Abstract
The distinction between supposedly static and formal ‘old’ approaches to the study of kinship and Janet Carsten's ‘new’ study of ‘relatedness’ is examined. Her shift towards a broader understanding of ‘kinship’ has the positive effect of elucidating a number of ‘tropes’ for the construction of such relatedness. However, her simultaneous deconstruction of all classic conceptions of kinship neglects central dimensions of social life such as relationship terminologies and marriage rules. In discussing forms of relatedness among the Dongria Kond, a so-called Scheduled Tribe inhabiting the highlands of Orissa (India), I argue that studies of the emotional and practical aspects of kinship should not supersede the formal aspects of rules and classification but rather complement them. In the ethnographic context, all dimensions and expressions of relatedness merit anthropological inquiry. By combining classic approaches and the study of cultural ideas concerning ‘kinship’ the multiple dimen-sions of relatedness—as encountered in the field—may be conceptionalised.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
