IX. Reciprocity as the Basis of Social Structure
Again, recasting our whole perspective and looking at matters from the sociological point of view, i. e. taking one feature of the constitution of the tribe after another, instead of surveying the various types of their tribal activities, it would be possible to show that the whole structure of Trobriand society is founded on the principle of legal status. By this I mean that the claims of chief over commoners, husband over wife, parent over child, and vice versa, are not exercised arbitrarily and one-sidedly, but according to definite rules, and arranged into wellbalanced chains of reciprocal services.
Even the chief, whose position is hereditary, based on highly venerable mythological traditions, surrounded with semi-religious awe, enhanced by a princely ceremonial of distance, abasement, and stringent taboos, who has a great deal of power, wealth, and executive means, has to conform to strict norms and is bound by legal fetters. When he wants to declare war, organize an expedition, or celebrate a festivity, he must issue formal summons, publicly announce his will, deliberate with the notables, receive the tribute, services and assistance of his subjects in a ceremonial manner, and finally repay them according to a definite scale.10 It is enough to mention here what has been previously said about the sociological status of marriage, of the relations between husband and wife, and of the status between relatives-in-law.11 The whole division into totemic clans, into sub-clans of a local nature and into village communities, is characterized by a system of reciprocal services and duties, in which the groups play a game of give and take.
What perhaps is most remarkable in the legal nature of social relations is that reciprocity, the give-and-take principle, reigns supreme also within the clan, nay within the nearest group of kinsmen. As we have seen already, the relation between the maternal uncle and his nephews, the relations between brothers, nay the most unselfish relation, that between a man and his sister, are all and one founded on mutuality and the repayment of services. It is just this group which has always been accused of ’primitive communism’. The clan is often described as the only legal person, the one body and entity, in primitive jurisprudence. „The unit is not the individual, but the kin. The individual is but part of the kin,” are the words of Mr. Sidney Hartland. This is certainly true if we take into consideration that part of social life in which the kinship group — totemic clan, phratry, moiety, or class — plays the reciprocity game against co-ordinate groups. But what about the perfect unity within the clan? Here we are offered the universal solution of the „pervading group-sentiment, if not group-instinct”, which is said to be specially rampant in the part of the world with which we are concerned, inhabited by „a people dominated by such a group-sentiment as actuates the Melanesian” (Rivers). This, we know, is quite a mistaken view. Within the nearest kinship group rivalries, dissensions, the keenest egotism flourish and dominate indeed the whole trend of kinship relations. To this point I shall have to return presently, for more facts and more definitely telling ones are necessary finally to explode this myth of kinship communism, of the perfect solidarity within the group related by direct descent, a myth recently revived by Dr. Rivers, and in some danger therefore of gaining general currency.
Having thus shown the range of facts to which our argument applies, having shown indeed that law covers the whole culture and the entire tribal constitution of these natives, let us formulate our conclusions in a coherent manner