essay

Gender relations in Tonga: a paradigm shift

Tongan culture and historyCanberraPublished In 1990 • Pages: 93-100, 217-230

By: James, Kerry.

AbstractBrief abstract written by HRAF anthropologists who have done the subject indexing for the document
In this article, James critiques anthropological accounts of how gender relations, and rank and authority are constituted in Tonga socio-political system, focusing on the local kin group, KāINGA. He argues that anthropologists are wrong to look at the KāINGA as a domestic unit, or a corporate group, which constitute gender relations and status. For James, gender relations and the KāINGA are embedded in a larger ideational and political system of rank and authority. Following Leach's arguments about the incompatibility of bilateral kinship structures and permanent property-holding unilineal kin groups, James argues that the KāINGA is part of a system of ranked titles which appear to be inherited patrilineally when in fact the heir could be any member of the KāINGA who is best qualified to lead. The document includes a 14-page bibliography and four-page glossary.
SubjectsDocument-level OCM identifiers given by the anthropology subject indexers at HRAF
Reviews and critiques
Status, role, and prestige
Gender status
Basis of marriage
Family relationships
Kindreds and ramages
Lineages
cultureCulture name from the Outline of World Cultures (OWC)
Tongans
HRAF PubDateThe date HRAF published the document
2006
RegionThe area the document pertains to
Oceania
Sub RegionThe more specific area the document pertains to, which is located within the Region
Polynesia
Document TypeMay include journal articles, essays, collections of essays, monographs, or chapters/parts of monographs
essay
Evaluation
Creator TypeThe type of person writing the document, e.g. Ethnographer, Missionary, Archaeologist, Folklorist, Linguist, Indigenous Person, and so on.
Ethnologist
Document Rating A ranking done by HRAF anthropologists based on the strength of the source material on a scale of 1 to 5, as follows: 1 - poor; 2 - fair; 3 - good, useful data, but not uniformly excellent; 4 - excellent secondary data; 5 - excellent primary data.
4: Excellent Secondary Data
5: Excellent Primary Data
AnalystThe HRAF anthropologist who subject indexed the document and prepared other materials for the eHRAF culture/tradition collection
Ian Skoggard; 2004
Field DateThe date the researcher conducted the fieldwork or archival research that produced the document
unknown
Coverage DateThe date or dates that the information in the document pertains to
1839-2987
Coverage PlaceLocation of the research culture or tradition (often a smaller unit such as a band, community, or archaeological site)
Tonga
NotesAdditional notes
K. E. James
Includes bibliographical references (p. 217-230)
LCCNLibrary of Congress Control Number
93193298
LCSHLibrary of Congress Subject Headings
Tongans