ABSTRACT KINSHIP MORALITY IN THE INTERACTION PATTERN OF SOME KIKUYU FAMILIES BY Carolyn M. Clark Kinship morality is made up of certain understandings shared by members of a society which indicate the prOper behavior among kin in that society. Fortes in Kinship and the Social Order has suggested that a distinctive feature of kinship morality is a kind of "prescriptive altruism” which posits an axiom of amity in relations among kin. The axiom of amity includes statements which support the idea that kin should be supportive, co-Operative, helpful, cohesive, amicable, and have solidarity. It was found that in an unpublished manuscript on the Kikuyu by the late L. S. B. Leakey that relations among kin were characterized by ideas centering on respect, obedience, modesty, love, and mutual support. The modalities through which these ideas were expressed included control and use of "abusive" language, touching and personal space, and limitations on nudity. Leakey's findings were consonant with those of Kikuyu ethnographer and President of Kenya, Jomo Kenyatta. Both authors wrote about a "traditional" period in Kikuyu life set around the turn of the century. There is a conservatism in major ideas in Kikuyu kinship morality though the modalities through which they are expressed changed as the general society changed. Kikuyu informants, basically Carolyn.M. Clark members of three families whom I knew, gave support to the following as understandings within Kikuyu kinship morality: Kin should have affection for one another. Kin should be responsible for the social and moral well-being of other kin. Kin should be loyal to one another. Using the extended case method, several cases were investigated in which kin sometimes acted according to these understandings. The incentives which encouraged behavior in accord with the understandings and the constraints on behavior which encouraged behavior counter to the under- standings concerning kinship morality were investigated. Affection was the most variable in that several factors influenced behavior counter to it. Responsibility emerged as a strong canalizer of kin behavior, while loyalty was seen as the most important of these understandings. It served as an "organizing understanding" in that it was acted in pertinent situations where the others were not. Loyalty to kin served to validate membership in the family group, and was a binding and compelling force for family solidarity. Economic factors were among the strongest influences in creating conflict within the family group, especially in the marital relations of one closely studied couple. KINSHIP MDRALITY IN THE INTERACTION PATTERN OF SOME KIKUYU FAMILIES BY Carolyn Martin Clark A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Anthropology 1975 © Copyright by CAROLYN MARTIN CLARK 19 75 ii To Corrine and Koren, my mother and daughter iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people, in many different ways, have helped me complete this dissertation. There are the friends Who acted as babysitters and the babysitters who became friends whose loving care of my daughter allowed me the peace of mind to spend the hours necessary to write this dissertation. The support of women faculty members at Kresge College and on the Board of Studies in Anthropology at the University of California, Santa Cruz helped supply the energy needed to get through those hours. Several men and women of the faculty, staff and student body at U. C. Santa Cruz were well wishers-- I appreciate their concern and thoughtfulness. The Ethnic Minority Group at Kresge often listened to my gripes and helped.me over trying periods. The typists who worked on the various drafts of the dissertation were women of good cheer who worked hard and well under great time pressure. The artist and cartographers who worked on the dissertation contributed their skill as well as good wishes. Some of those Who should be acknowledged for helping me in this project did not make solely positive contributions; they were stimulating irritants. The university administra- tion whose rules and deadlines provided the impetus for me to begin writing falls into this category. My family and non-university friends Who could not quite comprehend Why iv it was taking me so many years to write my "book" helped me keep the endeavor in perspective. The Black students with Whom.I worked wanted me to get my Ph.D., but were not quite sure that all that work was necessary to get it. I was never sure that they thought that having "to write" was a legitimate excuse for missing one of their activities. My husband was supportive in many ways, but his continual ques- tioning of the value of an advanced degree for any Black person, at this time, made me come to grips with what I was doing and why I was doing it. I appreciate the comments on an earlier version of this dissertation which are given by Nancy Tanner, Board of Studies in Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz; David Schneider, Department of AnthrOpology, Univer- sity of Chicago; Harold Scheffler, Department of Anthropology, Yale University; and my husband, Cedric X. Clark, Director of Education, University of Islam, San Francisco. Gini Bianchi, Committee on Education, University of California, Santa Cruz, gave me help of various kinds, including editorial assistance on that draft. The chairman of my doctoral guidance committee was Marc Swartz, Department of Anthropology, University of California, San Diego. I began studying with Professor Swartz more than ten years ago, when I was a sephomore at ‘Michigan State University. He encouraged me to go on to graduate school there; worked closely with me during our years at Michigan State, and maintained an interest in my work in the years after we both left East Lansing. Much of the way I view society and culture was gained in classes taught by Marc Swartz; his interpretation of the "processual approach" has greatly influenced the way I "do" anthropology, and his analysis of African social systems provided the framework in Which I phrased many questions Which I have pursued in my research. Professor Swartz painstakingly read several drafts of this dissertation, and give penetrating and detailed comments on them. I grate- fully adknowledge his influence, help, and concern. Other teachers whose influence on my approach to the study of kinship and social organization should be recog- nized are Ralph Nicholas, now at the Department of Anthropology, University of Chicago; Whose questions on social organization have always intrigued me; William Davenport, Department of Anthr0pology, University of Pennsylvania; who showed me a different perspective on kinship and social organization; and.Alfred Hudson, now at the Department of Anthropology, University of Massachu- setts; whose attention to the details of unilineal and non-unilineal kinship systems helped me break out of old systems of categorization. Alfred Opubor of the African Studies Center, Michigan State University, was a member of my committee. When I was an undergraduate at Michigan State he introduced me to African literature, Which helped bring to live the peOple in the social systems Which I vi studied. Sections of this dissertation in which I attempt character sketches of several Kikuyu family members show this influence. In addition to‘Marc Swartz and Alfred Opubor, the other members of my committee were Bernard Gallin, Chairman of the Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University; and Robert McKinley, Department of AnthrOpology, Michigan State University. Professor MoKinley's comments on the final draft of my dissertation were very encouraging, the thought and care he put into reading my work is sincerely appreciated. I would like to thank all of the members of my committee. This dissertation contains some intimate details of Kikuyu family life. These are things which many Kikuyu would not reveal to non-family members, and Which they might not have revealed to me had they or I known that I would analyze them in this dissertation. It was fortunate that I was accepted by these Kikuyu families; I hape that they will recognize the material presented here as an attempt to illuminate some of the aspects of Kikuyu culture which influence intrafamilial relationships. I am.deeply grateful to the Kikuyu families with Whom I lived and worked. The young men who served as my assis- tants and Who carried out the survey questionnaire in the village deserve special recognition. Kikuyu university professors, students, and government officials sometimes vii used their special knowledge of position to acquaint me with various aspects of Kikuyu history or social life. It is not without some difficulty that I got to know Kikuyu in many walks of life; I am grateful to those Who let this stranger into their lives. viii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ........................................... xi LIST OF FIGURES ......................................... xii FOREWARD ............................................... xiii ORTHOGRAPHIC STYLE ....................................... xv CHAPTER 1: KIKUYU KINSHIP MORALITY ....................... 1 Who are Kin? ........................................ 2 How is Kinship Morality Investigated? ................ 9 What is Kinship Morality? ........................... 14 The Axiom of Amity .................................. 17 Understanding Kinship Morality ...................... 25 The Axiom of Amity and the Kikuyu ................... 31 Modesty ............................................. 38 Love ................................................ 45 Respect and Obedience ............................... 54 Mutual Support ...................................... 59 Traditional Kin Interaction and the Axiom of Amity..67 Some Changes in the Pattern of Kin Interaction ...... 71 Responsibility, Loyalty and Affection Within Kikuyu.Kinship Morality .......................... 78 Summary and Discussion .............................. 83 CHAPTER 2: THE CONTEXT OF RESEARCH ....... . .............. 86 The Kikuyu: Pre-Colonial Interethnic Relations and Physical Environment ......................... 86 Problems in Kikuyu Ethnography ...................... 92 The Kikuyu Today ................................... 101 The Papulation of Kanje ............................ 110 Three Kikuyu.Families ....... . ...... . ............... 114 The Matthew Githingi Family.... .................... 114 ‘Matthew Githingi ................................... 117 Njoki, ‘Wife of Githingi ............................ 122 Cucu, Grandmother ................................. 124 Francis, Son of Githingi ........................... 125 Eunice, 'Wife of Francis ............................ 126 Katherine, Daughter of Githingi .................... 128 The Mungai Family of Dukani..... ............... ....130 Mbari ya Burugu of Kanje .......................... .132 Njoroge, Father of Chege ........................... 133 Chege and George ................................. ..134 Summary ............................................ 136 ix TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page CHAPTER 3: FIVE CASES OF KIN INTERACTION... ........ ...138 The Distribution of Affection, Responsibility and Loyalty: A Summary.... ........... . .......... 147 The Case Studies ..... ........ ...... . ...... . ....... 149 Case 1: The Would Be Bride ......... . ............. 150 Case 2: The Talkative Wife ................... ....174 Case 3: The Unruly Children ....... ...... ...... ...197 Case 4: Family Loyalty..... ...... . ............... 207 Case 5: The Loutish Brother ....... . ........... ...218 Chapter Summary.......... ........... ... ...... .....222 Affection ...... ........ ...................... .....225 Responsibility ......... ...... ...... . ............. .229 Loyalty. ...... . ........ . .......................... 232 CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS: "ORGANIZING UNDERSTANDINGS"..237 "Organizing Understandings"--an Overview .......... 251 Summary ....... . ...... . ............................ 252 APPENDIX.A ................... ..... .................... .256 APPENDIX B ..... .... ................. . .................. 262 APPENDIX C...... .................................. .....265 APPENDIX D. ................. . .......................... 281 LIST OF REFERENCES.... ............. ........ ............ 283 LIST OF TABLES Page Table 1 Population, Area and Population Density ............ 87 xi LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1 Age Grade Organization .............. ..... ........ ...98 Figure 2 Some Localized Clans of Kanje ...................... 109 Figure 3 Mbiri Location and Fort Hall Township .............. 113 Figure 4 Sketch of the Githingi Homestead ................... 116 Figure 5 Case 1; The WOuld-Be Bride ....................... .172 Figure 6 Case 2; The Talkative Wife ........................ 198 Figure 7 Case 3; The "Unruly Children" ..................... 208 Figure 8 Case 4; Family Loyalty ................ . ........... 219 Figure 9 Summary of All Cases ............................... 223 APPENDIX.A Figure Al Genealogy of Cucu,‘MOther of Matthew Githingi ...... 257 Figure A2 Partial Genealogy of Francis, Showing Close Relatives .......... . ...... . ...................... 258 Figure A3 Genealogy of George Irungu of Mbari ya Burugu and Ngurure. ..... ........................... ....259 Figure.A4 Genealogy of Chege of Mbari ya Burugu.. ........ ..261 xii FOREWORD The fieldword upon Which this dissertation was based was funded by a grant from.the National Institute of Mental Health of the United States of America Health, Education and Welfare Department. I was in.Kenya from April, 1971 to February, 1972; with a brief trip back to the States in the fall of 1971. In.May, 1971, my husband and I began living with a Kikuyu family in Murang'a District, Central Province of ‘Kenya. During our stay we got to know some members of this family well and fortunately became acquainted with some of their friends and relatives -- it is on this group that this dissertation is based. I am grateful to those Kikuyu Who in helping me understand.Kikuyu social life answered my many questions on family relations and shared with me their ideas about kinship. A study of intrafamilial rela- tions was not included in my research proposal; it was because of the interest of the Kikuyu in this area and the willingness of some of them.to talk to me about family life that this dissertation came about. Many of the younger members of the families with Whom I worked spoke English, and conversation with them and some others were largely conducted in English. Interviews with older peOple were usually done through an interpreter, and two separate transcriptions and translations of each taped xiii interview were completed in the field. I studied the Kikuyu language during my stay, but my comprehension of the language was considerably better than my speaking facility. By the end of my stay in the field I could follow some conversations quite well, to the surprise of my Kikuyu teachers. Swahili, the language which I had studied before going to Kenya, did not prove as useful as expected. Young peeple preferred to speak English, and the middle-aged, for Whom Swahili was a major second language, were hesitant to use it in extended conversations; asking instead that their words in.Kikuyu be translated into English. To disguise the identity of the peeple discussed in this dissertation,I have not used their real names, and have changed the names of the village and market town in which I worked. xiv The orthography of Kikuyu words used in this disserta- tion follows that used.by T. G. Benson in the Kikuyu-English Dictionary, published by Oxford University at the Clarendon Press in 1964. CHAPTER 1: KIKUYU KINSHIP MDRALITY In this dissertation a description and analysis of the pattern of kinship interaction among the Kikuyu of Murang'a, Kenya is attempted. Mere specifically it concerns the "kinship morality" of the Kikuyu: the understandings1 about the prOper behavior toward kin which the Kikuyu share; the actual behavior among kin; and the organizations of under- standings by which some understandings are more highly ranked than others. Chapter 3 of the dissertation is de- voted to the explication of Egggs, through which are demonstrated not only the cultural constructs or understandings concerning kinship interaction, but also the instances in Which peOple do and do not act according to the expectations contained in these understandings. The final chapter includes a rank ordering of these understandings. In the second chapter a brief historical overview of Kikuyu social organization is presented. Here, in the first chapter, I would like to explain the approach to the study of inter- action among Kikuyu kinspeople which I take and to answer certain questions necessary for this analysis. 1 A rather specialized meaning of the term."understandings" will be used throughout this dissertation. Following Marc Swartz (1975, in press) the term "understanding" will be used to connote for any given society "the range of re- sponses acceptable in given situations and how to interpret and evaluate what other people do." Shared understandings, according to this approach, "are experienced by group meme bars as Egg correct and necessary way of looking at the universe and its contents. (Swartz's emphasis)". l Who are Kin? Kikuyu refer to themselves as the children of Gikuyu and Mumbi, the primordial couple Who were created by God, placed in.Mukurwe wa Gathanga in.Murang'a and given land in all directions as far as the eye could see. ‘Middleton and Kershaw (1953:41) in a compilation and updating of Kikuyu ethnographies state "the common right of all Kikuyu in the ancestral land as children of Gikuyu and Mumbi makes them all brothers to each other; they are not only children of Mumbi but also children of this ancestral land which is their father and mother." Thus land and kin are closely intertwined for the Kikuyu to such an extent that in the past land, held in common, was one of the primary symbols of kin- ship; and in recent history, culminating in the Mau.Mau movement of the 1950's, "Kikuyu control of Kikuyu land" was a rallying cry Which united almost the entire Kikuyu popula- tion.2 Traditionally, rights to specific plots of land were vested in the mbari (family group), a group which varied in depth from.three to eight generations and in size from 30 to 5,000 members, according to Middleton and Kershaw 2 There is no historical record of the entire Kikuyu pO‘ulation ever actin Wholly in concert on any parti- cu ar issue or event see Middleton & Kershaw, 1953; an overview of Kikuyu traditional social and political organization is presented in Chapter 2). The issue of land, particularly the alienation of land to European settlers, did serve to unite various Kiku groups in a common cause. Not all were united in t eir Opinion on the way to regain their land. The Myth of Mau.Mau (1966) by Rosberg and Nottingham.explores the nature of the support for this movement. (1953:27). Membership in a gbggi was generated by tracing descent through males from.a male ancestor, but was usually validated3 by participation in "common initiation ceremonies, family and "group" sacrifices, contribution to blood money, eating of sacrificial animals in marriage transactions, and family ceremonial eating of meat" (Middleton and Kershaw, 1953:24). An alternative means of joining a mbagi included adoption through a special religious ceremony by which poorer strangers were incorporated into a group, or other men attached themselves to men who were wealthier and more important. Although land still remains an important political symbol for the Kikuyu, it does not seem to occupy the central position in the kinship system.which it once did. PeOple now hold individual title deeds to land, with limitations on the inheritance pattern placed on them.by 3 In an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Cornell, 1967), Alfred Hudson delineated three kinds of rules used in the formation of descent groups: generative, validative and co-ordinative. According to his usage, a generative rule included the cultural steps by which a person could trace descent from an ancestor, While the validative rules InvoIved the construction of ascent lines from e o by the use of culturally accept- aEIe 11553. The va dative rule and co-ordinative rule Which involved relationships among descent groups were of particular importance in the cognatic kinship system.Hudson studied. The use of individual Option in the construction of ascent lines was a means through Which peOple validated their membership in one descent group or another. For the Kikuyu the cultural expecta- tions concerning descent and ascent lines are not so variable, and participation in specifiable events looms important in validating membership in a particular descent group. 4 the government.4 ‘Most Kikuyu readily give genealogical ties when asked about their relatives. Both older and younger informants were able to give genealogies of considerable depth (seven generations for the oldest female informant, and one of six generations, taken at a different time, from'her 25 year old grandson) and of great collateral expansion. Appendix A contains four genealogies, numbers Al and A2 are those of the grandmother and her grand- son. When collecting these genealogies it became clear that an emphasis was placed on male descendents of male ancestors-- fathers, father's brothers, father's fathers, father's father's brothers, Egg. The wives of these men were generally included, but the consanguinal kin, except for egO's mother, were usually not included. Relatives within this genealogical range which were most likely to be "forgotten" were mother's parents, father's father's sisters, and father's father's brothers; yielding the broad-based pyramidal form Which has become a familiar an- thrOpological symbol for an ancester focussed group whoSe 4 A land consolidation program.in which the various par- cels of land owned by an individual were demarcated and consolidated into one large holding was completed in Kikuyu land by 1965. The number of peOple Who may in- herit any one piece was fixed so that the land holdings would not revert to small un-economic parcels, but this also served to limit interest of the group in the land. Gary Ferraro, in an unpublished doctoral dissertation (Syracuse University, 1971) indicates that in some areas this ruling has not affected the traditional inheritance pattern. z. 28:- t0! C03: ll; ref rel no: adc the t0 members are recruited on a unisexual basis, here restricted to ties to males.5 Even though all the peeple listed on a genealogy are considered relatives or kin, they were not all considered "family". The Kikuyu word Which I translate as "family" is mbggi; it has been defined as an exogamous segment of a sub-clan (cf Middleton and.Kershaw, 1953:24). I think the most effective translation of the term is "family group", for today the term is often used to refer to a loose association of extended families, and in the litera— ture on traditional Kikuyu social organization it may refer to a lineage or a sub-clan. A family or 9925; is a sub-set of the group of relatives listed on a genealogical chart. To my knowledge, none of the families with whom I had close contact included adapted members or other non-genealogical members. Although the generational depth described for a family was similar to that given for relatives, the collateral extension given for a family was considerably reduced. In Figure A2 Rabin Fox (1967) in an attempt to present a schematic Which encompasses unilineal and cognatic descent groups identified the kind of recruitment of members -- unre- stricted and restricted, by sex or other -- and the type of focus -- ego or ancestor -- as the primary dimen- sions of the paradigm. By this paradi a cognatic kindred is a group whose recruitment 0 members is unrestricted and which has an ego focus. The ideal Kikuyu descent group would fit the pattern of a unilineal lineage Which is ancester focussed and has membership restricted by sex (cf Fox, 1967; 171-172). in.Appendix.A, the broken line encloses those positions Whose occupants are considered "close relatives". This informant was not asked to indicate his family or mbagi, but the process of narrowing the range of relatives from all those included in the genealogical mesh to a sub-set of those has clearly begun here. Figures A3 and A4 in Appendix A do represent depictions of a.mb§£i or family group. The two young men from Whom this information was taken claimed to be "cousins"6, members of the same mbgri, and were Specifically giving me information concerning their 9113112. or family. The two disagreed on the name of the mbagi to Which they belonged, but each asserted strongly that indeed they were members of the same family. They were not able to relate their exact genealogical connection, though the father of one of them.explained to me at our first meeting that the two young men had the same FFF.‘ This relationship did not show up on the charts, taken independently from.the two young men, nor on the one taken after the one young man had consulted his father, Who had originally told me of their relationship. It is likely that the two had the English was the language in Which much of my fieldwork was conducted. The English term "cousin" was used to identify close patrilineal cousins, determined on the basis of genealogical relationship and the nature of the interaction. More distant patrilineal relatives and many matrilineal relatives were referred to simply as "relatives". Figure A3 in Appendix A gives the English terminological equivalents to some Kikuyu kin terms in parenthesis. tha you the so. fi is D) (N same FFFF or FFFFF and trace descent through a pair of half-brothers. The disagreement over the name of the mbggi lay with these brothers: One called it mbggi;yg Ngurure and Burugu (the pair of half-brothers in question), while the other identified it as mbggi.y§.Burugu.7 It should be noted that members of a family believe .that it is possible to trace these connections -- the young men considered it a challenge to do so; but that they are not usually called upon to do so, iggg, the social recitation of genealogical relationships seldom figures into Kikuyu social or religious activities. There is no interest in tracing the genealogical relationship to a person a Kikuyu only called a "relative", indeed the general impression given is that they "could not know" how they are related. Which relatives are to be considered members of the family varies, but the core of the mbggi tends to be a set of brothers and their unmarried sisters, and the wives and children of these brothers. The mbggi in Figure A3 includes unmarried women only in ego's generation or the younger A comparison of the two charts, Figure A3 and.A4 in .Appendix.A, reveal that Figure A3 goes one generation further back than Figure A . Chege in Figure A4 traced descent through Burugu While Irungu in Figure A3 traced descent through his half-brother. Both young men were asked how they were related to wanjiru, a woman each identified as a cousin. Both traced their connection to her through wahoria, but Chege in Figure A4 identified wahoria as the son of Burugu's brother, While Irungu identified him as a son of Burugu's half-brother. Neither young man included the other in his genealogy. generation. The ego of this chart, George Irungu, was a young man of about 21 years of age; the women of his generation were close to him in actual age. The peeple of the younger generation were all children. His sister's husband lived on George's family land and he and his children were included as members of the family. Unmarried women were included in the first parental generation in Chege's chart, Figure A4. Two of these women, Chege's FZ(s), one of Whom was a Widow, lived at Chege's father's homestead. Chege was about 20 years old and was the eldest of the peOple listed in his generation. The actual age of peOple listed in the first parental generation, however, varied from 19 years to about 45 years. Though the Kikuyu believe that ideally a woman becomes a part of her husband's family, many married women.maintain close ties with their natal families. Younger married women are likely to cite their father's mbggi after identifying themselves as members of their husbands' families. Presenting only a static picture of the structure of the Kikuyu family would be misleading. Family membership like other aspects of social organization involves dynamic processes. This discussion has centered on how peeple generate membership in the mbggi, with only passing mention of the modes of validation of membership. It is true that by using specified ties through male ancestors individuals may claim membership in a.mb§£i, but other ties such as the MB and ZH in Figure A3 may also be utilized in particular situations. Validation of membership in a group to Which one has legitimate claim.in the past included participation in certain ceremonies and contribution to blood money. Today how does a person act like a member of 3.22251? -- by taking an interest in his fellow kinspe0ple, by associating with them, attending meetings where group decisions are being made, by contributing to bridewealth, and generally acting in accord with the Kikuyu under- standings concerning kinship morality. Ultimately family members and kinSpeople are those who identify themselves as such, and are accepted by the people to Whom.they claim relationship as such. All of the peeple discussed in the cases in this dissertation have identified themselves as family members of, relatives or kin of at least one other person involved in the case with them. In almost all of the cases the participants were able to trace their exact genealogical connection. George Irungu and Chege, discussed above, are exceptions to this, as is a young woman who though "unmarried" tried to validate her position asqa member of the family of her son's father. H_ow is Kinship Morality Investigated? A useful device for the investigation of social processes, which this study of kinship morality purports to do, is the case study. This concept has its roots in the "trouble cases" studied by Llewellyn and Hoebel (1941) in tt asse 02‘!!! the of of 10 in their investigation of Cheyenne law. In an attempt to assess "more than merely What 'is done' in general living, or merely What men ggy (their emphasis) ought to be done in general living" (28); Llewellyn and Hoebel turned to the study of "crises" Which give evidence of the "relation of the individual to culture" and of the "living interaction of differing aSpects of culture" (28-29). The "trouble case" allows this kind of investigation for such a case is a crisis for the individual involved and often tests the rules or institutions of a culture. Moreover, it is through such cases that the understandings or "rules" which inform expectations of behavior emerge or change. Llewellyn and Hoebel state: The case of trouble, a ain, is the case of doubt, or is that in Which discipl ne has failed, or is that in which unruly personality is breaking through into new paths of action or of leadership, or is that in Which an ancient institution is being tried against emergent forces. It is the case of trouble which makes, breaks, twists, or flatly establishes a rule, an institution, an authority. (1941:29) Others have followed Llewellyn and Hoebel in their interest in events Which represent a "hitch" in the "normal" activities of everyday living. Two of the earlier adherents to this approach were Max Gluckman (1954 and 1958), whose study of colonial Africa led him.to investigate the changes :in a society When discrepant values and principles come into conflict; and Victor Turner (1957), whose study of "social dramas" or “marked disturbances in social life" enabled him to highlight what he calls "processional form": 1) Breach; 2)crisis; 3) redressive action; 4) re-integration or recc additio study a Nichol; :ith, been '1 as an: 11 or recognition of schism. Gluckman and Turner have made additional contributions to the development of this area of study and a number of others (Swartz gE_§l., 1966 and 1968; Nicholas, 1968; Epstein, 1958; Mitchell, 1954; and‘M. G. Smith, 1960) have used and refined this approach which has been referred to as the "extended case method" or the "processual approach". The case study method is one way of getting at the processes occurring in society. According to Marc Swartz (l969:4), "what is new about the processual approach is the absence of the assumption of lasting structures and the refusal to assign these structures primacy in investigation and analysis." An explanation of structural arrangements of the sub-systems of society is not the goal of the study, but rather an exposition of the dynamic phenomena of social life, including decision-making and conflict resolution. The social system, following this formulation, may be seen as constantly emerging through the decisions of individuals and the changes in their relations resulting from these. Most peOple who have used this approach have been primarily interested in political or juridicial behavior, the discussion of which was found with notions of "conflict" and."interest" pervasive. Turner (1967:113), however, commends its use to anyone interesting in understanding society, for according to him, "Data provided by this method enables us to apprehend not only the structural principles of that system but also processes of various kinds, including those . to the in his that take: and \ o '1'- «or. 036 Wa‘.‘ 12 those of structural change." The method has proved valuable to the non-specialist as Swartz (1975, in press) demonstrates in his effective use of the "extended case method" to present basic concepts and ideas in an introductory anthro- pology textbook. Conflict is not a necessary ingredient of a case study. ‘What is necessary is that some event or set of events be taken as a starting point and that the personnel, resources and understandings important in the unfolding of the event or events he brought into the analysis.8 The cases presented in this dissertation show kin, primarily members of the domestic group, interacting with one another in various situations. In one sense of the way Llewellyn and Hoebel use the term, these cases are "trouble cases", for they usually deal with a crisis for 8 Swartz, Turner and Tuden (1966) have refined a way of dealing with the dynamic processes involved in the un- folding of events. By defining a social "field" in terms of the understandings, resources and personnel which come into play in a given situation, Swartz is able to handle the changing boundaries and activities which make up social life. His characterization of a political field fits the kind of situation discussed here: "It is, rather, a field of tension, full of intelligent and determined antagonists, sole and corporate, who are motivated by ambition, altruism, self-interests, and by desire for the public good, and who in successive situations are bound to one another through self-interest,or idealism -- and separated or opposed through the same motives. At every point in this process we have to consider the entire situation which their interdependent actions occur (l966:8)". 21.3 13 the individual, areas in which the "range of leeway"9 or "variation, invention and experiment" in personal conduct are tested, and perhaps new understandings arrived at or old ones affirmed. This material is presented for two reasons; first, so that the reader would be exposed to the actual unfolding of events. The second reason and more importantly, is that it is through the study of cases that the observer learns of the understandings used to guide behavior, or conversely of the consequences of acting in unexpected ways, breaking the rules. Moreover, it is within cases or the events isolated in cases that the kinship morality of the Kikuyu emerge and are defined and evaluated. Although some argue that the understandings (cultural constructs) that people hold and the actual behavior which these understandings inform should be studied separately, an equally valid approach would be to consider the inter- actiOn between the two. What is the nature of this interaction? Clearly, a strictly unidimensional one-way relationship such that cultural rules or understandings Llewellyn and Hoebel (1941:23) discuss two main kinds of deviations, and state that there are two kinds of "ranges of leeway" -- "the range of permissable lee- way and the range of actively protected leeway." According to them, "the kind and degree of permissable variation, invention, experiment and 'play' are as important a part of any institutional scheme as the kind, degree, and direction of its canalizing or organizing behavior." CO l4 determine behavior, or a simple behaviorism, such that observed behavior is the locus of cultural rules or under- standings cannot be supported. A more adequate perspective is the one from which our knowledge of understandings which inform behavior and the organization of these understandings emerge from the events in which they are used, and in turn, the events are created in part by the understandings brought to them. What is Kinship Morality? The behavior which I discuss under the rubric "kinship morality" -- the understandings about the behavior which it is believed ought to demonstrate toward one another —— has also been discussed under the title of "content of social kinship." The crucial question in this area was posed by Beattie (1964): "What is left after the social relations having to do with economics, religion, politics, and the judiciary are stripped away from kinship?" Beattie main- tained that nothing was left, that kinship is an idiom in wIlich other social relationships are discussed. Schneider, One of the other participants in the debate on the content of kinship, suggested that kinship is a way of handling biological processes (1964), but after an investigation of American kinship on the cultural level, he takes a view which decries g priori definitions of kinship. Meyer Fortes addresses himself to the question of the content of kinship in a chapter entitled "Kinship and the 15 Axiom of Amity" in his book Kinship and the Social Order (1969:219-249). Arguing against specific positions taken by Worsley in his work on the Tallensi and Leach in 2111 Eliya, Fortes begins his case by demonstrating that kinship, descent and affinity, in both these cases is more than economics or politics, or the allocation and transmission of rights. The proof in the case of the Tallensi rested on Fortes' demonstration that Worsley's statement -- " - . .in Taleland co-Operation between more people than are contained in the elementary family is necessary for survival: one c00perates in economic activities with peeple to whom one is already related by blood or marriage" (Worsley 1956: 68) -- begs the question of how one becomes related by blood or marriage. Since "marriage, parenthood, filiation, Siblingship and other relations of kinship occur in similar arrangements in societies very different from the Tallensi in their mode of production" and other economic activities tI‘Ley cannot be determined by specific economic arrangements (Fortes 1969:221). Leach's argument that kinship is "not a thing in it- Self" is disposed of by citing Leach's own evidence which Points out that a person cannot be a member of the political Community, the village of Pul Eliya, if he does not have PrOper kinship credentials. To participate in the political and economic activities of the village a person must own 16 10 land. This land may be obtained through inheritance, gift or purchase. All three of these are limited by kin- ship: inheritance usually goes frcm parent to child; gift includes gifts to adapted children, to children while the parents are still living, and as dowry to daughters; purchase, the crux of Fortes' argument, involves kinship in that land sold to an outsider is within a short period of time bought by a member of the kin group, obscuring the original transaction. To be a citizen of Pul Eliya one must be a member of a kin group. The argument which Fortes tries to resolve here is I>EIEBflLcally the same as the Beattie-Schneider controversy (3‘7631: the content of kinship in the pages of Map (1964). frlléttre no attempted resolution was provided. 'When Beattie asked Schneider what then is kinship, Schneider replied ‘t11élt: it is not necessary for him to provide a correct ‘lrlfiivver, but for that particular discussion it was sufficient 't“3 Ipoint out a wrong one. Several years later in.American M (Schneider, 1968), and in "What is kinship all . anb’Out?" (Schneider 1972:32-63), Schneider did address himr Self to that question, as did Fortes in the chapter 1. 0Leach's argument in Pul Eliya might best be stated in 'his own words: "What we need to understand about a society is not whether it is patrilineal, matrilineal or both or neither, but what the notion of patrilineal stands for and why it is there (1968:11)" Within the Pul Eliya villagers' "scheme of values" land was a symbol of kinship. 17 '"Flinship and the Axiom.of Amity." Both these scholars zaggree that understandings which typically guide interaction zinnong kin have to do with love, solidarity, and amity, with Fortes giving an additional proviso of generosity. fETJe Axiom of Amity Fortes phrases the question of the distinctive features ()1? kinship in this manner: Familial and kinship norms, relationships and institutions are not reducible to economic factors; they are not reducible, either, to political, or religious, or juridicial or any other non-kinship basis. Granted, then, that we are concerned with what is from.both actor's and the observer's point of view a quite specific, relatively autonomous domain of social life, what are its distinctive features? (1964:231). lirl the following paragraph he answers the questions as 150 llows: Our paradigmatic specimens confirm What is well known, that kinship concepts, institutions, and rela- tions classify, identify, and categorize persons and groups. They show likewise, that this is associated with rules of conduct Whose efficacy comes, in the last resort, from.a general principle of kinship morality that is rooted in.the rule of prescriptive altruism.WhiCh I have referred to as the principle of kinShip amity and Which Hiatt calls the ethic of generosity. (Emphasis added) (1968:232) Though the structural connotations which the notion of 1<:l.nship carries vary widely, the central value premise associated with it is uniform: "Kinship predicates the taxiom.of amity, the prescriptive altruism exhibited in the ethic of generosity" (Fortes 1968:237). 18 A number of other anthrOpologists have pointed to the nature of the moral imperative between the relatives in 'tineai;r discussion of the interrelationShips among kin, but have not subjected it to extensive analysis, probably because anthr0pologists have been too busy analyzing kin- ship structures and kinship terminology. Robin Fox, in the introduction to Kinship and Marriagg, poses a question t:<> tjhe "relatively kinshipless" western student of anthro- pology which approaches the basis of kinship morality: "Vqt5111d we not, if a long-forgotten first cousin turned up lléixriLng fallen on hard times, feel some obligation toward him sigply because he was a cousin? (his emphasis; 1967: 14-15)". Are you not more likely to take him in, treat him ldndly,,- and feel a kind of identity with him? That reaction shows the power and meaning of a principle of amity extended to kin. Schneider's study of American kinship tackled this q‘1€-‘-sstion from.the cultural level. Identifying his interests as cultural and not social, Schneider defines the cultural 1eVel as follows: This consists in the system of symbols and meanings embedded in the normative system but Which is a quite distinct aspect of it and can easily be abstracted from it. By symbols and meanings I mean the basic premises which a culture posits for life: what its units consist in; how those units are defined and differentiated; how they form an integrated order or classification; how the world is structured; in what parts it consists and on what premises it is conceived to exist, the categories and classifications of the various domains of the world of man and how they relate one with another, and the world that man sees himself living in (1968:38). 19 ()II ‘the cultural level the primary symbols of American kin- ship are "shared genetic substance", often expressed as "blood", and love which is translated into sociological language as "diffuse, enduring, solidarity". "Shared Ioch>-genetic substances" here is a symbol whose relationship 12:) 'biological facts is, by definition, arbitrary, and vv11<>se power lies in the fact that it stands for certain kinds of social relationships. Indeed, bio-genetic elements, such as conception and parturition may be an aspect of the primary cultural symbol -- diffuse, enduring solidarity. 12:1 this sense sexual intercourse is a symbol of the love and unity between husband and wife, and to speak of being born of woman and sharing bio-genetic traits or "blood" witz‘hparents, siblings and other relatives is a means of e-§i'~‘J|;=>ressing the social identity shared by family members. Diffuse, enduring solidarity shares many of the I>Itc>perties of the axiom of amity; gaggn Fortes mentions 111313esistible claims and concern for relatives, solidarity, ‘=<5f1esion and mutual support, while Schneider speaks of t:r118t, co-operation, supportiveness and helpfulness. A child's remark concerning the definition of relatives, Schneider takes as an elegantly simple statement of what kinship is about: One of our informants, a twelve-year-old girl, was asked, "What's our definition of a relative?" and replied, Someone w 0 you generally love, who 8 kind to you, and Who in some way is related to you by blood like a daughter or something." There is really nothing more than can be added to her statement. It sums up the matter perfectly (1968:40) . 20 This love is in the general sense "doing what is good for or right for the other person, without regard for its effect on the doer" (1968:51). According to Schneider, love is translated as diffuse, enduring solidarity because the relationship is supportive, helpful, and co- operative, but is not narrowly defined in terms of specific goals or behavior, nor is it limited in time. Fortes' most concise statement of the meaning of kinship amity and generosity is contained in a paragraph which reads as follows: What the rule posits is that "kinfolk" have irresistible claims on one another' 5 support and con- sideration in contra- distinction to "non-kinsmen" , simply by reason of the fact that they are kin. Kinsfolk must ideally share -- hence the frequent invocation of brotherhood as the model of generalized kinship; and they must, ideally, do so without putting a price on what they give. Reciprocal giving between kinsfolk is supposed to be done freely and not in submission to coercive sanctions or in response to contractual obligations (1969:238). This essential amity and generosity among kin is Slipported by looking at the contrast between kin and non- kin and between consanguinity and affinity. Fortes holds that "in societies of the type we are dealing with [such as the Tallensi and Ashanti] the actor in his status as kinsman Perceives his social universe as divided, in the first instance, into two opposed spheres of moral alignment" the familial domain and kin, and the "sphere of non-kinship" (1959:232). The Australian type system is one extreme of this in which assignment to a kinship status is necessary for "social relations in conformity with moral or jural 21 norms to take place at all (1969:232)". Kinship need not mark out a "bounded collectivity" such as a lineage or section to be seen as functioning in this capacity. Many societies with cognatic kinship systems do not divide into Jreestricted ancestor-focused descent groups, but rather the range of people drawn into the kinship Sphere may vary according to circumstances. Fortes maintains that systems of this type are characterized by the following: In systems of this type, kinship establishes for the actor an internal field of moral relations that are also politico-jural relations, as against the outside world at large, on the principle of amity within and enmity without; and there are not rules or criteria by reference to Which an outside observer can determine unequivocally where the boundaries of the field lie (emphasis added)(1969:232). Urine social "fields" in such societies are probably infinite, trtnt the boundary processes--the rules of descent used to \7éalidate or generate membership in a kin group--are <=<3nsiderably more limited. The nature of the interper- EB<3nal relationships within these units is described as ‘Deeing'based on consensus and solidarity. Fortes implied that this kind of relationship is even more likely for Optative cognatic systems since the out-group is defined 1J1 contradistinction to the internal solidarity of the .figg hoc kin group. Variations in the locus and range of the efficacy of 'kinship amity are common, Fortes asserts. Rules of cog-~ natic extension determine who will be within the category governed by the principle of kinship amity, distinguish 22 kin from non-kin, and also in many cases categorize marriage- able partners, distinguishing consanguinal from affinal relatives. In many societies affinals are enemies before Inuazrriage; after marriage they must be incorporated into a system of jural and moral rules which extends amity to them, but still does not include the full range of amity. I?<>1:tes summarizes the position as follows: Enemies who marry can do so only if, in the last resort, they accept some common norms or morality and jurality, together with the corresponding procedures and sanctions for implementing them. Failing this, the ri hts and obligations engendered by marriage and af inal relations could not be maintained. Enemies thus turned affines become 1e itimate Oppo- nents within a common politico-jural ramework. Against the rest of the world, however, they may become allies to whom the norms of kinship amity then apply (1969:235). (3fialrtain rules, especially those found in many African tribes 1Taggarding separate eating arrangements for husbands and ‘Vit\7es, and for visiting affinal relatives, as well as rules ‘=<>Incerning litigation among affinal relatives are examples (’15 the limitation of affinal amity. That is not to say that FtJilrtes holds that cool relations exist perpetually among affinal relatives, or that, conversely, he does not admit 0f adversity within the domain governed by kinship amity. The kinds of control of the expression of animosity aunong kin is one of the primary distinctions between the kin and non-kin spheres. Fortes describes the distinctions as follows: ....I want to draw attention to some features that are distinctive of the contraposition of kinship and non- kinship amity. Two of the commonest discriminating 23 indices are the locus of prohibited or prescribed marriage, and the control of strife that might cause bloodshed. Kinship, amity, regulation of marriage and the restriction of serious fighting form a syndrome. Where kinship is demonstrable or assumed, regardless of its grounds, there amity must prevail and this posits prescription, more commonly proscrip- tion, or marriage and a ban on serious strife (1969:234). Many anthropologists have outlined a graduated scale of weaponry and violence based on the closeness of kin tie. The example of the Tiv is instructive: Brothers of a minimal lineage use clubs and stones in a fight, more dis- tantly connected segments may use bow and arrow, but avoid killing, very distantly related persons try to kill with Poisoned arrows and guns, fighting with non-kin means with non-Tiv and here there are no restrictions or supernatural 8auctions as occur for fighting with Tiv. The axiom of amity then is a "moral principle", or a CEllsltural understanding with considerable moral force which not only influences the behavior of kin, but in some Societies serves to distinguish kin from non-kin, and consanguinal kin from affinal kin. The behavior influenced by this kinship morality is not specifiable in terms of definite behavior, tasks and goals, but generally may be S1><3ken of as a kind of solidarity which carries with it "b finding" and "inescapable" moral obligations and claims. Much of the disharmony among kin Fortes sees as having to do with the economic and political relations built on kinships; e.g., the tension between an "estate 'holder' and a predesignated inheritor", or sibling rivalries of 24 various kinds, and the numerous other kinds of conflicts shown as the underlying causes of accusations of witchcraft and sorcery. The position which Fortes holds is that "kinsmen must have concern for one another and therefore refrain from wantonly injuring one another or heedlessly infringing one another's rights" (1969:238). No society anywhere invariably adheres to these "general and diffuse moral principles", those individuals who transgress these principles or act against the expectations contained in cultural understandings are often described as "criminals", "sinners", "selfish, foolish, dishonest, and others of weak character". In such instances of conflict or breach usually some form of redressive action restores kinship amity; this is the case for the rituals discussed by Turner for the Ndembu (Turner, 1957). Using an example similar to that cited for Robin Fox above, Fortes maintains that the crucial evidence of kinship amity is "when persons Seek out remote clansfolk or classificatory cognates and W1 thout further ado claim and receive hospitality and Protection" (1969:239) . In sum, Fortes suggests that a universal characteristic of- the understandings which guide behavior within the kin- ship system is the axiom of amity--"a general principle of kti-‘laship morality that is rooted in prescriptive altruism" (1969:232). The axiom of amity is not inviolate, but cases in which actors transgress the understandings are special c-&s.es to be explained by the aberrant "character" of the 25 actor or the influence of the political or economic forces active in the society. Schneider does not claim his findings on the importance of "diffuse, enduring, solidarity" ‘in.American kinship to be applicable to other cultures, but implies that following his style of inquiry might actually reveal such symbols in unexpected places. A ques- tzion relevant to this dissertation is whether the Kikuyu kinship morality includes the axiom of amity. Understanding Kinship Morality The term "kinship morality" refers to understandings valuich guide behavior among kin, lie behind their behavior, 1>Iat in no sense could be considered identical to the 1><=11s to be placed on the various resources, understandings, 31 and personnel which are brought into play in particular situations. Just as structures do not receive primacy in the processual approach, so too cultural constructs or understandings are not considered paramount; but rather are seen as being variously used in interaction, and receiving different evaluations or ranking through their use (cf Scheffler, 1965). In discussing the cases I shall try to see Whether or not a person is using an understanding having to do with kinship morality as would be expected, and when that is not the case, I shall try to explain, not why the person is not acting according to the expectations, 'but rather What the person is doing -- how he or she is deevaluing or re-valuing the understandings usually assumed :for the interaction among kin. the Axiom.of Amity and the Kikuyu Understandings about the prOper behavior toward kin form a part of Kikuyu culture. These understandings become intelligible to the observer through behavior in which IreOple use these understandings in various ways and in Which they talk about them. Now I would like to turn to time question of the content of the understandings which 11 C(anrise Kikuyu kinship morality. Fortes suggests that 1]. The question of the ontological status of the Axiom of Amity for the Kikuyu Whom.I knew is taken up on page 79 below. 32 the axiom of amity -- which posits that interaction among kin is governed by principles which emphasize love or diffuse, enduring solidarity; trust, mutual support, generosity and cdhesion -- is an universal characteristic of kinship morality. Few ethnographers have presented any detailed 12 Two of those who accounts of Kikuyu kinship morality. have addressed themselves to this question wrote about the Kikuyu of the end of the nineteenth century to around the 1920's. These two "old men" of Kenya are Jomo Kenyatta, a Kikuyu Whose career has included the study of anthro- pology, political organizing and the founding of independent schools and churches, being a political prisoner during the colonial regime, and for the last twelve years serving as the president of independent Kenya; and the late Louis Leakey, the famous archeologist, Whose autobiography is entitled White African. Leakey and Kenyatta were of the same generation, but of very different backgrounds,and sometimes Opposite opinions and attitudes. 12 The primary Kikuyu ethno raphers are listed on page 92 below. Kenyatta (193 ), Lambert (1966) and Routledge (1910) are among the most detailed pub- lished sources on Kikuyu kinship behavior. A short article by Feraro (1970) supplements the data on the Kiku , and both Gary Feraro and Greet Kershaw have unpu lished work on the Kikuyu. Novels and auto- biographies by Kikuyu authors have increased in recent years; of particular note for their information on kinship are Gatheru's Child of Two Worlds and the several novels by JamesNughi, including Grain of Wheat, The River Between, and Weep Not Child} 33 Leakey was born to missionary parents ianenya, and was reared in Kikuyuland; his first language was Kikuyu -1 he proudly claims to dream in Kikuyu. Leakey took it upon himself to explain the Kikuyu to the White world, and wrote several books and articles about the "syncretistic" Man Man movement in an effort to expose its roots and help the British defeat it. His major work on the Kikuyu, an ethnography based on his early association with them, has not been published. Leakey reluctantly let me see the chapter on social organization, but expressed concern that I not publish a book before his comes out.13 Leakey has since died, and I am.not sure if there are plans for the publication of the Kikuyu ethnography. The chapter Which I read consisted of 40 tables of kinship terms, showing all real and classifactory kin Who should be called by the term, the reciprocals of the terms, differences in usage for males and females; and a final section giving a generalized discussion of the kinds of behavior associated with each term. The chapter is ex- tremely tedious and only rarely does he venture any analysis or exploration of aspects of social organization other than kinship. 13 Quotations from.Leakey's manuscript are taken from.the extensive notes Which I made while reading the chapter. The original was not reproduced, and re retably, some mistakes may have occurred in transferring the informa- tion. All statements given here as direct quotations were faithfully transferred word for word from the original manuscript. ' 34 Leakey explained to me that several social anthro- pologists, including Lucy'Mair, had offered to edit his manuscript, but he refused their offers. The work could use the hand of a good social anthrOpologist, especially to aid in the analysis of the data. Leakey tends to explain through speculative history or by use of formulas containing "primary elements". On the relationship between mother's brother and sister's son, he makes the following statement: If a man's sister had been born male instead of female, her sons would have had a legal right to claim help from their uncle Who under those circumstances would be paternal (uncle). The accident that made her be born a female instead of male does not wipe away his obligations to help her sons and daughters. More- over, supposing that the man's sister did not marry by normal patrilineal rules, but instead had married as a pr0portion of girls do -- matrilineally and matri- locally, her brother would have had full responsibility to find first wives for her sons, since they would then be legally his children and not the children of their physical father. Therefore a man must help his male muihwa (sister's son) to marry by giving a contribution to the ruracio (bridewealth). The formula by which Leakey further explains this is that a man is the same as his sister and therefore his sister's children are the same as his children. He must help them, "he is their male mother and a mother must help her children as far as she can." Leakey's explanation of the term tata (father's or mother's sister) is an exercise in speculative history: It seems fairly clear that the term tata was originally applied only to a man's matrilineal aunts, and that its extension to a father's sister and half sisters came with the change over to a patrilineal system, and its more likely that in this fact lies the explanation why there is not avoidance rule between a man and his tata. Under a matrilineal or 35 matrilocal system a man's maternal aunts should be living in the same homestead as himself and their relationship would be one of close intimacy in daily life, and in fact, they would be like mothers to him, Similarly, in a matrilineal society a girl would seldom see or meet her paternal uncles so that the avoidance rule became unnecessary in preventing the likelihood of incest taking place When they did meet as complete stra ers. With the change over to patrilineal and patri ocal marriages as the general rule, the old customs were maintained although in fact the new life needed a new set of rules to make it consistent. The evidence upon which Leakey bases this belief in the evolution from matrilineality to patrilineality for the Kikuyu is primarily the kinship terminology itself (Omaha— type) and'Kikuyu myths of matriarchy. The study of myth has become a very complex field within the discipline of anthrOpology, but within all this complexity it would be hard to find an anthr0pologist who would hold that myth should be taken at face value as a statement of actual events in the past. And even.Murdock, who is prone to evolutionary analyses, does not posit a matrilineal past for the Kikuyu. According to Murdock, among the highland Bantu, who include the'Kikuyu,‘Meru, Chaga, Pare, Shambala and Teita peOples, "except for minor traces of a possible matrilineate among the Chaga and Shambala, descent, inheri- tance, and succession follow the patrilineal principle (1959:345)". Obviously the value of Leakey's work lies not in his analysis, but in his presentation of specific data, which fortunately he has separated from.his analysis. His dis- cussion of "Family Life and Behavior" aims at identifying 36 the rules by Which kin conduct themselves. Where he does not find such rules, such as between great-great-grand- parents (cukuru) and their great-great-grandchildren (cukuru), he states that there is no: Special rule governing this relationship, or for the relationship between peOple who call each other m _w_a_1_ mgr-g 313, giyg (child of the son of my female relative, especially M288 and MESD), he states that the relationship is friendly; though these peOple are well removed from one another; and their behavior is based on that friendship -- not governed by rule or custom. It is clear that Leakey was trying to record the proper behavior of Kikuyu kinspe0ple. Kenyatta, too, tried to do the same in a much briefer and immensely more readable discussion of Kikuyu kinship terminology and behavior in his book, Facing Mt. Kenya (1938). Where Leakey's work is infused with a paternalistic attitude toward the Kikuyu, this Kenyatta's major work on the Kikuyu is a cultural nationalistic treatise in which Kenyatta defends the integrity of his pe0ple's customs to the white world. Using the analytical framework introduced to him by Malinowski, Kenyatta showed the intricate interrelationship of several Kikuyu institutions, with special emphasis on the central position of land within the Kikuyu social system, as portions of Kikuyu territory were appropriated by the colonial govern- ment for settlement by whites; and on the importance of 37 clitterodectomy, which was under attack by EurOpean missionaries. Interestingly, Leakey and Kenyatta agree on the basic ideas which inform the behavior, attitudes and dispositions which characterize Kikuyu kinship interaction. The vocabulary with which they discuss ideal behavior among kin includes an emphasis on the terms "respect, obedience, modesty, love, and mutual support". These terms are generally defined in regard to behavior among kin, rather than on a more general or abstract level, such that respect emerges as an important concept because of its pervasive; ness in the interaction pattern among various kin. Not all categories of kin for whom Leakey and Kenyatta have data will be presented here; the information discussed here will concentrate on the following relationships: parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren, parent's siblings and sibling's children, siblings, husband and wife, and in-laws, particularly father—in-law and son-in-law. Because this dissertation is concerned with the understandings which compose Kikuyu kinship morality, the focus for the following discussion will be on the ideas which.Kenyatta and Leakey believe characterize the interaction among kin, notably reSpect, obedience, modesty, love and mutual support. 38 Modesty iMOdesty is probably the most curious trait in its combination of nuclear family and affinal relatives -- father and daughter, and father-in-law and son-in-law -- within the same behavioral types. Leakey also states that the behavior between husband and wife in public, including in their own courtyard, should be seen as being modest. Both Kenyatta and Leakey characterize the relationship between relatives by marriage as "bashful and polite," almost a literal translation of the term muthoni (pl. athoni), which is used to refer to in-laws and to address 14 According to Leakey there is several categories of them. an exception to the reserve connected with relationship between in-laws in the relationship of a man to his wife's mother, Who may be called either muthoni or mgigg (mother). A man might behave "fairly free" with his wife's mother, but should take care not to insult her or her co-wives, for fear of the mother's curse. Neither Leakey nor Kenyatta write specifically of love between a father and his sons and daughters; in this con- text Kenyatta explains the greater "attachment of the child 14 According to Leakey' s manuscript a male ego calls the following persons muthoni: wife's father, wife's father's full and Ea If Brothers, father's full and half sisters' husbands, mother's full and half brothers' wives, wife's father's wives, wife's father' 3 full and half brothers' wives, and mother's sister's husbands. 'Males generally call males and females of his wife's father 5 generations and family and the males and females of his parents' generation Who are related to him by marriage by this term. The list of relatives Whom.females call muthoni is given on page 43 below. 39 to its mother" because she takes care of the child, is his or her nursemaid. The Kikuyu father is the "lord and master of his home", Leakey states; and Kenyatta agrees in the following statement: The father is the supreme ruler of the homestead. He is the owner of practically everything, or in other words, he is the custodian of the family prOperty. He is respected and obeyed by all the members of his family group. His position in the community depends largely on the type of homestead he keeps, and how he manages it, because the capability of good management of one's homestead is taken as a testimonial that one is able to manage public affairs (l938:9). Father Cagnolo, a missionary Whose work is imbued with a sense of superiority of the EurOpean style of life pub- liShed a book on the Kikuyu in 1933, Which takes a someWhat different view: In Kikuyu the husband is not the absolute t rant, the terror of the other members of the family, the master of life and death, such as we read in certain tribes of the Far East, but he is the moderator, to the native mind, of every detail of the family routines, into which he admits no outside inter- ference. The uncouth atmosphere, the complete want of civilized kindliness and of good manners, may lead one to think of the head of the family as an ill-natured despot aloof from all natural affection; but in most cases the father's attitude is mere outward show, necessary to uphold his prestige and the power to command and to intimidate his dependents, Who are readier to obey through fear than from.kindliness. For evidence of this statement, it would suffice to enter a native hut, late in the evening, where you will find a small family cowering around the traditional fire. In the middle of the hut a pot of beans and peas mixed with maize will be bubbling; round about the father with a child between his knees and another sitting by, a small girl poking the fire, and the mother holding the last born in her arms. Conversation is going on merrily, sometimes in a confidential manner. When the time comes to pour out the food, the father himself sees that everyone receives sufficient, for Pa: eat fro me: 1:11“ 15 40 as they say, one must go to bed well fed if one is to sleep well, even though the marrow must be spent fasting and longing for the coming of evening. If one member of the family suffers an injustice, the father will at once see that right is done. It is the father Who supplies the family with clothes, Who provides for cultivating the land, and builds the hut and necessary granaries -- though assisted by neigh- bours and friends, according to the custom of the tribe. Leakey's statement of the proper behavior between father and daughter gives some support to Cagnolo's position. The relationship between the daughter and her father is close until the time When she is "old enough to be conscious of the impropriety of relieving nature in public," according to Leakey. Before that time the father may hold her on his knee, but after that time she is taught not to play with her father or her classifactory fathers.15 A pattern of avoidance develops which prohibits her from eating a meal in her father's presence of accepting meat from him, Her father should not touch her, and asks her mother or brother to punish her. When his daughter is initiated a father must pay a fine of one ram for every time he verbally abused her or physically punished her from the time of her birth. 15 Table 1 of the Leakey manuscript gives the following as the persons called baba: father, father's full and half brothers, fathers fa ther' 3 full and half brothers' sons, and other male patricousins of father's generation. A woman calls her daughter's husband by this term, and generally a woman uses this term to address those Whom her husband addresses as baba. Baba mukuru means senior father and baba munyini means junior father. 41 The same rules apply for classifactory fathers with these additions: 1) If a girl and a classifactory father meet on a path, both must leave the path; she to the left and he to her right or his left. 2) The father must not look the daughter in the eyes. 3) If an initiated woman accidentally touches a father she must pay a fine of a pot of gruel. If a father accidentally touches a daughter he must immediately remove one of his ornaments and give it to her. 4) If a daughter uses obscene words in the presence of a father, she must pay a fine of a pot of gruel, and he send her a goat skin "because he has heard her Egmgmg (abusive words)". The one case in Which it is permissible for a classi- factory father to talk to a daughter is When she has refused to marry a particular man and her father asks his brother to convince her to do so. The classifactory father then becomes responsible for the marriage, and for the return of the bridewealth if the marriage fails. According to Leakey, When a girl marries the avoidance rules no longer hold; he adds that a daughter may then be called mgitg (mother) by her classifactory fathers, but does not give any additional information on the new relationship. It can only be noted that fathers seem to treat their daughters who marry out and leave the family group as affines, but little data are given to allow for full analysis of this. Above the bashfulness and politeness which.Kenyatta states characterizes the relationship between a man and his if CU Cu 42 relatives by marriage (athoni), Leakey states that friend- ship with great respect should exist among such relatives, but he adds that a man must be careful not to insult his athoni, not to touch or sit next to them at a beer drink. If their feet touch a man may ask his muthoni to pay a fine. The relationship between a man and his wife's relatives and his daughter's husband's relatives differ. Senior members of the wife's family may always ask the son-in-law for further goats or sheep as a bridewealth installment. A son-in-law may ask a father-in-law to help pay a fine, but not to give ruracio (bridewealth) for another wife, though he does need his father-in-law's permission before he may take another wife. A son-in-law may also ask his father-in-law for land to cultivate. A man must never "expose his nakedness" in front of his father-in-law, on penalty of a fine of a fat ram. This is retroactive -- if a man has bathed with a man into whose family he later marries, then he must pay a fine of the past offense. When a man meets a female in-law on a path he goes off the path to let her pass freely, but does not avert his eyes. He should greet her with a handshake. He has "fairly free" behavior toward the mother of his wife and her co-wives, but if he abuses this relationship he is liable for the mother's curse from.them, Kenyatta only mentions the husband's brother is dis- cussing a woman's relatives my marriage. He is called by a 43 nickname which is a term of endearment. The others whom a woman calls by the name muthoni are, according to Leakey, her husband's half sisters and his full and half sisters' husbands, her husband's brothers' wives, her father's and mother's full and half sisters' husbands, her husband's father's brothers' wives and her own father's brothers' wives. Leakey does not specify rules of behavior for a woman toward these athoni, but he clearly emphasizes the idea that a woman has two families of the same type with the nature of interaction partially depending which family she is living with, her father's family or her husband's family. A man on the other hand has at least two different types of relatives -- those of his gbggi and other agnatically related relatives and his affines, his wife's family, and often a third, his daughter's husband's families. Kenyatta's early discussion of the husband-wife rela- tionship centered primarily on the co-ordination of activities in the polygamous household, in which "the relations between Wives are those of partnership based on collective possession of the husband, and not on the ownership of the property with the precinct of a wife's hut or granary" (1954:10). Leakey more closely addresses the interpersonal relationship between husband and wife and finds that there is "real love and comradeship" between husband and wife, especially the first wife, Who is "taken for love." The husband discusses events and happenings in the community with his wife, and consults her about "doings" in the home. 44 Sexual jealousy is frowned upon by the Kikuyu, according to both Kenyatta and Leakey. A man may have sex with his age-mates' wives and his wife with his age-mates; they should tell one another when this occurred}6 A man should consult his wife before taking another wife, and wives usually support their husband's taking another wife. A polygamous husband should not publicly display favoritism toward one wife. The modesty associated with this relationship has to do with the rule that it is taboo for a man and his wife to see each other naked in the courtyard; when this happens a ram should be slaughtered on the following day for purification of the homestead. Another rule governing modesty, Leakey states, is that a woman must never wait naked in bed for her husband. Ideas concerning modesty in behavior seam to be generally confined to the relationships mentioned above, except to some extent modesty is expected in the behavior between initiated brothers and sisters, whose behavior toward each other should be "seemly and modest." A sister should take care not to see her brother's sexual gestures or to be around him when she or he is engaging in ngweko (fondling), a form of sexual activity, short of intercourse, 16 Kenyatta (1938:181) states that "it is an offense for a wife to invite a man secretly to her hut, even a member of this age group. To do so would be regarded as committing adultery.' C8”: in ti 17 45 carried out between warriors and initiated girls, usually in a young man's house. Love Leakey discusses love in the relationship between grandparents and their grandchildren, mother's sister and father's sister (both called EEEE) and their sibling's children17; he characterizes the relationship between mother's brother (maga) and his sister's children as "fatherly love" and describes the relationship between mother and son as the "closest which is ever formed in Kikuyu life; a bond which lasts for life." In contrast, the relationship between mother and daughter remains close only until the daughter marries. The bond between brothers and patrilineal cousins is described by Leakey as a repre- sentation of the solidarity of family life and as such is "the most valuable thing in the Whole social organization" -- "the foundation of all Kikuyu life and social organiza- tion." '17 According to the Leakey manuscript a tata (M2 or F2) calls her sibling's child mwana wakwa (my child). The data on the term used by mama (ME) to refer to his sisters' children is somewhat contradictory. My notes ion.Leakey's manuscript include his Table 22, in which he stated that for males only muihwa is the reciprocal :for mama, but adds that it is used for full and half sisters' sons and daughters, full and half brothers' dau hters' sons and daughters. Kenyatta (1938:13 and £324 gives the definition as "cousin". 46 The exact attributes of "love" described here is not made explicit. Clearly a kind of "diffuse, enduring solidarity" is indicated in the relationship between mother and son and in that between brothers. The idea of familiarity and freedom of interaction receives emphasis in the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. This relationship too is characterized as one in Which kin are expected to have warm and close relations. The rela— tionship between.t§t§,(MZ, F2) or mama (MB) and their siblings' children has many of the qualities implied in the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. Conflict over family power or property seldom.enter into these relationships. Grandparents are above the political machinations of their grandchildren, Who seldom occupy positions of authority during their grandparents' lifetimes, and Egtg and mama are outside the family politics of their siblings' children. It was seen in the discussion of modesty above, that the:use of language is a crucial factor in setting the tone for the kind of relationship; g_._g_._, children are forbidden tn) use abusive language in the presence of their parents CH? classifactory mothers and fathers. The relationship between MB and ZS and between grandparents and grandchildren does not totally prohibit the use of abusive language. The W (ZS) cannot use abusive language toward his 333% without fear of a fine of a fat ram, but his MB (w) may “Se abusive language toward him. Grandchildren may use 47 abusive language in the presence of their grandparents, but not directed toward them, According to Leakey's use of the criterion of "abusive words", this seems to represent an intimate and free relationship. He describes the relationship between grandmother and grandchild as having "no shyness or restraint", but with "freedom and great friendship". The idea of friendship rather than obligations pervades Leakey's discussion of the relation- ship tO one's'tgtg and papa, These relationships, he states, are not based on a sense Of obligations, but on friendship between the parties, though there are some supernatural sanctions Which enforce the relationship. The relationship between a man and hiS.EEEE is apprOpriately very close and this Leakey states "is an exception to the rule that the closest ties are in the clan." Of the relationship between a woman and her tgtg, he states the relationship is not based upon Obligation, but love -- "as they are not members of the clan they can have no Obligation to any claim but their own." The relationship between a man and his muihwa, both male and female, is similar -- a man Who denies a request of his muihwa is believed to be punished supernaturally, and the muihwa should not refuse to help his or her w Without forfeiting the right to expect things from him, and in doing so committing a grave breach. When the first an£1 last born children of his sister are initiated the mama 48 is given a ram or he-goat by their father in order to Obtain permission for the initiation. .After initiation the mama should give a goat to the neOphyte. He must give permission for the first born to get his or her ears pierced; this is generally granted with the understanding that the mémg_will receive a ram When the child is initiated. Food figures prominently in the cultural understandings concerning the interrelationships between .t_:§_t_:_a_.. and mg and their siblings' children. The muihwa is given the choicest food at the home Of his mama, and may slaughter a fat ram with permission, Which he cannot do at his father's home. A person should not be refused food by his or her'tgtg. Leakey states that a male muihwa may take food from her granary without permission. Kenyatta (193$: 15) makes the following statement in discussing the relation- ship Of FZ to her BS or BD and of their children: If there is mutual agreement between the two families and frequent visits are exchanged from.both sides, the children become well acquainted with their aunt and respect her as one of the close relatives and one Who entertains them. But unlike her brothers, Who are looked on as fathers and have supreme authority over the children, she has very little influence in affairs concerning the children or the homestead of her brothers, except in social functions. Her children and those of her brothers address one another as muihwa, there is a strong bond of kinship between them, and Whenever they pay a visit to one another, the host provides a special meal for the guest. Even When they are just passing by, it is considered as a bad omen not to visit the homestead Of your cousin or to leave it without eating something, no matter how little it may be. This is illustrated by a Kikuyu saying that 'muihwa ndaimagwo runyeni", Which means, a cousin cannot 5e deniedfa meal. 49 Leakey concludes that men and women help their 3333 and 3333 with building and harvesting, etc., in return for the right food. There is no avoidance between a man and his 3333 and a woman and her 3333, though Leakey states that a man may not dance with or engage in "horseplay" with a young 3333. NO mention is made Of such rules for a woman and her 3333. The relationShip between a man and his 3333 was con- trasted by Leakey to that between a man and his classifactory mothers, especially father's wives and father's brothers' wives. Although the behavior toward a 3333 is seemly it is closer and more informal than that between a man and his classifactory mother. A man is under Obligation to help his classifactory mothers in clearing land for cultivation. His worst Offence would be using abusive language toward her. If this occurs he must beg her forgiveness and give a ram or a goat as a fine for his bad manners. Such a man would be avoided by his age group members; Leakey explains by reference to a Kikuyu proverb, 33333.urumaga.3y333 ndaguaya 33g3 (A man who abuses his mother does not fall well). The meaning Of this Leakey holds is that a man who abuses his mother is beset by misfortunes and his age mates are reluctant to let him go with them on adventures because he will bring bad luck. Beyond the misfortunes believed to naturally occur when a person abuses his mother, a mother may curse a son, causing misfortune and infertility for him and his land. Only the father's curse which threatens 50 disinheritance and disownership is more feared than the mother's curse. A man's behavior should be more circumspect in the presence of his classifactory mothers than in the case of his real mother. The intimate connection between a boy 18 and his mother is severed at the second birth ceremony , but he is still dependent on his mother for food. Even after marriage a mother sends some food to her son every evening, if his house is near hers. Both Kenyatta and Leakey emphasize the strength and enduring nature of the tie between mother and son. 'Women, too, have close attachments to their mothers, but in discussing this relationship Leakey states that the relationship remains close until the girl marries, but that her first public act after marriage is to visit her mother, again emphasizing the tie. She should Obey her mother "implicitly". A young girl sleeps in her mother's house and should inform her mother Of her comings and goings when she moves out of her mother's house after initiation. The daughter, unlike the son, is an essential participant in all ceremonies associated with her mother's house until she marries. 18 The second birth ceremony was a necessary step before initiation, usually performed When the child was under twelve years of age. Routledge (1910:152) gives details of this ceremony. 51 A girl is not so strictly bound tO Obedience to her classifactory mothers as a son is, but is taught to help them because their help is needed in her marriage ceremony, Leakey holds. Great affection marks the relationship between 3353 (FF, MF) and 3333 (FM, MM) and their grandchildren, the first born of Whom are named after their grandparents, in the following order: the first son is named after the FF, the first daughter after the MF, the second son after the MF, and the second daughter after the MM. According to Kenyatta, a grandmother calls her grandson "my husband" and her granddaughter "my co-wife", while the grandfather calls his grandson "my equal", and his granddaughter "my bride". A close relationship is described for both the parents of the mother and father with children Often visiting them.and preferring to live with them.for, as Kenyatta explains "they feel more free in playing and joking with their grandparents than they would with their own parents" (1954:16). Leakey grants that a warm and free relationship exists between grandchildren and both sets of grandparents, but concentrates his discussion on the father's parents. The grandfather's position as head of the homestead gives pro- tection to the grandchild such that the grandchild can enjoy priveleges which even his father dare not infringe. The grandchild belongs to the same generation set as his or her grandparent and is treated as an equal on ritual 52 occasions. The relationship between the grandparents and grandchildren is free and equal, and could be characterized by leniency and tendency on the grandmother's part to spoil her grandchildren, Leakey holds. Both grandparents tend to give special presents to their grandchildren and the grandchildren do special work and errands for their grandparents. The bond between uterine brothers and sisters, accord- ing to Leakey, is close, but is pervaded by rules of modesty which limit contact between initiated brother and sister: It is taboo for brother and sister to dance together or even next to one another such that the sister might touch her brother or see his sexual gestures. An initiated but unmarried girl must not sleep in a friend's house where her brother is sleeping, whether he is alone or with a girl. A girl may join a party in her brother's house, but never participate in nggeko (sexual fondling short of intercourse) in his presence. Generally a girl is taught to be respectful and obedient to her brothers and to regard them as her guardians. Ideally each sister has a particular uterine brother Who acts as her guardian; it is this brother to whom her tie is closest. The relationship between brothers and sisters Of the same father, but different mothers only approaches the closeness between such brothers when the girl has no uterine brothers. In such cases a half-brother serves as her guardian and often establishes a close bond. The 53 relationship between such brothers, muru g3 baba (son of my father), is characterized by mutual respect and solidarity. Leakey suggests that it is rare to find dissension in this 'unit. Kenyatta describes the develOpment Of their relation- ship as follows: This is how sub-clans are started. In the first place the sons of the same father and different mothers continue to perform collectively their religious and sacrificial ceremonies. They do this generally during their lifetime. But after they are dead the relation between their sons begins to drift apart slowly until the diver ence reaches a point Where collective action or partic pation in religious or other private functions or a family is not longer considered necessary. At this juncture the only bond left between such a group Of people is that of a common distant ancestor with whom all commune according to the needs of their particular family group ( 954:13). According to Leakey, the closeness Of the bond between muru g3‘baba increases as the young men enter the warrior age grade. When a young man marries he asks his muru w3'baba for help with the bridewealth. This group also takes major responsibility for blood compensation. The clearest state- ment of the nature of this relationship is Leakey's comment -- "they are 'the family'". They represent the family for their generation. The relationship between daughters of the same father is said to be close, before marriage; but after marriage, Leakey states, their "Obligations lie with those families." Before marriage they expect and should give help to one another. They call upon each other to carry out their brother's orders. This set Of women also tries to work in groups, working on successive days in each other's gardens. 54 An.older sister should contribute a necklace or ornament when her junior sister is initiated. All initiated un- married sisters have a right to share the sacrificial animal given the bride at her wedding. Respect and Obedience Generally it was believed, Leakey suggests, that sisters should obey brothers and that juniors should respect and Obey seniors. Relative age seems to supersede relative status , for Leakey mentions that a man is not expected to respect and Obey a father's brother who is younger than he. Elders, in general, are respected and obeyed, not only in terms of their kin position, Where they are related to ego, but also because of the wisdom.which age accumulates, and their position in the age grade system. Respect and Obedience pervade the pattern of Kikuyu kinship interaction. Only in a few of the primary rela- tions discussed by Leakey and Kenyatta does respect show up that it is not followed by Obedience. Those relatiOnships include the grandparent-grandchild relationship in Which neither characteristic is discussed, and the relationship of £333 and 3333 to their siblings' children Where Leakey states that the juniors are expected to Obey their seniors only after they have followed the orders of their mothers and fathers and then the behavior has an air of reciprocity in that the muihwa follow the orders of their 3333 and 3333 because they expect certain priveleges in return; if the 55 privileges are not forthcoming they do not have to Obey. Leakey and Kenyatta concentrate on respect and Obedience in discussing the son's relationship to his father. The same kind of behavior is pressed on son toward his father's brother; according to Leakey a son is told to Obey his FB without question and to be careful never to anger him, A father might ask his brother to speak to a son with Whom.he is having trouble -- "only a wayward son would disobey a father's brother." (Leakey, ms). Leakey charges that a son's dependence on his FB for bridewealth, and fear of the father's curse, disinheritance, and Of being disowned help compel his respect and Obedience. Sons learn about life from their mothers and fathers, but after the second birth sons spend most of their time in the presence of their fathers and father's brothers. A man is not expected to respect and Obey a father's brother or classifactory father who is younger than himself, though he (BS) should help his FB with his bridewealth. A fuller discussion of the idea of "respect" Which is so often.mentioned in the material on kinship interaction among the Kikuyu would be useful. I shall make some brief comments on it before presenting information on the final characteristic of kinship morality, mutual support. Neither Leakey nor Kenyatta define the term respect. Though their Ilsage does not seem to differ from the everyday sense Of time.word, which definitions in Webster's Third International Dixztionary includes for the noun "high or special regard in 56 esteem", and for the verb form "to consider worthy of esteem: regard or treat with respect (loved and [respected] his parents) : esteem, value" (1966:1934). For the Kikuyu the demonstration of respect seems closely tied to ideas concerning prOper use of language, personal space and touching, and nudity. Control Of these modalities is a major way Of showing respect: language should be non-abusive and gentle, physical distance should be maintained, and nudity avoided in front of those to whom.one shows respect. The notion of respect is similar to the way the idea Of modesty is used except for the fact that modesty may be aptly thought of as reciprocal and respect tends to be complementary. If the daughter's behavior is modest toward her father, so is his toward her; and therefore relative status ranking are not of importance Where modesty prevails. Generally a woman must Obey and respect her father's brother; he has greater power and authority relative to her, but in areas Where modesty is breached, each must pay fines. The idea of reSpect differs in that the behavior is more aptly seen as complementary, Where the junior shows deference and the elder responds graciously, but with a sense of his prOprietary rights to such prestations. 57 Respect conveys recognition and legitimacy to the person and/or the position which he or she occupies.19 Leakey's data indicate that what a Kikuyu kinsperson recognizes as legitimate in another kinsperson_to Whom.he or she gives respect is l) a set of religious, economic, or social obligations which make the person respected responsible for the other. This is shown in Leakey's dis- cussion of the relationship between father's brother and brother's son in which he states that a man is taught to obey and respect his 3333 (F, EB) and to take care not to anger them because to a certain extent be will be dependent on them for all his life. It is also seen in the relation- ship between mothers (including classifactory mothers) and sons in which a son is taught to respect, honor and Obey 19 Marc Swartz et a1. (1966:10-11) makes the following comments on.tHe_EOncept of legitimacy: The derivation of legitimacy from values comes through the establishment of a positive connection between the entity or process having legitimacy and those values... These expectations are to the effect that the legitimate entity or process will, under certain circumstances, meet certain obliga- tions that are held by those who view it as legitimate.... Legitimacy is a type of evaluation that imputes future behavior of one expected and desired type (Parsons, 1963:238). In a discussion of the concept of legitimacy in Black Psychology (Clark, 1971), Cedric Clark identified the two main steps in the process of communication of legitimacy as the communication of recognition through which the existence of another is taken into account; and the communication of respect, whereby one shares wdth.another the definition of the other 5 behavior, ‘the assessment of his or her behavior, and an accountability for that behavior. 58 his;g3i33 Whose displeasure could bring misfortune upon himself, his wife and children, and the fertility of his land. 2) The person recognizes as legitimate and respects also an inherent relationship upon which certain reciprocal ties may be built. This is eSpecially clear in Leakeyls discussion of the relationship between 3333 and 3333_and their siblings' children in Which Leakey stresses that the privileges granted to the sibling's child is dependent upon his or her performance of certain duties. The implication is clear that this relationship must be activated by the parties involved, While the relationship to those Who are more strictly mb3£3_members receives legitimacy within a more formal realm of social behavior. Between.3333'g3flh333 (sons Of my father - B, BS) Leakey describes mutual respect as an important aspect in the pattern of interaction. There is little evidence of What he means by this except that by virtue of the fact that they represent "the family" in their generation, they are interdependent and must rely on one another for contributions to bridewealth, sacrifices to the ancestor, and other activities through Which they define themselves as a group. The muramati (administrator) in the group is given deference in many instances, though Middleton and Kershaw (1954:26) state that in many instances his voice is just that of "one among many". Leakey states that the relationship between father and son, While characterized by respect, includes "little 59 demonstration of affection." This separation, and in some sense Opposition, of respect and demonstration of affection for the Kikuyu has to do with the fact that respect is shown through circumspect behavior which includes limitations on touching and the use of abusive or off-color language, While demonstation of affection often includes that kind of behavior. But caution should be taken in concluding that this circumspection of behavior precludes the existence be- tween father and son. Kenyatta's work suggests a kind of affection between father and children which is based on a sense of reverence and admiration. In the pages that follow I hape to look at cases Which involve the notion of respon- sibility, which seems to be part and parcle of the idea of respect, and at cases Which involve affection and loyalty in the interaction pattern of the Kikuyu. Mutual Support The last characteristic which Leakey discusses in his section on family life and behavior is mutual support. Mutual support is said to hold for the relationships between 33£3Hg3 33333 and M 33331.31 (Full B and Z), 33133 and 3133 (F, EB and S, Bs),'3333 and muihwa or 33333Hg3333 (F2 and BS&D, and MZ and ZSG:D), £1313 and M3 (MB and ZS&D) , a mother and her children, and father-in-law and son-in-law, and in a few 60 other cases outside the realm.of this discussion. Interest- ingly, no mention is made of the real father's dependence upon his son in any respect other than perpetuation of the family, and the fact that as his children mature the father progresses in grade age Which is important in the pOlitical activities of the area.20 Mutual support between brother and sister includes the sister's helping her brother with certain agricultural activities and home-building and the brother's action as his sister's guardian. His specific duties in that regard are unexplained, but the Kikuyu make comment on the nature of that relationship in the following folktale (Routledge 1910:290-293): A long time ago a young warrior and his sister lived together in a hut. They lived alone, for their parents had died When they were children, and the hut stood by itself; there were no other homesteads near. The name of the young man was Wagacharaibu, and the maiden was called MWeru. 'Wagacharaibu had beautiful hair Which reached his waist, and all the young women admired him.greatly, so that he often went away from home to a long distance to see his friends, and MWeru was left quite by herself. Now one day When he came back after he had been thus away, MWeru said to him, "Three men came here last night When I was all alone, and each had a club and each had a Spear, and if you go away and leave me all alone I know that they will come back and carry me Off." But Wagacharaibu only said, "You talk nonsense," and he went away again as before. And the three men came back, as MWeru had said, with the three clubs and the three spears, and they took hold of the girl by the neck and by the legs, and they lifted her up and they carried her away. When wagacharaibu came home again he went 20 Lambert (1956) contains one of the best discussions of the Kikuyu age grade system and political organization. A brief overview of the age grade system is given in this dissertation on pages 97-100. 61 to the house and found it quite empty, and as he went he heard a girl's voice crying from the opposite hill- side, and the voice was the voice of his sister, and it said, "wagachraibu, men have come and carried me away. Go into the hut, you will find the gruel on the stool," and wagacharaibu cried aloud and said, "Who will shave the front of my head now you are gone, for we have no neighbours?" And he plunged into the grass after MWeru, and the farther he went the farther she was carried away from.him; and he heard her voice and she heard his voice, but they could not see one another; and he followed and followed for one month, and he became very hungry. And he wore a hat such as men used to wear in the old days; it was a piece of goatskin, and it had two holes cut in it and strings to tie under the chin, and the skin stood out over the forehead so that rain could not touch the face; and you may see such hats even now among the mountains where there are many trees and much rain, and among the Masai. So Wagacharaibu cut a piece of the leather and ate it, for he was very hungry, and he felt strong again; he went on and on a second month, and again a third month till the hat was all finished; and then he took his garment of skin and ate that, and so he went on a fourth month and a fifth month, until he had travelled one year and four months, and the cape was finished. Then being again hungry, when he came to a big homestead he went inside, and he saw a woman cooking food and he begged a little; and she gave him some, but she did not hand it to him.in a nice vessel, but in a broken piece of an old pot. And that night he slept there, and the next morning he went out with the little son of the woman to scare the birds from the crops, for the grain was nearly ripe, and he took stones and threw them at the birds, and as he threw a stone he would say, "Fly away, fly away, little bird, like MWeru'has flown away, never to be seen any more." And the little boy listened and he went home, and When' wagacharaibu was not near, he told his mother the words the stranger had said, but she paid no attention to the tale of her son and did not listen to it, and the next day the same thing happened again, and the third day the woman went herself to the fields and she heard the words of wagacharaibu, "Fly away, fly away little bird, like MWeru has flown away, never to be seen any more," and the woman's name was MWeru and she said, "Why do you say those words to the birds?" And he said, "I once had a sister named MWeru, and she was lost, and I have followed her many months and years, but I have never seen her again.’ And the woman put her hand over her eyes and wept, for she was indeed his sister, and she said, "Are you truly my brother?" for she had not known him, so c anged was he by his long travels, and she said, "Truly your hair is unkempt and your clothes 62 are not as they were, and I did not know you, but you shall be once more dressed as in time past, and I shall see if you are my very brother wagacharaibu." So she went to her husband, who had carried her away in the old days, and she got four sheep and three goats, and the four sheep were killed and wagacharaibu ate of the flesh and'became big and strong once more and his sister took of the fat and dressed his hair, and put it back on.his shoulders; and of the three goats two were black and one was white, and she made a cape, and she took a spear Which her husband had carried When he came to the little hut When she was alone, and gave it to her brother. She put on his arms brass and iron armlets, and ornaments on his legs and round his neck, and then she said, "Now I see that you are indeed my brother wagacharaibu." And the husband of MWeru loved Wagacharaibu dearly, and he gave him twenty goats and three oxen, which was much more than the price of his sister, but he gave it be- cause of the affection he bore him, and he built him a hut in the homestead and gave him thirty goats to buy a wife. And wagacharaibu bought a maiden and brought her to the hut, and the goat of Wagacharaibu increased and'multiplied, and he took ten of the goats and his sister's husband gave him twenty goats and he bought a second wife, so that Wagacharaibu did not go back to his old life any more, but lived with the sister he had lost and with her hquand. This story and the other version in Appendix B ‘have several elements in common: the isolation of the brother and sister, his leaving her alone after her warning, the sister's preparation of food for her brother and his help- lessness without her, his searching for her and not being recognized When he finds her, the sister's child telling her of her brother's presence, reconciliation of the brother and sister, restoration of the brother to his former beauty, the brother's receiving livestock and other goods from his sister's husband, and the brother's prOsperously settling near the homestead of his sister's husband. The differencesin the story are interesting and upon in-depth 63 analysis might prove to be comments on the deep structures of Kikuyu social structure; these differences include the following: In the second story the sister leaves a trail of fat Which turns into trees which her brother is to follow, she tells her children to expect him, and the brother is recalcitrant in his refusal to forgive his sister and her husband and extracts large amounts of live- stock and good. A complete analysis of this story would be lengthy and detailed and will not be attempted here. If this Story is looked at as a myth the function of which is "to portray the contradictions in the basic premises of the culture" (Douglas, 1963:52), then the elements presented above may be seen as commenting on the interdependence of the brother- sister relationship and the necessity for them to marry outside the group. The interdependency of brother and sister must stop short of incest; sister marries an enemy or stranger who must be changed into a friend; the sister's son mediates between the two families; and a man marries with the bridewealth obtained when his sister married; all' reflect important understandings with‘Kikuyu culture. This story, which was told by mothers and elders to children, underlines the importance of mutual support between brother and sister, and emphasizes the sense of responsibility which brothers assume for their sister's welfare. Full and half sisters help each other with their chores, and take turns working as.a group in each other's gardens. Neither Kenyatta nor Leakey give any details on the support 64 which brothers expect from each other. Their strong solidarity indicates close dependence, with its foundations in the family land Which they inherit, the backing they give each other as warriors, and their reliance on one another for help with bridewealth and blood compensation. Leakey states clearly the son's obligations to take care of his mother, who often goes to live with a son after 21 The mother's support of her son is her husband dies. symbolically expressed through the food which she continues to send him each evening, even after he marries. After the second birth, a son no longer remains in close day to day contact with his mother; this,Leakey states, without explanation, strengthens the tie between mother and son. It turns out that because he now works with his father, he has little time to help his mother. Whenever he is within their realm, a man should obey not only his mother, but also his classifactory mothers -- he obligated to help them clear their land for cultivation. Daughters Who are in closer contact with their mothers until they marry are clearly under obligation to obey their mothers and classifactory mothers with Whom they work in day to day activities. It is through their daugthers that women are able to increase the land cultivated, females 21 A widow usually is "inherited" by her husband's younger brother or by his sons. Middleton and Kershaw (195 :47) give a summary of the process of widow inheritance. 65 and younger males are responsible for the planting, weeding, harvesting and threshing. Traditionally, Kikuyu farmed several small plots of land Which might be scattered over some distance, men do the heavy agricultural work of clearing land, planting certain crOps, andraisOTScaring birds, but women are responsible for the other farming activities. WOmen too are responsible for changing the raw products from their garden into cooked food for the family, and for preparing sugar cane beer for guests and for use at ritual and other occasions. ZMutuality of support does not require Specific agree- ments on duties expected, but the recognition of the fact of interdependence of the peOple involved. In the case of mother and daughter, their contribution to the family and to each other is without question essential to the economic well-being of all members. Other relationships Which Leakey characterizes as including understandings about economic support include the MB, MZ, F2 and father-in-law and son-in-law relation- ships. In discussions of EEEE (MZ, FZ) and 3333_(MB), Leakey describes a kind of reciprocity through which the junior person should help his or her senior with chores, such as housebuilding and cultivation in return for, in the case of $2, the privelege of receiving the choicest food and the right to kill a fat ram from his MB herd, and the right to be fed and have free access to the granary of his M2 and F2. The situation for women is not as 66 straightforward. Leakey states that the relationship between MB and ZD is similar to that between MB and ZS. A MB will give his ZD almost anything she wants; she especially goes to him.When she wants new clothes, and he is bound to give her skins for a wrap, or the wherewithall to buy a skin. She should help him.with house-building, if it does not involve her disobeying her father or mother. The sense of reciprocity is not especially indicated here, however Leakey does make a juxtaposition Which indicates such reciprocity in his statement that a woman will always help her tata and will always be given food. The support relationship between a man and his wife's father is such that a father-in-law and senior members of that family may ask for additional goat, Sheep, etc. as further installments of bridewealth. A son-in-law may ask them for money to pay a fine, but not bridewealth for another wife. Kenyatta makes the following statement about economic support between son-in-law and father-in-law: With regard to economics, both sides give each other a great deal of mutual help. In agriculture, relations by marriage generally help one another. Cultivation rights are, moreover, given to a relative by marriage Who has not sufficient land Of his own to maintain himself and his family. There are numerous gifts exchanged among them, especially in times of ceremonies connected with initiation, marriage, or religion. For example, if a man is having his son or daughter circumcised, and has not sufficient grain to entertain visitors and friends who attend the initia- tion ceremonies, he will send to his relatives-in-law to supply the necessary food and drink, knowing they would ask for the same help if they were similarly placed. This exchange of gifts is governed by the principle of "give and take." (19) 67 Traditional Kin Interaction and the Axiom of Amity Leakey's and Kenyatta's discussion of rules concerning prOper behavior among kin highlight respect as a primary characteristic pervasive throughout the interaction between kin. Respect is often seen coupled with obedience, such that a kinsperson tends to obey the people to whom he or she gives respect, though this is not always the case. Respect is generally demonstrated through circumspection in behavior, especially is the use of "abusive or obscene" language, control of personal space and touching. It does not obviate the co-existence of love as a characteristic of the relation- ship, but does sufficiently curtail the demonstration of affection through the use of less than formal language and touching. Love, in the sense of admiration and reverence, is often part of the relationship which includes respect. Respect, itself, for the Kikuyu is a recognition of the legitimacy of certain rights and duties, and of an inherent relationShip between kin. Another side of love, represented by familiarity and warmth, was also presented in the interaction pattern among kin discussed by Leakey and Kenyatta. While the combination of respect, love, and Obedience are the characteristics which are associated with the father, father's brother, and classifactory mothers, the relationship with the actual mother, mother's siblings, father's sister, and grandparents stress the traits of love, amity and respect. All these relationships have an air of warmth and closeness, upon which 68 the claim.for certain obligations may be placed. A number of relationships among kin may be analyzed as expressing modesty; Of particular interest is the relationship between father and daughter, which evolves into father-daughter avoidance when the daughter is an unmarried adult. Leakey connects such avoidance with ideas concérning father-daughter incest, since all members of a man's age-grade are enjoined from marrying his daughter. In-laws too are treated in a similar manner, which generally involves prOhibition on seeing each other nude, restrictions in the use of "abusive" language and on touching one another. All of these kin are involved in mutual support net- works. Brothers are invoked to reSpect one another and depend upon each other for their social and economic well- being. Sisters are told to obey their brothers, and provide for their brothers through their agricultural activities. The responsibility of parents for the moral, as well as economic well-beingof their childrén was dis- cussed as part of the reason Why children engage in economic activities to support their real and classifactory parents. MOther's siblings and father's sister also are a part of this network, though there are specifiable differences in the nature of the exchange between them and their sibling's children. A far-reaching network of exchange is established between a man and the relatives of his wife, especially her father and the senion men of her family. 69 A number of points stand out when this survey of the Kikuyu pattern of kin interaction is compared to the axiom of amity discussed by Fortes. First of all, it is not "friendship" which on the whole describes the relationship among kin, but respect. Granted this difference, however, elements of prescriptive altruism are found throughout the System. Fortes states that what the rule of kinship amity Posits is "that 'kinfolk' have irresistible claims on one another's support and consideration in contradistinction t!) nonnkin" (1969:238). Indeed, the analysis of the aspect (If respect in Kikuyu kin relationShips indicates the existence of a generalized understanding which holds that ltin are to be accorded prime consideration, and that in “the case of the members of one's family group, these claims iare non-negotiable. That the hospitality and support dis- cussed above for Kikuyu kinspe0ple is not seen as a more general charity is supported by this observation by Routledge (1910: 247) : ....One of us came across a man, old, poor, and ill, sitting in the wilds by a little fire, Which he had approached so near in the endeavour to keep himself warm.that he had burned himself most terribly. His back was placed in a hollow tree to rd, if possible, from.the attacks of the hyenas, a ca abash of water was near him, but no food. The natives, when remon- strated with, replied that "the man was a stranger, and that he could do nothing for them, neither of good or harm." Schneider's findings on American kinship are partially supported by the data in Kikuyu kinship. Indeed, love or diffuse, enduring solidarity is a part of the Kikuyu under- Standings concerning kin interaction, and to the extent 70 that the relationships are supportive, helpful, and co-0pera- tive they meet these criteria; but reserve, distance and circumspection are equally part of the understandings shared by Kikuyu kin. In no sense are the latter characteristics offered as the opposite of the former, instead they stand as limiting factors on the warmth and closeness implied in Schneider's definition. The symbols which Leakey and.Kenyatta report that the Kikuyu use to describe kin relationships are land (discussed on pages 2-3 above), and brotherhood -I the ideal of mutual respect and support between brothers is a symbol for the relationships within the family and with other kin. The extension of kinship amity does not include all genealogical kin, but is chiefly confined as an "irresistible claim" to patrikin. The children of siblings have a moral obligation to give each other food, While mother's siblings and father's sister hOld certain reciprocal rights and obligations. Relatives connected through a female recog- nize a special relationship between them and may use it as the basis for mutual support and exchange. Affinal kin, Fortes suggests, begin as enemies and through the acceptance of certain norms of morality and :hxrality are received, as against the rest of the world, as kill to Whom.the axiom of amity applies. For the Kikuyu this seems :to be the case; there was no discussion of cr'Oss-cousing marriage or other practices in Which the malfiriage partners are understood to come from related groups; TK>12 was there a clear statement of the affine as enemy. 71 Affines are considered "shy and polite", and under- standings concerning modesty are most prevalent in these relationships. Fortes' analysis of the affinal relation- ship seems aptly to apply to the Kikuyu male's concern with his wife's relatives. Because a woman is ideally incorporated into her husband's group, her situation is quite different. Compared to her husband, she has a limited set of relatives Whom she calls muthoni (in-law) and since she becomes a member of her husband's family, she ends up with two of the same "kind" of families. In sum, the Kikuyu's understandings about kinship morality traditionally included the axiom of amity which may be pre- sented for them.as a general statement that kin are expected to respect and love each other, to render each other economic and moral support; generally juniors should obey seniors and women, men; and that certain relationships, especially be- tween affines, should be supportive but circumspect. Some Changes in the Pattern of Kin Interaction ‘Many of these ideas about Kikuyu kinship morality were supported in my work among the Kikuyu from'May, 1971 to February, 1972. Obviously, the modalities through Which the kinship morality is expressed had changed someWhat. This is especially true about the injunctions concerning ,modesty in terms of nudity. Many Kikuyu today wear western style clothes; some Older men wear a blanket 72 draped over one shoulder, or a blanket and short pants. I observed some mothers Openly nursing their babies, but others covered the breast and the nursing infant with a towel. Generally, I would conclude that there were few instances in Which breaches of codes concerning nudity could occur among the Kikuyu today. Nonetheless, other aspects of modesty still remain important. In terms of in-laws, the literal definition of muthoni -- shyness, politeness -- is still used to describe the behavior of in-laws. It is through a general circumspection of behavior, narrowing of broad movements and gestures, and the main- tenance of spatial distance When in each other's presence that this modesty is expressed. The interaction of fathers and daughters with Whom I was familiar no longer included avoidance, but, as before, many of the characteristics discussed for in-laws apply to this relationship. Language comes to the fore as the chief modality through Which respect, modesty or familiarity are expressed. Distinctions between "abusive or obscene" language are Inaintained. In a study of 100 consecutively entered cases :from.the Kiharu Divisional Court (formerly Kiharu.African (Sourt) for the years 1961, 1966, 1970, and 1971, the number (of cases of verbal abuse showed the following pattern: '1961 - 4, 1966 - 3, 1970 - 13, and 1971 - 11. Court clerks attributed the increase in the number of abuse cases taken tI> a change in the law which allowed abuse cases to be tried under modern as well as customary law; cases tried under 73 modern law usually give greater leeway in the amount of compensation claimable. I could only get information on twenty-seven of the thirty-one abuse cases, of those six involved kin. Verbal abuse in these cases included one accusation of witchcraft. Three cases involved brothers or patrilineal cousins; the others were father-son, mother's brother-sister's son, and father-in-law and son-in-law. In the latter cases the younger man was accused of abusing the older one. The use of a sexual referent22 as an abusive term is tantamount to disownership, it was explained to me; this was the case in four of the cases. Disputes over land were behind half the cases. The judge (a magistrate in the latter years and three elders in the earlier ones) sought to set straight the underlying prob- lems, and then commented on the prOper behavior among relatives. Four of the cases were found in favor of the plaintiff and two were dismissed. The court records indi- cated that the judge found it very rare to hear a case between father and son, and the case between mother's brother and his sister's son included the proviso that the nephew: brew beer for his uncle in order to ritually remove the "uncleanliness". The court record and my own experience among the 22 The sexual referents used in these cases included terms translated as "your mother's vagina", threats of sexual intercourse with husband and wife, and in the 1966 case, only reference to the fact that a man's daughter had not undergone clitterodictomy, part of the Kikuyu initiation ceremony. 74 Kikuyu underline the importance of the spoken word -- through praise it helps to make a man's reputation and through abuse tarnishes that reputation and challenges the nature of the relationship between him and the person who "abuses" him, ReSpect may be shown through refraining from using obscene or abusive terms in the presence of certain persons; familiarity may be shown by a relaxation of that code. My observations on the use of personal space also support this as a significant modality through which particular understandings concerning the interaction of 'kin are expressed. An examination of photographs taken during my stay with the Kikuyu shows that young children are the most likely to stand or sit with their bodies in contact, and that adults stand close to, hold, or touch children. Most of the slides and prints of young peOple are of young men with their friends. They stand close to one another and often have their arms around each other. Slides of young women fall into three catagories: (1) work scenes in which there is less than arm's length distance between the women, (2) leisure scenes in which they may sit arm's length away from one another, but occupy themselves with the children they are holding or cuddling, (3) pic- tures of women standing alone taken at their request. ‘(Similar requests for pictures by young men usually include a friend.) 75 Pictures taken of the wife of the eldest son of the family with which I lived illustrate her relationship to others.23 Except for two pictures, all were taken near the doorway to her room. One of the pictures was taken during a brief visit to my room.- the picture is of her getting up to leave, indicative of the fact that she seldom visited, rarely stayed long when she did. The other is of a con- versation she had with her husband's mother. In the photograph, her mother-in-law is sitting under a tree and she is standing about eight feet away, carrying on a dis- cussion about marketing, in a subdued voice I might add. One of the pictures taken near the doorway shows her and her husband's sister, laughing but standing some distance apart, on Opposite sides of a small table. Another shows Eunice, the son's wife, in the doorway talking to her husband standing just outside, as a friend departs. The above description of photographs shows not only her attitudes toward the photographer, who usually had to move toward Eunice, rather than Eunice move toward her, but indicates that she did not often move far into the personal space of others. In an atypically warm.exchange with her husband's sister she still maintains her distance. The distance she put between herself and her mother-in-law was an exhibition of the respect she taught me in relation 23 A brief sketch of members of this family is included in Chapter 2. 76 to her husband's father. Once When I had finished talking to him, she said to another family member of me, "She has no shame; see how close she stands and how She laughs." I had been standing less than two feet away from.a low concrete railing on the porch of the greeting room, and probably moved closer to Githingi, her fathereinnlaw, in the course of the conversation during Which he remained on the porch, sometimes resting on the railing. Needless to say, from.that time on I took special note of the way people maintain space between themselves and others, or admit closeness. These photographs almost confirm her fear that she was an outsider, "not a daughter of Githingi" as her husband's sister said. Though I have no photographs, I did Observe that her husband, in talking to his father, stood from four to five feet away from him, not as far away as did his wife, and that Githingi's sister's son closely approximated Eunice's distance While talking to his mother's brother; sometimes they would stand half the distance of the yard apart. The younger children came closer, and Githingi once held and took care of the youngest when she was ill. Githingi's daughter seldom spoke to her father; messages fromihim.to her were usually delivered by her mother. If she were around When he was at home she quickly left his jpresence and went to her room or performed the duties expected of her and left. He seldom had to ask that some- thing be done. It was usually anticipated. Githingi's 77 daughter-in-law, too, seldom remained long in the same area as her father-in-law. The Kikuyu traditionally practiced a form of father- in-lawe-daughter-in-law avoidance, and though few would admit it today, their use of space confirms an underlying belief in the propriety of this tradition. So too is the "avoidance" between fathers and daughters played out in the use of personal space. Fathers too were to minimize contact with their daughters after the daughters developed a shyness about their bodies, or during puberty. Brothers often kept minimal distance between each other. Brothers were just as likely to share a chair and a beer with one another as were friends, but friends were more likely to put their arms around one another or to dance with one another. A brother would definitely not dance with his sister. Traditionally, Kenyatta notes, brothers and sisters could not attend the same dance (1938:161). Leakey states that they should not dance with or near one another. Sisters, who would go to live with their husband's peOple after marriage, did not always live near one another. Githingi's wife, Njoki's sister, lived in town, not very far from her sister, yet I never saw them together. The sister came to Githingi's homestead often and might have seen her sister When I was not around, but what I observed is that most of her time there was spent with her sister's daughter Who was only a few years younger than she, or talking to the young children. When Githingi's sister came to visit, 78 she too spent most of her time with the other women and children, chatting primarily with her mother When she was living there, with her brother's daughter and his daughter- in-law, and then with her brother's wife. Githingi's sister was very comfortable and at ease during these gatherings, as she was When she visited her other brother's wife in Nairobi. There too she spent little time talking to her brother, but quickly engaged in lively and animated conversation with her mother, who had requested that she come see her, and her brother's wife, Ellen. Ellen's sister lived in Nairobi in a housing develOpment on the other side of the city from.her. They seemed genuinely fond of each other and sat close together, but obviously did not see each other often. Responsibility,_Loyalty and Affection Within.Kikuyu Kinship‘Morality The understandings concerning kin interaction which I found among the Kikuyu whom I knew are phrased differently than Leakey's and Kenyatta's terms, but encompass many of the same ideas. Love, familiarity and "warmth" of feeling are discussed with the understanding which holds that kin should have affection for one another. The understanding Which holds that kin share responsibility for each other's social and moral well-being seems to have itsxfoundation in the compelling nature of the relationship between kin. This relationship, Leakey states, sometimes makes them 79 liable to supernatural sanctions if they act in contradis- tinction to the shared understandings. Loyalty, the last of the understandings Which I will discuss, was also not brought up as such by the two authors, its presence none- theless implied in notions concdrning solidarity. The set of understandings discussed here does not exhaust the universe of kinship morality for the Kikuyu, but are those which I found most accessible and more easily analyzable -- they are clearly part of the way some Kikuyu think about kin. A brief statement of these understandings are as follows: KinSpeOple should love one another. 'KinspeOple should be responsible for the moral and social well-being of one another. Kinspeople should be loyal to one another, stand with one another against outsiders. Each understanding came to my attention in a different way. I first began to think about responsibility as an understanding among kin in discussions with young men about their "duties" toward their sisters. They stressed the idea that they were expected to control their sister's moral and sexual behavior, that Whatever trouble their sisters got into reflected on them, At another time, the subject of father-son responsibility was broached, and with another set of informants I talked about the idea of responsibility for members of one's 3335i. The idea was formed after the latter discussion that kinspeOp1e feel a compelling tie to other kinspeop1e such that they feel 80 they share the same destiny, or at least, they are responsible for each other's social and moral well-being. While in the field I did not administer a questionnaire on this subject, though I did do a survey which included questions on the kin support network (see Appendix C). Generally, this area was treated as I did the others, by investigating my field notes to see Where this asPect of kinship morality, as I understood it, appeared and how the people involved handled it. It would be misleading to suggest that I went into the field without certain ideas concerning intrafamilial interaction, not the least of Which was a belief that such relationships should be warm and close. My apprehension of understandings concerning affection began on that note. I noticed some coolness in the relationship between a couple of brothers and their mothers. I asked the young men why they behaved so, and received the answer that "women are closer to their mothers." For this same set of brothers there was some awkwardness about What to call their mother. They said that they used no term of address for her (they called their father 3333, a respectful term of address translated as old.man); they simply told their mother What they had to say. This was contrasted to their sister, Who was older than they, Who used the English term "MOmmy" in addressing their mother. I continued to ob- serve interaction among mothers and their children, and talked at length with two informants about their 81 interaction with'both their mothers and fathers. A considerable amount of my information on the parentechild relationship is based on these data, and on cases in which these people interact. My knowledge of and expecta- tions about grandparents and grandchildren was gained primarily through talking to grandchildren and observing their interaction with their grandparents. I first discussed affection between brother and sister with a sister who was trying to explain to me Why, contrary to expectations, she was not on good terms with one of her brothers. In a sense she explained the expected under— standings and the exceptions to it. 'With this same informant, but at another time, I also discussed the nature of the affective relationship between patrilineal cousins. She talked of the feeling of joy and comfort in being with one of her own family. Relationships between matrilineal cousins was not brought up in the same way, but rather through my comment on the different relations of a young man to his mother's brother's daughter and to his mother's brother's son, one of Which was warm and familiar, the other more distant and hierarchical. The former was stated as the ideal. I talked with these same peOple about their understandings concerning their parent's siblings, and generally found that one is expected to "fear" or respect his or her father's brother, but that no clear statement of expectations, based solely on genealogical relationship, was given for mother's brother. 82 The other major area in which I received information affection was that of husband and wife. One of my closest friends, and a good informant, was involved in marriage negotiations. I spent a good deal of time talking to her and her fiance about the expectations of husbands and wives, including ideas about affection. Her father's brother's wife was also Open and willing to talk about this area, after I got to know her well. I cannot say that I reached my understanding of the position of loyalty in the kinship morality of the Kikuyu in quite the same way. I rather learned about it as I learned to live among the Kikuyu, and how they live among each other -- no one set me down and explained its meaning, but again and again the lesson of sticking with one's kin, no matter how variously kin was defined, was played out before me. It is only through the analysis of cases that I arrived at clear statements of the value of kinship loyalty. In these cases kin act out this principle of loyalty, and in talking to me about some of the cases mention that they must stand with kinaigainst outsiders. In the pages Which follow I hOpe to show instances in Which these aspects of Kikuyu kinship morality come into play, and discuss variations in behavior in rggafid to them. 83 Summary and Discussion The Kikuyu distinguish between kin related to them through male and female links. In genealogical reckoning those ties to a male ancestor through male links are most likely remembered, and are the basis of assignment of certain rights and statuses. A mb3£i_(family group) is generally said to be composed of the descendents of a male ancestor, his sons and their wives and children, and his unmarried daughters. The 3333i is distinguished from "kin" or "relatives" Who may include a wider range of patrilineal relatives, members of mother's 3335i, and members of wife's 3b353, Traditionally, the tie to the land was regarded as a crucial element of mb3£i_membership. This study is about the pattern of interaction among kin, with particular interest in the intrafamilial inter- action. The method of investigation is the case study method, Which lays out events and allows analysis of the role of certain cultural understandings with particular social fields. "Understandings" here refers to expectations about behavior which allows for predictability within a society. Meyer Fortes has suggested that the understandings which comprise kinship morality may be classed under the 'heading, the axiom.of amity, a principle Which includes as its basic element an irresistible claim of kin for each other's support and consideration. Based on a model of brotherhood, Fortes includes solidarity, cohesion and 84 amity as aspects of kinship morality. Love, defined as diffuse, enduring solidarity was found by Schneider to be a central factor in American kinship. Fortes states that the amity among kin may vary depending on the culturally defined nature and closeness of the genealogical tie, and it may be extended to affines Who are incorporated into the group. In an unpublished manuscript Leakey described Kikuyu family life and behavior very similarly to Kenyatta's description in.Facing Mt. Kenya. Relationships within the [33353 and with mother's brother and mother's sister were characterized as being based on rules concerning respect, obedience, modesty, love, and support. The relationship between mother and son were said By Leakey to be among the warmest and most enduring. The father-daughter relation- ship included modesty as a central understanding, as did the relationship between affinal relatives. Respect and obedience were the most pervasive aspects of the expectations among kin, contrasted with familiarity Which was most well- developed in the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren, and between father's sister, mother's sister, mother's brother and their sibling's children. The particular modalities through Which these characteristics are expressed includes genres of verbal behavior which distinguish "abusive and obscene" language from other types, touching and control of person space, and~ nudity and exposure of the genitals. Some changes in 85 the modalities were discussed, but a basic conservatism remains. The network of kin who support one another is quite extensive, with more of a sense of reciprocity existing between affines and mother's sister, mother's brother and father's sister and their sibling's children than within thelmb3gi. Some changes have occured in the pattern of kin inter- action but generally my findings support many of Leakey's and Kenyatta's observations. Instead of ideas which hold that kin or categories of kin should respect, obey, be modest toward, love and support one another, in my findings it was phrased that kin are seen to feel a sense of responsibility toward one another, Should be loyal to each other, and should have affection for one another. Clearly love and affection represent similar areas, While Leakey and Kenyatta did not directly address the area of responsibility, analysis of their material lend support to the interpretation that the nature of respect includes a sense of re3ponsibility. Loyalty might be interpreted as including aspects of love and solidarity, but this Study intends to show how the Kikuyu view the two differently. These do not exhaust the understandings which make up the kinship morality of the Kikuyu whom I knew, but represent areas in which I have the best information. CHAPTER 2: THE CONTEXT OF RESEARCH The Kikuyu: Pre—Colonial Interethnic Relations and Phygical Environment Research for this thesis was conducted among the Kikuyu of Kenya, East Africa. The Kikuyu are one of the largest ethnic groups in Kenya, numbering 2,201,632 according to the 1969 census (Republic of Kenya, 1970). The related groups, the Embu and Meru, are frequently classified with the Kikuyu. Although there has been much movement by the Kikuyu the largest prOportion of the popu- lation is still to be found in the traditional Kikuyu homeland, three districts of the Central Province. Research on which this dissertation is based was carried out in Mbiri Location of Kiharu Division in Murang'a District. Table 1 gives the p0pulation, area in square kilometers and population density of the three districts, Nyeri to the north, Murang'a in the center, and Kiambu to the south, and the population and area of the Division and Location in which I lived. The Kikuyu technological system, culture and language are closely related to that of the Kamba, also of Central Province, and their linguistic system relates them to the Ba'ntu-speaking pe0ples of the Kenya coast. These Bantu- sPeaking people, the Kikuyu, also have a heavy overlay 86 87 Table 1 Population, Area, and Population Density IG POpulation overnment Area in Density/ Division sq. km, POpulation sq. km. Central Province 13,233 1,655,647 127 Nyeri District 3,351 360,845 108 Kiambu District 2,578 475,576 184 Murang'a District 2,529 445,310 176 Kiharu Division 406 91,675 226 Mbiri Location 48 12,707 263 88 of Masai characteristics, and are sometimes called Hamitized Bantu.1 According to Kikuyu migration myths, they came from the coast of Kenya and traveled across the Chania River to the slopes of Mt. Kenya. Lambert (1950:27) supports this view saying that the migration to the present area was frOm the northeast to the south, from north of the Tana River near the coast. This migration began about 500 years ago with the Kikuyu arriving in Murang'a around 1500 A.D., and spreading south to Kiambu District by the 1800's. Mt. Kenya is the most prominent geographical feature of the hilly area in which they settled. The Kenya High- lands, as this area is sometimes called, has altitudes ranging from.5000-8000 feet; th. Kenya's peak is about 17,000 feet above sea level. The altitude gives Kikuyuland a generally temperate climate. The three districts which comprise Kikuyuland are about 100 miles long and 30 miles wide. To the north beyondth. Kenya this area is bounded by the Nyombeni Range; in the east it is bounded by the Athi plains, occupied by the Masai and the Ulu Hills, occupied by the Kamba; the western boundary is the Aberdare Mountain Range and the eastern edge of the Rift Valley Escarpment, and in the south are the Masai who live on the Huntingford (1961), in a discussion of the distribution of cultural traits in East Africa, puts the Kikuyu in the Kiama (council) culture of the Bantu speakers, but goes on to document the similarities between the Kikuyu and Masai in terms of shield types and decora- tions, hair styles, body ornaments and various features of the material culture. 89 plains beyond the Ngong Hills. Much of the Kikuyu territory borders on the Masai plains. Although peaceful relations often prevailed between these two groups such that there was ritual and ceremonial interdependence, continuous trade, especially between the women of the groups; and frequent inter- marriage among members of the Masai and Kikuyu; the older Kikuyu men and women with Whom.I talked always stressed the wars between the Kikuyu and the Masai. Kikuyu territory was forested hill, while the Masai live on the plains. Each was almost invincible in its own territory, with the Kikuyu using strategically placed staked war pits to StOp the advancing Masai (Middleton and Kershaw 1953:13). In warfare the Kikuyu viewed themselves as clever and cunning while the Masai were strong and foolhardy. In the follow- ing statement about warfare between the Kikuyu and Masai the characteristic differences which the Kikuyu see between the two groups is emphasized: In the dead of the night the Kikuyu warriors, mar- shalled by wangombe, rose and went stealthily with their rattles covered with dried banana leaves, and hid themselves in the bush....Theré they waited excitedly for the enemy. Early in the mornin .... the.Masai, unaware of the preparation whiCh tne Kiku had made for the defence of their cattle, marc ed boldly toward the kraals, determined to kill anyone Who came in their way...(l962:42) (emphasis added). The Kamba bordered the Kikuyu to the east. The Languages of these two groups are mutually intelligible ‘33 native speakers of either, with many Kikuyu saying t1lat the Kamba speak a "childish" version of Kikuyu. 90 Sometimes I heard the Kamba spoken of as brothers to the Kikuyu, though this phrase was more frequently used to refer to the Embu and Meru pe0ples of Central Province, whom anthrOpologists consider to be part of the same cultural stock as the Kikuyu. A similar pattern of relationship existed between the Kikuyu and the Kamba as existed with the Masai. Basically peaceful relations, including inter? marriage and trade, were broken up by raids for cattle and women. One of my informants, a woman who placed her age at about seventy years, told of being captured by the Kamba in a raid as a girl and traded back to the Kikuyu for a sack of grain during times of famine. Indeed it was during times of famine that the most friendly and the most hostile relationships seemed to prevail among these neighboring groups. Before things got very bad, the warriors of the groups would go on raids, but as times worsened they were likely to live together or to become extremely dependent on the trade of leather goods for food- stuffs and other necessities. Kikuyu territory has been described as "a sea of ridge-like hills... These hills and ridges are from 200 to 600 feet high, divided by well-watered valleys, and a 'traveller standing on the higher levels of the Aberdares Bdbuntain Range and looking toward Mt. Kenya is reminded (If the waves of a heavy cross sea" (Routledge 1910:2). The Kikuyu are basically an agricultural peOple, though tlaaditionally they also kept cattle, goats and sheep. Very 91 small numbers of goats and chickens are still kept. The chief subsistence craps are maize, beans, millet, sweet potatoes, European potatoes, and pigeon peas. They also grow bananas, tobacco, sugar cane, peppers, onions, and other fruits and garden vegetables in smaller quantities. In some areas coffee, tea, and pyretheum are grown as cash crops.2 Kikuyu land had great natural fertility, with deep rich volcanic soil which supported dense forests. Today the area is almost deforested, and the soil immensely de- teriorated. Although some Observers (Fitzgerald 1950 and Routledge 1910) state that the area was in the advanced stages of deforestation when the first Europeans entered the area toward the end of the nineteenth century, it should be noted that the processes which led to the soil deterioration and greater deforestation were exacerbated by the British colonial policy which included early plans of containment in what they called the "Kikuyu reserves." 3 2 During the colonial period Africans were not allowed to grow coffee, for fear of the spread of disease from their trees to the Europeans' estates. Today coffee growing is not very profitable and few Kikuyu grow it. Both coffee and tea are handled through government co-Operatives. 3 A number of Colonial Commissions were established to investigate Kikuyu claims that they needed more land in the reserve" area. The last boundary change occurred in 1933 after the Carter Land Commission agreed to a sli ht increase in the boundary. Other cases were hand ed individually or through less extensive commissions. 92 Problems in Kikuyu Ethnography Early accounts of Kikuyu social and cultural institu- tions were written by trained ethnographer Routledge (1910) who began living among the Kikuyu in 1902, by colonial officers, Dundas (1908) and Lambert (1950), by Catholic missionary, Father Cagnolo (1933), and by the President of Kenya, Kenyata (1938) who studied anthrOpology under Malinowski. Many other accounts of Kikuyu land tenure, law, and main cultural features have been presented by numerous other investigators, including anthropologists, geographers, and political scientists. Middleton and Kershaw (1953) compiled most of the available information on traditions of Kikuyu life in a Volume for the Ethno- graphic Survey of Africa. After collating the data they concluded that additional information on Kikuyu territorial, clan and age-grade systems was needed. Through interviews with older Kikuyu informants I attempted to fill in the gaps in the knowledge in some of these areas.4 The problems turned out to be more apparent than real. It was more a matter of ethnographers trying to find permanent territorial division and other structures, which did not exist. A processual approach to the data on territory - reveals that basic units combine and re-combine in variously 4 I conducted interviews with several other informants on questions concerning clan organization, territorial division and political processes. I used an inter- preter during the interviews, which were all tape recorded. Each interview was transcribed and translated by two different interpreters. 93 composed groups, according to the situation. Rights to specific plots of land were vested in the mbagi (family group), in which a person became a member through his or her links to a male ancestor. An alternative way of joining a 9925; included adOption through a special religious ceremony. Rights to cultivate and build on mbagi land were sometimes granted to others, including sons-in-law, but these people could not inherit the land. Land was inherited from a father to his sons, and was equally divided among them. I‘m A_‘..‘-<.‘-__-—." The next largest kin group beyond the ghagi is the muhiriga (p1. mdhiraga; clan). This term is used to refer to the nine clans established by the daughter of the primordial couple, and to the localized clans which were usually long-established in an area. Sometimes the term mgagi is used interchangeably with muhiriga, with dis- tinction generally being made on the basis of the processes involved; 323:) if inheritance of property was the main issue then the term gba£i_(family group) would be central, but when the circumcision ceremony was the central issue the same group might refer to itself as a muhiriga and stress its ties to other mihiriga of the same name (cf. Swartz, 1960). PrOperty is usually divided between sons such that each son shares in cultivated land, livestock and movable property associated with his mother's house (Middleton and Kershaw 1953:46). 94 A loose system of territorial divisions figured into the Kikuyu social and political divisions. The hills of Kikuyuland provided natural boundaries for the basic territorial divisions, the rugongo (pl. ng'ongo). Depending on the size of the rugongo and the size of the mbagi, the rugongo could be the home of one, several or part of a I gpagi. The term for this settlement is iggga (p1. matura), which has been translated as village. Middleton and Kershaw (1953:29) state "an 1523a might be inhabited by one $9353, part of one mgagi with or without ahoi [tenants] or by several mpagi." ' The 29253 and the matura or a rugongo [hereafter referred to simply as rugongo] had separate sacred trees under which they made sacrifice. The mbagi and the rugongo were symbolically distinguished in this way. Councils of male elders were the main decision-making bodies for the rugongo and the $9353. For the E9321: this group was composed of all the circumcized, married males. The rugongo council of elders was Open to all married men with adult children. Mpagi membership was not necessary in order to be on the council, so that those who cultivated or built their homes on the land of others could become members of this kiama (council) if they satisfied the other criterion, usually movement through the age-grade system with each level marked by the payment of a goat to the 5152a. A leader or spokesman selected from among the council was chosen for his wisdom and ability to command 95 respect beyond their rugongo. The athamaki, leader of the council of elders (athuri), were often very prominent men. Religious, legislative, and judicial duties involving people of the rugongo rested in the hands of these elders. Sometimes the elders of one rugongo joined the elders of another in making sacrifices or in settling disputes. It is most likely that ag;hgg councils formed from the members of the elders' councils of several ng'oggo were organized by disputants to deal with particular problems. There is no doubt that several ng'ongo worked in concert, on special occasions. Nor is there any doubt that they sometimes fought one another. Death and blood compensation often followed a fight between members of different ng'ongo. Death and the violence of the battle between two ng'ongo can be contrasted to a fight between members of an.i£g£a on one ridge. One informant gave the following answer to the question, "Did the 1535a fight within itself?": Yes, if two people quarreled they usually fought. But since they were brothers, the fight was short-lived. Two old people could come and separate them with long sticks so that they couldn't be cut by an as (big knives). You should understand that thg_f§§5ting peOple could not use shields. If one iggga member hurt another, he would have to pay a fine of one goat, and to slaughter another goat, to be eaten with the injured person. ‘ Alliance beyond the rugongo was usually facilitated through a wealthy, influential athamaki (leader of the elder's council) or through a medicine man (mundu mugo) or a war magician (mugg.wa ita), who gained a reputation 96 through the power of his medicine and the wisdom of his counsel. Such a medicine man might unite many ng'ongo in an area the size of the present day location; gég;, Mbiri location is 48 sq. kilometers, or a present day division; g;g;, Kiharu Division is 406 sq. kilometers. The territorial term of the widest referent is bururi, which may be used to refer to the country or ' territory of the Kikuyu, and a district; district here referring to segments as large as the present-day districts -- Kiambu, Murang'a and Nyeri. The chief bond in one district seemed to have been their taking advice from one medicine man (Routledge, 1910:197). It is difficult to know the exact extent of a b_uru_ri_, but the most informed Opinion is that such divisions were flexible and temporary, defined by allegiance to an influential man; and of moderate size, more than the periodic alliance of close gg'ongo, and less than that of a major district or section of the tribe.6 The "focal points" of interdistrict com- bination included markets, public grazing grounds and salt-licks (cf. Middleton and Kershaw, 1953:52). Middleton and Kershaw (1953:30) found no evidence that the present- day districts ever united in war, and the maituika (genera- tion change ceremonies), the occasions for the most extensive cOmbination of Kikuyu when last held in Nyeri district were held in three separate areas, present-day divisions. The term "section" refers to major divisions in a dis- trict. Only Nyeri district to the north of Murang'a has clearly recognized sections. 97 The age-grade, age-set, and generation-set systems cross-cut ties based on kin and rugongo membership, but evidence points to the fact that these too were limited in the geographical area concerned, and that circumcision and clitterodectomy ceremonies which initiated males and females into the age-set (rika) varied according to the any initiates' clan membership. Nonetheless, the age-set system was a basis of cohesion for segments of Kikuyu territory larger than the rugongo. The idiom of kinship used by the members of the age-set system, particularly 1"" those initiated by the same circumcision "father", sig- nalled the fact that many rules applicable to consanguineal brothers and sisters were followed by members of the same age-set; _e_:_g;, sexual relations were forbidden between men and women initiated in the same house, and injury to a member of one's own age-set was seen as an injury to a member of one's own family. Details of the ceremony of initiation are included in Kenyatta (1938) and Routledge (1910); here I will briefly describe the age-grade, age-set and generation set systems. The age-grade system incorporated all members of society into different status groups, without regard to M affiliation. Each status level had certain tasks attached to it. Figure 1 below depicts the Kikuyu age-grades. At circumcision young men and women became members of a ua-Ined age-set, but sometimes women's age-sets were "manned. Comparable age-sets of various areas would compete 98 Figure 1 Age Grade Organization Men Women Gakenge -- baby boy Kaana -- baby girl Kahi -- small boy Karigu -- small girl Kihi -- large uncircumcised Kirigu -- large uncircumr boy cised girl Muumo -- circumcised youth -- Kairitu -- initiated girl neophyte MWanake -- warrior, adult man Muhiki -- betrothed or married woman without child Mathuri -- elder Kiama kia kamatima (council of learners) Mathuri wa mburi igiri (full Matumia -- mother of one membership after lst child or more circumcised) initiated children Kiama kia maturanguru (very old, ceremonial, religious, inner council at arbitra—n tion) Kiheti -- toothless old woman 99 in dancing displays, and if one age-set was exceptionally distinguished, then the other age-sets initiated at the same time would probably be known by its name. Besides the competition involved in dancing contest, the anakg, males of the age-set, were the warrior grade of the Kikuyu. They had a war council, with a leader chosen from.among them. With his guidance and that of a war magician the age-set waged war against their enemies. Their peacetime activities included maintenance of public roads and law enforcement functions. This group did not disband all at one time, but instead an individual was allowed to move up in ageegrade levels and out of the age-set, according to his age, wealth and personal wisdom. The warrior and elder ageegrades had several specified levels, such that it might take a man twelve or more years to advance from junior warrior to junior elder. A man who was a particularly good warrior might remain in that age-grade long after most of the members of his age-set had left to marry and become elders. Members of women's age-sets shared the women's chores, including planting, hoeing, weeding, harvesting, and thatching and plastering houses. These age-sets were also :important in the preparation for marriage. It is interest- Iing to note that though men's age-sets have virtually died (Jut, women's groups abound, and sometimes the symbol used tHD unite them is that of the traditional age-set system. 100 Persons moved individually through the stages of elderhood frmm junior elder, who acted as messengers for the more senior elders, to kiama kia maturangura, the council of the sacred leaves, who were responsible for "ceremonies and religious affairs of the community, they lead the igongona (sacrifices) for the conmunity, can remove £h§hg_(ritual uncleanliness) and curse evildoers, other functions are to decide the dates of circumcision and the holding of the ituika ceremony. They form the ndundu, or 'inner council' at the arbitration of legal cases" (Middleton and'Kershaw 1953:34). Such councils of elders existed on the 1525a and rugongo levels. Indeed the process described earlier, whereby councils of matura (villages) send representatives to the rugongo council is presented here as a part of the age-grade system. In brief, it is the age—grade system through which the rugongo achieves integration in instances where more than one 29233 reside on a rugongo. Among the things known about the generate-set system are (1) it divided the male Kikuyu into named cyclical moieties, Maina/Irungu and.MWangi; (2) a man was in the moiety opposite his father, but junior to his grandfather; (3) a generation-set rules the country for 20-30 years; (4) the ituika ceremony, which took many years, marked the Tehange-over from one generation to the next. Lambert (1956) lies good information on this subject. All indications are tilat the last ceremony took place between 1890 and 1903 101 (Middleton and Kershaw 1953:37). It is also indicated that a person's fast or slow movement through the elders' age- grade affected his membership in the generation set, such that "if a young man belongs to a senior generation (set) which retires before he has attained an age at which he could take part in the common sacrifices, he will be for- ever excluded from the exercise of priestly function" (Dundas 1915:246-7). The Kikuyu Today One of the best known facts about the modern Kikuyu is that they participated in the "Mau'Mau" war. Some attempts have been made to interpret this war as a civil war between the Kikuyu, but these attempts are misdirected, though no one will deny that factions and rivalries among the Kikuyu influenced the hostilities. Bennet's (1963) history of Kenya covers events leading to independence from the African, Asian and EurOpean perspectives. His work and Rosberg and Nothingham's ME 3;: Mag _M_a_u (1966) are two of the best overviews of this movement. Bennet (1963) suggests that the daytime assassination of a powerful IKikuyu chief was the immediate cause of the declaration of ii State of Emergency which officially began the war in 1952. Kikuyu forest fighters did kill and burn the houses C>f pro-government or loyalist Kikuyu in an effort to Clissuade other traitors. Their main efforts, however, iqnvolved getting ammunition from government depots, 102 securing food through raids or from sympathetic villagers, and organizing attacks on government bases. The Kikuyu loyalist who joined the Home Guard government forces tended to be wealthy, while many of the forest fighters were landless. During the Emergency a number.of people switched their loyalties to the government because of money or other inducements. In effect, this movement began in 1921 with the estabe lishment of the Young Kikuyu Association by Harry Thuku. From.that time until political parties were banned by the colonial government shortly before World War II, the Kikuyu tried to change their status in Kenya through many welleaccepted and legal means; 34g;, petitions, delegations to the colonial officers, neWpaper and magazine articles and strikes. Little was accomplished by these methods as the white settlers in Kenya madecmoves to consolidate their power in a minority white rule policy. The colonial government did not support the settlerS' position, but did not take a firm stand on the issue of majority rule. First a European was appointed to represent Africans, and then an African, a Kikuyu, Eliud Mathu, was chosen to sit with him on the Legislative Council in 1944. But still vacillation and change of guards in the colonial administration occurred, while the underground political parties of the Kikuyu con- solidated their strength in Opposition to the settlers and the British government which ruled the country. 103 From the time the British first arrived in Kenya they had had land disputes with the Kikuyu. Sizeable portions of land claimed by the Kikuyu was alienated by them for European estates. With the introduction of taxation, Kikuyu were forced to work as tenants on some of this land. Remaining portions of land were designated as the "Kikuyu reserves" and Crown land. With increases in population and pressures on the land, the Kikuyu made moves to be awarded more land. Numerous commissions and investigating teams tried to establish Kikuyu land tenure practices, to set the rate for compensation for land, or the redefine boundaries in some areas. The Carter Commission of 1933 established the most permanent boundaries between the Kikuyu reserves, the "white highlands", and Crown Land. Few changes were made after that, until the land consolidation program at the end of the "Mau.Mau" Emergency and the departure of Europeans after Kenyan independence. The age-set system, which was in its waning years in the late thirties, emerged as a cohesive force for the Kikuyu, joining together more Kikuyu than had ever worked in concert before. They joined together in Opposi? 7 tion to the common enemy, the EurOpeans. In the late Rosberg and Nothingham (1966) and Bennet (1963) both suggest that the "Forty group", a group of men who had been initiated in 1940 were the prime movers in the Man Man movement. Other evidence supports an extensive hierarchical system composed of the itura, location, division and district elders' councils and warriors age-grades throughout Kikuyu, all of whom.reported back to a central committee in Nairobi (Rosberg and Nothingham, 1966 and Barnard: and Njama, l9 6). 104 1940's, young men took a warrior's oath to fight to regain their land and drive the Europeans from their soil. These men then formed regiments according to area and age-set. As time passed.more Kikuyu, including women and children, were given the oath. There are reports that some peOple were tricked into taking the oath or were forced to do so. There were several kinds of oaths, the ones administered before the Emergency were milder and primarily asked for loyalty to the Kikuyu cause. Oaths in themselves are acts of binding solidarity. The Kikuyu oaths taken before and during the Emergency usually were taken while the person held some soil in his or her hand. Early oaths of loyalty to the Kikuyu Central Association, whose platform included the return of the highlands to the Kikuyu, were taken while the person placed his hand on the Bible and held some soil to his navel (Rosberg and Nottingham, 1966). Later oaths involved other more powerful Kikuyu symbols and ritual paraphernalia. By the time the State of Emergency was declared by the new colonial governor in 1952, most Kikuyu had taken an oath which pledged their support to a movement whose goals included (1) removal of EurOpeans from.the Kenya highlands, (2) participation of more Africans in the government, and (3) elimination of discrimination in all aspects of life. Few Kikuyu.refused to take the oaths, though the loyalist contingent sometimes did, or otherwise did not abide by it. As the struggle against the British intensified, the warrior's 105 oath, taken by those who would engage in armed struggle, became more explicit in regard to the violence considered necessary to regain control of Kikuyu land. It was not until after the movement was underway that Kenya independence was a clearly stated objective. The Kikuyu term most often used in discussion of the oath givers for the Mau Mau movement is "M". This term is used to refer to political parties today and was the political-religious-judicial council of the rugongo and larger territorial groupings in the past. The English term "movement" is also used. The men were were the actual combatants during the Emergency were generally called "forest fighters", though the same person might refer to them as "terrorists", "freedom fighters", "the Land and Freedom Army", or "MauuMau". . The term "Mau Mau" has been explained in many ways, but most Kikuyu whOm I met agree that the British initiated use of the term to refer to certain segments of the Kikuyu population.8 Kikuyu themselves began using the term after the British fashion, but some oldtnen refuse to 8 There is a great deal of ambiguity about the derivation of the term "Mau Mau". Vanys (1970) gives a good review of the various theories about the origin of the term. One view is that it is an anagram for Maungu arudi glaya,‘Mwafrika apate uhuru (Europeans return to Europe, the African gets freedom); another popular meaning attached the phrase was that it meant "greedy, greedy", the admonition that mothers give children who eat too much or too fast -- the forest fighters were greedy for land, I was told by informants. 106 answer questions when the term is used, indicating that the questions are based on colonial prOpaganda. The State of Emergency lasted nine years. The major leaders of the movement were imprisoned a few days after the declaration of the State of Emergency, and a few, such as Jomo Kenyatta, remained in detention until shortly before Kenya received its independence in 1963. Large portions of the Kikuyu pOpulation were placed in detention camps; in one village in which I worked 70% of the nyumba (elementary or polygynous family) heads were either detained or had a family member detained. Placing peOple in detention camps did not stop the war in the forest between the Kikuyu and the British and African Home Guard soldiers. It wasn't until a villagization program was begun in 1956 that much of the fighting ceased. The Kikuyu were removed from.their homes which were scattered along the ridges, and placed in large villages, surrounded by barbed wire and ditches. Guards watched the movement of peOple, controlled forced labor, and enforced curfews. This effectively cut off most of the forest fighters from supplies and information. Within two years the restrictions began to be relaxed, and more Kikuyu were released from detention camps. While the Kikuyu were contained within the villages, the British began a program of land demarcation and con- solidation aimed at making one plot out of the scattered plots of land which the Kikuyu inherit; another aim of 107 this program was to grant title deeds to the individual land owners. Everywhere this program was used as a system of rewards and punishment for loyalists and pro-freedom fighters respectively, but this was taken to extremes in the area where I worked, Murang'a district.9 After Independence the entire area was re-demarcated and more equitable consolidations allotted. This land consolidation prggnam.basically accounts for the spatial distribution of the Murang'a Kikuyu today. In most instances land was allocated in areas in which the person had lived, so that mbagi groups are still together. Men who had very small holdings, however, were given land nearer to a village or town, and some men's plots are some distance from their kinspe0ple. Sorenson (1967) states that in.Murang'a the land consolidation program worked in the following manner: (1) A public notice was posted before a decision was to be made on a particular piece of land. If the owner did not make claim to his land in thirty days the land was forfeited. A large percentage of the peOple in Murang'a were in detention camps during the Emer ency, making it impossible for them to meet the dead ine. (2) Loyalist, pro-government, elders were used to adjudicate the cases. These peOple were not seen as legitimate office-holders-judges by the majority of the Kikuyu, who did see adjudication by elders as legitimate. (3) Loyalist Kikuyu had their cases adjudicated first, and were given the best land. ‘Kikuyu had traditionally inherited land in narrow strips from.the tOp of the ridge to the river valley. In some cases this was maintained but more generally wider plots of well-watered land were allocated first to those who had acted as informers or otherwise shown their worth to the government. (4) PeOple *with little acreage were given plots near the IEmergency village which was often.at some remove :from.their clan territory. 108 I did research in three slightly different areas, all within an approximate five mile radius of one another. The village of Kanje fits the description of posteland con- solidation settlement patterns. Kanje is one iggga of a ridge. I will use the term village to refer to this area. There are approximately 600 peOple in the village, divided in 68 joint of polygynous families which belong to 15 mbagi groups and mainly fall into two of the nine Kikuyu clans; 50% Agaciku and 41% Ethaga. A dirt road runs along the crest of the ridge. On either side of the road the homesteads of members of one £935; lie in close proximity along the hill; §;g;, the first house in.mpa£i.ya Burugu belongs to an agricultural officer, his neighbor about 500 yards away is his father, who lives with his two wives, just past this house is the home of his FB, and slightly below that is the home of a PBS, his wife and married son. Each man holds title deed to the property which he occupies, or in the case of the jyoung married sons, will receive a deed when he inherits from his father. Other than more such homesteads, the only ‘buildings in the village are a primary school which was lnxilt near the sacred tree used for sacrifices and cere- monies for the _i_§_t_1_r_a_._, and a small grocery shOp which sold millt, tObacco, bread, tinned margarine, and a small asscartment of dried and packaged products. 109 madam mo maaao wouwfluooq oaom "N ousmmm 82$ mo / . // $16 «$8.. ,, §§§§m .. / , \\\ / \ \ \ \ $3.3}: kg 336 33th v e \ \ \\ . 2.25. 8 szo 8.548.. ~28 .~ mane... \ — s . _ _ _ _ _ 110 The Population of Kanje The following information was gained through a questionnaire administered to all of the heads 0f.EXEEE§ in the village (see Appendix C); these included 47 men and 21 wmmen who stated that they were answering in the absence of the male heads of the pygmba (elementary or polygnous family). The ages of this group ranged from 26 years to 95 years, with the following distribution: ages 26-45 were 44% of this sample; 46-65, 3T%; and over 65, 25%. (Pe0ple who did not give their ages (11 in all) were not included above.) The most unreliable answer given to any item on the questionnaire was to the question of the number of children in the family. Interviewers who knew the respondents well said that they consistently left out one or two children in the number given; it was explained that People did not want to boast about the number of their children. The mean number of children reported then was around 3.8, mode 4.0. Most of the children born after the Emergency, around 1959, were in school. The majority of respondents themselves had received no schooling (57.4%), 25% went to school for 1:4 years, 13.3% from 5 to 12 years, and three people, 4.3% received additional training after primary or secondary school. Mest of the reSpondents (78%) stated that they did not have wage employment. Those who did work had jobs as agricultural officers, teachers, barworkers, tailors, medical assistant, and casual laborers. 111 ‘Most of the respondents were born in the Location (87%) or in another location in.Mbrang'a District (10%), but a Sizeable number of them (73%) have spent time outside of Murang'a, a number of them working in other major areas in.Kenya. As indicated above, most peOple say that they live on clan land, 93% of the respondents. The number of acres owned by respondents varied from 0.5 acres to 14.5 acres, with a mean of 4.733 acres and a mode of 3.5 acres. Though I didn't do comparative statistics on this subject, dis; cussions with land officers indicate that the mean number of acres per title holder in.Murang'a is higher than that in the other prime Kikuyu districts. There was no church building in the village and most people said that they went to church infrequently. The religions given by the respondents were Protestant 2.9%, Catholic 35.3%, Muslim.l.5% and traditional Kikuyu religion 50.0%. ‘Most respondents (55%) said they did not visit a .EEEQEfiEEEQ (medicine man)within the last year. Those who said that they consulted a BED—‘12. 1_n_u_gg (45%) did so for the following reasons: advice on jobs or how to live longer, death of a family member, "disease" in the family, cattle, home or problem in the home, and illness of self or family member. The dirt road which runs through Kanje is impassable for cars during the rainy season. About five miles from Kanje it meets the tarmac highway which leads to the market 112 town, Dukani, and to Fort Hall Town (also known as Murang'a town), the capital of the district, referred to generally as Tauni. ‘MOst peOple from Kanje visit Tauni about once a month, giving the following reasons for the visit: official or private business, buy clothes and supplies, seek work or works there, sell produce and livestock, go to hospital or church, or recreation -- drink at bar or on national holiday. Dukani is a second area in which I worked. It is situated off the main tarmac road about two miles from Tauni. Dukani is built around a grassy square where large outdoor markets are held on Sundays and Wednesdays. Surrounding the marketplace are several business establish- ments housed in closely connected buildings. The businesses in Dukani include bars, grocery and clothing shOps, a seamstress, a pharmacy, butcheries, and a leather worker. Behind the shOps on one side of the square are private residences. ‘Most of these are the dwelling places of the businessmen and women who own or work in the shOps and bars, as well as some clerks who work in the District capital. The third area in which I worked is a little more difficult to describe. It is the homestead of Matthew Githingi and lies about one mile north of Dukani, and very near an area referred to as "the Muslim.village", Kwako. The Githingi homestead and the village, Kwako, are on a ridge Opposite Tauni. Only a few other individuals own land and live with their families on fenced-in farms in this 113 c.2383“. So: upon use aoquoooq «H3: um ouflmfim 3:! _z report on her after a visit to their grandmother's home I the next district. 3“; Corporeal punishment in some instances is looked at as legitimate form of punishment; this was the case in regard > wife-beating, and for children. I never witnessed or aard of either Matthew Githingi or his wife, Njoki, spahkigg : hitting any of their children, though Katherine and the -der children sometimes hit the younger ones when they .sbehaved. In Case 3, an instance in which Waithera beat 1e of her children is reported. She spanked another son Len he asked for ten cents (one tenth of a shilling) for tuning an errand for a neighbor. He had to be taught not D beg, she said. Both Katherine and Jacob saw wife-beating : the prOper and necessary reaction of Eunice's misbehavior. Ltherine maintained her position on wife-beating when rpothetical situations were put to her, but retracted 'om.that position when asked if she should be beaten in [ch situations. Fights between adult brothers, which is 192 not properly corporeal punishment, are not seen as legitimate ways to settle disputes. (Case 5 contains such an incident.) Francis' beating of his wife came as no surprise to those, other than me, who had witnessed her rebuke of him at the Country Club. Her statement was an example of verbal abuse which was not tolerated from a wife to a husband. Moreover, Katherine and Jacob found Eunice's continuing tirade against Francis on the way home equally as abusive, and further cause for punishment since it occurred in front of me. According to Jacob, he as best man at their wedding would have been a proper person with whom the couple could discuss marital problems. By acting as best man he established an interest in the success of their marriage. The first person to con- tact in times of trouble, most people told me, was the husband's father. In answer to an item on the questionnairre given in Kanje which read "Suppose a problem arose concerning your marriage, to whom would you go for advice?", the follow- ing answers, which differ slightly from other statements, were given: Father or clan elders, about 58%; father, parent or husband's parent, about 28%; others, including witnesses at the wedding, other relatives, mundu mugu (medicine man) and the government, about 14%. Father or husband's father was not a general preference over father 2; clan elder for members of the village of Kanje. In this case, however, the dispute was taken to Francis' father, who presided over the discussion when it was decided that Eunice should go to live with Francis' mother at the other shamba. 193 Those involved gave different reasons for the argument 1nd fight. Immediately following the incident, I talked to everyone about it except Eunice, with whom I spent the following day at a feast held by Githingi and his neighbor for their friends and relatives. Chege, Githingi's sister's son, who overheard the meeting between Githingi and the roung couple, reported that when Githingi asked, Eunice t3] lad said that she did not know why she was beaten. Accord— Lng to Katherine, Eunice told her about the beating, but :tressed her innocence. Katherine refused to give her any [35 {‘b-J ldvice on‘how to handle the situation. In the early morning discussion after the incident, Francis was the first to tell me what happened. He ex? alained that he was upset and remorseful and blamed Jacob is the culprit:behind all of this. He said that Jacob had Lnsulted him by saying that he (Jacob) would pay for the irinks because Francis did not have any money. Moreover, Francis asserted he did have a bad stomach ache and needed :0 go home quickly. He knew that if we stopped at the Iountry Club the others would go in, and had warned Eunice lot to do so. When he tried to stOp Eunice on the steps )f the Country Club, she had said, according to him, "Who lre you?‘ What can you do to me?" For this she was beaten. Francis did not give this explanation to his father in the meeting; in fact Chege reported that Francis remained silent during the discussion. 194 According to Jacob, the main problem came when he paid for the drinks. Francis knew that he did not have any money, and must have surmised that he got the money from Eunice, whom. he was sitting next to. Francis was infuriated at this. He hated for peOple to know how little money he had; he didn't like the idea of Eunice's uncles buying beer for the group, and was furious when Eunice went into the Country Club and left him outside without the amount of the admission fee. Jacob was afraid that Francis would place the blame on rut .Q' ~ .‘c-A him, in discussing the incident. Francis would probably not be attuned to the sensitive position that Jacob was in with regard to this marriage negotiations with Katherine and Francis' father. Francis, Jacob declared, was not grateful; after all, he had gotten Francis and Eunice together and had helped to plan the wedding. From his point of view, Francis loved Eunice too much and that is why he did not control her. Katherine did not see Jacob's behavior as instrumental in the cause of the fight. Instead She concentrated on Eunice's behaviour, especially Eunice's earlier statement to Kibaki, Jacob's brother and my former assistant, that Francis would be made to feel what she felt in paying bills during the months of his unemployment. Francis had to pay the debts that had accrued at the shOps at which they bought food and supplies, as well as a number of personal debts. Jacob thought that most of Francis' friends would 195 expect to be paid from his first paychecks. Eunice's insis- tence that Francis pay the merchants from his salary was held as unreasonable. Katherine found Eunice's statement to Kibaki disloyal and vindictive. My analysis supports the idea that the incident seems to have been compelled by economic forces -- not just Francis' lack of money to buy beer or pay his admisstion into the dance, but by the increasing tendency to value peOple by the amount of money they make. Although the relationship between Francis and Eunice III-V w cl 1.. ‘. had previousiy had its ups and downs, when.Francis was out of work Eunice endeavored to shelter him from.embarassment because of the lack of money. Francis, at that time, frequently borrowed money from.his friends to buy necessities and to "invest" in various enterprises. Although he would help out with the child care duties, his prime interest lay outside the home. Once he started working he took a renewed interest in his home and child, helping his wife prepare for work and taking care of the baby whenever possible. Eunice was euphoric and went on a spending spree, buying new clothes for herself and the baby, and table- cloths and doilies for the furniture. Francis, after his first paycheck, was strapped for money. His creditors hearing of his good fortune, wanted to be paid. Eunice had already spent most of her pay and they had less money than usual during this holiday season. 196 The young couple, and especially Eunice, did not want to be left out of the holiday festivities. The other couple with whom they had planned to spend the evening declined to go primarily because they did not have the money, I was later told. Instead of sharing and compen- sating for Francis' shortage of funds, as she had done in the past, Eunice was determined that Francis pay his own way. Eunice's statement at the Country Club was not only a challenge to Francis as the family provider -. as Katherine interpreted it -- "Who are you to tell me what to do? I have money", but also was a challenge to his authority as head of his family of procreation. Francis interpreted the statement as "Who are you? What can you do to me?" Eunice resented the fact that she had played the role of provider, without concommitant authority, while Francis found renewed self-respect, and became more expansive in his role as wage-earner. When this new image of himself was challenged by Jacob's showiness in buying beer, and by his wife's better financial standing, her disobedience, and her insulting him, Francis vindicated himself through a culturally legitimate means, wife-beating. Others, including Katherine, did feel that Eunice had an inflated image of herself, due to the fact that she had a good job -- she valued herself highly because she brought in money. This was one of the reasons which caused the friction between the two young women, and which.Katherine Ill‘ '_..'5;o.'I|_ -_ 197 Law as a reason for Eunice's lack of acceptance of the Luthority of her husband and father-in-law. (See Case 3 for more on this from.Eunice's point of view.) Jacob saw :hat Francis too thought of himself in terms of the money .e could spend, and unwisely chose to manipulate those 'alues in this situation. Figure 6 shows the aspects of kinship morality involved . 1 n this case and the influences which act as constraints or ncentives on behavior in accordance with those understand; ngs. In this case in particular, constraints from.the b E. J conomic sphere encourage behavior not in conformity with iii inship morality, while other economic considerations and he use of the understandings themselves influence behavior n accord with the understandings of kinship morality. ase 3: The Unruly Children There are two primary incidents in this case; the entral issue in each is the perception of waithera Mungai's hildren as "unruly." In the first incident Katherine's elationship to her brother's wife, Eunice, and to her hus- and;to-be's sister, waithera, comes into the question as oes Chege's relationship to Eunice, his MBS's wife, and 0 Katherine, his MBD. The second incident involves ‘aithera and her brother, and brings into the discussion he image and role of grandmother. On a December evening about two weeks before Christmas aithera came to visit me with two other friends, the Figure 6: Understandings of Kinship‘MOrality, and Kin.Re1ation- 198 Case 2; The Talkative Wife Incentives and Constraints Which Encourage Behavior In Accord with Counter to understandings Understandings Ships (positive) (Negative) AFFECTION MZ,MB+42D Age, generosity, concern r‘ H+4W "Love" W financial 2 control HZ4BW Bad character, Disloyalty, Economic Difference é BW4HZ Bad character E, H4W family Bad character ‘— LOYALTY _—Uhildaparent Concern WkaH family Interference of autonomy, bad character RESPONSIBILITY MZ,M25:4MZD Age, domestic Incompetency, help, concern bad character, overbearing, insensitive He4W Propriety ‘W Financial independence Father-in-law 'Modesty Disrespect and Daughter-in- disobedience law of male authority 199 seamstress from the market town, and Konyi, the sister of one of my informants from the market town. Shortly after they arrived Eunice came over. Although waithera frequently visited me and often stayed overnight, Eunice seldom crossed the yard to my rooms. This time Eunice and'Waithera seemed anxious to talk. They immediately began to talk about Katherine, in English, leaving the other women, non-English Speakers, out of the conversation. Waithera had told Eunice that Katherine had written in a letter to her that Eunice had said that waithera's children were "dirty and might infect Jimmy [Katherine's sonJ." Eunice denied having said this and further said that Katherine herself had made the statement. "Katherine was spreading untrue Stories all around about me," Eunice said, "and this time She must be approached." She went on to say that Katherine had said that she (Eunice) had gone to live at the hospital because of "bad feelings" between the two of them. Among Eunice's other complaints against her husband's Sister were the following: 1. Katherine was ungrateful for the money she gave her for her (Katherine's) son. 2. Katherine accused her (Eunice) of stealing a table cloth. 3. Katherine abused her saying "Eunice is not a daughter and when she leaves I [Katherine] will remain a daughter of Githingi. 4. Katherine accused Eunice of being proud, because she has a maid. 200 waithera did not question the veracity of Eunice's passionately delivered list of complaints, but instead repeatedly said that one should not go after a person who spread stories. waithera explained, "You cannot be con; cerned with what peOple say about you and confront them with it. When I hear that someone has told a wife that I was with her hquand, I let it pass. People will try to separate you and your husband, what will you do?" The seamstress, she continued, had often told her the names of peOple who said things about her, but She didn't bother with them. If someone comes to her with a story she would '5 tell them to talk to the person who first told them.the story. Her second theme in explaining Katherine's behavior was that she was young and bored; she had nothing to do except to take care of her baby and to talk. waithera's air of resignation and deliberate counselling was at a marked distinction.from.Eunice's excited harangue. Eunice Switched from English to Kikuyu and attempted to extract agreenent from all present that Katherine was indeed as she described her. Katherine told false stories about others also, She said. She wasn't so concerned about what Katherine said to the family -- "they don't feed me, I didn't marry Francis' parents, I owe them nothing," Eunice fumed. But she thought that it was really terrible to spread stories to outsiders. waithera countered this attack by taking up the first tact and saying if Katherine spread stories on others, she should let the others 201 approach her; Eunice should maintain patience which She was running out of. The seamstress now joined in with a story of Katherine's ingratitude. Dramatically acting out the story She told of how She had made a dress for Katherine who had later borrowed the thread that had been used to sew it. When the seam- stress started on a dress of the same color, she asked Katherine to return the thread. Katherine responded by asking, "How much does thread cost, 75¢?" This, Eunice explained, was the reason Katherine and the seamstress who lived Opposite her in Dukani weren't speaking. (Katherine had told me, after she moved to Nairobi, that‘Waithera had told her not to talk to the seamstress, who spread Stories through the many women who visited her shop.) Chege drOpped in shortly after the seamstress finished her Story. Eunice immediately tried to get him to validate her story that Katherine had made the remark about Waithera's children. Chege, who often seemed to enjoy the attention of these older women, did not take a seat, nor did he answer the question. He simply turned and left. Soon after this the seamstress said that they should be leaving. I drove them home, and when I returned Francis and Eunice came to my room for coffee, and Eunice acted her friendliest ever toward me. The following day Chege explained to me that he had actually heard Eunice make the remark which She accused Katherine of, but refused to be cornered into saying 202 anything or making a statement which could be interpreted as indicating that‘Katherine essentially agreed with Eunice's comment. When I later suggested to Waithera that Eunice might have made the comment attributed to her, waithera immediately reported this to Eunice in.Kikuyu, who said in my presence, but not facing me, "So people are still hack-biting me." During the Christmas holiday, Waithera's brother, Dr. Irungu, who works in Uganda, spend several days in Dukani. ‘While visiting at Waithera's house one day he said to her that her children were not being brought up properly, that they were "unruly". Waithera's mother, Rebecca, was given the responsibility of supervising Waithera's maid, and of looking after the children while waithera was away. Rebecca divided her time so that she might spend a part of every day at Waithera's house. She took care to see that the boys were prOperly dressed and fed. But Dr. Irungu said the boys' home lacked discipline. When‘Waithera beat one of her sons because he was away from home all day on Christmas, her brother repeated his comments and added, "What can you expect from.children raised by grandparents?" Analysis The relationship between.Katherine and her sister-in- law Eunice was Strained, but Katherine's attitude toward her wouldebe sister-in-law waithera could generally be characterized as a warm, dependent one. waithera, on the other hand, had some hesitancy about it. She, and to a 203 ertain extent.l, were important resources in both Katherine's nd Eunice's social fields. Both Eunice and Katherine clearly anted the legitimation which waithera could bring by taking ne's side as opposed to the other. Eunice in spending time n my room acted against her earlier statements aboutnot [siting me because she did not want it to Seem as though She anted something from me, and demonstrated a desire for my atronage and good fellowship. If Waithera also supported er position, She would have gained the support of a espected family friend. Katherine, to whom I had all along een close, was somewhat confident that her relationship to t;4 a night affect her father's and father's brother's attitude award her. waithera's support was necessary in order for atherine to define herself as a.member of the family of ar son ' S father . The situation is more complicated from waithera's point E view: in addition to being a resource in the social field E Katherine defined her position in regard to Eunice, aithera's relationship to Katherine is important in Katherine's >ility to present herself as a brother's wife of Waithera's 1d as a member of her family. The negative attitude that aithera sometimes manifested toward her brothers for con- Lnually wanting money from her might also be true of the Lew she takes of her relationship with Katherine. Katherine as dependent upon Neithera for food and Shelter when She )ved to Dukani. On several occasions‘Waithera.complained )out her brothers' dependence on her. She never overtly antioned Katherine's dependence. 204 Gossip, essentially what occurred in this session, has n studied as a means of social control (Glucklnan, 1968), such functions are clear in this case. Certain values a contravened and through gossip, the threat of gossip or : knowledge of gossip, behavior of the errant persons is [jected to public scrutiny and sometimes brought into line. lortant values discussed here were as follows: F7] 1. Mothers should take care of their children -- r. ‘7' the remark -- Waithera's children are dirty. ’ 2. Relatives should help one another. Eunice gives money to her husband S Sister. "he - - 3. One should be grateful for the help of others and acknowledge their generosity. Eunice and the seamstress complained that Katherine was ungrateful. E I". 4. Daughters-in-law should be considered members of the husband's family. Katherine said that She would remain a daughter of Githingi after Eunice left. 5. Family discord Should not be discussed with out- SiderS.E1mice's complaint against Katherine (and Katherine's against her). Eunice was acting in contravention of the rule in discussin it here, while Chege supported it by having ittle to do with the discussion. The last value, a statement about loyalty to one's amily, is of importance here. Loyalty is discerned in nstemces where there is an opportunity to be disloyal to er affinal relative in an attempt to gain support from aithera, the other women, and me. In her testimony against 205 therine She made it clear that she made a distinction tween statements made to the family and the same statements de to others, outside the family. Phrasing this in terms ich indicate that She owes no debt to her hquand's family .d that they have no responsibility for her, She implied .at She Should be free to make contratts and enter into :lationships with outsiders regardless of the family's :titude toward her, or the things they say about her. langing her position from the earlier one in which She F elittled Katherine's alleged Statement that she (Eunice) as not a daughter and that She (Katherine) would remain at» ne, Eunice evidences a desire to be part of the family, nd to have her activities and relationships with others of he family treated with the respect and loyalty of family embers. Eunice held Katherine's statement about her as eprehensible and tried to get agreement from others on hat point. Eunice's lying about or misrepresenting the original :tatement about‘Waithera's children did not stOp her from >ressing‘her point on Chege. Obviously She must have :hought that She had a chance of having her position supported or She would not have attempted asking for verification in such a high-risk atmosphere. Chege's re- fusal to answer may be seen as devotion to the truth, though that view would be more likely if he had made some state- ment. He had been kn0wn to make conciliatory or neutral statements in ticklish situations in the past. His own 206 planation seems the best fit in this Situation: He refused become embroiled in supporting either his mother's brother's :ughter or his mother's brother's son's wife in front of the [her‘women. Moreover, it seems that a refusal to support Lnice, in.such a strategic Situation was tacit support for Ltherine, in the zero-sum game played by the two principles, Fr both Katherine and Eunice seem to count a loss by the 3‘1 :her as a gain for herself. Note should be made here that - ‘1 lege is defining himself as a.member of the Githingi family 1 contradistinction to the other women, and a.matrilineal J‘ ether than an affinal relative in his backhanded support L35 E Katherine over Eunice. It was after this session that waithera's brother arrived 1d made similar comments. All of these comments worried Wai- hera greatly--she felt responsible for her children's behavior. er brother assumed a kind of distance from his relationship to is Sister's children in this regard; he expressed his criti- ism to waithera only. .While there he often bought the children weets and soft drinks and on the whole was very generous to is sister's children. The main point made in this incident :oncerning the understanding having to do with affection iS :he following: The strong affection between grandparents and ;randchildren is thought of as being liable to turn into >verindulgence; it is not tempered by the respect and leference due parents. ‘Waithera worried that her mother and father might be "spoiling her children with kindness." 207 Figure 7 gives a summary of the major understandings involved in this case. In the absence of any statement of incentive to act in accordance with understandings of kinship morality involved here, it was concluded that the moral imperative of those aspects of kinship morality were essentially dominant in channeling behavior. Case 4: Family Loyalty In Chapter 2 I mentioned that Francis once told what I considered to be an outright lie which had interesting ramifications. That incident occurred a couple of weeks before I was to leave the field and is the starting point of Case 4. I will give highlights and some of the events that from hindsight seemed to presage the incident. By the middle of January most of the young men who had worked with me had left Murang'a to seek employment elsewhere. Kibaki, though looking for a job in Nairobi continued to work on the language in the questionnairre, which was finally administered in February. Jacob left to begin studies at the University, but before he left he cautioned me that some of my "good company" would leave me once I decided what to do with my furnishings before leaving -- most peOple knew that I planned to leave Murang'a after administering the questionaire. He coun- selled me to say that I hadn't made a decision about my things, whenever anyone asked. IFignire 7: Understandings of Kinship Morality, 208 Case 3; The "Unruly" Children Incentive and Constraints Which Encourage Behavior In accord with Counter to and Kin Relation- understandings understandings .Ships (positive) (negative) r ‘LOYA135( “fl BW-bHZ 1 Previous dis- loyalty, bad character HZ-'B‘W'2 Dependence, a”) financial support FZS4MBD Concern 1 Eunice+Katherine 2 waitheraaKatherine 209 As it turned out only two peOple asked about the fur- .shings in the weeks immediately prior to my departure. Lithera, Jacob's Sister, wanted to buy a bed which I greed to sell her for very little. Later Francis contracted 3 buy the other furnishings which included two tables, wo chairs, one bed, a wash stand, a cabinet and a gas “’1 Furner and tank. The bookcase, I told him, I had promised :o Chege. Making a list of all the items and the prices, Francis inquired specifically about the bed linen and blankets, some of which I promised to give to him. A total price was agreed upon; we both Signed the paper on which “Ea-...; . the list was made. As the time for my departure neared, a few other inquiries about the furniture were made, primarily by neighbors whom I hadn't seen very often, and by Chege, who couldn't believe that I had agreed to sell it all to Francis for so little. Even Matthew Githingi came in to say that he could have bought the gas burner for his wife. When I mentioned this to Francis he said that 1_l_e_ was buying it for his mother. Periodically Francis would check with me about our agreement; sometimes I became annoyed and said "a deal's a deal" and that he had nothing to worry about. On one such occasion Francis confessed that he was worried because I didn't know the "character" of the person I had hired to replace Kibaki. George Irungu, my assistant then, he said, was a convicted theif who had Spent one year in jail. 210 3 came from a bad family, and was certainly not to be rusted. Also he said at the same time that I Should be ltchful of my domestic helper, Irungu's cousin, who ould steal all my clothes, shoes, and utensils before I eft. I took little note of the second adm0nition for hatever things my maid would take I was sure I would ave given her. AS it turned out, these things were much Fore valuable and desirable than I had thought, for Latherine made a Special trip from Nairobi to collect the lishes and flatware that I had promised her, counting each >iece and noting, as I had not, that several forks and spoons were missing. The warning about Irungu did bother me Since I de- pended so much on him. I decided to ask Chege about what Francis had said. This I did reluctantly, for Francis and Chege had never been on good terms and this would likely cause an explosion. I was surprised when Chege took the news with restraint. He became angry, but he seethed rather than angrily walking out as he had done when irked on other occasions. He said that the story was totally untrue and that Francis had maligned him as well as Irungu since they came from the same family. I said that the story seemed highly incredible to me, but that I wanted to talk with him about it. Chege said that if Irungu ever heard of this story he would leave my employ. He heard ofit in a day or so. Chege told Wanjiru, his cousin, who worked as my domeStic helper, and she 211 :omptly told Irungu. In only about two days after I had alked with Chege, on a morning when I was planning to go 3 Nairobi to begin plans for my departure, Irtmgu arrived ld confronted me with the story. He was very angry -- he anted to know why I hadn't brought the story to him. I ust have believed it or else I would have asked him about t. He never mentioned the name of the person Spreading he story, but said that he would take the person Spreading he story to court, send Chege's father as a delegatez, nd bring it all out in the open. The sale of my furniture 'as the motive he said. I protested that I didn't believe :he story, but that the deal with my furniture was settled -- More is said about the role of "delegate" in the text. "Delegate" is the term used to describe the person who takes a complaint to the defendant, as well as the defendant's representative in the early st es of a case. The sending of a "dele ate" is usual y a necessary step in the judici process: in one of the court cases which I studied a delegate had not been sent, and the judge took note of this by stating that the plaintiffs case was weakened because he did not send a "delegate". An intercing pattern concerning delegates for cases emerged from the survey data. Only one third of the respondents had been sent as delegates in cases, and these tended to be older men. This trend was even greater among those who had acted as judges in dis- putes: 11 (about 20%) of the 68 respondents had been judges in cases dealing with pregnancy, verbal abuse, assault, debts, land, and bridewealth. All but two of these were men over 56 years of age. A chi square test of difference between those who were judges and those who were not was significant at p = .003 (of 9.042). 212 ’by would Francis be concerned? Irungu continued, how could . eat with him, as I did the day after I heardthe story, without mentioning it? It was clear I did not trust him. I lidn't know how to handle this entire epiSode and at this >oint I gave in to a desire to cry and tears began to fall. Seeing this Irungu ended his harangue and said that he had ...... not planned to do any of the things which he (Irungu) . ‘1 had said he'd do. He'd take no one to court, what he 5 wanted was to go to Nairobi to see his "step-father" (father's elder brother) about a job. This was the father ‘ga .rJ‘H-arf f. ' of the first young woman who had worked for me. He asked for an advance on his salary for the trip, which I agreed to give him, but before I handed the money over to him, he went to the market town and got drunk on Karobo, Kikuyu traditional beer. He accompanied me as I picked up Chege's parents and collected the food Watere, Chege's mother, wanted to take to her mother in Nairobi. Both Watere and her husband, Njoroge, tried to get Irungu to be quiet, but, calling them by their first names, he tried to explain that he had been verbally abused. Both of them had heard the Story by then. All the way to Nairobi Irungu continued to talk and Watere tried to shush him by telling him that he was disturbing me. After some difficulty Irungu finally found his relatives. He Spent the night with a man from his village and the following day he explored Nairobi. I Spent most of that evening at the Mwangi's with Katherine, Ellen, Watere, 213 {65, and the children. The major tOpic of conversation as the story about Irungu which Francis had told me. llen and Watere laughed about other stories which Francis ad told, and wanted the details of this new one. Katherine aid that Mwangi wanted little to do with Francis, his mother's son. Irungu returned with me to Murang'a on the following day; we worked closely together, finishing up by projects. He never mentioned the slander again, but inviegled me to e ‘1‘.x ‘ Viv-j help him get a job with the County Council. I introduced him to the Chairman of the County Council and took the . fir I 4' . n ,t ._ *i‘ “ name of the Chairman's son who wanted to study restaurant and hotel management in the States. A few days before I left Irungu found out that he had passed low on his certificate examination; this almost sealed his chances of ever getting a good job. I sold all the agreed upon furniture to Francis, after some debate about the blanket which was given to‘Waithera, for which a small sum was knocked off Francis' total price. Analysis The understanding concérning loyalty is of importance in the analysis of this case: the notion of responsibility also plays a part in the participants reactions and expectations. Genealogies in which Chege, Irungu, and Wanj iru appear are given in Appendix A; Irungu's is Figure A3, and Chege's is Figure A4. It was noted earlier that although Chege and 214 and Irungu consider each other cousins, they do not appear in one another's genealogies. From the information given by them and by Irungu's father, it was surmised that they probably had the same FFFF or FFFFE. Their relationship to Wanjiru is given on their respective charts; Chege is FFFBSSSS to her and Irungu is her FFBS. Regardless of their exact genealogical connection the three generally consider themselves of the same family. When the accusation was made against Irungu and Wanjiru, Chege Stood in support of them, while Wanjiru did the same for Irungu, and Irungu threatened to call another kinsman, Chege's father Njoroge, to be a character reference for him and to act as a "delegate" for him in a case which would involve Njoroge against his wife's brother's son. Notions concerning family loyalty emerge in the way the actors line up in support of one another. The element of choice more greatly highlights the function of the understandings concerning loyalty. Chege had earlier taken a position which was interpreted as expressing a degree of loyalty to his MBD. In this instance he could be loyal to his MBS or to his patrilineal cousin. Incentives for him to Stand with his MBS Francis included his indebtedness to Francis' father, and the possibility that he might gain from Francis' good fortune in buying the furniture. The constraints on that move was primarily the enduring enmity which existed between the two young men. I am not sure of the genesis of the cool relationship between the two; 215 was already established when I arrived. Chege complained 'imarily of the fact that Francis treated him as though he re a child, when indeed he was a circumcized man. The :niority Francis exercised over Chege had to do with >Solute age, Francis gas Mgr; and with the fact that rancis was a married man. Chege never challenged Francis' I"? uthority over him, and usually quickly but dispiritedly . 1 arried out Francis' orders. So although the possibility xisted for Chege to Stand with the matrilineal cousin with 'hom he lived, the history of their relationship did not encourage him to exercise that Option. The prime incentive for standing with Irungu which Ihege identified was his belief that Irungu had been naligned, wrongly accused; and the overpowering fact that Irungu and he were of the same family. In a sense, Chege's feeling of responsibility, that to the extent Irungu's name was besmirched so too was his, influenced his diSplay of loyalty to his kinsman. Chege recognized that he Shared responsibility for his cousin's actions and stood with him against a common outsider, non-mpg; member. Irungu's Statement that he would call Chege's father as a "delegate" also indicated the primacy of the patri- lineal principle in determining legitimacy. A "delegate" or a "messenger" in a case is usually a relative of the disputant who can be trusted to act on behalf of his "client" or kinsperson in delivering a message. Wise and respected elders may sometimes act on behalf of 216 1—kin. Asking a person to act as a "delegate" is a nmunication of respect and a recognition of the mutuality their intereStS. Irungu felt that Njoroge, Chege's ther, was a credible name to mention as a "delegate", en though Njoroge had many ties to his wife's family. Fese included the fact that his son, Chege, lived with em without Njoroge's paying any room and board for him, 1d that Njoroge used the land on Githingi's other shamba, o graze his new "grade" cow. Njoroge's second son also as living at the Githingi homestead at the time of this .ncident. Njoroge's and Githingi's younger children seriodically Spent a few days at each other's homesteads. The case was never:»:made, so I never got a chance to see if Irungu would have actually asked Njoroge to be a ”delegate", or if Njoroge would have accepted. I did find out that Njoroge and his wife, as well as Francis' father's brother and his father's brother's wife found the charge preposterous; and probably would not have supported Francis in a case. Francis' father's brother, Mwangi, according to Katherine, had lost all faith in Francis by the time of this incident -- in a sense he had disavowed responsibility for Francis' actions. Francis Still Stayed with these relatives when he went to Nairobi. Irungu too was readily accepted by his relatives when he went to Nairobi. Irungu's acceptance by his rela- tives in Nairobi is an example of the hospitality extended to relatives who come to the city from "up country". They 217 und him a place to sleep, and talked to him about how to lrvive in the city, but encouraged him to return to lrang'a because jobs were scarce in Nairobi. As 150: Francis' reasons for telling the Story about rungu, most people were agreed that the reason Francis Lid it was to protect his agreement with me about the sale >f my furniture. Francis and Eunice said that they would seep the furniture where it was and move into my rooms when I left. To this Katherine asked, "Why? When they lived there before they only used one room. Would they use more now?" Chege thought they might move to the County Council Housing Development where Eunice had wanted to move for some time, but also suggested that they might not be able to afford to do so. Others, including Jacob and some of the neighbors, thought that Francis would sell the furniture piecemeal for a considerable profit. The attractiveness of my furniture was not based on its quality, for it was the same type of furniture which most peOple there had. That included Francis and Eunice who had duplicates of almost every piece of furniture I owned, except for the wash stand, gas burner, and book- shelves. It was rather that this attractiveness lay in the way the furniture was used and the "EurOpean" manner of its distribution throughout three adjoining rooms. For Eunice, who especially wanted to be "modern", and Francis, who shared this wish, they were buying into a different lifestyle and status. ‘!C_'L. ‘L' — V .— ‘J" '_- 218 Figure 8 summarizes the understandings of Kikuyu kin- ip morality involved in this case and gives some the centives and constraints toward acting in accord with ese expectations discussed above. It seems to be a .ther clear-cut case of kinspeOpIe acting in accord with 1e understandings concerning kinship morality when more 9.1. - ' 'a lterial interests might not be Served by doing so. Reasons 1y Francis was not supported include his past history of telling Stories", and what is seemingly considered to be a efect in his character. Iase 5: The Loutish Brother This final case deals with friction between a set of siblings; the main incident concerns a fight between brothers. I was told that the Mungai brothers and sister tried to get together to see one another, and to visit their parents, during the major holidays. Waithera, Moses, Jacob, and Kibaki saw one another more frequently than any of them saw Dr. Irungu, their brother who worked in Uganda. Moses visited waithera when She was working in Kisumy, and the two of them once visited Dr. Irungu in Uganda. During the Christmas season which I Spent in Murang'a, all of the Mungai children were there, except for the brother who was in medical school in France. Much of the time during the holiday was Spent drinking, either in Moses' or Waithera's rooms or at one of the bars. Figure 8: :lerstandings of nship Morality , 219 Case 4; Family Loyalty Incentives and Constraints Which Encourage Behavior In accord with Counter to (:11 Sin Relation- understandings understandings ; p (positive) (negative) vYALTY Cousin, mbari . member Concern FZ-BS Bad character, . personal history FBW-HBS Bad character, personal histog thSPONSIBILITY Cousin , mbari r member Concern 220 :ob didn't drink very much, but his Siblings did. Most enings Moses and Kibaki went out together with their iends from Dukani; sometimes Waithera and I joined them. . the occasions when I joined them, I would drive my car. :veral of these evenings were Spent at a bar in town which 13 popular with salaried people, especially government nployees. When I would return from town with a car load f very intoxicated peOple, I often had ahard time re- .oving them from the car. Kibaki generally became annoyed rith Moses who drank the most and was the most intractable lbout leaving the bar or the car. The two of them stOpped sitting together at the bar, and exchanged sharp words. Late one night when Moses refused to leave my car, Kibaki became eanperated and tried to drag Moses from the car. Moses fought back and Jacob separated the two of them. Moses stormed off complaining that his brother had become a foolish drunkard. Moses complained that his two brothers were against him. On the following day, Kibaki packed his bags and moved from his brother's place. Later that evening, the brothers took their problem to their father, who had just returned from a Stay in Kenyatta Hospital in Nairobi. Their father called another family meeting on the day after the first one. I did not attend either meeting, but Katherine and Waithera indicated that in the first they discussed the relationship between the brothers, and in the second, other tepics, including the house which Waithera and Dr. Irungu 221 ere building for their parents, were discussed. After these meetings Kibaki moved back into his Frother's room, but the relationship between them remained :ool. Kibaki would not go drinking with his brother, nor would he ride in a car with him. In social gatherings, {ibaki stayed away from Moses. He said little against lis brother, but his facial expressions and posture indicated disdain for him. From time to time, Waithera complained that Moses was becoming "roug ", and blamed it on the influence of his friends in the market town. Analysis Waithera and Moses seemed most proud of their brother, Dr. Irungu, not only because he was a medical doctor, but also because he was a Daktari ya _P_og_1_b_§, he had a reputation as a big beer drinker. Waithera said that she too had a large capacity for beer when She was young, but that Moses, while still in high school, had surpassed her capacity. She enjoyed recounting tales of his visit with her in Kisumu and the amount of beer he drank then. Now Moses, the young bank clerk, had a drinking problem, which was exascerbated during the holiday season. The problem was not that he drank, was drunk almost every day, but rather that he became "rude" and stubborn when he drank. Waithera and his brothers might Spend an hour or more trying to get him to leave a bar. Before the argument between Kibaki 222 Moses, none of his brothers or Sister would go home . leave Moses in a bar with his friends. They took care see that he returned safely. Moses resented their icern and became increasingly surly when they tried to ax him home. It was after a few nights of such behavior at Kibaki lost his temper and struck back at Moses as he ‘. 'ied to remove him from the car. {“1 H The understandings from Kikuyu kinship morality r avolved here are primarily affection and responsibility. aithera and her brothers felt responsible for Moses actions, 11;... -.m ut became more and more reluctant to act on this sense of :esponsibility as Moses increasingly rejected their offers 3f help. Kibaki became exasperated with his brother's loutish behavior and after a fight in which Kibaki and others felt that Kibaki had taken the prOper position, Kibaki withdrew his affection from him. Following the wishes of his father, he continued to live with his brother, but no longer liked to associate with him, and did not do so when he had a choice. This information is included in Figure 9, which summarizes all the cases presented here . Chapter Summag Figure 9 includes an encapsulation of the major issues involved in the five cases presented in this chapter. The information in the chart is organized according to the understandings involved and the set of kin relationships Figure 9: iderstandings of inship Morality, 223 Summary of All Cases Incentives and Constraints Which Encourage Behavior In accord with Counter to nd Kin Relation- understandings understandings hips (positive) (negative) ETHHSTICHI _., grandparent-s Legitimate marriage Unmarried M, ' 1 : grandchild namesake, concern deception by M - .- Child-bparent Conflict over kind of I marriage . MZ, MB—OZD Age, generosity, .f 3: common interest, L“) concern Ht*W’ Trust, "love", Financial inde- sexual intimacy pendence of W, dependence of H, disrespect, dis- obedience, leni- ency, infrequent visits HZt*BW' Common interests, Bad character, concern, support diérespect & disobedience of male authority, economic depen- dence, economic difference, dis- loyalty W-vH family Common interests, support H+W family Bad Characters, criminality, wife's dis— affection Siblings Companionship, Bad character, common interests drunkeness, intractibility Figure 9 (continued) 224 gESPONSIBILITY Grandparents+ Namesake, support Grandchild by parents Unmarried M ParentHChild Concern, economic Conflict over gain, religion kind of marriage FBHBD Future autonomy, domestic help, concern Cousins, mbari members Concern, solidarity Siblings Concern, authority Incorrigibility of father of B MZ,MZDHMZD Age, domestic help, Incompetency, concern bad character, insensitive, overbearing Father-in- law H Modes ty DisresPect and Daughter-in-law disobedience to male authority Hf*W Propriety, "love" Financial inde- pendence of W LOYALTY Child+parent Concern Cousin, mbari ummber Concern FZ4BS Bad character, Apersonal history FBW-flBS Bad character, personal history WHH Family Disrespect, disobedience, envy FZS-MBD Concern 225 anolved.in.each category. The chapter summary should be seen as an explanation of Figure 9. Affection The expectations concerning affection which informants placed emphasis on were the mother-child bond and the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren. The relationship between mother's sister, mother's brother and sister's daughter and son were potentially affectionate ones, while the husband-wife relationship was understood to be supportive and close. The relationship between husband's sister and brother's wife was not specificially mentioned as one for which expectations of affection. existed. It was said, however, that it was of prime importance in choosing a wife that she be able to get along with her husband's people. Although one woman specifically talked of her fond- ness for her brother, the sibling relationship was not one in which others saw that the expectation concerning affectionL were of overriding importance. All of the relationships mentioned above figure into the cases within the domain of affection for kin. The nature of the interaction between Mungai siblings, Case 5, before the fight between the brothers, could be Characterized as one in which affection was shown, primarily through their desire to associate with, be with, one another, and the joy of anticipation of the arrival of more distantly located brothers. 'The common interests, sense of companionship, 226 Lnd cohesion they felt influenced their warm feelings for one Lnother. The fight between the brothers was generally de- :cribed as being caused by the one brother's drunkeness and Foolish character. This caused the remaining brothers and :ister to love and respect him a little less than before. The marital relationships included in this section in- :lude those between Francis and Eunice, and between Jacob and h%a Latherine. Incentives which influenced their behavior in ' Lccord with ideas concerning affection include the wife's :rust in the husband and sexual intimacy between the pair. ‘m‘ ”a. , A‘— — *‘w' 1.. This last especially reinforced the bond between Katherine 1nd Jacob; together with what I have labelled "love". ichneider's (1968:5) description of love seems to apply here;i:g,, 'doing what is good for or right for the other person without regard for its effect on the deer." It was just such "love" :arried to an extreme which Jacob characterized as "leniency" 1nd which he said caused the friction between Eunice and Prancis. The other constraints on their relationship show 1p in this section as the wife's financial independence and :he husband's previous dependency, and the wife's disrespect, :hrough the use of abusive language and her disobedience of 1er husband. Katherine and Jacob's relationship is included Ln this category, in that Jacob became increasingly irritated with Katherine's lack of respect for his wishes concerning the serving of food. Interestingly, the women's complaints against "husbands" do not figure prominently here. One of the reasons for this is based on Katherine's desire to be 227 simply and calmly incorporated into Jacob's family. When Jacob's visits to her became infrequent, after her move to ZNairobi, she experienced some change in her feelings for hinn With.Eunice, on the other hand, the information is lacking because my notes do not show the few instances in which she Spoke with me about her marital relations. Her resentment of her husband, based on the feeling that she both.had to support and obey him, was brought out in the events of New Year's Eve, Case 2. Eunice's and Katherine's relationship to each other was important in all but one of the cases presented here. Clearly it was not affectionate. The reasons for this lack of affection are various, but include Katherine's perception of Eunice as a person of bad character -- a liar, and a "proud" person, who was disloyal to her and to her family, and who was disrespectful and disobedient to the male authorities of the families. The economic difference between the two young women was an underlying reason for this enmity. Just as ‘Katherine saw Eunice as being of "bad character", so too Eunice made the same charge against Katherine: Eunice accused her sister-in-law of being a thief and of being ungrateful. ‘Moreover, Katherine generally did not act amicably toward Eunice, her brother's wife. The incentives for acting in accord with understandings focussing on affection listed in "HZ-BW" category in Figure 9 represent Katherine's relationShip to waithera. They shared a common experience ma having borne children while 228 'unmarried, and both were interested in each other's chil— dren” They managed to maintain the close tie they had 'before Katherine's pregnancy case and subsequent press for marriage. ‘Waithera's support of Katherine and her son also figured into the nature of the affect between the two women. In.addition to their common interests, this influenced her feelings of affect for other members of the‘Mungai family. On.the negative side, waithera sometimes saw her support of iKatherine as an extension of her support for her brothers. She complained that she had put her brothers through school and.now must continue to support them, even the ones who had jObs. 'Waithera increasingly felt that the money used to support her brothers, and Katherine and her son could be used for her own sons whom others called "unruly". The husbands' affection for their wives' families might well be mentioned here. The constraints against affection in this relationship which are listed in Figure 9 represent Jacob's statement that he could not be expected to get along with Katherine's family if she did not, and Francis' dislike of Eunice's uncles, whom he thought of as "criminal". The relationship between aunts and uncles and their sister's children, represented here, is warm; and in some instances close. For both Eunice and Katherine (and for Francis too though it is not mentioned in a case here) mother's sisters were perceived as equals since they were near each other in age and were possible confidants. Katherine shared many interests with her mother's sister 229 who lived in town, and Eunice, while not having frequent contact with her mother's sisters did enjoy their generosity and concern for her welfare. Eunice's relationship to her mother's brother is included in Figure 9 in the section on affection. This relationship was similar to the one which Eunice shared with her mother's sisters. Although she saw them infrequently, the fact they did visit her, combined with the fact that Eunice and her mother's brothers were relatively close in age, and that her mother's brothers generously bought her drinks and food were important influ- ences of Eunice's feelings of affection for them, The major parent-child relationship covered in these cases was that between Katherine and her mother and father. Because Matthew Githingi communicated his disappointment in Katherine to me without explanation, and Njoki, Katherine's mother, never directly revealed how she felt about Katherine, the direction parent+child is not represented here. Kather- ine's main complaint against her parents was that they did not let her leave with Jacob and thereby establish marriage through bride removal, but instead held out for the exchange of bridewealth and a religious ceremony. She spoke with hostility toward them in this regard. The relationship of Katherine's parents to her son was based on Katherine's not being legitimately married to the child's father. Their attitude toward Katherine's son was definitely cool, while those same grandparents were very warm toward their son's son, who in addition to being the issue of a legitimate marriage was also Githingi's namesake. 230 Responsibility Expectations concerning the notion of responsibility among relatives are associated with the relationship between brother and sister, parents and children, grandparents and grandchildren; and in regard to the idea of a kind of vulnerability to kin and obligations to assist kin, may be found throughout the network of kin including mbari members and affinal kin. These expectations are sometimes comple- mentary in the sense that brothers may be seen as guardians of their sisters' moral behavior; while except for unini- tiated boys, sisters do not share that responsibility for brothers. Adult children are expected to care for their aged parents, and sometimes parents-in-law, but children are also asked to recognize and respect as~legitimate their parents' sense of responsibility for them. In this chapter the cases which deal with reSponsibility involve the interaction of grandparents and grandchildren, parent and child, father's brother and brother's daughter, brothers and sisters, patrilineal cousins, mother's sister and sister's daughter, mother's sister's daughters, husband and wife, and father-in-law and daughter-in-law. All of these fall within the broad range of relationships which expectations concerning responsibility cover. Though the relationship between father-in-law and daughter-in-law was not specifically mentioned, its inclusion here is predicated on the idea of the father as the head of his family, especially those living at his homestead. The particular 231 relationship between mother's sister's daughters in the case presented here (Case 2) is special in that the cousins involved grew up at the same homstead, and did not have strong patrilineal ties. Two sets of grandparents are represented here. Isaac and Rebecca Mungai recognized their responsibility to Isaac's namesake, Katherine's son; and to their daughter's children. The support given them by their daughter seems to have in- fluenced this idea of responsibility for her children, though a real concern for them predominated. 0n the other side of the ledger, Matthew and Njoki Githingi were reported to lack a marked sense of responsibility for their daughter's son, due primarily to the fact that she was unmarried. Again, the issue of Katherine's marriage turns out to be important in the constraints and incentives influencing behavior in accord with the understandings surrounding the notion of reSponsibility. In addition to their concern for her wel- fare, her parents were believed to be influenced by their religious beliefs and desire for economic gain. ‘Katherine, by moving away from their homestead, refused to respect their sense of responsibility for her, while her acceptance of her father's brother's responsibility for her was motivated by the hOpe that she might, through getting the job he promised, achieve some measure of financial autonomy. The father's brother in this case (Case 1) was working in concert with his brother; his behavior was influenced by his concern of her brother and his brother's daughter, as well as by 2‘1},'le b . til? | ill. 232 the need for temporary domestic help. The solidarity of patrilineal cousins in Case 4 is dramatic in that potential economic gains were overlooked as £935; members declared that they share the same "character"-- any aspersions against one of them was against all. But in Case 5 the cohesion and solidarity among siblings, which received strong support from.the authority of the father, was challenged by the weak "character" of one of the brothers. The relationship between mother's sister and mother's sister's daughter, and between mother's sister's daughters themselves in Figure 9 represents Eunice's relationship to her mother's sisters and mother's sister's daughters. The fact that she was older than the two of them, she indicated, gave her reason to control them.and act on their behalf, and to punish their incompetancy. Through this she said that she evidenced her "concern" for them, Both girls helped Eunice with household and child care duties while living at the homestead. The younger one dramatically removed herself from a situation in which Eunice could exercise such authority over her, because of what may be characterized as Eunice's insensitive and overbearing attitude. The relationship between father-in-law and daughter-in- law, which was never very warm, never erupted in an explosive confrontation because of a sense of modesty maintained by both father-in-law and daughter-in-law —- neither would directly confront the other on any issue. Nonetheless, the wt”: 233 daughter-in-law's lack of respect for and disobedience of her father-in-law's wishes was perceived by others as behavior which challenged his responsibility for her as well as his authority over her. A challenge to authority also precipitated the crisis between husband and wife in Case 2, in which the couple did not agree on the understandings appropriate the situation and the husband acted in accord with his sense of prOpriety which held that as a husband he was responsible for the behavior of his wife. The wife in this case did not accept her husband's sense of reSponsi- bility for her actions, and assumed an independent pose which she backed by her financial independence of her husband. Loyalty The idea of loyalty to one's parents was important in Cases 1 and 2, in which‘Katherine supported the justness of her parents' position against attack by others, even though during that same time she had avowedly lost affection for them and had challenged their sense of responsibility for her. Her behavior in this regard was primarily motivated by what Fortes calls an "inescapable bond" which she felt for her parents. 0n the whole Katherine's position seemed greatly influenced by the moral imperative of kinship loyalty. Katherine perceived Eunice's actions as blatantly disloyal to the Githingi family. This includes statements against her father-in-law which Eunice made to her friends and 234 colleagues; Eunice's re-hiring of her maid whom.her father-in-law chased away; Eunice's statement to non- family members about her financial condition and family problems, as well as Eunice's statements which characterized Katherine as ungrateful. Eunice, on the other hand, per- ceived some of Katherine's statements against her as being motivated by Katherine's envy of Eunice's status as a married and employed woman. Eunice saw this as one reason that Katherine refused to extend kinship amity to her and to welcome her into the Githingi family. In Case 3, when Eunice asked Chege to support her allegation against Katherine, Chege refused to make a state- ment or to be used in Eunice's argument against Katherine. Instead of "re-interpreting" or "bending" the truth, Chege refused to talk about such matters in front of outsiders, non-relatives. Indeed he was demonstrating loyalty to his matrilateral relatives, and‘Katherine, in particular, by leaving the room.rather than participating in the dis- cussion. The other items in this category in Figure 9 refer to events of Case 4. There patrilineal ties were seen as the most important and cousins or mbagi members declared their loyalty to one another, without regard to other obvious constraints. The person who made the accusation against a member of Chege's 9935;, Francis, was not supported in this by members of his mbagi, including his father's sister (who was Chege's mother), his father's brother's wife, and, 235 incidentally, his grandmother, who all looked to his history of questionable statements and acts to discredit him. The belief that Francis had a character defect, he was a liar, absolved members of the family from having to maintain loyalty to him in this instance where overlapping ties were prevalent. An overview of the chart indicates that behavior in accord with the understandings concerning loyalty is most strongly influenced by what Fortes calls the "binding and inescapable moral obligations and claims" on which kinship morality is built. No ‘other incentives were stated or inferred for behavior in accord with this understanding. Indeed, kin acted loyally toward one another when they could have gained economically by doing otherwise, and when they did not express affection or responsibility for one another. The understandings focussing on responsibility include several instances in which the idea of "irresistable claims and concern for relatives" plays a part in channeling behavior, but only in one instance is this not combined with other influences whose weight must be considered. A glance at Figure 9 shows that the incentives which encourage behavior in accord with the understandings concerning affection are of more different kinds than the incentives listed for the understandings concerning reSponsibility and loyalty. The same is true for the constraints which encourage behavior counter to the understandings concerning affections; these are more variable than the constraints in the other major 236 categories. A number of kin do not act in accordance with the expectations concerning affection. The relationship among the understandings concerning affection, responsibility and loyalty will be looked at more closely in the final chapter, in which the "organizing understanding" of the understandings comprising Kikuyu.kinship morality will be discussed. CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS: "ORGANIZING UNDERSTANDINGS" The understandings of‘Kikuyu.kinship morality investi- gated in this dissertation may be phrased as follows: Kin should have affection for one another. Kin should recognize responsibility for one another's social and-moral wellebeing. ‘Kin should be loyal to one another. The ethnographic record, particularly Leakey's and Kenyatta's data which was examined in detail, support thése‘ findings on.Kikuyu kinship morality, though the terminology used here was not employed by the other observers. Tradi- tfionally, as well as today, these understandings were not equally distributed throughout the kin network, such that all kin are expected to have affection for one another, be responsible to and for all other kin, or be loyal to all other kin. Basically, affection, warm and familiar relation- ships, were thought to run counter to structured power relationship though a kind of affect, eyg:, admiration and reverence, was seen as appropriate in such relationships. Responsibility, which appear in Leakey's data as the obliga- tions and duties of patrilineal kin to each other and the reciprocal support and ties of matrilateral kin, was relatively widespread among the kin. The cases presented emphasized the parentedaughter and father's brother-brother's daughter relationships as ones in which the moral and social standing of the junior was being controlled by the senior, 237 238 but other instances of this kind of responsibility certainly were evident. Loyalty too is a broad based understanding, but its application usually implies a narrowing of focus, either "my kin against the world", or more often patri- lineal relatives against matrilateral and other relatives. The understandings of kinship morality studied here do not exhaust the full range of understandings shared by kin among the Kikuyu (my nine months stay with the Kikuyu was not long enough to allow me to be apprised of or follow up on many aspects of this rich culture). These understandings, however, do form a set which co-occur in many of the same instances. Interesting questions concerning these under- standings are: What is the organization of this set of understandings? Is one understanding more important than others? This raises issues which Swartz (1975, in press) has dealt with under the heading "organizing understandings". According to him, "having the same understandings others have is necessary but not sufficient. The way the shared under- standings are combined (iygy, organized) must also be highly similar for the members of a group in order to have the basis for predictability essential to group life." This organization determines which understandings are more im- portant and which go with what others. The second half of this issue is generally answered for this study -- we are dealing with kinship morality, understandings which are identified as pertaining to behavior among kin. It is not 239 assumed that all interaction among kin include each of these understandings, but they generally are held within the field of kin interaction. The first half, however, remains a question: Which of the understandings concerning affection, responsibility, and loyalty is the most important? That one which is most important we may identify as an "organizing understanding”. Swartz (1975, in press) identifies this kind of under- standing as follows: "Shared understandings which are just as prescriptive as any others guide sharers of a culture in putting together and ranking other understandings. we can call these "organizing understandings". There are two kinds of "organizing understandings": Those understandings which peeple bring with them.to a situation, and those which "arise from.new social or physical situations which bring together prescriptive understandings which had previously not been applicable in a single situation (Swartz, 1975, in press)." The situation in which Francis and his wife had a disagreement concerning his authority (Case 2), is one in which understandings from the economic domain are brought in juxtaposition to those which deal with kinship. This repre- sents an instance in which a previously non-applicable understanding was brought to bear on a situation. I shall return to a discussion of that situation later in this chapter. The data which bear on the rank-ordering of the under- standings which peOple bring to situations in which kin 240 interact include information presented in the cases discussed in Chapter 3, iygy, the aetual events in which kin use these understandings, and the explanations given for their failure to act in accord with these understandings. An analysis of the incentives and constraints on be- havior in accord with the understandings of kinship morality indicated that affection was most sensitive to pressures of various kinds. Figure 9 in Chapter 3 gives a summary of these variables. The incentives to act in accord with the understandings concerning affection include similarity of age, common interests, generosity, companionship, legitimate marriage of child, having a grandchild as a namesake, finan- cial support and what I've called "concern", or "prescriptive altruism”. The constraints against acting affectionately toward kin include parents' and daughter's conflict over the type of marriage the daughter should have, deception or lack of candor by daughter, financial independence of a wife and dependence of a husband, a woman's disrespect, disloyalty,and disobedience of male's authority, a hus- band's leniency, economic differences between HZ and BW, and the "bad character" of various relatives. Affection itself, represented in the chart by the terms "concern" and "love", seldom: was the moral imperative behind behavior. The sense of responsibility, though bombarded by challenges from different areas, still emerged as a con- siderable force in influencing the pattern of kin 241‘ interaction. The idea of "concern" for relatives frequently appeared in conjunction with other incentives which encouraged behavior in accord with the understandings concerning affec- tions including the "bad character" and incorrigibility of kin, economic factors and unexpected disrespect and dis- obedience in certain relationships. In situations where loyalty was an issue, however, the major constraint which prevented kin from.acting in accord with their understanding was what Kikuyu called the "character" of the individual, here particularly bad character of kinspe0ple who were considered habitual liars and ungrateful. A} sense of binding obligation or concern for relatives motivated most kinspe0ple to declare their solidarity with one another. This pattern indicates that loyalty to kin has the most binding effect on kin, and is the most important of the understandings of Kikuyu kinship morality discussed here. An examination of the material in the cases, in which loyalty and other understandings play a part supports this view. In Case 1 Katherine left her parents' homestead to live in Dukani, avowing a loss of affection for them, and refusing to recognize their sense of responsibility for her. While she was thus acting counter to the understandings concerning affection and responsibility toward her parents, her behavior in regard to her parents was in accord with the understandings concerning loyalty. During this period Katherine's father chased Eunice's maid away from.the home- stead, but Eunice went against his wishes and rehired her. Ir 242 In this instance Katherine was supportive of her father's right as head of his household to decide who should live at his homestead. She behaved loyally toward her father. In a similar instance when Katherine was told that her mother's maid had threatened to leave, Katherine was greatly angered, and chastised the girl for even thinking of leaving her mother without help. This incident occurred when Katherine had spoken to her mother only once in more than five months and while she was not on good terms with her. Case 2 which involves Eunice's incorporation into her husband's family is also instructive. An aspect of incorpora- tion into her husband's family is the extension of kinship amity to the wife by members of the husband's family and by her to them, so that it might be seen that she is validating her membership in the family by acting according to kinship morality. Eunice felt that her husband's sister, Katherine, did not follow the preceptn of kinShip morality in her behavior toward her, that she (Katherine, the HZ) denied Eunice's generosity and financial support and disclaimed her as a member of the family. This comment, a statement not in accord with the understandings concerning loyalty, greatly angered Eunice, whose reaction was to carry the statement to its logical extreme and say that she would indeed go to live with her mother, her own family. It should be mentioned that incorporation of a son's wife into his family, a factor often mentioned in anthroe pological literature, is a gradual and difficult process 243 (see Paulme, 1963, for an overview of this process for various African tribes). The cases represented here, though they illustrate the nature of the process, are atypical in two respects. It is often the mother-in-law and several other women, not just the husband's sister, with whom.the young bride has difficult or antagonistic relations. Njoki, Eunice's mother-in-law was frequently absent from the home. This along with the fact that the Githingi family lived on a homestead which was isolated from.their other kin per- haps intensified the relationship between brother's wife and husband's sister in that they were the only adult females at the homestead who constantly had occasion to interact with one another. Katherine's incorporation into her "husband's" group was atypical in that she pressed to be accepted as a member of the family in the absence of a legitimate marriage, and therefore sought very strongly to fulfill the positive expectations concerning the prOper behavior of an affine. The extension of kinship loyalty to the new bride is one of the ways of validating her membership in the group. Katherine saw Eunice, her brother's wife, as an outsider to the extent that Eunice did not abide by understandings of kinship morality. Eunice, on the other hand, had expectations of loyalty from her husband's sister which were not met, allowing Eunice to say that she would leave the family. Case 4, in which Chege and‘Wanjiru immediately sup- ported their cousin, George Irungu, does not so much bring the understandings concerning loyalty into relationship 1c If (A 244 with other understandings as it shows the importance of loyalty to patrilineal kin as a general principle. Kin recognized their responsibility for their patrilineal cousin and demonstrated solidarity in their support of each other. In Case 5: The Loutish Brother, loyalty was not an issue, though I might observe that though the siblings came to like and respect one of their brothers less, through the influence of their father, they remained reluctantly supportive of him. Though the Kikuyu did not say it, the empirical evidence shows that of the understandings of kinship morality which they bring to a situation in which they are interacting with kin, loyalty is the most important. 0f the three under- standings discussed in this study, loyalty is acted on in situations where the others are not, and loyalty appears as a significant factor in validating membership in the family group. Loyalty, in light of this evidence, is seen as an "organizing understanding". According to Swartz, there are two kinds of "organizing understandings", those which are brought to a situation, and those which arise from.unique or unusual situations through the choices made by individuals. Loyalty is of the first type. The latter type of "organizing understanding" arises when understandings from different domains enter into a situation in which they had not previously been combined. If indeed this situation is unique or novel for the actors involved, and they do not share ideas concerning the 245 overriding or "organizing understanding", then a new "organizing understanding" might arise, or an old one might come to be pertinent to this situation. I would like to examine the events in Case 2: The Talkative Wife as such a situation. Llewelyn and Hoebel (1941) indicate that through cases one sees the individual's relation to culture. In this case two aspects of a changing culture come into conflict, and individuals have to choose what is appropriate to the situation. The situation is not unique in the society, but is so for the individuals involved. The understandings which come into conflict involve the evaluation of persons, especially women, in terms of the money economy, and the respect and obedience a husband traditionally expects from his wife. A brief look at certain aspects of the Kikuyu's participation in the money economy is valuable here. Levine (1966) has suggested that the Kikuyu like some other ethnic groups he studied are highly rated for their "opportunism and industry". This means, among other things, that they work very hard to attain political and economic gains. This view is consonant with the view of themselves that many‘Kikuyu Whom.I know hold. Several of them contrasted themselves to another ethnic group in Kenya by indicating that the other group did well in the university, and that was the reason there were so many of them there, but that the Kikuyu were good at business and owned much of Nairobi. 'Most outside observers submit that there are as well large 246 numbers of Kikuyu at the university, but this does not deny that the Kikuyu see themselves as excelling in business and economic endeavors. Kikuyu told me that a number of large buildings in Nairobi are owned by Murang'a.Kikuyu. The pattern of land use in Murang'a supports the Kikuyu myth which states that they began here and spread to the north and south. When the soil fertility of the area began to decrease some Kikuyu left the area to set up farms elsewhere. After the coming of the Europeans, and the establishment of cities; some started businesses as pettyetraders and worked as laborers in those cities. A money economy was introduced into Kikuyuland with the institution of the Hut tax and P011 tax. An increase in taxes was one of the reasons for the foundation of one of the first modern political parties among the Kikuyu, The Young Kikuyu Association, which was mentioned earlier. Taxation was a major means of inducing Kikuyu to work on the European farms established in the highlands, and limitation on the amount of land an African could hold was also considered among the methods for recruiting laborers (Bennett, 1963: 24-25). Kikuyu whose land was alienated by the white sett- lers were forced to enter into this labor market. During the colonial period men were primarily engaged in wage labor, though where Kikuyu were tenant farmers or worked on coffee or tea plantations, all members of the family worked. In my visits to tea-growing areas in 247 Kiambu.and a rice co—Operative in Murang'a, I found this to still be the case. ‘WOmen who worked at home, in the past and today, per- formed most of the agricultural activities. They made their own decisions in day-to-day activities, and could use surplus as they wished, but they did not own their own land and major decisions about the management of the land were made in consultation with their husband or fathers. ‘Men and women in this type family were truly iptggdependent, each per- forming tasks crucial and necessary for the maintenance of the family. After Kenyan independence,Africans assumed a much wider range of jobs. The president of Kenya is a Kikuyu and.Kikuyu occupy many of the tap posts in the government. Kikuyu men whom I talked to aspired to positions in the national government, in the banking field, and to managerial positions in industry. In reality they would settle for a position as teacher or clerk almost anywhere, or perhaps start a small business, grocery or bar. It was clear, however, that farm- ing, and working the land was not important to these young ‘men, though owning land remained of utmost importance. The educated Kikuyu women whom I knew almost all wanted to work. They, however, aspired to positions such as teachers, nurse, secretary, local government assistants, sales clerks, policewomen, typists and barmaids. This last category was confined to those with only a few years of schooling or with none. ‘MOst of them hoped to marry as eel wet hox 248 well as work. Some of the money which they made at work would be used to pay a maid to take care of the children and house. In the questionairre conducted in the village'Kanje, respondents, 47 males and 21 females, were asked to agree or disagree with the following statements about women: 1) WOmen should care for the home and not go off to town to work. 2) WOmen cannot control money, you should not talk about money with them. 3) Education is not very important for girls since most of their work will be in the home. About 60% of the respondents disagreed with the statement that education was not important for girls, but around 84% agreed that women should care for the home and not go to town to work. On the question of handling money, 68% of the respondents agreed that women should not handle money and that one should not talk to them about it. ‘Most respond- ents supported women in traditional roles. The education cf women received the widest margin of support, but it was not a majority opinion that women should be education. That women should not work was the most strongly held opinion among the respondents surveyed in this village, and more than twoethirds felt that women could not handle money. Although follow—up questions on these items were not pur- sued during the interview, in separate conversations with informants I was told that women tend to keep their money. iMothers often bury the money given to them by their sons and use it to help their children or grandchildren in time of need. 249 Young men with whom I had long conversations differed on whether or not their wives should be educated or should work. All agreed that women who were university graduates were undesirable as wives because they were hard to control. One thought a primary school graduate would be ideal and the others believed a high school graduate best. If the wife worked, which not all agreed she should, they thought she should be a teacher or a clerk in her husband's business. MOreover, one young man said that educated girls "throw their education up in their husband's faces", and are always buying things on their own. His wife could work, but could not buy furniture and such things for the house; she could buy her own clothes. He would not want her to be able to say that the household items were hers, and if she left him, she should just go and leave the children with him. So it is that young men perceived this as a potential conflict area. WOmen who had their own income could, in times of stress, decide not to obey their husbands. The interdependency of men and women which existed when women's duties included the primary cultivation and preparation of food did not hold in the modern system, In Case 2, Francis was met with just such a challenge from.his wife. The situation, from.her point of view, was exacerbated by the fact that she had had economic power and had been responsible for the purchase of food and supplies necessary to maintain their house. She also had exerted considerable influence on.Francis' decisions, which Jacob, 250 their best man, claimed to be a part of Francis' leniency. DesPite her power and influence, she lacked authority. (See Rosaldo and Lamphere, 1974, for a discussion of power, influence and authority in reference to women.) She was not seen by others, including her husband, Francis, as the person who should exercise power and make decisions within that household. The understanding she brought to the situation -- in which she wanted to go to the nightclub but Francis didn't want her to -- included the idea that she could properly make her own decisions, since she had the money to follow through on them, From.the wife's point of view economic power was seen as capable of being converted into familial authority, ‘iygy, the value that a person, man or woman, gained into the economic arena could be translated into increased authority within the field of kin relationships. This was counter to Francis' understandings which held that wives should respect and obey their husbands, and should defer to them, especially when in public. Clearly the husband and wife in this case did not share the same understandings, but my follow-up conversations with participants indicated that this was the first incident in which these understand- ings came into Open conflict for the couple. No BEE "organizing understanding" emerged from this breach, which began with the wife's abusive language to her husband and quickly progressed to a crisis, when the husband beat his wife. After this crisis, the young wife, who was going through a period of incorporation into her husband's family, 251 acknowledged the authority of her hquand's father, who took into consideration her desire to be separated from her husband and instructed her to live with her mother-in-law at another homestead. Following through with the idea of "processional form" it may be said that reintegration occurred after this period of separation, when the couple began living together again. Indeed, a new "organizing understanding" did not arise, but an old one was extended to cover this new situation -- wives should respect and obey their husbands. The resolution of the conflicting understandings might be stated "wives who work or have financial independence are still expected to respect and obey their husbands." The pervasiveness of the money economy, and the in- creasing power and prestige gained by women who participate in it suggests that situations such as these will continue to occur for years to come. Different resolutions may be expected according to the difference in the field which encompasses the events; the cumulative effect of choices in similar situations may likely create a change in the organization of understandings. "Organizing,Understandings" -- an Overview The Kikuyu kinShip morality includes ideas which hold that kin should have affection for one another, be respon- sible for each other's social and moral well-being, and be loyal to one another. Expectations attaching to these um 252 understandings are differentially distributed throughout the network of kin. The moral imperative that kin should be loyal to one another is an "organizing understanding" in that it is seen as more important than the other two, and occurs in situations where they are not upheld. Acting according to the understandings concerning loyalty is one way of validating membership in the family group. The incorporation of a wife into her husband's family predicates the extension of kinship morality to her, including expecta- tions that she and members of her husband's group affirm the understandings of kinship loyalty in their behavior toward one another. "Organizing understandings" also arise out of unique or unusual situations in which understandings not usually applicable to the situation are brought into play. In such situations, new "organizing understandings" arise or old ones are extended to the new situation. The participation of women in the money economy and wage employment sometimes creates situations in which understandings concerning the prOper behavior of a wife is challenged. Individual choices in situations of this type will influence the emergence of a different organization of understandings. Summagy Political and economic changes have influenced changes in Kikuyu kinship morality from the time when Leakey and Kenyatta studied the Kikuyu. Major changes have occurred in 253 the modalities through which ideas about kinship morality were expressed. Fewer changes were evident in the ideas themselves. That categories of kin should respect, obey, love, be modest toward, and support one another still holds. The domestic units studied here were smaller than those studied in the past, and the range of relatives included in kinship morality was more limited; classifactory relatives other than baba (FB), brothers and/or patrilineal cousins seldom figured into kin relations among the peOple I knew. Certain expectations, such as those concerning mother's brothers and father's brothers were found to be more sensitive to the generosity, prestige, political status and interests of the occupant than was believed in the past, though Kenyatta (1968) indicates that wealth and generosity influ- enced the interaction of father's brothers and brother's sons in the past. The ceremonial and formal aSpects of these relationships have lost importance in the modern era, as I understand it. The wives of these men were generally treated with respect and a sense of decorum, The mother- daughter bond is today seen as a more enduring one than it 'was in the past, while the mother-son bond seems to have taken on a more formal atmosphere. The change in the mother-daughter relationship seems greatly influenced by the changing position of women, especially in regard to their participation in the economic sphere. The nature of the father-child bond seems remarkably conservative, with the f2 254 father generally respected and revered, but the relation- ship is not without conflict. 1 The nature of the relationships which Leakey and Kenyatta described for mother's sisters and father's sisters and their siblings' children still maintains, as does that between grandparents and grandchildren. These tend to be warm and familiar relationships. The ceremonial aspects of the relationships and conventionalized supernatural sanctions no longer seem to apply, though mistreating this and other categories of relatives is seen as reprehensible and might cause illness or other misfortune. The relationship between brothers and between patri- lineal cousins, which was described as among the most important relationships of the Kikuyu, remains close and generally supportive. Solidarity may be expected among brothers and patrilineal cousins. The relationship between matrilateral cousins was found to vary greatly, though the idea of a friendly and supportive relationship to mother's peOple was maintained. Brothers' guardianship of their sisters has changed somewhat, primarily in terms of the modality for expression, as in the case with all of the relationships; but brothers still assume responsibility for their sisters, and sisters are expected to be helpful and supportive of their brothers. Affinal ties do not seem as broad or wide-ranging as in the past, and affines within the same homestead live in closer contact with one another than in the past, but ideas of 255 modesty and "shyness" between affines still remain. Some challenges to the authority of the fathereinelaw over his daughterein-law were presented here. The husbandewife relationship was examined in two cases here. A number of the expectations concerning the wife's respect for and obedience to her husband were given by in- formants as statements of what should be, but in reality were challenged. The processes set into motion by such conflict might condition the emergence of new under- standings concerning this and other relationships among kin. 256 APPENDIX.A Genealogies 257 q§~b\‘ g .30 g ..t“ ‘33! E; ‘kiV \%\§R\\Q §Wxxxk§ HQ wxuukxb‘ \Vth hQ XQQ uwawwn \VNQSQK fififlWWSijdfiSifl/E La. . meMW 46 aamsalas axle “ sanMMMMHMMM. WM r awflaawaamsa kite-8% 3.! §§g®< Sxmfimfi thRxVVNN NWQNV %\V\\<©xo wxwxxmxk .KQ \QQwowxme V§K¥$fitm¥§\\ 259 wkbnvfimx? Sax §w§w§mu x \VRVix Khhmxhwx wmwwfiwwkm XQQ VQmeww “Mwudfiwt m \ h 3 is? wamm. V a :M m l. a a i is % 91‘ \VQQ Emmvxww 260 Figure 3 (continued) Kinship Terminology Reference P1 and P2: Wagui (ancestors)* P3: P4: oouoxmbw NH Ego's generation F : l4. 1 15. 16. * English usage Terms of Address Cucu (grandmother; Guka grandfather Maitu Munyini (mother) Baba Munyini (stepfather) Baba (father) Maitu (mo ) Mama (unclgg Muru wa baba (cousin) Muru wa baba (cousin) Mwari wa maitu (sister) Muthoni (brother-in-law) Muru wa maitu (brother) Mutumda wa muru wa maitu (brother's wife) MWari wa mwari wa maitu Muru wa mwari wa maitu Mwana wakwa (my children) P : l. 3 2. P4: Ego: 8. Cucu Guku Teknonomy for all women except 6 maitu Baba Name, Muru wa maitu (brother) Name Name, Muthoni Name, Mwari wa maitu (sister) 261 \Vwéwémw v». \%V%\\ Kb MHQWSQ MG \«QQ VQMNVNm ”VT W%§%\U\ 53w» mmsjwijjjiw §Qx§ M essflssssmssasaame.:s a g: F r. My CNN Onwno Oufluo Lw‘eéx _ OMQM. §§Q 262 APPENDIX B The Lost Sister Routledge (1910:290) distinguishes the two versions of the folktale called "The Lost Sister" according to the informants who told them.the story. The version given in the text above was told by a young man; this one by an old woman. The second version of the story goes: Once upon a time there were a brother and sister who lived together, and the mother died leaving many goats, and the brother looked after the goats in the daytime, but in the evening he went away from home, for he was very beautiful, and had many friends. The name of the girl was wa-ché-ra, the name of the brother wa-m.wé-a. Now one day when the brother returned Wachéra said to him, "Two men were here yesterday, and if you go away and leave me they will carry me off," but he said, 'You talk nonsense," and she said, "I am speak- ing the truth, but when they take me I will bear a gourd full of sap which is like fat, and along the path I will let it drOp, so that you can follow my trail." Now that night when wam'wéa brought the goats home,‘Wachéra made a great feast of gruel, but again he went away. And when'Wamiwéa came back next morning he found the homestead empty, for his sister had been carried away as she said, but he saw the track where drOp by drOp she had let fall the sap which is like fat. And wamiwéa followed over hill and down dale, and ever and again he heard her voice crying from.the Opposite hill side, "Follow after where you see the trail." The following day the sap began to take root, and to spring up into little plants, but his sister he saw not. And at last he returned to his home to herd the flock, and he took them.aut to feed, but he had no one to prepare food for him when he returned at night, and if he himself prepared the food there was no one to care for the flocks, so he slew a goat and ate it, and when it was finished he slew yet another, and so on till all the goats were finished. Then he killed and ate the oxen one by one, and they lasted him months and years for the flock was large, but at last they were all gone, and then he bethought him of his sister. 263 Now the plants which had Sprung were by this time grown to trees, which marked the way she had gone, and so he journe ed for one month and half a month, and at the end of t at time he came to a stream, and.by the stream were two children getting water, and he said to the younger, "Give me some water in your gourd," but the chi d refused; but the elder child spdke to the younger and said, "Give the stranger to drink for our mother said if ever you see a stranger coming by the way of the trees he is my brother." So he and t e children went up to the homestead, and he waited outside, and wachéra came out, and he knew her at once, but she did not know him, for he was not dressed as before with ochre and fat; and he came into her hut, and she gave him.food, not in a good vessel, but in a potsherd, and he slept in the hut, but on the floor, not on the bed. Now the next day he went out with the children to drive away the birds from the crops, and as he threw a stone he would say, "Fly away, little bird, as wachéra flew away and never came back any more," and another bird would come, and he would throw another stone and say the same words again, and this happened the next day and the next for a whole month; and the children heard, and so did others, and said, "Why does he say the name Wachéra?" And they went and told their mother, and at last she came and waited among the grass and listened to his words, and said, "Surely this is my brother wam'wéa," and she went back to the house and sent for a young man, and told him to go and fetch wamiwéa to come to her, for she said, "He is my brother." And the young man went and told wamiwéa the words of his sister, but he refused, for he said, "I have dwelt in the abode of my sister, and she has given me no cup for my food but a potsherd," and he would not go in. And the young man returned to Wachéra, and told her the words of her brother, and she said, "Take ten goats and go again and bid him.oome to me," and the young men took ten goats and said, "Thy sister has sent these ten goats," but‘Wamiwéa refused, and the young man returned. And Wachéra said, "Take ten oxen and give them to my brother," but Wam'wéa would not; and wachéra sent him ten cows, and again ten cows, and still‘Wamiwéa refused to come in. .And wachéra told her husband how she had found her brother, and how he would not be reconciled to her, and her husband said, "Send him.yet more‘beasts," so Wachéra sent ten other cows and again ten more, till Wamiwéa had received forty cows besides the goats and the oxen which wachére had sent at the first, and the heart of wamiwéa relented, and he came into the house of his sister. And she killed a goat and took the fat and dressed his hair and his shoulders, for she said, 264 "I did not know you, for you were not adorned as before.‘ After Wamiwéa had been reconciled to his sister, he decided that eight wives should be given to him, so the husband of wachéra sent to all his relations round about, and they brought in goats, and wamiwéa bought eight girls, some for thirty goats, some for forty. Other relations all came and built eight huts for the wives near to the dwelling of wachéra, so Wam.'wéa and his wives dwelt near the homestead of his sister (Routledge, 1910:293-296). 265 APPENDIX C Questionnaire conducted in the village, Kanje, Feb., 1972. Some items were taken from.surveys done in Nyeri District by Ronald Stockton and in Kiambu District by Gary Ferraro. All items were written in Kikuyu and English. The inter- viewers, four young men of the village, were asked to read the item to the respondent in.Kikuyu and to check or fill- in the appropriate answer. 1. Name of Interviewery____. 2. Respondent number 3. Date of Interview 4. Place of Interview____ 5. Sex of Respondent To begin I would like to ask you some questions about your- self and your family. 6. Are you married? 1. Married 4. Divorced 2. Single 5. Separated 3. Widow 6. No answer 7. If married male ask: How many wives do you have? 8. If married female ask: How many other wives does your husband have? 9. How old are you? 10. Were you born in this location? Born in this location Not in this location, but in Murang'a District Outside of District No answer «PWNH 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 266 How far did you go in school? Never attended school 1-2 years 3-4 years 4-5 years 7-8 years, or primary certificate 9-10 years, or some high school 11-12 years, or secondary certificate 12-13 years, or higher school . Primary certificate plus additional training 10. Other, specify 11. No answer OWNO\U|-L‘UJNH How many children do you have? How many of your children were born after the emergency (1952)? Of those born after the emergency: How many are now in school? Of those born before the emergency: What are they doing now? U'IJ-‘UJNH Do you have wage employment? 1. Yes Ifyes, specify 2. No 3. No answer Do you‘have a business? 1. Yes Iflyes, specify 2. No 3. No answer How do you get money for your children's school fees? 1. From empldyment or business 2. From selling craps 3. From selling livestock 4. From selling craps and livestock 5. From relatives 6. Other, specify 7. No answer 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 267 If sells crop aSk: HOW‘mudh do you get from.cr0ps each school term? If sells livestock aSk: How many goats or cows did you sell ast term? What was the average price? Do you cultivate a garden? 1. Yes 2. No 3. No answer How many gardens to you have? 1. None, renting, or using someone else's land 2. l 3. 2 4. 3 5. 4 6. 5 7. 'More than 5 8. No answer How many acres do you own? - 7. 11-12 - 8. 13-14 9 15-16 10. Mbre than 16 11. No answer I. \OVU'ILAH-‘O I l-‘flG-l-‘NH I O O‘U‘I-l-‘DJNH Have you hired a shamba worker? 1. Yes Tf—-yes, how many? 3: N3 answer What is the name of your father's mmhiriga? What is the name of your father's mbari? Do members of your mbari meet to discuss mbari affairs? 1. Yes If yes, how often did they meet last year? . No 3. No answer What is the name of your rika? 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 268 Did you have a ceremony of second birth before your initiation? 1. Yes 2. No 3. No answer Would you like your daughters to be circumcised? 1. Yes 2. No 3. No answer Have you ever consulted a mundu mugo? 1. Yes If yes, how many times last year? 2. No 3. No answer For what reasons have you consulted a mundu mugo? 1. 3. 2. 4. Ifrmale aSk: Did you give ruracio? 1. Yes If yes, how much? 2. No 3. No answer Iffifemale ask: Was ruracio given to your peOple? 1. Yes If yes, how much? 2. No 3. No answer If you have married daughters, did you receive ruracio from.their husband's families? 1. Yes If yes, how much for each daughter? 1. 2 2. No 3: 3. No answer 4, If you have married sons did you give ruracio for their wives? 1. Yes If yes, how much for each son? 2. No 3. No answer PUDNH o oo o 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 269 Can you speak Swahili? 1. Not at all 2. Able to follow simple conversation 3. Fluent (very well) 4. No answer Can you speak English? 1. Not at all 2. Able to follow simple conversations 3. Fluent (very well) 4. No answer When you die where wOuld you like to be buried? On own shamba . In.KaburI At Church cemetary Elsewhere, specify No answer Lfl-PWNH Have you ever lived outside of Murang'a? %. Yes If yes, where? , for how long? . No 3. No answer How many times did you go to Nairobi last year? 11-12 times or once a month 'MOre than 12 times Now lives in Nairobi 1. Never been to Nairobi 2. Less than once a year 3. 3-4 times 4 5-6 times 5 7-8 times 6 9-10 times 7 8 9 For what reasons? J-‘LONH 42. 270 How many times did you go to town last year? Never Goes infrequently, less than once a month 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times 9-10 times More than 10 times No answer \OmNO‘Ul-l-‘UDNH For what reasons? 43. Dwohoha How many times did you go to Mukuyu last month? Never Goes infrequently, less than once a month 1-2 times 3-4 times 5-6 times 7-8 times 9-10 times MOre than 10 times No answer \OQNO‘UI-L‘UONH For what reasons? 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. DWNH Have you borrowed money from.any relative within the last year? How much? From which relative? Have you lent money to any relative within the last year? How much? To whom? Have you received anything from a relative? What? From,whom? Have you given anything to any of your relatives last year? What items? ‘Which relative? Have you borrowed money from a non-relative within the last year? How much? From whom? 49. 50. MPWNH . O O 51. 53: 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. Ul-F-‘le-J O 0 O 271 Have you lent money to a non-relative within the last year? How much? To whom? Do you support any relatives other than your husband/ wife and children? Relationship Kenya Shillings per month Have any of your relatives been helpful in the following ways? Very helpful Moderately Finding jObs Housing School fees Emergencies Childcare Advice Other, specify Have any of your relatives stayed over night home in the last year? 'Which? How long? Relationship How many days List your 5 most important relatives. List relationship only. 1. 3. 2. 4. 5. NZ no «1 m H ...n at your 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 272 How far can you trace your father's male ancestors? Father's father Father's grandfather Father's father's grandfather Father's father's father's grandfather Any further? Have any of your children lived with anyone else? What relationship? For what period of time? Have any of your children received school fees from anyone? What relationship? Amount? Are you a member of the following types of organizations? /Write in name of group/ How often do How long Rank or you attend a member office? Political party Trade/labour union Co-0perative Harambee group People who play Sports, music Other, specity Were you or any member of your family detained during the Emergency? 1. Family member detained, respondent not detained 2. Respondent detained 3. Respondent detained, family member also detained 4. Respondent not detained, family member not detained If not detained, what did you do during the Emergency? 1. was detained 2. Working for government in home guard, or in loyalist activity 3. WOrking in government as labourer, etc. 4 ‘Working on farm, doing communal work, doing nothing, just doing my work, etc. (70, 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 273 continued) 5. WOrking somewhere in occupation--teaching, business, EurOpean farm, etc. -- or student. 6. Freedom fighter 7. NO answer Is it possible for you to lead a good life with the income you get from your farm? 1. Yes 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. NO 4. NO answer Are you satisfied with land consolidation? Why? The government has argued that the peOple who get land vacated by EurOpeans should pay for them. Others feel they should not. What do you think? 1. Should pay 2. Should not pay 3. Don't know, no Opinion, don't care 4. NO answer 'Why do you feel that way? DO you think those European farms who leave Kenya should be paid for their farms, or should the govern- ment just take the farms and distribute them to African peOple? 1. Should be paid 2. Should not be paid, land ShOuld be distributed to Africans 3. Don't know, no Opinion, don't care 4. NO answer What do you think is the major problem facing this area? DO you think the government is doing all it can to solve the problems of this location or could it do more? I asked you what the major problem was in this area. Now not thinking Of this area alone, but Of the whole Of Kenya, what would you say is the major problem facing the nation? 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 274 Have you ever visited problem? 1. Yes If yes, what 2. NO 3. NO answer Have ou ever gone to a prO lem? 1. Yes If yes, what 2. NO 3. NO answer Have you ever gone to problem? 1. Yes 2. NO 3. NO answer If yes, what Have you ever gone to 1. Yes 2. NO 3. NO answer If yes, what Have you ever gone to 1. Yes 2. NO 3. NO answer If yes, what Have you ever gone to with a problem? 1. Yes 2. No 3. NO answer If yes, what the D. C. or D. O. with a was the problem? the Agricultural Officer with was the problem? the Chief or headman with a kind Of problemfl the M. P. with a problem? problem? KANU with a problem? problem? a member of the County Council problem? IS it better to have one party or two? One party better Ul-I-‘UONH NO answer Why do you think that Two parties better Mixed feelings, no clear answer Don't know, no Opinion number is better? 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 275 DO you own a radio? 1. Yes 2. NO 3. NO answer How Often do you listen to radio? 1. Seldom, less than once a week, when someone brings one to me 2. Occasionally (1-2 times a week) 3. Often (3-4 times a week) 4. Most days (5-7 times a week) 5. NO answer How Often do you get a newspaper? Seldom, less than once a month, when I get money, etc. Occasionally (2-4 times a month) Often (3-4 times a week) MOst days (5-7 times a week) NO answer U'J-‘UJN |'-‘ DO you agree with the following: The government does not understand the people and their needs. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. NO answer DO you agree with the following: WOmen should care for the home and not go Off to town to work. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer If you belong to a church, how Often do you go? 1. Every week 2. Twice a month 3. Occasionally, sometimes, on Holy Days, etc. 4. Never 5. NO answer Did you build your ‘home? Yes NO, already standing when moved in Hired contractor NO answer J-‘wNI-J 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 276 Who helped you build your home, if built own? NO one WOmen's group Relatives (Family members) Friends and relatives Hired a contractor Other, specify . NO answer \lO‘Ul-PUDNH Who helped you and your wife clear your land for planting? 1. NO one 2. WOmen's group 3. Relatives (Family members) 4. Friends and relatives 5. Hired helper 6. NO answer Who helped you and your wife harvest last season? NO one WOmen's group Relatives (Family members) Friends and Relatives Hired helper NO answer O‘U‘l-I-‘LDNH Suppose a problem arose concernin your marriage, to whom would you gO for advice? Relationship only) Have you ever been sent as a messenger/delegate in a case? 1. Yes If yes, how many times: Once A few times (2-4) 2. NO Several times (MOre 3. NO answer than 5) If yes, what kind of case? /If more than one tick each/ 1. Pregnancy 6. Land 2. Abuse 7. Dowry 3. Debt 8. Other, Specify 4. Assault 9. NO answer 5. Witchcraft 277 100. Have you ever acted as a judge in a case? 1. Yes If yes, how man times: Once y A few times (2-4) Several times (more 2. NO than 5) 3. NO answer 101. In what kind Of case were you a judge? 1. Pregnancy 6. Land 2. Abuse 7. Dowry 3. Debt 8. Other, specify 4. Assault 9. NO answer 5. Witchcraft 102. Have you ever brought a case against anyone? 1. Yes If yes What kind Of case? When? U'I-l-‘LQNH 2. NO 3. NO answer 103. Has anyone ever brought a case against you? 1. Yes If yes Of what kind? When? Ln-L‘UJNH 2. NO 3. NO answer 104. Have you ever taken a case to any Of these people? Chief Court . Clan elders Father or father's brother Other, specify . NO answer O‘U‘I-PWNH 105. Suppose you needed 400 shillings by tomorrow? Who would you ask for help? 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. If 111. Of \lO‘UI‘PUJNH O‘kfi-l-‘UJNH Is 1. 2. 278 what religion are you? Protestant Catholic Mus 1im Traditional Kikuyu Religion Independent Church None No answer your father is living, where is his home? Father not living Lives with respondent Lives in Mbiri location Lives outside of Mbiri location, but in Murang'a Lives outside of Murang'a NO answer your shamba on your clan's land? Yes No Did you own land before land consolidation? 1. 2. 3 If you O‘U‘J—‘WNH Yes No No answer you Owned land before land consolidation, how did get it? Inherited from Father or other close relative Purchased Acquired through land case Given by wife's family Other, specify No answer inherited, from whom? If did not own land before land consolidation, what did you do? O‘U‘l-PUJNH Lived on clan land Did not farm, worked elsewhere Owned land but sold it Land lost through case, or other reason Other, Specify NO answer 279 112. At which place do you sleep when you have to stay overnight in town? In Nairobi? 113. How many times did you go to the hospital for treatment last year? Once. ~‘ Occasionally (2-4 times) Often (MOre than 5 times) Never No answer Ul-I-‘UONH I will read a list of statements, you tell me if you agree or disagree with each of them. 114. Women cannot control money, you should not talk about money with them. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. Disagree 4. NO answer 115. Kiku people should try to increase their number in t is country 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no opinio 2. Disagree 4. No answer - 116. Education is not very important for girls since most of their work will be in the home. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 117. There were more ceremonies--marriages, initiation-- for everyone to attend in the past. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 118. There are too many peOple in Kenya. The country cannot support so many peOple. l. A ree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. D sagree 4. No answer 119. Communal labour, ngwatio, was more often done in the past. 1. A ree 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. D sagree 4. NO answer 280 120. A11 tribes cannot enjoy the fruits of uhuru equally. Those who fought for it should get more. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 121. Since life is changing very quickly it is not as important as in the past to listen to the advice of elders. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. NO answer 122. A man should not enter the home of his married son without first killing a goat or a sheep and having a feast. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 123. Be a fool (with money) and peOple will flock to you. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 124. Your father's sister has less authority over you than your father's brother. 1. Agree 3. Don't know, no Opinion 2. Disagree 4. NO answer 125. It is all right to joke with your mother's brother. 1. Agree 3. No opinion 2. Disagree 4. No answer 126. All my neighbour's are relatives. 1. Agree 3. Don't know 2. Disagree 4. No answer 281 APPENDIX D Glossary of Important Foreign Terms Ahoi (sing. muhoi) e- tenant Athamaki (sing. muthamaki) -- elder who acts as judge, Spikeman Baba -- father; baba munyini -- younger father; baba mukure -- elder father Bururi -- country, territory Githaka e- bush land which is cleared for settlement, also Kikuyu land tenure system.which was based on settlement on land of first clearing Igongona (pl. magongona) -- sacrifices Ituika (pl. maituika) -- generation change ceremony Itura (p1. matura) -- village, sub-unit of a rugongo Karobo -- honey beer Kiama - council Kiama kia maturangura -- council of the sacred leaves Kipande [Swahili] -- identification card carried in a small metal box, and worn around the neck Mabati [Swahili] -- corrugated metal, usually iron Sheets, used for roofing Maitu -- mother Mama -- mother's brother, uncle Mbari - family group, several related extended families, sub clan Muihwa (also mihwa) -- nephew, niece, a man's Sister's child; according to Kenyatta, cross-cousins ‘Mucii -- extended family, primarily the dwelling place or homestead of an extended family Mugo was ita -- war magician Muhiriga (p1. mihiriga) -- clan, one of the nine mythical c ans or localized sub-clan 282 Mundu mugo -- medicine man Muramati -- leader of a mbari, head of an itura Muru if son; muru wa maitu -e brother Muru wa baba -- sons of one father, half-brothers Muthuri (pl. athuri) -- elder, usually a man with a child who has been circumcized Mutumia -- adult woman, mother of a child; mutumia wakwa -- my wife MWanake (pl. anake) -- young man, traditionally of the warrior age grade MWari -- daughter; mwari ma maitu -- sister Ndundu -- inner council of the elders kiama Njohi muratina -- honey beer fermented with the plant referred to as muratina Nyumba -- elementary or polygynous family Rika -- name age-set into which young men and women are initiated Rugongo (pl. ng'ongo) -- ridge Rumama —— abusive language Ruracio -- bridewealth Shamba [Swahili] -- farm, garden, land Thahu -- ritual uncleanliness LIST OF REFERENCES 283 LIST OF REFERENCES Barnett, Donald and Njama, Karari 1966 Mau.Mau from within, Letchworth and London, MacGibbon and.Kee, Ltd. Barth, F. 1966 ‘Models of Social Organization, RAI Occasional Paper #22, London. Beattie, J. 1956 The contest of kinship, Man, March-April. 1964 Kinship and society, Man, JulybAugust, Vol. 64. Bennett, George 1963 Kenya: A Political History, The Colonial Period, London, Oxford University Press. Cagnolo, C. 1933 The Akikuyu: Their customs, traditions and folklore, Nyeri, Kenya,‘Mission Printing School. Clark, C. 1971 The Concept of Legitimacy in Black Psychology, in Edgar Epps, ed., Race Relations: Current Perspective,‘WinthrOp Publishers. Douglas, Mary 1967 The Meaning of Myth, with special reference to La Geste Asdiwal; in E. R. Leach, ed., The Structural Study of Myth and TotemiSm, London, Tovistock Publications. Dundas, Charles 1908 Notes on the origin and history of the Kikuyu, .Anthro., Man, Vo . 8. 1915 The organization and laws of some Bantu tribes, J. Royal Anthro. Inst., Vol. 45. Epstein, A. L. 1958 Politics in an Urban African Community, Manchester, Manchester University Press. Ferraro, Gary n.d. Kikuyu Kinship Interaction: A Rural-Urban Comparison, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Syracuse University, 1971. 1970 Kinship in an East African Urban Area, African Urban Notes, 5(2), summer, 1970. 284 Fitz erald, walter 1 50 Africa, London,‘Methuen Fortes,‘Meyer 1963 Kinship and the Social Order, Chicago, Aldine. Fox Robin 1967 Kinship and Marriage, Baltimore, Penguin. Gatheru, Mugo 1964 Child of Two‘Worlds, London, Routledge and Kegan Gluckman, Max 1954 Rituals of Rebellion in South Africa, Manchester, 'Manchester University Press. 1958 Analysis of a social situation in modern Zululand,‘Manchester, Manchester University Press. 1968 Psychological, sociological, anthropological explanations of witchcraft and gossip: a classification, Man, Vol. 3. Hudson, A. B. n.d. Padju Epat: The ethnography and social structure of a ma anjan dajak group in southeastern Borneo, unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, 1967. Huntin ford, G. W. B. 196 Distribution of certain cultural elements in East Africa, J. Royal Anthro. Inst., Vol. 91. Kenyatta, Jomo 1938 Facing Mt. Kenya, London, Secker &‘Warburg [Fourth Impression 1968]. 1966 My PeOple of Kikuyu, Oxford University Press. Lambert, H. C. 1950 Systems of land tenure in the Kikuyu unit, Univ. of Cape Town (Communications School African Studies, 22). 1956 Kikuyu Social and Political Institutions, London, Oxford. 285 Leach, E. 1961 Pul Eliya, a village in Ceylon: a study of land tenure and kinship, Cambridge, Cambridge Univ. Press. Leakey, L. S. B. n.d. Chapter on social organization from an unpublished manuscript. 1937 White African, London, Hodder and Houghton, Ltd. Levine, R. A. 1966 Dreams and Deeds, Achievement‘Motivation in Nigeria, Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press. Llewellyn, K. N. and Hoebel, E. A. 1941 The Cheyenne Way. University of Oklahoma Press. iMiddleton, J. and.Kershaw, G. 1953 The central tribes Of the north-eastern Bantu, Ethnographic Society of Africa, ed. Daryl Forde, East Africa Part V. 'Mitchell, J. C. 1954 African urbanization in Ndola and Luanshya, Rhodes-Livingston Communicates No. 6. Murdock, G. P. 1959 Africa: Its PeOple and their Cultural History, New‘York,‘McGraw-Hi11. Ngu I966J The River Between, Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. 1967a Weep Not Child, Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. 1967b Grain of Wheat, Heinemann Educational Books, Ltd. Paulme, Denise, ed. 1963 WOmen of TrOpical Africa, Berkeley, Univ. of California Press. Rosaldo,‘M. and Lamphere, Louise 1974 Women, Culture and Society, Stanford, Stanford University Press. Rosberg, Carl eand Nottingham, John 196 Wth of‘Mau.Mau, New‘York, London, Frederick H. Praeger Publishers. Routledge, W. S. 1910 With a Prehistoric Pe0ple, London, New‘York, Routledge & Sons. 286 Schneider, D. M. 1964 The nature of kinship, Man, Vol. 64. 1965 The content of kinship, Man, July-August. 1968 American‘Kinship, Englewood Cliffs, N. J., Prentice Hall. 1972 ‘What is kinShip all about?, in Kinship studies in the Morgan Centennial Year, ed. Priscilla Reining, Washington, D. C., Anthropological Society of washington. Smith, M. G. 1960 Government in Zazzau, 1800-1950, London, Inter- national African Institute for Oxford University Press. Sorenson,‘M. 1967 Land Reform in the Kikuyu Country, Nairobi, London, Oxford University Press. Swartz,‘M. 1960 Situational determinants of kinship terminology, Southwestern Journal of.AnthrOpology. 1968 Local Level Politics, Chicago, Aldine. 1975 AnthrOpology: Perspective on Humanity, Hamilton Publishing Co. (in press), Santa Barbara, California Swartz, M., Turner, B. and Tuden, A. 1966 Political AnthrOpology, Chicago, Aldine. Turner, Victor 1957 Schism and Continuity in an African Society, Manchester Univ. Press. Van Velsen, J. 1967 The Extended Case Method, in A. L. Epstein, ed., The Craft of Social Anthropology, London, Tavistock PublicatiOns. Ven s L. A. 1970 A History of the Mau Mau‘MOvement in Kenya, Prague, Charles University Press. ‘Webster's Third International Dictionary 1966 Springfield, Mass., Miriam webster Publishers. 287 Kenya Government Publications Carter Land Commission, Kenya Land Commission 1933 Evidence, Vol. 1, Official Publ. Kenya Government Republic of Kenya 1969 Kenya POpulation Census, Vol. 1 {lull‘fill I“ 1'