateral parallel cousins (MZS/MZS) are regarded as “adik kakak” (ari ka’E.

In Ende, not only patrilateral parallel cousins (FBS/FBS) but also matrilateral parallel cousins (MZS/MZS) are regarded as “adik kakak” (ari ka’E) (parallel sibling)

It is obvious that FBS/FBS are regarded as “adik kakak” (“brothers”) once we remember the patrilineality principle in Ende. But the case of MZS/MZS needs more to be explained. It is enemy’s enemy’s principle also that plays its part in establishing sameness from difference

Explanation of how MZS/MZS are regarded as “adik kakak”: The identification (as adik-kakak) of matrilateral parallel cousins comes from the idea of flow of life One is said to “come from” (mai) one’s MB (who is his origin, (pu’u)) The guys (MZS/MZS) are said to “come together” (mai bou) (or share the origin) That’s how MZS/MZS are regarded as ‘adik-kakak’ in Ende

Why are N1 and N4 regarded as same Because they are different such a way that … Why are N1 and N2 different … (!?) This is, incidentally again, (LEvi-Straussian) “alliance theory”

4 Precedence and hierarchy

Now we come to ‘precedence’.

Precedence and Hierarchy, finally

4.1 Two kinds of dualism

In his article in which he introduced the notion of ‘precedence’ (Fox 1989) (Fox 1989), Pak Jim mentions the 3 features of precedence as: (1) categorical asymmetry, (2) recursive complementarity, and (3) (the possibility of) category reversal. In a later paper (Fox 2009), he adds (or rather, summarises) that in ‘precedence’, one term accorded a value over the other.

In his article (Fox 1989) Pak Jim mentions 3 features of precedence: Categorical asymmetry Recursive complementarity (the possibility of) category reversal (Fox 1989: 44–48) (Fox 2009) One term is accorded a value over the other — this summarises the 3 points above

What I want to emphasize here is that ‘precedence’ is about ‘value’ And, just don’t forget, so is ‘hierarchy’. Two ways of classification, on the other hand, has nothing to do with value. Precedence is content Classification is form

‘Precedence’ is about ‘value’ And, of course, so is ‘hierarchy’ Whereas two ways of classification have nothing to do with value

The problem now is how we can bridge the value-free classification (which I have discussed so far) with the value-laden precedence and hierarchy.

how to bridge a value-free classification and value-laden precedence (and hierarchy)

The conversion from the form to the content (that is, value) is done, I presume, using two modes of bipartition described by LEvi-Strauss in his article “Do Dual Organization Exist” (Lévi-Strauss 1973); that is: (1) diametric dualism and (2) concentric dualism. And My contention is that diametric dualism is the value-free classification and that concentric dualism is the value-laden precedence (and hierarchy).

Two modes of dualism by LEvi-Strauss (1979) (1) diametric dualism and (2) concentric dualism My contention is that diametric dualism is the value-free classification and that concentric dualism is the value-laden precedence (and hierarchy)

One of the points of the paper is that one and the same village is represented, sometimes as forming a diametric dualism, and sometimes as forming a concentric dualism. One can see a phenomenon, sometimes as (value-free) classification sometimes as (value-laden) precedence (and hierarchy).

One of the points of the paper is that one and the same village is represented sometimes as forming a diametric dualism and sometimes as forming a concentric dualism One can see a phenomenon, sometimes as (value-free) classification (diametric system) sometimes as (value-laden) precedence (and hierarchy) (concentric system)

It is by changing way of seeing things which introduces the value in the system; by changing the diametric to the concentric dualism.

Let’s see how it can be done

It is by changing way of seeing things which introduces the value in the system. Changing the diametric to the concentric dualism Let’s see how it can be done

Diametric dualism: Symmetric, Closed in itself Concentric dualism: Asymmetric, Expandable towards the outside, as well as divisible further (into tripartition … etc) I contend that it is in the concentric system that value is easily introduced

Attributive and concentric system is ‘precedence’ whereas relational and concentric system is ‘hierarchy’. I’m not sure …; Ask Greg whether this is correct

… Anyway ….

Attributive and concentric system is ‘precedence’ whereas relational and concentric system is ‘hierarchy’ I’m not sure … Ask Greg whether this is correct … Anyway …

☆ Form and Content (Value)

4.2 Conversion with Age

Now let’s go back to the Ende ethnography to see how the conversion from value-free classification to value-laden system (precedence and hierarchy). It is age, in Ende, that functions as a generator of value.

Now let’s go back to the Ende ethnography to see how the conversion from value-free classification to value-laden system (precedence and hierarchy) is carried out It is age, in Ende, that functions as a generator of value

☆

Very briefly, it is that in a lineal descent system categories will be preponderant, whereas in a cognatic society there will be a lesser emphasis on categories in favour of social distinctions based most generally on relative age. (Needham 1966: 31) ,Needham on Age, Category and Descent

(Needham 1966)

In this final section, to simplify the matter, I’ll limit my discussion to “adik kakak” (parallel sibling) relations alone. Further more, among them, I’ll deal with only cases of brothers on the one hand and sisters on the other.

Here I’ll limit my discussion to “adik kakak” (parallel siblings) relations, And further, among them, only
B/B relation on the one hand and Z/Z relation on the other

In Ende, “adik kakak” relationship is, more or less, egalitarian; but sometimes, values are added to one over the other, more often in case of brothers than in sisters.

In Ende, “adik kakak” relationship is, more or less, egalitarian; (ignoring the age difference) but sometimes, values are granted to one item (“elder”) over the other, more often in case of brothers than in sisters.

This granting of value is emphasized by converting difference of age to that of generation; by converting eB/yB to F/S on the one hand, and by converting eZ/yZ to M/D on the other.

This granting of value is emphasized by converting difference of age to that of generation — Converting eB/yB to F/S — Converting eZ/yZ to M/D

Nothing substantial happens when eB/yB relation is converted to F/S.

Nothing substantial happens when eB/yB relation is converted to F/S

It is not the case with eZ/yZ conversion to M/D relation; since M/D relation is actually a WG/WT relation .

It is not the case with eZ/yZ conversion to M/D relation since M/D relation is actually a WG/WT relation

In conclusion, I would say that, in Ende, there are two types of value-laden relations: one is ‘precedence’ represented as patrilineality and the other is ‘hierarchy’ represented as matrilineality (or WG/WT relationship).

I would say that, in Ende, there are two types of value-laden relations: one is ‘precedence’ represented as patrilineality and the other is ‘hierarchy’ represented as matrilineality (or WG/WT relationship)

☆ Precedence and Hierarchy

References