In your readings so far, what do you see as the most convincing evidence that the Khmer kinship system might be or might not be described as matrilineal or matriarchal or both?
There is no use denying the fact that societies that appeared in different regions have different peculiarities and stages of their development. First of all, it should be said that some natural forces influence the acquisition of one or another tradition or peculiarity. Speaking about the Khmer kinship system, it is necessary to analyze the evolutionary paradigm of Southeast Asian societies. The first thing to be mentioned in this analysis is the great complexity of giving definition to the Khmer kinship system. The thing is that it cannot be definitely determined either as a matrilineal or matriarchal one.
There are several reasons for this statement. First of all, there is no direct evidence which states that the Khmer kinship system can be defined as matrilineal or matriarchal. Moreover, there is a tendency to consider it to be cognatic. This fact means that both males and females play the same significant role in the life of children. They belong to the mother and fathers side and, moreover, they inherit their wealth, power, and influence.
Additionally, both men and women can have the same influence on the development of the kinship of a child. However, there is also a great number of adherers to the idea that the Khmer kinship system can be described as a matrilineal one because of the model of a royal succession of priestly families in Cambodia. However, usually newly married couples live at the brides home with her relatives and this fact can serve as evidence of the matriarchal character of the Khmer kinship system.
With this in mind, it is possible to say that the Khmer kinship system can be described as both matrilineal and matriarchal as women have an important role within the family, however, they are less powerful in the social domain and all decisions, especially in the rural area, are made by the chief who is a man.
In your readings so far, what do you see as the most convincing evidence on whether in Cambodia there are local institutions structuring the social, economic, and religious activities of individual households?
It is always difficult to analyze the functioning of some institutions which organize the life of some rural or almost undeveloped societies. There is no use denying the fact, that Cambodia can be taken as a society of this sort. Traditionally weak development of some centralized system was followed by the rule of Pol Pot, which made the situation even more complicated. With this in mind, an analysis of local institutions is needed.
First of all, it should be said that the majority of modern anthropologists cling to the notion that there are no institutions that structure and organize the social, economic, and religious activities of individual households in Cambodia. Partially it is connected with the traditional lifestyle in Cambodian rural areas. The thing is, that families which live there organize their activities by themselves through kinship ties. Moreover, such an issue as reciprocity is extremely popular there. Additionally, the institution of arranged marriages also helps to manage the life and activity of different households without any social institutions. The majority of people are not interested in the political life of a country and they do not need any participation in it. People work without being employed or paid by some local institutions.
That is why it is possible to speak about the developed system of self-production which exists there. However, in cases of emergency, the whole village can work together to achieve some purpose under the command of the chief. Besides, the attitude to religion always shows some individualistic character of Cambodian society. People do not gather together organized by some local institution. That is why it is possible to admit the absence of different institutions of this kind.
In your readings so far, what do you see as the most convincing evidence on whether members of ethnic minorities are discriminated against in Cambodia?
It is obvious, that the history of Cambodia is full of dramatic moments that are connected with the death of a great number of people. The whole world knows about Pol Pots regime which resulted in the death of millions of people. Modern investigations of this issue show that a great number of victims of this regime were discriminated against because of their nationality. Trying to create a society of a new type, Pol Pots regime took ethnic minorities as people who were not needed.
With this in mind, a great number of Chinese people and other minorities were discriminated against. These people were taken as a great threat to the existing regime. Being rather rich and wealthy, representatives of these minorities had something to lose and that is why they had some hesitations about the nature of new power. Additionally, capitalists were taken as a threat because there was no place for money and monetary relations in Khmer society That is why the necessity to get rid of these people existed. Moreover, mass extermination of Vietnamese people was promoted. However, Pol Pots rule was ended and nowadays Cambodia tries to rebuild society.
New standards and aims are outlined. Besides, there is still a place for discrimination in Cambodian society. Nevertheless, it is possible to say that is it not so harsh as it used to be and, moreover, some actions whose main aim is to get rid of its manifestations are taken. Khmer still sees Chinese people as rich capitalists, however, it is difficult to call this process discrimination based on some ethical issue.