- I am not saying that there can be 'pure' observation. But it is quite possible to produce observation which is not informed by the *conscious* theories of the observer. In the humanities, this happens all the time - which is why, for example, some literary critics who believe themselves to be heavily influenced by Lacan or Althusser may still produce comparatively sensible and even insightful literary criticism.
- For a modern restatement and investigation of the incest taboo, see Françoise Héritier, 12., passim. Also, Zonabend in 32, pp. 19-100
- On brother-sister marriage, see Shaw, 28., passim.
- This is a theme to which Malinowski often returns. See his description and analysis of the case of ritual suicide sparked by the public disclosure of an incestuous liaison in 21, pp. 475-7 and in 19, 77-9, 84. For an account of the flexibility possible among the Australian peoples, see Piddington, 25, passim.
- 'Kinship, for Malinowski, all through his career, was not merely focused in the 'individual family'; it was nothing but the individual family, considered either from within, or as the source of the 'extensions' that in his theory account wholly for extra-familial genealogically ordered relationships. This point of view was firmly established in the Australian book.' Fortes in 7, 165.
- Malinowski wavers on this point: as biological paternity is not, by his account, recognised by the Trobrianders, he usually uses the term 'sociological paternity' to refer to the relationship between father and child.
- In a snappy summary of Malinowski's early life, he writes: 'Bronislaw Malinowski was born in Cracow in 1884, the son of a distinguished linguist ... His father pioneered the study of the Polish language and its folk dialects, and was something of a folklorist and ethnographer, publishing some studies of Polish folklore in Silesia.'
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.