Kinship ethnology

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Kinship is a field of anthropology , which since its creation in the 19th century, especially with the rules of kinship, kinship and kinship terminologies employed in various cultures. More recent trends (e.g. New Kinship Studies ) reinterpret classic fields of kinship ethnology such as marriage, descent and filiation and investigate the question of how kinship is made, how it is negotiated, symbolically generated and confirmed by everyday actions.

history

Beginnings in the 19th century

The beginnings of kinship ethnology can be traced back to the second half of the 19th century. In the 1860s, several papers were published that deal with kinship relationships in different cultures. Shaped by the positivism of that time, scientists such as Herbert Spencer , Henry Sumner Maine , Johann Jakob Bachofen , John Ferguson McLennan , Lewis Henry Morgan , James Frazer and Edward Tylor assumed a social, cultural and mental evolution of societies that differed from the simple / Developed from primitive to complex / progressive.

Some scholars have tried to show the unilinear evolution of societies based on the development of family relationships. Based on the assumption that every society lays down certain regulations on the transfer of property and social position after death and that these regulations differ significantly from society to society, lawyers first examined different systems of family law. The reports of missionaries, botanists, geographers, museum collectors and travelers formed the basis for their investigations. As so-called armchair anthropologists , they did not go into the field themselves - with the exception of Morgan - but formed their theories with the help of the data already available and the comparative method. The beginning was made by the two jurists and scholars of early Indo-European history Johann Bachofen and Henry Maine, who published their works in the same year (1861).

First publications

The British Sir Henry Sumner Maine was convinced on the basis of his studies of Indo-European institutions that the original form of the family was patriarchal. In his work Ancient Law he advocates the thesis that the earliest forms of government were built on the assumption that all members were descendants of a primordial family. In the further development, this family initially grows into a clan ( gens ), and then evolves from a tribe to a state union or state. Accordingly, he also uses the Roman terms agnatic and cognatic for the two main forms of kinship: he describes ancient kinship systems as agnatic, which derive their connections only from the male members, whereas in modern societies a cognatic, i.e. H. equal succession is practiced.

In contrast to Maine, the Swiss Johann Jakob Bachofen argues in his work Das Mutterrecht on the basis of a number of isolated references in so-called primitive tribes for a universal, low level of development in which matriarchy forms the basis of society. To reinforce his theory, he also postulated a gradual development that begins with a promiscuous period in which the family relationships are derived from the mother, since the fathers were mostly unknown due to the casual sexual behavior. Later, after Maine, this initially predominant matriarchy was replaced by a patriarchy, since the advancing development of society required a strengthening of the male role.

The Scottish lawyer John Ferguson McLennan published an evolutionist theory of the family in his work Primitive Marriage in 1865 . The starting point for his considerations was the widespread custom of symbolic bride robbery, which he regarded as a remnant of an earlier, tribal stage of development in which bride robbery actually took place and not only symbolically. His theory says that every society has to go through a series of stages of development, beginning with a promiscuous form of society that turns into a matrilineal kinship system, which in turn is replaced by a patrilinear system. According to McLennan, the climax of the development is reached with monogamy, in which the relationship is derived from both men and women. In addition, he coined the terms exogamy and endogamy by showing marriage rules that prescribe marriage either with women from outside (exogamy) or with women within one's own social group (endogamy).

Lewis Henry Morgan

The American ethnologist Lewis Henry Morgan also pursued the idea of ​​an increasing social development in three stages: savagery - barbarism - civilization. Through his field research with the Iroquois, he found that their way of naming relatives differs from ours. For example, the term father was not only used to refer to the direct male relative, but to several male relatives. Morgan began to collect and compare kinship terminology from around the world and the ancient classical period in search of an explanation. He found that many peoples distant in time and space used similar types of kinship names and that there were a few standard types of such names. So he created a comprehensive catalog, which he published in 1871 in his 600-page work The Systems of Consanquinity and Affinity of the human Family . On more than 200 pages, the book contains three overview tables with terms that describe relationships (or systems of consanguinity) from three different linguistic groups: Table I: Semitic, Aryan, and Uralian families; Table II: Ganowanian family; Table III: Turanian and Malyan families. One could roughly say here that Morgan was referring to the peoples of Europe and Western Asia with the first group, the American Indians with the second, and the peoples of South and East Asia and parts of Oceania with the third group. He divided these three overview tables into several tables (a total of 139 tables). The text sections of the book act as a kind of commentary on the tables, dividing the book into three parts.

The importance of Morgan's work remains undisputed to this day - not least because he and Sir Edward Burnett Tylor are considered the founders of ethnology through their publications in 1871. For some time, kinship ethnologists in America were mainly concerned with kinship terminology (see, for example, Alfred Kroeber 1909 or George P. Murdock 1949). However, Morgan is now accused of not having understood the meanings behind his terminology and of having run into the errors of the theory of evolution.

Developments in the early to mid-20th century

At the beginning of the 20th century, evolutionist theories were overtaken by new theories (e.g. diffusionism ) and ethnologists such as Franz Boas . For the following ethnologists - including Bronislaw Malinowski , Alfred Radcliffe-Brown , Edward E. Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes - kinship remained the central component of their work; however, the focus changed. Her main focus was no longer on kinship terminology and the demonstration of social evolution. Her main interest was the question of the foundation of societies that functioned despite the absence of statehood. According to their knowledge, family relationships in particular determined the political structures and ensured the continued existence of stateless societies. Consequently, the anthropologists of that time concentrated on the rules of kinship assignment (marriage, filiation, descent), the social context of the nuclear family, the study of lineages and the variability of kinship institutions in different cultures.

functionalism

Bronislaw Malinowski brought a breath of fresh air to (kinship) ethnology through his long field research stays in Melanesia. He was not interested in terminology or evolutionist speculation. Rather, he tried to explain the customs of the Trobrianders in the context of their own culture and on the basis of the functions of their institutions. In the sense of functionalism , the nuclear family represented a universal social institution for him, the function of which was to “provide the community with members”. He was particularly interested in local family constellations and the relationship between parents and children - the latter partly due to the influence of Freudian psychology.

Structural functionalism

The former student of Malinowski's Edward Evan Evans-Pritchard soon set himself apart in his work from the “pure” functionalism of his former teacher and oriented himself more towards structural-functionalist currents. For representatives of this direction, the focus was no longer on the role of individual institutions and their function, but on the history, structure and connections within a society. A functional interpretation is only possible by uncovering the internal structure and the interrelationship of the institutions of a society. In The Nuer: A Description of the Modes of Livelihood and Political Institutions of a Nilotic People (1940), he focused on the structure of Nuer society, highlighting its division into political groups and ethnic groups and highlighting the principles that govern them Structure. In 1951 the second part of his monograph Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer followed , in which he took up his previous considerations and focused on marriage among the Nuer and showed its fundamental importance for family networks: “The network of kinship ties within any Nuer community can ultimately be reduced to a series of marriage unions ". With the appearance of African Political Systems , which he also published together with Meyer Fortes in 1940, he also founded political ethnology, which over the decades has almost entirely differentiated itself from its actual origin, kinship ethnology.

Similar to Evans-Pritchard, the South African-born social anthropologist Meyer Fortes showed in Dynamics of Clanship among the Tallensi (1945) the enormous influence that the Tallensi ethnic groups had on the social and political structure of their society. He distinguishes between two areas of kinship: domestic and politicojural. The first area relates to the private sphere of the nuclear family, i.e. mother, father and children. The latter includes the public roles or functions that are determined by the broader kinship, the lineage. The lineage was understood as the central main characteristic on the basis of which, above all, African societies were organized. The property was owned by the kin group; the descent of the individual members was determined by a common ancestor. According to Fortes, neither politics nor religion can be separated from kinship, but rather make up the cohesion in those societies.

In their anthology, African Systems of Kinship and Marriage, published in 1950 - including contributions by Max Gluckman , Fortes and Evans-Pritchard - Alfred Radcliffe-Brown and Daryll Forde emphasize the importance of kinship for ethnology in their introduction: “For the understanding of any aspect of the social life of an African people - economic, political, or religious - it is essential to have a thorough knowledge of their system of kinship and marriage ". As a co-founder of structural functionalism , Radcliffe-Brown treats kinship systems as a field of rights and obligations and sees them as parts of the structure of society.

structuralism

While in England marriage was discussed as a strengthening of the respective kinship group and marriage and the legitimate offspring arising from it were regarded as necessary for the continued existence of the group - i.e. marriage was part of the kinship system and fulfilled the function of maintenance - the French Claude Lévi-Strauss went in his Alliance theory assumes that kin groups were entities made in a system of alliances or expressed through marriage. The difference between kinship systems lies in the way in which women are exchanged in the respective system. These alliance structures created in this way have an impact on the social, political and religious space and structure society. But despite the change of perspective that Lévi-Strauss made in Les structures élémentaires de la parenté (1949), his work only slowly gained in importance because it was written in French and was extremely long.

The crisis in the 1970s

Until the 1960s, kinship ethnology was the central component of ethnology. In the 1970s, however, there was strong criticism of the previous approaches in kinship ethnology. The allegation was, on the one hand, that it was based on the illusion of universalism . On the other hand, their previous approach is too formal, as they leave no room for the difference between rules and actual behavior.

The American ethnologist David Murray Schneider in particular firmly rejected the abstract studies of kinship terminology and questioned the existence of kinship outside of Europe and the United States. In his opinion, kinship anthropologists wrongly assume that there are universally valid kinship categories. According to him, the central core of kinship ethnology should consist neither of the comparative analysis of kinship terminology nor of the function of social groups. Rather, the central question should be how cultural meanings can be created and how a symbolic system such as kinship can be understood in the respective cultural context (see also Clifford Geertz and Interpretative Ethnology ). This approach includes both a distance from the structural-thinking of the British (see above Evans-Pritchard, Radcliffe-Brown and Fortes) and from structuralism Levi-Strauss. In his two works, American Kinship (1968) and A Critique of the Study of Kinship (1984), the focus is on the relationship between nature and culture - more precisely between the biological and social aspects of kinship - and the development of cultural meanings in this context. By criticizing what, in his opinion, is Eurocentric assumption that kinship relationships are mainly due to blood and ancestry or sexual reproduction and asking what kind of kinship is biological and what is cultural, he paves the way for a new field in kinship ethnology.

Nevertheless, interest in kinship ethnology initially waned sharply in the 1970s and 1980s. In addition to Schneider's radical criticism, the reasons given are the feminist ethnology of the 1980s, in which gender gained more importance and kinship faded into the background. On the other hand, the formalism of the structure-oriented kinship ethnology deterred many ethnologists from dealing with kinship. From the end of the 1980s to the mid-1990s, kinship ethnology experienced a “renaissance”: the development of new reproductive technologies and the inevitable return to kinship-ethnological findings when it comes to social institutions such as marriage, family structures, etc. raised new questions. These newer concepts can also be summarized under the term New Kinship Studies.

New Concepts / New Kinship Studies

The renewed upswing in kinship ethnology in the 1990s can primarily be explained by “a change in the conception of kinship”. The new currents (also New Kinship Studies) deal more than ever in kinship research with the question of how kinship relationships arise and - as Schneider did before - question the long-prevailing premise that kinship is primarily based on genealogical connections. One of the basic theses of New Kinship Studies is "[d] that kinship is made by being thought, imagined and lived in real social processes that are constantly changing".

Topics of New Kinship Studies

Janet Carsten deals with the connection between the social and the biological, the boundaries of which she describes in many cases as blurred, if at all visible. In order to distinguish himself from previous concepts of kinship and the "arbitrary" dichotomy of nature and culture, Carsten introduces the concept of relatedness . Relatedness describes in the broadest sense "the ways in which people create similarity or difference between themselves and others". This very open formulation of kinship is intended to give space for the diversity of kinship and to understand kinship as a description of a state and not per se as a cultural or biological fact. In the collective work Cultures of Relatedness edited by Carsten, the authors use the term relatedness "in order to signal an openness to indigenous idioms of being related rather than a reliance on pre-given definitions or previous versions".

Based on Carsten's principle of relatedness, Signe Howell presents her concept of kinning in her book The Kinning of Foreigners , published in 2006 : “By kinning I mean the process by which a fetus or newborn child is brought into a significant and permanent relationship with a group of people, and the connection is expressed in a conventional kin idiom ". This process, which is neither trivial nor automatic, applies not only to newborns, but to any person who, e.g. B. through marriage, to enter into a family relationship with a group. According to Howell, relatives can take place through three practices: (1) through biological or natural contexts (kin by nature) ; (2) through social sharing through food or education (kin by nurture) and (3) through the law (kin by law) . Howell calls the counterpart to kinning de-kinning . It describes the retrograde process of becoming related, that is, a relationship with a person is dissolved or does not even come about, as is the case with children who are given up for adoption after their birth. Much of the more recent research on kinship initially focused primarily on social sharing and thus turned away from biological or legal contexts and towards an area of ​​kinship ethnology that had hitherto been almost completely ignored. Nurture as a form of making kinship includes “the everyday sharing of substances, experiences or spaces, times and places”. Shared substances can be body substances such as blood, sperm, genes or breast milk as well as substances such as food (see the work by Carsten 1997, Notermans 2004 and Weismantel 1995). Furthermore, the sharing of experiences (Weston 1991) or the performance of rituals (see: Schareika 2010) are considered as components of relatives.

In contrast to earlier work, genealogical ancestry still plays a role in such an approach to kinship, but it is no longer in the foreground. Rather, the lived kinship, as it takes place in everyday life, gains in importance and the process-like nature and flexibility of kinship are emphasized. Another difference to older works on kinship is that kinship ethnologists no longer limit themselves to the non-European area, but increasingly focus on Euro-American societies or take up debates from their own society (see, for example, Carsten's introduction in After Kinship 2004) . This regional reconsideration is also due to topics such as the new reproductive technologies or adoption, which have increasingly preoccupied kinship ethnology in the last few decades and which draw attention to one's own society (see: Kahn 2004 or Cil 2007).

But also the classic themes of kinship ethnology such as marriage, descent and filiation continue to attract attention among kinship ethnologists and are being reinterpreted. With regard to marriage, the criteria for choosing a partner and marriage strategies may change; their significance in the respective society - and thus also for ethnology - often remains central. More recent work therefore focuses, among other things, on the influence of social change on marriage practices or on interethnic relationships, which are examined across national, ethnic and cultural boundaries; see the articles by Alex and Beer in the same or Porter 2004.

The question of filiation, that is, of a person's descent, continues to concern kinship ethnologists; but with the proviso that the relationships between children and their biological parents do not necessarily have to be meant. In addition, there are works on child fostering or child fostering, which combine classic and new theories of kinship ethnology and show various practices of making kinship (see Alber et al. 2013a).

Less attention continues to be given to topics that deal with the relationships of the extended family - e. B. sibling or brother-in-law relationships or relationships between grandparents and their grandchildren - discuss (see: Notermans 2004 or Alber et al. 2013b).

criticism

But despite the “revival of kinship ethnology”, which was largely triggered by the impulses of New Kinship Studies, there are also positions that are directed against the reorientation of kinship ethnology. One of the main criticisms is the ignorance of formal analyzes of kinship. Alber and others also agree that if you focus only on the everyday relationship, there is a risk that the structural framework of relationship will be disregarded. It should be borne in mind, however, that "[every] negotiation and every creation of kinship [...] take place against the background of existing kinship structures", which in turn are negotiated in practice.

See also

literature

  • Erdmute Alber among other things: Relationship today: positions, results and research perspectives. In: Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer , Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, pp. 7–44.
  • Erdmute Alber, Jeanett Martin, Catrien Notermans (eds.): Child Fostering in West Africa. New Perspectives on Theory and Practices. Brill, Leiden 2013.
  • Erdmute Alber, Cati Coe, Tatjana Thelen (Eds.): The Anthropology of Sibling Relations. Shared Parentage, Experience and Exchange. Palgrave Mac Millan, New York 2013.
  • Johann Jakob Bachofen : The mother right. Schwalvenberg, Dortmund 1947 [1861].
  • Bronislaw Malinowski : A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Pan, Zurich 1949.
  • Janet Carsten: The Heat of the Hearth. The Process of Kinship in a Malay Fishing Community. Claredon Press, Oxford 1997.
  • Janet Carsten: Cultures of relatedness. New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2000.
  • Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press (New departures in anthropology), Cambridge / New York 2004.
  • Nevim Cil: Assistive reproductive medicine in Istanbul: Between privacy and the power of interpretation. In: Stefan Beck et al. (Ed.): Make relatives. Reproductive medicine and adoption in Germany and Turkey. (= Berliner Blätter. Volume 42). LIT, Münster / Hamburg / Berlin / London 2007, ISBN 978-3-8258-0422-0 , pp. 63–79.
  • Edward E. Evans-Pritchard : The Nuer. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1940.
  • Edward E. Evans-Pritchard: Kinship and Marriage among the Nuer. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1951.
  • Meyer Fortes : The dynamics of clanship among the Tallensi. Oxford Univ. Press, London et al. 1945.
  • Meyer Fortes, Edward E. Evans-Pritchard (Eds.): African political systems. Oxford Univ. Press, Oxford 1975.
  • Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage. An anthropological perspective. (= Cambridge studies in social anthropology. 50). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983.
  • Hans Peter Hahn: Ethnology. An introduction. (= Suhrkamp Taschenbücher Wissenschaft. 2085). Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2013.
  • Signe Howell: Kinning of foreigners. Transnational adoption in a global perspective. Berghahn Books, New York 2006.
  • Susan Martha Kahn: Eggs and Wombs: The Origins of Jewishness. In: Robert Parkin, Linda Stone (Eds.): Kinship and Family. To Anthropological Reader. Blackwell, Oxford et al. 2004, pp. 362-377.
  • Claude Lévi-Strauss : Les structures élémentaires de la parenté. Mouton, Paris 1977.
  • Henry Sumner Maine : Ancient Law. Its connection with the early history of society and its relation to modern ideas. Murray, London 1920 [1861].
  • John Ferguson McLennan: Primitive marriage. An inquiry into the origin of the form of capture in marriage ceremonies. (= Classics in anthropology ). University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1970 [1865].
  • Lewis Henry Morgan : Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln 1997 [1871].
  • Catrien Notermans: Sharing home, food, and bed: Paths of grandmotherhood in east Cameroon. In: Africa. 74 (1), 2004, pp. 6-27.
  • Karen A Porter: "Marriage is trouble". An analysis of kinship, gender identity, and socioculturel change in rural Tanzania. In: Anthropos. 99, 2004, pp. 3-13.
  • Alfred R. Radcliffe-Brown , Cyril Daryll Forde (Eds.): African systems of kinship and marriage. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1987.
  • Nikolaus Schareika: Generated ritually: Kinship as a symbolic interaction among the Wodaabe, southeast Nigerians. In: Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, pp. 93-118.
  • David M. Schneider : American Kinship. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 1968.
  • David M. Schneider: A critique of the study of kinship. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor 1984.
  • Elman R Service: A century of controversy. Ethnological issues from 1860 to 1960. (= Studies in anthropology ). Academic Press, Orlando 1985.
  • Linda Stone: New directions in anthropological kinship. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham 2001.
  • Thomas R Trautmann: Lewis Henry Morgan and the invention of kinship. University of California Press, Berkeley 1987.
  • Mary Weismantel: Making kin: kinship theory and Zumbagua adoptions. In: American Ethnologist. 22 (4), 1995, pp. 685-709.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 20.
  2. ^ Elman R. Service: A century of controversy. Ethnological issues from 1860 to 1960. (= Studies in anthropology ). Academic Press, Orlando 1985, p. 3.
  3. ^ Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage. An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983, p. 16.
  4. ^ Elman R. Service: A century of controversy. Ethnological issues from 1860 to 1960. Academic Press, Orlando 1985, p. 5.
  5. ^ Elman R. Service: A century of controversy. Ethnological issues from 1860 to 1960. Academic Press, Orlando 1985, p. 7.
  6. ^ Elman R. Service: A century of controversy. Ethnological issues from 1860 to 1960. Academic Press, Orlando 1985, p. 8.
  7. ^ A b Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage. An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983, p. 19.
  8. ^ Thomas R. Trautmann: Lewis Henry Morgan and the invention of kinship. University of California Press, Berkeley 1987, pp. 5f.
  9. ↑ Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, p. 16.
  10. ↑ a b Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, pp. 10f.
  11. ^ Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage. An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983, p. 20.
  12. ↑ Bronislaw Malinowski: A Scientific Theory of Culture and Other Essays. Pan, Zurich 1949, p. 37.
  13. ↑ Hans Peter Hahn: Ethnology. An introduction. Suhrkamp, ​​Berlin 2013, p. 120.
  14. ^ Evans-Pritchard: Kinship and marriage among the Nuer. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1961, pp. V.
  15. ↑ a b c d Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today - positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 10.
  16. ^ AR Radcliffe-Brown, Cyril Daryll Forde (Ed.): African systems of kinship and marriage. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1987, p. 1.
  17. ^ Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage. An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983, p. 21.
  18. ↑ a b c Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today - positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 9.
  19. ^ Robin Fox: Kinship and marriage - An anthropological perspective. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 1983, pp. 23f.
  20. ↑ Linda Stone: New directions in anthropological kinship. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham 2001, p. 5.
  21. ↑ Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, p. 18.
  22. ↑ Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, pp. 19f.
  23. ↑ Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, pp. 20f.
  24. ↑ Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 21.
  25. ↑ Janet Carsten: Cultures of relatedness. New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2000, p. 3.
  26. ↑ Janet Carsten: After kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2004, p. 82.
  27. ↑ Janet Carsten: Cultures of relatedness. New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge / New York 2000, p. 4.
  28. ^ Howell, Signe: Kinning of foreigners. Transnational adoption in a global perspective. New York: Berghahn Books, 2006, p. 8f.
  29. ↑ Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 11.
  30. ↑ Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 15.
  31. ↑ Erdmute Alber, Bettina Beer, Julia Pauli, Michael Schnegg (eds.): Relatives today. Positions, results and perspectives. Reimer, Berlin 2010, p. 12f.