Introduction
One of the most notable aspects of what can be deemed the existential mode of Aboriginal people is that fact that the members of Indigenous communities in Australia tend to regard the notion of kinship crucially important, within the context of how they go about addressing the challenges of life. In its turn, this is being reflected by the well-observed phenomenon that the manner, in which each
Aboriginal tribesman acts towards the tribe’s other members, is dictated by the specifics of how he/she relates to them by blood. This phenomenon, however, can be easily explained, as such that helps the concerned individuals to maintain the systemic balance in Indigenous societies. In this paper, I will explore that validity of the above-stated at length, while outlining the qualitative aspects of the phenomenon in question.
Main Body
As it was mentioned earlier, Aboriginal people are indeed strongly ‘kinship-minded’. The fact that this is indeed being the case can be easily illustrated, in regards to the fact that the mechanical structure of how they relate towards each other, defines their behavioral patterns rather substantially.
After all, it is being well acknowledged by anthropologists that the qualitative aspects of the interrelationships between the members of a particular Aboriginal community, cannot be discussed outside of the most important feature of these people’s social organization – the existence of the systemically complex system of ‘kinship sections’ within the community’s hierarchic structure.
This system is about prescribing Aboriginal people with the highly specified behavioral mode, consistent with what happened to be the particulars of their blood-lineage, which in turn allows us to refer to it as the foremost instrument of the concerned individuals’ social self-identification. To confirm the full soundness of this suggestion, we can well refer to the specifics of how Aboriginal people enter into the marital relationships with each other – the process that is being closely regulated by the lineage-related considerations.
For example, even though an Aboriginal man is allowed to marry its cousins and other women that happened to belong to the same ‘kinship section’ with him, marrying the daughter of his father’s brother or the daughter of his mother’s sister would not be tolerated, as it would be considered incest.
Within the mentioned kinship-system, these women are being seen as the concerned person’s ‘sisters’. He, however, would be allowed to marry the daughter of his mother’s brother or the daughter of his father’s sister. In fact, such a move, on this man’s part, would be considered highly virtuous (Dousset 2008, p. 265).
Another indication that the factor of kinship plays an important role in the life of just about every Aboriginal individual, can be well deemed the sheer ritualization of the social sphere within Aboriginal communities – especially the ones that continue to be closely affiliated with the hunting/gathering activities of its members.
For example, it even today represents a commonplace practice among Koori peoples (NSW) to go about dividing the spoils of the hunt in the manner, closely observant of what happened to the kinship-status of each of the community’s members (Timbery 2011, p. 150).
Whereas, the community’s elders are being traditionally provided with the ‘best cuts’, there appears to be an even more privileged category of people, in this respect – the related (through marriage) individuals that formally belong to another tribe (community), such as those with the status of sons and daughters (fathers and mothers) ‘in law’.
What is especially notable, in this respect, is that the practice in question is highly ritualistic – Koori people indulge in this sort of behavior, without being able to come up with the rational explanation, as to why they do it, in the first place.
What is particularly interesting, in this respect, is that Aboriginal people do not think of the notion of kinship, as such that only defines their attitudes towards the living relatives, but towards the long deceased ones, as well. As Glowczewski noted, “The Ancestral Beings are not just simple mythical ancestors, but they are active principles who participate in the becoming of things” (1999, p. 6). This, of course, suggests that the mentioned notion can be well referred to, as such that remains at the center of Aboriginal people’s cosmological worldviews.
One may wonder about how this contributes to the maintenance of balance in Aboriginal societies? In order to be able to answer this question, we will first need to mention the fact that Aboriginal people closely adhere to the values of the so-called ‘holistic’ (spiritual) existence. As Grant pointed out:
Aboriginal spirituality is defined as at the core of Aboriginal being, their very identity. It gives meaning to all aspects of life, including relationships with one another and the environment. All objects are living and share the same soul and spirit as Aboriginals. There is a kinship with the environment (Grant 1996, p. 9).
This, of course, suggests that, unlike what it happened to be the case with White Australians, Aboriginal people do not subjectualise themselves within the surrounding natural/social environment, while striving to attain the state of ‘oneness’ with it – something that extrapolates these people’s unconscious preoccupation with trying to ‘blend’ with the nature.
There is nothing phenomenological about the mentioned mental trait, on the part of Native Australians. After all, it can be interpreted as the indication that the way, in which Aboriginal people address life-challenges, can be well compared to that of the higher mammals, which also rely on their ability to ‘blend’ with nature, as one of the survival-ensuring mechanisms.
In its turn, this explains the fact that, as it was mentioned earlier, there is the strong element of a ritual to how Aborigines go about constructing their kinship-related attitudes (Shapiro 1988, p. 278).
Just as it happened to be the case with the higher mammals, they do not possess the scientific understanding of how the world turns around. This, of course, leaves these people with only one option, when it comes to addressing the challenges of existence – memorizing the ‘luck-inducing’ behavioral patterns and ritualizing them (Bekoff 2000, p. 863).
The rationale behind this suggestion is quite apparent. In the aftermath of having successfully overcome a particular obstacle by acting in one way or another, one will be naturally inclined to adopt the same behavioral pattern, while trying to overcome a similar (but not the same) obstacle – it is the manner in which people’s unconscious psyche works. This explains the origin of just about any behavioral ritual, practiced by animals and humans.
While keeping this in mind, we can speculate that back at the dawn of times, Aboriginal people must have learned in a hard way that having sex with their closest relatives is counterproductive, because it results in the birth of physically and mentally defective children.
Nevertheless, given the fact that back then the Aboriginal tribes rarely consisted of more than 200-300 individuals (this continues to be the case nowadays, as well), it created the objective prerequisites for the affiliated tribesmen to enter into specifically the ‘cross-cousin’ sexual relations with each other.
Consequentially, it prompted them to ritualize this type of behavior – hence, the phenomenon of Aborigines paying very close attention to the kinship-related issues within their communities. It is not just the part of these people’s cultural uniqueness, but rather something that, for the duration of millennia, was allowing Aborigines to maintain the systemic integrity of their societies.
This continues to be the case today, as well, although in the somewhat different sense. Nowadays, the kinship-mindedness of Aboriginal people helps them to resist the temptation to become thoroughly assimilated within modern Australian society. After all, it does not represent much of a secret that, even though in today’s Australia these people are formally praised, as the continent’s rightful owners, they nevertheless continue to be implicitly discriminated against.
And, as sociologists are well aware of, the best way to deal with the subtle forms of discrimination, on the part of the representatives of racial minorities in the West, is maintaining their own ‘societies within the society,’ while contributing to their growth. In this respect, one’s strongly defined kinship-mindedness will come as an indispensable asset.
The rationale behind this suggestion is quite apparent. By remaining strongly committed to the values of a tribalistic living, which presupposes people’s endowment with the above-mentioned mental trait, Aboriginal Australians are able to ensure the functional resilience of their communities, in the sense of making these communities less vulnerable to the forces of secularisation/consumerism, which define the essence of the socio-cultural realities in the country’s urbanised areas.
After all, it remains a well-established fact that it is exclusively the verbal forms of communication that enact the process of Aboriginal people growing to appreciate their own cultural identity – it is up to the community’s elders to verbally enlighten the representatives of the younger generations of Aborigines about the societal implications of this identity.
However, in order for this form of communication to continue being thoroughly effective, the members of Aboriginal communities must be willing to indulge in the close and personal socialization with each other continuously. The sensation of being deeply kindred with even their most distant relatives, experienced by Aboriginal people, serves as a powerful stimulant, in this respect.
Therefore, it is indeed fully appropriate to suggest that the fact that there are finely tuned kinship-structures in just about every Aboriginal community, does contribute rather substantially to maintaining Indigenous societies well-balanced.
Conclusion
I believe that the earlier deployed line of argumentation, as to what can be considered the discursive significance of the discussed subject matter, is fully consistent with the paper’s initial thesis. Thus, it will be thoroughly logical, on our part, to conclude this paper by reinstating once again that there is indeed an interconnecting link between the notions of kinship and ‘nativeness’ (in the Australian sense of this word). This state of affairs will continue to persist into the future, as the objective laws of history/evolution are predetermining it.
References
Bekoff, M 2000, ‘Animal emotions: exploring passionate natures’, Bioscience, vol. 50, no.10, pp. 861-870.
Dousset, L 2008, ‘The “global” versus the “local”: cognitive processes of kin determination in Aboriginal Australia’, Oceania, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 260-279.
Glowczewski, B 1999, ‘Dynamic cosmologies and Aboriginal heritage’, Anthropology Today, vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 3-9.
Grant, C. 1996, ‘Gospel and culture: an Aboriginal perspective’, in A Pattel-Gray (ed), Martung Upah: Black and White Australians seeking partnership, Harper Collins Publishers, Melbourne, pp. 90-135.
Shapiro, W 1988, ‘Ritual kinship, ritual incorporation and the denial of death’, Man, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 275-297.
Timbery, N 2011, ‘Archives and Indigenous communities can work together: one Koori’s perspective’, Archives & Manuscripts, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 145-178.