David Schneider: Rethinking Kinship in Cultural Terms
Introduction
David Schneider, an American anthropologist, fundamentally transformed how kinship is
understood in anthropology. While early kinship theorists like Lewis Henry Morgan and others
viewed kinship as a system rooted in biological relationships—specifically descent and blood
ties—Schneider critiqued this biological essentialism and offered an alternative: kinship should
be understood as a culturally constructed system of symbols and meanings. His work marked
a significant departure from previous approaches by focusing on how different societies define
kinship in their own cultural terms rather than assuming universal biological foundations.
1. Traditional Views on Kinship: The Descent Paradigm
Before Schneider, kinship was largely studied through the descent approach, particularly
influenced by scholars like Lewis Henry Morgan and John McLennan. For these thinkers,
kinship was derived from blood relations and genealogical descent. Morgan believed that human
relationships were organized based on genetics and biology, and that blood relationships
(consanguinity) formed the basis of social ties. Marriage was central in his theory because it
ensured biological reproduction, which led to the classification of kin.
• Morgan proposed two types of kinship classification:
o Descriptive systems, where each relative is assigned a specific term based on
distance from Ego (e.g., “father,” “mother’s brother”).
o Classificatory systems, where different relatives are grouped under broader terms
(e.g., all male relatives of a certain generation called “father”).
This mode of classification led to what Morgan saw as a natural kinship structure, where
kinship terminology directly mirrored biological relationships.
McLennan, too, emphasized blood and reproduction. In his view, biological reproduction led to
rights and duties, and social relationships were essentially social expressions of biological
facts. This view placed biological ties above social recognition, implying that only after being
biologically related could one become a socially recognized kin.
2. Schneider’s Critique of the Descent Approach
David Schneider challenged this view by arguing that kinship is not a universal system rooted in
biology, but rather a cultural construction that varies from one society to another. His critique
can be summarized in several key arguments:
• Kinship should not be reduced to biology or genealogical grids.
• Biological ties are not universally interpreted the same way in all cultures.
• Kinship terms and relationships must be understood in the context of the specific
culture being studied.
According to Schneider, previous anthropologists were wrong to treat biological reproduction
as a natural, universal fact around which all kinship systems revolved. Instead, he saw culture—
not biology—as the source of kinship meanings.
3. Schneider’s Alternative: A Cultural Approach to Kinship
Schneider proposed a new strategy for studying kinship. He outlined a four-part approach:
1. Situate kinship within the larger cultural system.
Kinship classification must be seen as part of a broader symbolic and cultural structure,
not in isolation.
2. Ask what "kinship" means in each culture.
Instead of assuming a fixed, biological definition, anthropologists should ask: What does
kinship mean for the people being studied? What defines a “relative” in their culture?
3. Narrow the definition of culture.
Culture should not be confused with social norms or rules. It must be seen as patterns of
meaning and symbolic systems, not just “what people do.” Schneider separates culture
(what symbols mean) from norms (what people are expected to do).
4. Extract the cultural system from the normative system.
Kinship should be studied at the cultural-symbolic level, focusing on meanings and
symbols rather than simply on observable behavior.
By applying this framework, Schneider shifted the study of kinship from a universalist,
biological model to a contextual, symbolic model. He argued that culture gives meaning to
biological relationships, and therefore each society defines kinship differently.
4. The Conglomerate and Pure Systems
Schneider analyzed American kinship using two models:
a) Conglomerate System
This is the dominant system in which:
• Kinship is defined through a network of related persons, centered around an individual
(the “ego”).
• The system includes factors like:
o Biogenetic ties
o Age and generation
o Gender roles
o Class, ethnicity, and other factors
• It is guided by a normative system—rules about how people should behave toward
relatives.
This is the concrete, action-oriented side of kinship—how people form relationships and
obligations in real life. It’s how anthropologists traditionally studied kinship.
b) Pure System
To understand kinship at the cultural-symbolic level, Schneider proposes abstracting from the
conglomerate system to the pure system. The pure system focuses on what makes a kinsman a
kinsman, not based on action or behavior but on symbolic meaning. It includes two key
components:
1. Shared biogenetic substance – Symbolic representation of a biological connection (e.g.,
blood, genes).
2. Code for conduct – Symbolic system of rights, duties, and moral obligations (e.g., love,
respect, care).
Based on these two elements, Schneider identifies three kinds of kinship relations:
• Blood relatives (both biogenetic and conduct) – e.g., parents and children.
• Relatives-in-law (only conduct) – e.g., spouse’s family.
• Distant blood relatives (only biogenetic substance) – e.g., cousins with no active
relationship.
This shows that kinship involves both the “order of nature” (biology) and the “order of law”
(cultural rules).
5. Action vs. Meaning: Differentiating Systems
Schneider distinguishes between action-based systems and being-based systems:
• Conglomerate system: Focuses on what people do and how they behave. Oriented
toward action.
• Pure system: Focuses on how people are symbolically related. Oriented toward being.
He uses the example of nationality to illustrate this distinction:
• Conglomerate system: Legal institutions (legislative, executive, judiciary).
• Pure system: Symbolic idea of what makes someone a “citizen.”
Similarly, kinship must be analyzed in both terms. But to understand culture, the focus must be
on the pure symbolic structure—what kinship means, not how it is enacted.
6. Kinship as Symbolic, Not Biological
Schneider argued that while biogenetic elements (like blood or reproduction) are represented
through cultural symbols, they are not equivalent to biology itself. For example:
• In American culture, the idea of blood ties symbolizes closeness and loyalty.
• However, blood as a fluid has no intrinsic power to create social bonds.
• It only gains meaning through cultural interpretation.
Thus, even biological concepts like parenthood, siblingship, and kin ties are symbolically
defined. Culture determines their significance—not nature.
7. Cultural Specificity and Cross-Cultural Comparison
A major issue Schneider addressed is how to compare kinship systems across cultures if each is
culturally specific. He argued that:
• Every culture’s kinship system is based on its own symbols and meanings.
• Therefore, kinship systems should not be compared based on genealogical grids or
universal categories.
• Instead, comparisons must be symbolic and contextual, focusing on how different
societies represent and organize relatedness.
For example, the Western family may appear unique when viewed normatively (as a legal or
social institution), but its symbolic elements (e.g., shared substance and obligations) can be
found in other cultures when viewed culturally.
8. Critique of Genealogical Grid
Schneider strongly criticized the use of the genealogical grid (a diagram showing kin relations
from Ego) for three reasons:
1. It doesn’t reflect cultural units – Actual cultural meanings are more complex than lines
of descent.
2. It doesn’t classify kin accurately – It assumes biology is the organizing principle, which
may not hold across cultures.
3. Kin terms are not the only classification tool – Kinship is expressed in symbols,
actions, rituals, and behavior that cannot be captured in diagrams alone.
9. Family and Kinship: A Theoretical Notion
For Schneider, even the idea of the “family” is more of a theoretical construct than an
empirical reality. Anthropologists have often assumed the nuclear family as a universal model,
but Schneider warns that:
• The family is a Western concept, often projected onto other cultures.
• In many societies, the symbolic systems that define kinship do not map onto the Western
family model.
• Kinship should be studied as part of a larger cultural system, not as a standalone
institution.
10. Conclusion: Toward a Cultural Understanding of Kinship
David Schneider revolutionized kinship studies by shifting the focus from biology to culture.
He argued that kinship is not universally defined by blood or reproduction, but by culturally
specific symbols and meanings. His approach emphasizes:
• The importance of context in understanding how people define and experience
relatedness.
• The need to separate cultural systems from social norms and behavior.
• The rejection of genealogical diagrams as a universal tool.
• The centrality of symbolism, meaning, and cultural logic in kinship systems.
Schneider’s work laid the foundation for post-structural and interpretive approaches in
anthropology. His legacy continues to influence anthropologists who study relatedness, family,
identity, and symbolic systems in different cultures.
