Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition

(eBook PDF) Exploring Family Theories
4th Edition
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/ebook-pdf-exploring-family-theories-4th-edition/
Acknowledgments
If you look deeplyinto the palm of your hand, you will see your parents and all generations of
your ancestors. All of them are alive in this moment. Each is presentin your body. You are
the continuation of these people.
Thich Nhat Hanh, Vietnamese Monk, Activist and Writer
Wethank our grandparents and parents (Ken and Linda Smith, Ray and Pat Kunkle) for
the part they played in our lives and the values and beliefs they instilled in us, such as the
significance of hard work, a sense of curiosity and the importance of education. Wethank
our husbands, Brett and Jeff, for their support, patience, and understanding as we worked
on this new edition. Thanks also go to our children, who allowed us to take time away
from them so that we could focus on writing. May they see the values we have worked
hard to instill in them in the palms of their hands as they move forward in their lives.
Education makesus free. The world of knowledge and of the intellect is where all peoplecan
meetand converse. Education liberates peoplefrom prejudice.
Daisaku Ikeda, Buddhist Leader, Peacebuilder, Poet and Educator
Wethank Sherith Pankratz at Oxford University Press for her encouragement and guid-ance
in regard to the project as weattempt to provide an educational tool that will create
conversation and further knowledge for students in the social sciences. Wethank our
fellow educators in our departments for their support of this project and for their devotion
to educating students in a way that prepares them to help people and liberates them from
prejudice. Specifically, we thank the human development department at Washington State
University Vancouver in Vancouver, Washington, and the human development and family
science department at Messiah College in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania. We also acknowl-edge
Bron Ingoldsby and Beth Miller, who were co-authors with Suzanne Smith on the
first edition of this book. Without their scholarship and friendship, this book would never
have been written. Finally, we thank the many colleagues who graciously gave of their
time and shared their knowledge by reviewing the book as we sought feedback to inform
our revisions for the fourth edition.
Kelly Campbell, California State University, San Bernardino

Jean Dawson, Franklin Pierce University
Debi Grebenik, Newman University
vi
viii Acknowledgments
Michael Merten, Oklahoma State University

Monica Miller-Smith, University of Connecticut
Francis A. OConnor, LaGrange College
Candace Philbrick, North Dakota State University
Tyler M. Smith, Baylor University
Anthony Walker, Indiana State Universit
Aboutthe Authors
Suzanne R. Smith is an associate professor of human development at Washington State

University Vancouver, where she serves as the director of academic planning and special
assistant to the vice chancellor. She earned her Ph.D. from the University of Georgia. In
addition to serving as an administrator, she teaches courses on human development theo-ries
and family diversity. Dr. Smiths primary area of research is parentchild relation-ships,
but recently she has spent significant time providing professional development to
teachers in Burundi, Africa, so they can teach positive youth development via the use of
school gardens. She has served as president of both the Northwest Council on Family
Relations and the Teaching Family Science Association and as a member of the Board of
the National Council on Family Relations.
Raeann R. Hamon is a professor of family science and gerontology and chair of the
human development and family science department at Messiah College in Pennsylvania.
Dr. Hamon earned her Ph.D. from Virginia Tech. A certified family life educator, she
teaches courses on family theories, family life education methodology, interpersonal rela-tionships,
marital relationships, and aging. Her research is related to intergenerational re-lationships,
families in later life, issues related to the discipline of family science, teaching
pedagogy, and Bahamian families. Dr. Hamon is an active member of the National Coun-cil
on Family Relations, of which she is a Fellow, and the Family Science Association.
i
Newto the Fourth Edition
In addition to minor changes throughout each chapter, the fourth edition of Exploring
Family Theoriesfeatures the following major changes:
Multiple chapters have been reorganized so content is more clear and

understandable.
The sections on current areas of research have been updated to reflect the most
recent research.
The majority of supplemental readings now come from more recent publications.
The history section of multiple chapters has been expanded to include develop-ments
since the last edition of the book.
More application activities and guiding/reflecting questions for supplemental read-ings
were added.
An instructors manual is now available with related assignments, experiential ac-tivities,
and a test bank.
EXPLORING FAMILY
THEORIE
Introduction
Why do you do that? Why does our family insist on doing things that way? Questions
about peoples behaviors are the essence of social science inquiry. The focus may be on
individuals, families, social groups, communities, or cultures. To engage in the process of
social science inquiry, you need two things: research and theory. Before we enter into a
discussion of social science theory, specifically family theory, wefirst must have a discus-sion
about theory in general.
WHAT IS THEORY?
A theory is a tool used to understand and describe the world. More specifically, a theory
is a general framework of ideas and how they relate to each other. Theories can be used to
ask and answer questions about particular phenomena. You probably are familiar with
many theories already, such as the theory of evolution, the theory of relativity, the theory
of the big bang, and the theory of plate tectonics. Theories are also important in the social
sciences, particularly those that help us to study families.
Theories have identifiable components that make up their structures. Assumptions are
beliefs that are taken for granted or believed to be true. They form the foundation under-lying
the theory. Conceptsare the terms and specific ideas used in building the theory.
Propositions are statements that demonstrate how concepts fit together in a context. They
are the relationships between the concepts, the glue holding the theory together. Thus,
a theory is based on assumptions and should be composed of clearly defined concepts that
fit together in the form of propositions. For these propositions to be useful, they must be
specific enough to help describe, explain, and predict phenomena and to ask questions
that would guide their research in deductive ways.
A theorys ability to help us generate questions is known as its heuristic value. A
theory can help us decide what to research; the results of that research can, in turn, lead
to the development of new theories, which again can lead to new research. In other words,
theories must be empirically testable. Variables and relationships within the propositional
statements must be operationalized, and the researcher must develop measures to assess
the components outlined. A theory should also beflexible enough to grow and change, so
that new information can be fed back into the theory, causing it to adapt and change in
an inductive feedback loop; but a theory also must be general enough to apply to a wide
variety of specific cases. In short, the usefulness of a theory is determined by its ability to
2 EXPLORING FAMILY THEORIES
describe more, rather than less, detail; to predict with more, rather than less, accuracy;
and to apply to a broader, rather than a narrower, range of specific cases.
It is also true that theories have a certain point of view, or lens. Depending on our
emphasis, the perspective may be more broad (macro) or more narrow (micro). The lens
we choose is often a function of the question we are asking and so, again, a theorys use-fulness
depends on the subject at hand. In the social sciences, human situations are com-plex,
and it is difficult to find one theory that can explain or predict every emotion,
behavior, interaction, process, and event. Because of this, social theories function as lenses
we can use to help us interpret or focus on the components of human interactions in
conceptual ways.
Although theories are abstract, they do serve important purposes in our understand-ing
of social phenomena. Theories provide a general framework for understanding data in
an organized way and show us how to intervene (Burr 1995). In social sciences, it is rare
to find someone who believes that there is only one way to understand social phenomena,
particularly phenomena as complicated as individuals and families. Thus, the frustrating
but truthful response to many questions in social science is It depends. Indeed, it does
depend on ones point of view, but that is not the same as ones opinion. For example,
someone may believe that divorce sets a bad example for children. As scholars, we know
that divorce is too complex to be labeled merely good or bad and that questions about the
effects of divorce on children cannot be easily answered. We need more complex ideas to
analyze such situations, and we must consider multiple elements within families to study
aspects of divorce, its development, and its effects. To decide which theory to use, we
consider the usefulness of the theory, or how well it enables us to answer the questions at
hand. How well a theory explains a situation depends on the researchers point of view,
or his or her lens. Thus, two social scientists may each choose a different theory to explain
the same situation.
Each theory allows us to look at different aspects of family life. One theory might
suggest that we focus on the roles people play, whereas another might suggest that we
focus more on the individuals gains and losses. Looking through the lens of the theory
enables us to see how the world looks from that perspective. Each theory has underlying
basic assumptions that focus the lens, just as each has concepts and propositions that
guide what we analyze. Each theory has been developed within a historical context and
has asked different questions; thus, each theory has a different research history. Because
of this, each theory can give us a different answer to our question, which is why It
depends.
Where Do Theories ComeFrom?

Theories generally do not emerge fully formed. Instead, they build slowly over time, as
scholars gather data through observation and analysis of evidence, relating concepts to-gether
in different ways. This type of reasoning, moving from specific bits of information
toward a general idea, is known as inductive reasoning. Once the theory exists, scholars use
the general ideas of the theory to generate more specific questions, often in the form of
research questions, thereby moving in the opposite direction. Taking a general idea from
a theory and testing it to tease out the details is known as deductive reasoning. Both kinds
of thinking patterns are common in theory construction and development, and once
again, they demonstrate the link between research and theory
Introduction 3
Theory
(Generalities)
Inductive Deductive
reasoning reasoning
Research
(Specifics)
The cycle of theory building.
However, as you can see from the figure, The cycle of theory building, theories are
not stagnant. Theories help us to formulate questions that we test via research. The re-search
generates data, which filter back into the cycle and help us to further refine the
theory. Such a beneficial relationship is called a symbiotic relationship. Research poses ques-tions
and then tries to answer them by making observations and collecting data. When
enough data have been collected, patterns emerge, and a theory is developed to try to
explain the patterns that are observed. Thus, theory helps us explain whats going on
and can allow us to predict whats going to happen when certain conditions are present.
As our theoretical ideas change, so do our research questions. There is a continuous feed-back
loop between discovery and confirmation, disconfirmation, or modification. It is also
important to remember that theories do not exist in a cultural vacuum, but that they are
the products of humans and their experiences. As humans redefine their values, their
theories are influenced by those changes. This is particularly evident in theories of social
science but can be seen in natural science theories as well. After all, it was once believed
that the world wasflat and that the earth was the center of the universe.
Radical changes or shifts in scientific views are known as paradigm shifts (Kuhn 1970).
These shifts occur after significant data that do not fit the current theory have been gath-ered.
Thus, a new theory is needed to explain the data. According to Kuhn, in the natural
sciences, paradigm shifts change science dramatically, as did Einsteins theory of relativity
or the fact that Columbus did not, in fact, fall off the end of the earth.
In the social sciences, paradigm shifts are not as obvious, because we do not evaluate
our theories from the standpoint of truth, but rather from how useful they are. We, as
scholars, cannot define what is true for all humans or families, so neither can our theo-retical
perspectives. At times, significant changes in culture or human experience can
change theoretical perspectives in radical ways. For instance, it is not uncommon to see
shifts in the most popular theories employed. While reviewing theories in family geron-tology
during the 1990s, Roberto and colleagues (2006) noted a decline in the use of
certain theories and an increase in others. Over time, certain theories can fall out of favor
and be replaced by more relevant and helpful frames of reference. You will note that
between the third and fourth editions of this text, some theories have been used more
heavily than others
What Arethe Functions of Theory?

Theories have a variety of functions in helping us to generate knowledge about families.
Stan Knapp (2009) identifies the generative capacity of family theory in each of the fol-lowing
five functions: descriptive function, sensitizing function, integrative function, ex-planatory
function, and value function. Relative to its descriptive function, theories help
name, classify, and organize phenomena in such a way that we can understand them. By
articulating basic concepts and the relationship between events, theory helps us to de-scribe
what we hope to study. As part of a sensitizing function, theory can help us to be
aware of processes, events, and phenomena that we may not have otherwise noticed. It
sensitizes us to matters that we might have missed without calling our attention to them.
The integrative function helps us make connections between events or processes that appear
to be distinct and unrelated. It identifies the interrelatedness of disparate concepts and
propositions, tying together ideas in a new way to make sense of data. The explanatory
function is probably the best known role of theory. Its unique purpose is to explain data.
It attempts to answer the questions how and why, or why do things happen as they
do? It also attempts to make predictions about phenomena that can be tested in future
research. Finally, theory possesses a value function. Knapp (2009) notes that theories
become receptacles for valued ideas in making sense of our world (135). The values
embedded in theoretical assumptions, descriptions of concepts, and the like advocate for
certain value stances. Thus, it is important to be aware of the underlying values espoused
within a particular theory. According to Knapp, we must see the many functions of
theory and not just be consumed by its integrative and explanatory functions or we will
missthe potential to better understand our subject.
How Do WeEvaluate Theories?

It is always important to continue to evaluate the theories we are using. How do we do
this? Doherty et al. (1993, 2426) delineate seventeen criteria that are helpful in assessing
the value and quality of theories in the family field and social sciences in general. Below,
welist these criteria and then explain them in more detail.
1. Richnessof ideas refers to the general appeal that a theory offers to its user. Is the
theory original? Does it offer the depth and unique understanding for which a
scholar is looking?
2. Clarity of conceptsrelates to the extent to which concepts are well defined. Are the
concepts clear and distinct enough from each other that scholars are able to com-municate
about them?
3. Coherenceof connections among conceptsrefers to the ability of the concepts to logically
or intuitively relate well to one another. How easy is it to see the relationships
between theoretical concepts?
4. Simplicity or parsimony refers to the need to weigh a theorys simplicity against its
effectiveness and utility. Does the theory express its ideas parsimoniously without
being too reductionistic?
5. Clarity of theoretical assumptions and presuppositions relates to how well the origina-tors
of the theory have conveyed their philosophy of science and their assumption
Introduction 5
about family relationships. What are the authors underlying assumptions about
human behavior and family dynamics?
6. Consistency with its own assumptions and presuppositions refers to the extent to which
fundamental assumptions are supportive of and related to one another. Is there
internal coherence between underlying assumptions and presuppositions outlined
in the theory?
7. Acknowledgment of its sociocultural context represents the cultural context from which
the theory emerged. What was the cultural context when the theory was devel-oped?
What implications does that have for the theorys use in light of the current
cultural context?
8. Acknowledgment of underlying value positions refers to the extent to which theorists
have made their values known. What are the values represented in this theory?
What is good? What is right? What is worthwhile?
9. Acknowledgment of theoretical forebears refers to the need to reference the work of
those who have contributed to the continuing development of the theory. Whose
ideas have contributed to the origination and refinement of this theory? Are there
scholars against whom this theorist is reacting in its development?
10. Potential for validation and current level of validation refers to the extent to which
research observations are able to affirm a theory. Does the theory actually seem to
reflect what transpires in the lives of families?
11. Acknowledgment of limits and points of breakdown refers to the critical eye needed to
identify the limits of the theory and its presuppositions. How does the theory fail
to enlighten our understanding of phenomena under consideration?
12. Complementarity with other theories and levels of explanation refers to the extent to
which a theory is able to interface with other conceptual frameworks that exist
within the field. How does the theory fit together with other theoretical frame-works
in the field?
13. Opennessto change and modification refers to the willingness to refine, modify, revise,
and even abandon ideas over time, rather than voraciously defend them. Are the
theorys proponents willing to discuss its merits and shortcomings with others
and modify the theory accordingly?
14. Ethical implications relate to the assumptions about morality on which the theory
is based. What impact does this theory have on the rights and responsibilities of
families and their members? How can the theory be ethically applied to enhance
our understanding of family life?
15. Sensitivity to pluralistic human experience refers to the ability of a theory to accom-modate
a vast range of human and family experiences. To what extent is the
theory sensitive to pluralistic human experiences as related to things like gender,
race, ethnicity, age, social class, and sexual orientation?
16. Ability to combine personal experience and academic rigor refers to the extent to which
a theory enables the scholar to move back and forth between lived personal expe-riences
within families and professional reasoning. How able is the theory to ac-commodate
shifting back and forth between personal immersion and academic
objectivity and distance
17. Potential to inform application for education, therapy, advocacy, social action, or public
policy refers to the theorys ability to help theorizers translate theory and related
data into actions that benefit families. Does the theory help to improve the lives
of families via education, therapy, public policy, and advocacy? Can the theory be
applied to real families?
It is important to recognize that no single theory is likely to measure up on all these

items. Nonetheless, these criteria offer one way to more fully appreciate and assess each theory.
The Needfor Theorizing

If theories are so important for enhancing our understanding of relationships and the
world around us, how does one tackle this assignment? According to Jetse Sprey (1990),
theorizing first and foremost is an intentional activity (22). We must commit ourselves
to the work of developing and testing theory. Many agree that theorizing is a process, not
just a product (Bengtson et al. 2005; Roberto, Blieszner, and Allen 2006). It is something
you do, an activity in which you engage.
Many of the worlds greatest minds, those whose ideas literally changed the way we
understand the world, were theoreticians. For example, we live in a post-Freudian world:
Freuds theories revolutionized our understanding of the mind, sexuality, and how we deal
with stress. Karl Marx suggested that communism is an alternative to social injustice and
oppression and a method by which all humans could achieve a humane and equitable life.
Freud and Marx brought about significant shifts in the way we thought about issues in
society and human behavior that are still valued today, although we do not believe every
aspect of Freudian psychology, and Marxs Communist Manifesto is considered to have its
limitations. Similarly, Piaget brought about another paradigm shift in the area of cognitive
development with his insight that children think in ways that are qualitatively different
from adult processes. His theory has undergone modifications, and many researchers still
use his work as a basis for their research, but some of them have also gone beyond his work
and expanded on his ideas. In this way, we evaluate theories based on their useful aspects.
Bengtson et al. (2005) likened theorizing to putting together the pieces of a puzzle.
Each puzzle piece is composed of a bit of family research data. Alone and disorganized,
the pieces do not make sense and are perplexing. However, when assembled in a meaning-ful
way, the puzzle provides a more coherent image or picture. Thus, theorizers use ideas
or abstractions to make sense of data. Because theories are intellectual constructs that are
subject to change as a new puzzle piece or evidence is introduced, theorizers work is never
complete. In fact, theories should never be considered static and unchanging. Theorizers
must always scrutinize theories for their utility and relevance across diverse groups and
over the course of time (Bengtson et al. 2005). We need family scholars who commit
themselves to theorizingassembling, disassembling, and then reassembling the puzzles
of life. Can you imagine yourself as a family theorizer?
FAMILY THEORY
James White (2015) argues that it is essential to develop family theories that are distinct
from those used to examine social groups, as used in the fields of sociology. After all, the
family is a unique type of grouping. According to White, Klein, and Martin (2015)
Introduction 7
families differ from other social groups in four ways: Families last much longer than most
social groups and require lifetime memberships. Families are intergenerational, unlike
other social groups, and virtually ensure a range of ages. Although most social groups are
primarily based on affinity, families represent biological and affinal (e.g., legal) relation-ships.
Finally, families are connected to larger kinship networks.
So, why study family theory? The family is certainly the most important and endur-ing
of all human social groupings. What, then, could be more fascinating than attempt-ing
to understand family dynamics? Nothing affects our personalities and happiness more
than our family relationships. Why is kinship always the center of any human society?
How do these interactions work, and why are they so influential in our lives?
Because there are so many perspectives to consider, it is not a simple thing to develop
a coherent theory of family interaction. Social science is made even more difficult because
we are attempting to understand ourselves. Whereas in the natural sciences we are exam-ining
objects and life forms that are less complex than we are, in human development we
do not have the advantage of a higher intelligence than the subject to get a good metaper-spective.
With groups like families, there is the added complexity of looking beyond the
individual to the relationships between individuals. All of this makes family theory de-velopment
difficult at best.
We are also hindered by the difficulty of not even having a good and commonly ac-cepted
definition of the term family. An oft-used definition is two or more people related
by birth, marriage, or adoption residing in the same unit (Welsh 2012, 557). However,
there is ongoing scientific and political debate on what we mean when we say family. As
we will see, each theory has its own variation on the definition.
This is also a good example of why we need more than one family theory. First, there
is more than one type and one definition of family. Second, even if you agree on how to
define the family, you may disagree on which particular aspect of their interactions or
behaviors your attention should be focused on. Finally, each theory offers an insight that
others cannot provide because of their different lenses.
The purpose of this text is to provide a basic introduction to the major theories per-taining
to the family among professionals today. Each theory addresses different aspects
of family life and answers different questions. Humans are extremely complex, and it is
difficult to analyze ourselves; therefore, every theory will be imperfect. But each one
brings us closer to understanding and being able to make positive change where needed
in family life. Each theory has its own basic assumptions and concepts and is a product of
its own historical context as well. Each is used in answering specific research questions
that other theories may not answer or may answer differently. It will be up to you to try
on the lens of each theory and determine how well you think it explains human and
family behavior.
TEXT ORGANIZATION
We will discuss ten theories about the family that have been widely used and accepted
over the past fifty years. We present these ten theories in a loosely chronological order. It
is difficult to be more precise because most of them experienced a gradual emergence, and
some had long histories as general social theories before they were used to study the
family as a specific social phenomenon. Our order of placement is determined based o
the time when significant publications discussing the theory from a family perspective
appeared.
Symbolic interaction theory is one of the first and most influential theories in the
field of family science. Its roots stem from the pragmatic philosophers of the early 1900s,
and it is based on the belief that we construct our own realities. Events and relationships
take on different meanings based on an individuals perceptions and the context of a situ-ation.
Symbolic interactionism continues to be a popular family theory today.
Shortly after the Depression and World War II and in the infancy of family theory
building, several other theories took center stage. Structural functionalism, which comes
from sociology and anthropology, takes a macro view of the family within culture. It
looks at the family through the lens of asking what the family does to justify its existence
in society.
Family development theory applies basic-stage theory from psychology to families. It
considers how families change over time in response to normative family events. Al-though
its widespread use comes later, family stress theory, which looks at how the family
as a system deals with challenging situations or events, was developed while studying
family reactions to the Depression and later to wartime during World War II.
In the late 1950s and well into the 1960s, several theories took more of an inside look
at family communication and interaction. First, family systems theory derived from com-munication
and clinical work. It made a micro analysis of how family members relate to
each other in a complex world of multicausality. Rooted in systems theory, ecological
theory emerged with the growing recognition of the need to examine individuals and
families within their environments, primarily the home. Next, conflict theory came from
a sociological perspective and focused on how people and families create stability and
instability in their relationships because of differences in status. Then, social exchange
theory took its inspiration from behaviorism and economics in analyzing family decision
making as a rational process of choosing between rewards and costs.
Ourfinal two theoretical approaches began to receive significant notice in the 1970s.
Feminist theorists began their investigations with the perspective that womens experi-ences
are central to our understanding of families and focused on the influences of social
situations and politics. Most recently, the biosocial perspective, with its roots in the work
of Charles Darwin, maintains as its general premise that, although humans are driven by
innate structures, the family and cultural environment influence their behaviors.
Each chapter begins with afictional vignette to introduce a way of using that particu-lar
theory for understanding an aspect of family life. It is followed by a brief history of the
development of the theory and then an explanation of the basic assumptions that under-gird
it. The primary terms and concepts used in understanding the theory are provided.
The usefulness of each theory is highlighted by examples of research and application
within the particular framework. Every theory is critiqued, and its principal problems
and strengths are discussed. Finally, the reader is provided with a series of questions and
exercises designed to relate the implications of the theory to the vignette and to his or her
own personal and family life.
A highlight of this book is the integration of research with theory and practice. After
each chapter, a professional article is included. Each research article illustrates how new
information about families is gained when researchers and practitioners use theories to
guide their efforts. Whereas in the first edition of this text a classic article was included
after each chapter, for this edition, we have chosen more contemporary readings. Th
Introduction 9
epilogue links the chapters together, using a conceptual model for comparing and con-trasting
the theories. This model indicates how each theory can be useful for understand-ing
and guiding intervention for particular situations from its viewpoint.
It is important to remember that anyone can collect facts, but being a scholar re-quires
understanding the facts in a way that allows for research, testing, comprehension,
and practical application. To be useful, data must be ordered within a theoretical frame-work.
Which theories will you enjoy the most and find the most useful? There is only one
way to find out!
REFERENCES
Bengtson, V., A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and D. M. Klein. 2005. Theory

and theorizing in family research: Puzzle building and puzzle solving. In Sourcebookof family
theory and research, ed. V. L. Bengtson, A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and
D. M. Klein, 333. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Burr, W. R. 1995. Using theories in family science. In Researchand theory in family science,ed. R. D. Day,
K. R. Gilbert, B. H. Settles, and W. R. Burr, 7388. Pacific Grove, CA: BrooksCole.
Doherty, W.J., P. G. Boss, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz. 1993. Family theories
and methods: A contextual approach. In Sourcebook of family theories and methods: Acontextual
approach, ed. P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa, W. R. Schumm, and S. K. Steinmetz,
330. New York: Plenum.
Knapp, S. J. 2009. Critical theorizing: Enhancing theoretical rigor in family research. Journal of
Family Theory and Review 1: 133145.
Kuhn, T. S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Roberto, K. A., R. Blieszner, and K. R. Allen. 2006. Theorizing in family gerontology: New op-portunities
for research and practice. Family Relations 55: 513525.
Sprey, J. (ed.). 1990. Fashioning family theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Welsh, K. J. 2012. Family life now. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
White, J. M., D. M. Klein, and T. F. Martin. 2015. Family theories. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
1
Symbolic Interactionism Theory
Keiko and Thanh are leaving the house to attend a cocktail party sponsored by
Thanhs company. It is important that he be there because he is up for a big pro-motion
this year and wants to make sure those in charge know who he is and can
connect his face with his name because his name is unusual in the United States.
Keiko is tired from working all day and taking care of the childrens needs before
they leave the house, so she is dreading the party. Thanh, however, is excited.
They are greeted at the door by the company vice president and a loud band.
Thanh introduces his wife with pride and accepts champagne for both of them
to sip as they mingle in the crowd. Heis really in his element, speaking to every-one
he passes, introducing his wife, and keeping his hand on the small of her
back to make sure she feels comfortable and included. Because she does not
know anyone there, he wants to make sure she is close so he can introduce her
to everyone and make her feel like a part of the group. Heis enjoying the music
and expensive champagne and cannot wait for the dancing to begin. Thanh says
to his wife, Isnt this the best party youve ever been to? And can you believe
who is hereall the important people, and Ive gotten to talk to all of them.
I cant imagine a more perfect evening!
As Keiko looks at him, he knows something is wrong. He asks, Arent you en-joying
yourself? She does not know what to say to him. The place is too loud
and too crowded, and people are drinking way too much. She wonders how he
can stand knowing that everyone he speaks to is judging both of them. And why
does he have to be so controlling of her? Everywhere they go, he is right by her
side, as if he does not trust her to go out on her own for fear she will say some-thing
that would make him look bad. It is one of the worst nights of her life! How
can two people at the same party in the same place have such different opinions
about what is going on?
So, who wasrightwas it the best party they had ever been to or a night of feel-ing
controlled and judged? Wasthe party incredible or incredibly boring? The
answer to those questions, according to symbolic interactionism, is that they are
both right. People define situations based on their personal experiences and
sense of self. Thus, two people can be in the same situation and have different
interpretations of what is going on. We will learn more about this as we discuss
this multifaceted and exciting theory.
1
Symbolic Interactionism Theory 11
HISTORY
Of all the theories discussed in this text, symbolic interactionism has probably had the
greatest impact on the study of families. Not only is this theory rich in history because it
has been in use since the early 1900s, but also it is still one of the most commonly used
theoretical perspectives in the field today, perhaps because it continues to develop (Fine
1993). The longevity and popularity of this theory are in part a result of its emphasis on a
conceptual framework that is not only rich in content but also adaptable to any time period.
Such success as a theory also comes from the fact that symbolic interactionism was uniquely
born out of both qualitative and quantitative research (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Unlike most theories, there is no one person who is most commonly associated with
the development of symbolic interactionism. Thus, we must review the work of many
people to fully understand the basic assumptions of this theory. Although who is covered
in this section will vary from one writing to the next, this particular discussion is based
on the guidance of LaRossa and Reitzes (1993).
Symbolic interactionism has its earliest roots in the United States in the pragmatic
philosophers of the early 1900s, such as William James, John Dewey, Charles Peirce, and
Josiah Royce (Vander Zanden 1987). Not only were these scholars themselves influential
in the development of the theory, but also, perhaps more importantly, they trained their
students, who in turn became the primary contributors to the assumptions and concepts
that make this theory what it is today. The pragmatists did, however, contribute four
important ideas that laid the foundation for the development of symbolic interactionism.
Thefirst important contribution of the pragmatists wasto view the world as always
changing, rather than as a static structure whose history was predetermined. Second, the
pragmatists argued that social structure is notfixed in time, but constantly changing and
developing. Third, they were perhaps the first to suggest that meaning comes not from
objects themselves, but from our interactions with objects. For example, the meaning of a
table depends on the person who is viewing or using the table at the time. Finally, they
exhibited an ideological commitment to progress and to democratic values (La Rossa and
Reitzes 1993, 136) that could be advanced through science. Thus arose the notion that we
could use research to figure out how societies and people grow and change and how they
do so within the confines of a democratic society that is always evolving.
These four ideas came about at a time in history when people were desperate for in-formation
about how the changing structure of society was going to affect them. This was
the time of the industrial revolution, when people were going from working at home on
the farm to working at the factory, which also meant moving from rural areas to urban
areas closer to work (Mintz and Kellogg 1988). These changes left people feeling that
they had little or no control over their lives, which also meant that they probably had
little control over society. However, the ideas of symbolic interactionism allowed people
to feel as if they gained back a little more of that control because the theory was based on
the idea that people are not victims of some predetermined course of history, but are in-stead
able to change how things happen in society through communication and interac-tion
(LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
Not only did these ideas appeal to society in general, but they were also accepted by
scholars because they were grounded in research. Symbolic interactionism provided the
means by which to study social interactions in ascientific fashion. It wasat this time that
people began to study the family just as a scientist would study a specimen or a
astronomer would study a constellation (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). This empirical posi-tion
is still appealing to researchers today and continues to be one of the greatest strengths
of the theory (Burnier 2005).
As previously stated, one thing that makes symbolic interactionism unique is that it
is a combination of the efforts of many different researchers. Although many people made
important contributions to the development of this theory, we will focus on just a few:
George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, William Isaac Thomas, Erving Goffman,
and Herbert Blumer.
George Herbert Mead, whose primary contributions focused on the self, is probably
the most recognized of all those who have influenced symbolic interactionism. He be-lieved
that we learn about ourselves through interactions with others that are based on
gestures (Mead 1934/1956). A gesture can be thought of as any action that causes a re-sponse
or reaction in another person. Wecan all think of certain finger gestures that are
sure to create a response in others, but Mead used the term more broadly to include such
things as language and facial expressions as well. We develop a sense of self-consciousness
when we can anticipate how other people will respond to our gestures. Because of this, it
takes interactions with others to fully develop a sense of self.
How does this process take place? Mead believed that people follow two stages to
develop a sense of self. In the first, the play stage, the child tries to use gestures to practice
the behaviors associated with different roles, such as that of mother, father, firefighter, or
teacher (Vander Zanden 1987). For example, if you have ever watched preschool children
play house, you have probably seen a girl imitate things she has seen her mother do, such
as cooking dinner, changing a babys diaper, or helping another child with homework.
Boys, in contrast, if they are in the dramatic play area of the preschool classroom at all,
are likely to be doing such things as pretending to drive the family to an event or orga-nizing
a play activity for the children. While engaged in this dramatic play experience,
children are able to imagine the attitudes of their parent or learn to take on the perspec-tive
of another person. During this stage, children usually assume the role of only one
person at a time.
In the second stage, however, children begin to take on the perspectives of many
people at one time and to see how the individual fits within that group (Mead 1934/1956).
This is called the game stage, and almost any childhood game is a good example. For in-stance,
when you play soccer, you need to think about not only what you are doing on the
field or the purpose of your position, but also what everyone else is doing. Another good
example is that of the family. During the game stage, children can understand what each
persons role in the family is, including their own, and how the behavior of one family
member affects the interactions of other family members.
Thefinal step in this process is being able to anticipate how ones behaviors affect not
only those individuals in our immediate environment, but also those in society at large.
Mead (1934/1956) called this being able to take on the role of the generalized other,
which means understanding social norms and expectations so that one can guess how
other people will react to a specific gesture or interaction. One example is a young man
who had a schedule change and had to attend an important off-campus meeting at the
last minute. He had never been to the meeting place before and barely made it in time,
taking the first parking place he could find so he would not be late. As he left the build-ing
after the meeting, surrounded by people he considered important members of the
community, he walked up to his car and discovered he had parked in a handicappe
parking space and had gotten a parking ticket. He was apprehensive that someone walk-ing
with him noticed and would form a bad opinion of him.
Finally, Mead (1934/1956) believed that the self is not a thing, but a process based on
constant movement between the I and the me. On the one hand, the I is the spontane-ous
acts in which we engage; these are unpredictable and unstable. The me(the social
self), on the other hand, is those learned roles that are determined by interactions with
others. In other words, the social self (or me)is all of our learned experiences, whereas the
I is our immediate reaction to situations. As Robinson (2007) suggested, the I is the re-sponse
of the individual to the me, which is a reflection of the social world in which we
live and interact.
Many of the researchers who developed symbolic interactionism focused on the self.
For example, Charles Horton Cooley is perhaps best known for his idea of the looking-glass
self, which is based on the premise that individuals think about how they appear
to others, make a judgment about what the other person thinks about them, and then
incorporate those ideas into their own concept of self (Cooley 1983). For this process to
take place, we must interact with others. Cooley (1956) believed that most of this learning
took place during face-to-face interactions with others, especially in small groups, which
he called primary groups. What distinguishes a primary group from other people with
whom we come into contact? We do not expect any self-gain or reward from interacting
with those in our primary group (Beames 2005). The best example of a primary group is
a family. Thus, it is in our families that we learn about ourselves because families teach
us about social expectations for behavior, what talents we may have, and many other
thoughts and behaviors that come together to make up who we are.
So when did the concepts included in symbolic interactionism first start being used
in family science? Most believe it was when William Isaac Thomas and Florian Znaniecki
wrote The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (19181920). This book was one of the first
to state that the family has a role in the socialization process (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993).
The book pointed out that families construct their own realities, so that ones culture, or
social structure, influences both family and individual behaviors.
Thomas is also well known for coining the phrase definition of the situation, which is
another foundation of symbolic interactionism. According to this idea, human behavior
cannot be understood without also understanding the subjective perspectives of the
people involved in the interaction. For example, parents are often faced with two siblings
who carry on a conversation and then come to the parents for a final ruling. It becomes
obvious during the parents conversations with each of the siblings that, although they
were both a part of the same conversation, each one had a different interpretation of what
was said by the end of the discussion. This is because each siblings reaction to the
conversation was based on his or her individual, subjective experience. Thomas took this
idea further in what is called the Thomas theorem, which states that if people define
situations as real, they are real in their consequences (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993, 140).
Thus, each sibling in the conversation makescomments based on his or her own interpre-tation,
making each persons subjective opinion valued. So, if they were to ask their par-ents,
Whose point of view is right? then, according to Thomas, the parents answer
would be, They both are because your interpretation is based on your own personal
experience. This is probably not the answer the disagreeing siblings want to hear! The
Thomas theorem also explains why Thanh thinks it is the best party he has ever attended,
whereas Keiko wants to go home
The couples behavior at the party would be explained in a different way by Erving
Goffman (1959). He described peoples behavior as being similar to a theatrical perfor-mance.
People take on roles or act in ways based on the environment of which they are a
part. When we are in public, we display the behaviors that we think are most appropriate
for that audience, that fit the social norms, and that will show us in the best light possi-ble.
That is called our front-stage performance. When we are in not in public, we display
our backstage behavior and act in ways that are morefitting for our individual comfort
zone. Because we are trying to give off an impression that we want others to hold of us
and we are always making an impression of some sort, Goffman used the term impression
management to describe these behaviors. How would this change your interpretation of
Keiko and Thanhs behavior at the party?
Herbert Blumer was the first person to use the term symbolic interactionism. He is also
credited with developing the three primary premises of symbolic interactionism, which
are discussed below. Many people consider Blumers name synonymous with symbolic
interactionism (Fine 1993). Therefore, the influence of Herbert Blumer (1969) cannot be
overlooked in a historical discussion of this theory.
BASIC ASSUMPTIONS
Most people who use symbolic interactionism rely on the three themes developed by
Blumer (1969). However, LaRossa and Reitzes (1993) organized these themes around the
seven basic assumptions of the theory, and we have followed that organizational structure
here. All of these assumptions sprang from the idea that we understand and relate to our
environment based on symbols we know or those we learn.
First Overarching Theme

Thefirst overarching theme (Blumer 1969) is that meaning is a central element of human
behavior. This is best explained by reviewing the three assumptions that developed from
this primary belief.
People will react to something according to the meaning the thing has for them. In
other words, people live in a symbolic environment and will respond to something based
on their definition of that symbol. A cigarette, for example, is a symbol of relief and plea-sure
for one person and a death stick to another. Thus, the first person would pick up a
cigarette and light it, whereas the second person would probably refuse it. How is this
idea reflected in the vignette at the beginning of the chapter? Thanh was excited by the
opportunity for networking that the party afforded. Keiko, on the other hand, was un-comfortable
with all the drinking and schmoozing and so felt bored and excluded. How
did these meanings affect their subsequent behaviors and interactions?
We learn about meaning through interactions with others. This assumption is
drawn from the work of Allen and Doherty (1998). Although different researchers in this
area have varying beliefs about the origins of meaning, most would agree that meaning is
learned and processed through our social interactions. People make value judgments
about which symbols are positive and negative and react to them based on these values.
As people come into contact with different things and experiences, they interpret
what is being learned. In other words, people are both actors and reactors. Weare no
passive beings who simply respond to the world around us; instead, we are active beings
who choose the parts of the environment to which we respond. So, if we enter a room in
which we are uncomfortable, rather than simply standing there and feeling nervous,
hoping that someone will come and talk to us, we can actively seek out someone we know
and talk to him or her to put ourselves at ease. In this case, we are taking an active part
in controlling our environment.
Second Overarching Theme

The second overarching theme has to do with our self-concept. Because humans are active
social beings who interact with others based on their meaning of a situation, they must
have a sense of self for this to take place.
A human infant is asocial. This means that infants are not born with predeter-mined
ideas about who they are, but develop these ideas as they interact with people
along the way. An example is the notion of the looking-glass self (Cooley 1956), which
was discussed previously. A symbolic interactionist, then, would not say that a child has
misbehaved because of a mischievous temperament, but that the child has learned and
interpreted the behavior as a result of his or her interactions with the environment.
Onceindividuals develop a sense of self, this will provide motivation for future be-havior.
Because humans are reflexive, they will always reflect on what they experience and
use it as a guide for future behavior. This process entails not only a sense of self but also a
sense of how others view you. For example, people often respond to a situation based not
only on their own beliefs and values but also on how they think others will perceive that
behavior (whether positive or negative). This reflexive process requires an understanding of
the self as well as the generalized other discussed earlier. For example, a group of college
students who took part in a ten-week expedition to Ghana found themselves not only more
self-aware after the experience, but also more comfortable interacting with people they did
not know as a result of both this new self-awareness and the experience itself (Beames 2005).
Third Overarching Theme

Thefinal overarching theme moves from a discussion of the self to a discussion of society.
Whereas the previous themes and their underlying assumptions have focused on more
individual aspects, this theme is based on the idea that infants are not born into a social
vacuum. Instead, the environment of an infant has symbols and values that were assigned
at birth. One only has to go into a nursery to see an example of this. If the room is deco-rated
in pink and filled with dolls, what do we assume? We presume, of course, that the
infant is a girl. Parents have often used dolls and the color pink as symbols of what is
feminine or as an example of the types of things infant girls should come to value.
Individuals are influenced by society. Individuals are influenced not only by their
own self-concepts and the values, symbols, and beliefs of their families, but also by the
cultural norms and values of the society in which they live. Perhaps the changing nature
of fathering behaviors best exemplifies this. Whereas just a generation ago it was unusual
for men to show physical affection to their children, it is commonplace in todays families.
This is because of the changing societal expectations for fathers, which state that both
parents should show their children they love them, not only with words but also with
actions such as hugs (Smith 1996)
People learn the rules and values of society through everyday interactions within
that culture. What is the best way to learn about life in Japan? Although prior to a visit
to a country it is helpful to read about their cultural norms, so you do not begin your visit
offending people, the best way to learn about Japanese individuals and families is to
spend some time living among them. You can learn many things during common daily
experiences that can never be taught in a book.
PRIMARY TERMS AND CONCEPTS
There are numerous terms and concepts associated with this theory, many of which have
been covered within the previous discussion. Terms commonly associated with symbolic
interactionism include, but are not limited to, symbols, interaction, gestures, social
norms, rituals, roles, salience, identities, social act, and definition of the situation. Some
of these terms are covered here.
Symbols
The title of this theory combines two terms that are of utmost importance: symbols and
interaction. Anything can be thought of as a symbol, with language being the most pow-erful
example (Flint 2006). Symbols are the products of social interaction. This means
that we are not free to use symbols in any way we choose. Rather, their meanings are
given to us by the ways we see others using them. Thus, the meaning of a symbol in one
situation may not be the same in a different situation. For example, how often have you
seen professional basketball players swat each other on the buttocks as they come off the
court for a timeout? Now, what if you saw a man and woman walking down the street
and the man reached over and swatted the woman on her buttocks? Does the action of
slapping the person on the buttocks represent the same thing in each of these situations?
Likely, it does not. We would assume in the basketball example that it is symbolic of
encouragement or praise, whereas it might be evidence of intimacy in the example of the
couple on the street. How you define the symbol is based on the context of the situation
or the current environment, and it is something you learn from interacting with others in
this environment.
Interaction
It is difficult to talk about the word symbols without also talking about interaction because
the two terms are dependent on each other. Interaction, therefore, is a social behavior
between two or more people during which some type of communication takes place, caus-ing
each person to react to the situation and, as a result, modify his or her behavior (Burr
et al. 1979). This communication can be verbal, but it can also be nonverbal.
Gestures
Gestures, a good example of nonverbal communication, are acts that represent something
else (Vander Zanden 1987). We all know some popular (and some not so popular) hand
gestures that are used in the United States, such as touching the thumb and forefinge
together in a circle to represent that something is OK. These gestures and symbols are
meaningless if there is not someone around to interpret and react to them, thus making
interaction a necessary part of socialization. Think about the gesture Thanh makes in the
vignette at the beginning of the chapter, placing his hand on the small of Keikos back.
What does that gesture mean to each of them?
Social Norms
If interactions with others teach us what symbols and gestures mean, this also means that
interactions teach us appropriate social norms. Social norms can be defined as expecta-tions
about how to act in a given situation. Is your behavior with your friends the same
when you are with your parents asit is when you are alone together? A good guess would
be that your behavior changes in each of those situations based on the appropriate interac-tions
for each of those environments. Interactions with each of these groups, our parents
and our friends, teach us what behaviors are acceptable and when, and we adapt our be-havior
based on the social norms followed within each situation.
Rituals
These ideas come together in families in the form of rituals. For example, think about
how your family celebrates holidays such as Thanksgiving. Many of us have elaborate
rituals, such as who sits where at the table, who carves the turkey, whether a prayer is said
before the meal and, if so, who says the prayer, and so on. Do you eat your big meal in the
afternoon or evening? Who does the cooking? Who does the cleanup? What happens
after the meal? Each family has its own social norms for how they interact with each other
during holidays and which symbols and gestures are an appropriate part of those rituals.
Problems can arise when individuals marry and try to negotiate which rituals will be car-ried
out in the new married couples household because people often enter into marriage
assuming that their own familys traditions will be continued. Thus, it is a good idea to
talk about rituals before marriage, so a couple can decide which behaviors to adopt.
Roles
Another thing that can influence our behavior in any social situation is our self-defined
role. A role is a set of social norms for a specific situation, or a part. Think about actors
in a play, each playing a character or a role. The same is true for each of us in life. What
are some of the roles you play? Perhaps you are a son or daughter, brother or sister, room-mate,
athlete, or even a husband or wife. Are the expectations for each of these roles the
same? Not only do the expectations differ across roles, but also they can differ across
people who have the same role. For example, all of you reading this book right now are
probably doing so not because of an interest in family theories, but because it was assigned
to you in one of your courses in your role as a student. Some people think that the role of
a student is to read assigned chapters prior to class, participate in class discussions, study
for exams, and complete assignments on time. Others, however, see their role of student as
enjoying an active social life, perhaps playing a sport, attending class when it is conve-nient,
and completing assignments when they have time. For still others, the role of stu-dent
means attending class and completing assignments when time permits after workin
a forty-hour week and taking care of a family as well. The bottom line is that each person
defines for him-or herself what is appropriate behavior for each role that he or she plays.
Salience
So how do you decide which of your roles is most important or which one is going to re-ceive
the most of your time? According to Stryker (1968), we divide our time among each
of our roles based on the amount of salience that role has in our lives. The more salient or
important a role is to us, the more time we invest in that role. In the previous example,
the first student probably sees his or her role as student as the most salient at the moment,
meaning he or she identifies most with the role of a student and will perform those tasks
associated with that role first. Astudent might not go home on a long weekend to see his
parents, for example, to finish a big paper due the following week at school. One possible
explanation for this is that he sees his role as student as more important right now, or more
salient, than his role as a son.
Although each individual defines for him-or herself the behaviors associated with a
role, there are also social norms or expectations for roles. This does not mean, however,
that roles are staticwe have evidence in many family roles that they do indeed change
over time (LaRossa and Reitzes 1993). Perhaps the best examples of this are the roles of
mothers and fathers. Although traditionally dads were primarily responsible for the finan-cial
support of the family and mothers were responsible for the care of the house and
children, this has been changing in todays society as more women enter the workforce
and more men become highly involved fathers. This is true even for nonresidential fa-thers;
Sano, Smith, and Lanigan (2011) found that role saliency was an important deter-minant
of presence and level of father involvement for those men too. Therefore, roles help
us anticipate or predict behavior, but we must never forget that they are also both indi-vidual
and social constructions.
Impression Management
Because we want others to have a good impression of us, we will take on roles in public
that fit within the social norms of our current environment. We attempt to create the
impression we want other people to have of us during our theatrical performances or in-teractions,
knowing that they are looking at the roles we are playing and forming their
own impressions of us as well. Individuals use front-stage and backstage performances to
construct, practice, and enact their roles.
Identity
Those roles that are most salient for us are also those that most likely define our identities.
There are several points to take into consideration here. This is a mental process in that
our mental events determine our behaviors. Once we have figured out what something
means, we use that definition to determine our future behaviors. This determination is
made based on its relevance to our identity. Thus, those roles that are most salient to us,
or that best identify who we think we are, are given priority in our lives; it is those inter-actions
in which we choose most often to engage and indeed at which we most often at-tempt
to excel (McCall and Simmons 1978)
It is here where we come full circle in our discussion of this theory. Socialization
begins with the individual, who is born asocial. Humans begin to learn about their envi-ronment,
and themselves, through interactions with others, including family, friends, and
school. These environments are symbolic representations of meaning. In other words, we
are born into a culture and thus must learn what the social norms of a culture are through
interactions with others in the same culture. Through this process, people learn about
themselves and others, and we learn not only which roles and behaviors are deemed most
socially acceptable but also which best represent each of us as individuals. This helps us
decide which roles are most salient to us, or which roles best form our sense of identity.
This in turn influences our future interactions with others, as we interpret our own be-haviors,
and those of others, based on these beliefs. Because of this, some people respond
to one thing in a situation, whereas others in the same situation respond to something
entirely different. Our world is, after all, socially constructed.
COMMON AREAS OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATION
Many areas of research have used the concepts and assumptions of symbolic interaction-ism,
beginning with the work of the early founders previously discussed. Although some
have suggested that symbolic interactionism showed a drop in usage in the 1960s and
1970s (Fine 1993), its use since that time, and even recently, is widely evident both in
family science and in other fields of study. For example, symbolic interactionism was used
in sports management as a theoretical model for designing three different after-school
programs that were focused on increasing team-building skills while also still being fun
(Roark et al. 2014). The theory has also been used recently in school counseling to help
immigrant children with their transition to school by examining cultural scripts, how
they construct meaning, and the development of role identities so counselors might better
understand the challenges faced by these new students and how to tailor their counseling
to those needs (Ukasoanya 2014). As afinal example, this theory was used by Gallant
(2014) to better understand how to provide support for the development of women as
leaders in higher education.
This section will be organized using the three overarching themes of symbolic inter-actionism.
Although this review will not be exhaustive because there has been a great
deal of research that has drawn from various aspects of the theory, examples of recent
research within each of those assumptions will be reviewed.
MeaningIs a Central Element of Human Behavior

Think about the first overarching theme we discussed, which states that meaning is an
important element of human behavior that cannot be overlooked. We will review a few
studies in the areas of parenting and identity development around this theme. Although
considerable research in the past decade used symbolic interactionism to understand par-enting,
Grafsky (2014) conducted a unique study looking at the disclosure process of
sexual minority youth from the perspective of the parent. Grafsky conducted in-depth
interviews with eleven parents who were recently informed of their childs sexual minor-ity
status. Parentchild interactions are altered in some ways by the disclosure as roles and
the meanings that are assigned to them change. Those families with more positiv
interactions prior to disclosure tended to have more positive interactions afterward, as

parents worked to hide their fears, concerns, and struggles with what it now means to be
a parent to maintain those interactions.
Finlay et al. (2014) looked at parenting from a different perspective as they focused
on the attributes that early adolescents attribute to residential fathers. In their study of
382 adolescents who were both European American and Mexican American, in both
intact families and stepfamilies, they looked at stable (personal characteristics) versus
unstable (situational) attributes for fathering behaviors as being based on their interpreta-tions
of events, the meaning those interactions have for them, and the role of their cul-tural
environment. The primary focus of their study was on their interpretation of those
behaviors and how that impacts adolescent depressive symptoms. They found that adoles-cents
with more depressive symptoms were more likely to see positive fathering behavior
as unstable than were those with fewer depressive symptoms, although the result was
moderated by gender and ethnicity. For example, Mexican American youth reported
higher levels of depressive symptoms and girls were more likely to attribute positive be-haviors
to stable attributes in fathers.
The role of meaning was assessed with a different population by Feinstein (2015),
who looked at U.S. veterans and the meaning attached to accessing mental health ser-vices
through the Veterans Administration. Because veterans are portrayed in society as
national heroes, they struggle with the stigma associated with accessing mental health
services because society often portrays such patients as crazy, making it difficult to
decide which role is most salient. Observations and interviews suggest that not all veter-ans
assume the role of national hero, nor do they necessarily have a positive sense of self
based on that identity. In general, participants were able to maintain a positive sense of
self while seeking services through the Veterans Administration and were able to attri-bute
positive meaning to their behaviors while surrounded by others who have similar
beliefs. Although having a strong positive identity as a veteran helped reduce the stigma
associated with accessing mental health services, it did not erase the meaning that those
services carry.
The Self
The second overarching theme was more focused on the development of the self. This sec-tion
will focus on ways of thinking about the self and current work around the looking-glass
self. Morawski (2014) provided a historical look at the evolution of Goffmans concept
of self, including how it was used and how it has changed over time. She explored some
of the research that has stemmed from the symbolic interactionism view of the self and
the importance of this foundation to the field.
One aspect of the self that was assessed is the dualism that exists between the need
for interaction with and confirmation by others to develop the self, which is thought by
some to lead to a self that is anxious. This anxiety is caused by a desire to be accepted
rather than rejected by others. The need to be positively viewed by others can be seen in
concepts such as the looking-glass self and impression management. Immergut and
Kaufman (2014) took this a step further and compared this dualism to the Buddhist
ideals of anatta and prattyasamutpada, which mean no-self and independence. They sug-gest
that in Buddhism the notion of self is instead a no-self, which both stays the same
and constantly changes, but does not rely on verification from others for its existence. Th
authors suggest that adapting these ideals will rid one of the anxiety associated with the
dualism of the self.
The looking-glass self has been used as a basis for research in recent years as well.
Downey (2015) uses the looking glass to understand silences and interpretations when
conducting qualitative interviews. Respondents may be reacting to the question asked,
but could also be silent because of guilt, anxiety, shame, or embarrassment because they
are concerned about how they will appear to the researcher when they respond to the
question. The reverse could also be truethey may respond in a certain way because they
feel proud or confident. Regardless, the characteristics of both the researcher and the re-spondent
play a part in the role of the looking-glass self in the interview process.
Similarly, Perkins, Wiley, and Deaux (2014) examined the role of the looking glass
in the development of ethnicity identity in first-and second-generation immigrants of
color in the United States. A diverse pool of 171 immigrants answered a questionnaire
concerning how they perceive their ethnic group is regarded by society, both in the United
States and in their native culture, how they feel about their own ethnicity, and a self-esteem
measure. The researchers discovered that when the native culture has a positive
outlook on their ethnic group, respondents also report having positive feelings about their
ethnicity. Further, when respondents felt that others held their ethnic group in high
regard, their self-esteem was impacted in a positive way. Thus, the looking glass served
as a strong means of validation for ones ethnicity and self-esteem.
The Roleof Culture in Social Interactions

The final overarching theme focused on the role of society. Raffel (2013) looked at the
criticism of the concept of impression management and attempted to provide support for
this concept via reinterpretation of Goffmans original writings. Other authors in recent
years have used Goffmans work as a theoretical basis. Two examples will be given.
In Western culture we have norms and ideals about intimacy and attraction. What
happens when an individual does not conform to the social norms? Scott and Dawson
(2015) addressed this question with regard to asexuality. Whereas traditionally work in
this area has focused on the individual level, the authors suggest that asexual individuals
develop their perception of and meaning for asexuality via interactions with others as they
learn about social norms within and outside of their group. Goffmans notion of impression
management and front-and backstage behavior is seen as relevant to this field of study.
Similarly, Brouwer, Drummond, and Willis (2012) used the concept of front-stage/
backstage behavior to assess breastfeeding behaviors in general and whether women
breastfeed in public in Australia. They interviewed eleven first-time mothers both three
weeks and three months after having given birth and found that women wanted to be seen
as capable and competent parents. Thus, even when they were having difficulties with
breastfeeding, they maintained front-stage behavior that indicated there were no prob-lems.
Because breastfeeding in public is not widely accepted in Australia and they did not
want to appear as social deviants, they kept breastfeeding as a backstage behavior.
MethodologicalIssues
Although some believe Blumer suggested that it is hard to empirically validate this
theory because of the difficulty of studying human social life in general, his work seem
to suggest that he addressed this problem using a naturalistic approach (L. Athens 2010;
Hammersley 2010). Assuming we agree that it is possible to study human social life, a
final strength of symbolic interactionism that has led to its continued use is its acceptance
of both qualitative and quantitative methodologies. This means that researchers are not
limited to one means of data collection, such as giving people a survey to assess how they
feel about a certain topic. This theory also supports the use of observations, interviews,
and, as you would guess, interactions with others to gain a deeper understanding of how
people come to define their realities. Kotarba (2014) further suggests that symbolic inter-actionism
can easily be used in both applied and basic research and should be utilized
outside of the traditional grounded theory approach. This notion was further supported
by Handberg et al. (2015), who provide a model for using the theory as a guide for the
development of research of all types.
CRITIQUE
Although symbolic interactionism has been used for many decades, some individuals
have concerns about the theory and its usage. We will review some of the most common
criticisms of this theory here. Keep in mind during this discussion that these comments
are often directed toward individuals who are using ideas from symbolic interactionism,
rather than toward the entire theory in general.
Stryker (1980) provided a summary of the criticisms of this theory, some of which
will be reviewed here. Thefirst criticism is that some people found the key concepts con-fusing
because they are difficult to define and thus difficult to test with research. How-ever,
as both LaRossa and Reitzes (1993) and Stryker (1987) noted, there has been a
plethora of work in this area over the past several decades to address this problem. Thus,
although the first criticism perhaps was true at the time of Strykers original writing, it is
no longer as valid today.
A second, related criticism is that the ideas and concepts of individual scholars in this
field have not been combined into one central theory. In other words, whereas most theo-ries
have a basic set of assumptions, lists of concepts, and organized guidelines, some be-lieve
this does not exist in the same sense for symbolic interactionism. Some authors have
attempted to develop these theories, but there is no agreement as there is with other theo-ries
covered in this text. Thus, for some scholars, symbolic interactionism does in fact have
specific guidelines and assumptions, but for others these guidelines are not well developed
enough to meet their needs; it depends on ones school of thought. Furthermore, although
some scholars see this ambiguity as an asset because it allows them to pick and choose
among the various concepts relevant to their particular research, many would say this is
indeed aflaw within the theory in general. Hence, it is difficult to describe the theory to
others in a logical fashion and test its central tenets because they are so diverse.
Strykers (1980) third criticism is that symbolic interactionism does not give enough
attention to either the importance of emotions or the role of the unconscious. Although
few would argue with this statement in a general sense, some aspects of this theory do, in
fact, address this issue. Cooley (1956), for example, stated that people have feelings about
themselves, or emotions, that drive the looking-glass self. Similarly, recently researchers
have started to study the role of emotions in many individual and family contexts usin
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
DANCE ON STILTS AT THE GIRLS’ UNYAGO, NIUCHI
Newala, too, suffers from the distance of its water-supply—at least

the Newala of to-day does; there was once another Newala in a lovely
valley at the foot of the plateau. I visited it and found scarcely a trace
of houses, only a Christian cemetery, with the graves of several
missionaries and their converts, remaining as a monument of its
former glories. But the surroundings are wonderfully beautiful. A
thick grove of splendid mango-trees closes in the weather-worn
crosses and headstones; behind them, combining the useful and the
agreeable, is a whole plantation of lemon-trees covered with ripe
fruit; not the small African kind, but a much larger and also juicier
imported variety, which drops into the hands of the passing traveller,
without calling for any exertion on his part. Old Newala is now under
the jurisdiction of the native pastor, Daudi, at Chingulungulu, who,
as I am on very friendly terms with him, allows me, as a matter of
course, the use of this lemon-grove during my stay at Newala.
FEET MUTILATED BY THE RAVAGES OF THE “JIGGER”
(Sarcopsylla penetrans)
The water-supply of New Newala is in the bottom of the valley,

some 1,600 feet lower down. The way is not only long and fatiguing,
but the water, when we get it, is thoroughly bad. We are suffering not
only from this, but from the fact that the arrangements at Newala are
nothing short of luxurious. We have a separate kitchen—a hut built
against the boma palisade on the right of the baraza, the interior of
which is not visible from our usual position. Our two cooks were not
long in finding this out, and they consequently do—or rather neglect
to do—what they please. In any case they do not seem to be very
particular about the boiling of our drinking-water—at least I can
attribute to no other cause certain attacks of a dysenteric nature,
from which both Knudsen and I have suffered for some time. If a
man like Omari has to be left unwatched for a moment, he is capable
of anything. Besides this complaint, we are inconvenienced by the
state of our nails, which have become as hard as glass, and crack on
the slightest provocation, and I have the additional infliction of
pimples all over me. As if all this were not enough, we have also, for
the last week been waging war against the jigger, who has found his
Eldorado in the hot sand of the Makonde plateau. Our men are seen
all day long—whenever their chronic colds and the dysentery likewise
raging among them permit—occupied in removing this scourge of
Africa from their feet and trying to prevent the disastrous
consequences of its presence. It is quite common to see natives of
this place with one or two toes missing; many have lost all their toes,
or even the whole front part of the foot, so that a well-formed leg
ends in a shapeless stump. These ravages are caused by the female of
Sarcopsylla penetrans, which bores its way under the skin and there
develops an egg-sac the size of a pea. In all books on the subject, it is
stated that one’s attention is called to the presence of this parasite by
an intolerable itching. This agrees very well with my experience, so
far as the softer parts of the sole, the spaces between and under the
toes, and the side of the foot are concerned, but if the creature
penetrates through the harder parts of the heel or ball of the foot, it
may escape even the most careful search till it has reached maturity.
Then there is no time to be lost, if the horrible ulceration, of which
we see cases by the dozen every day, is to be prevented. It is much
easier, by the way, to discover the insect on the white skin of a
European than on that of a native, on which the dark speck scarcely
shows. The four or five jiggers which, in spite of the fact that I
constantly wore high laced boots, chose my feet to settle in, were
taken out for me by the all-accomplished Knudsen, after which I
thought it advisable to wash out the cavities with corrosive
sublimate. The natives have a different sort of disinfectant—they fill
the hole with scraped roots. In a tiny Makua village on the slope of
the plateau south of Newala, we saw an old woman who had filled all
the spaces under her toe-nails with powdered roots by way of
prophylactic treatment. What will be the result, if any, who can say?
The rest of the many trifling ills which trouble our existence are
really more comic than serious. In the absence of anything else to
smoke, Knudsen and I at last opened a box of cigars procured from
the Indian store-keeper at Lindi, and tried them, with the most
distressing results. Whether they contain opium or some other
narcotic, neither of us can say, but after the tenth puff we were both
“off,” three-quarters stupefied and unspeakably wretched. Slowly we
recovered—and what happened next? Half-an-hour later we were
once more smoking these poisonous concoctions—so insatiable is the
craving for tobacco in the tropics.
Even my present attacks of fever scarcely deserve to be taken
seriously. I have had no less than three here at Newala, all of which
have run their course in an incredibly short time. In the early
afternoon, I am busy with my old natives, asking questions and
making notes. The strong midday coffee has stimulated my spirits to
an extraordinary degree, the brain is active and vigorous, and work
progresses rapidly, while a pleasant warmth pervades the whole
body. Suddenly this gives place to a violent chill, forcing me to put on
my overcoat, though it is only half-past three and the afternoon sun
is at its hottest. Now the brain no longer works with such acuteness
and logical precision; more especially does it fail me in trying to
establish the syntax of the difficult Makua language on which I have
ventured, as if I had not enough to do without it. Under the
circumstances it seems advisable to take my temperature, and I do
so, to save trouble, without leaving my seat, and while going on with
my work. On examination, I find it to be 101·48°. My tutors are
abruptly dismissed and my bed set up in the baraza; a few minutes
later I am in it and treating myself internally with hot water and
lemon-juice.
Three hours later, the thermometer marks nearly 104°, and I make
them carry me back into the tent, bed and all, as I am now perspiring
heavily, and exposure to the cold wind just beginning to blow might
mean a fatal chill. I lie still for a little while, and then find, to my
great relief, that the temperature is not rising, but rather falling. This
is about 7.30 p.m. At 8 p.m. I find, to my unbounded astonishment,
that it has fallen below 98·6°, and I feel perfectly well. I read for an
hour or two, and could very well enjoy a smoke, if I had the
wherewithal—Indian cigars being out of the question.
Having no medical training, I am at a loss to account for this state
of things. It is impossible that these transitory attacks of high fever
should be malarial; it seems more probable that they are due to a
kind of sunstroke. On consulting my note-book, I become more and
more inclined to think this is the case, for these attacks regularly
follow extreme fatigue and long exposure to strong sunshine. They at
least have the advantage of being only short interruptions to my
work, as on the following morning I am always quite fresh and fit.
My treasure of a cook is suffering from an enormous hydrocele which
makes it difficult for him to get up, and Moritz is obliged to keep in
the dark on account of his inflamed eyes. Knudsen’s cook, a raw boy
from somewhere in the bush, knows still less of cooking than Omari;
consequently Nils Knudsen himself has been promoted to the vacant
post. Finding that we had come to the end of our supplies, he began
by sending to Chingulungulu for the four sucking-pigs which we had
bought from Matola and temporarily left in his charge; and when
they came up, neatly packed in a large crate, he callously slaughtered
the biggest of them. The first joint we were thoughtless enough to
entrust for roasting to Knudsen’s mshenzi cook, and it was
consequently uneatable; but we made the rest of the animal into a
jelly which we ate with great relish after weeks of underfeeding,
consuming incredible helpings of it at both midday and evening
meals. The only drawback is a certain want of variety in the tinned
vegetables. Dr. Jäger, to whom the Geographical Commission
entrusted the provisioning of the expeditions—mine as well as his
own—because he had more time on his hands than the rest of us,
seems to have laid in a huge stock of Teltow turnips,[46] an article of
food which is all very well for occasional use, but which quickly palls
when set before one every day; and we seem to have no other tins
left. There is no help for it—we must put up with the turnips; but I
am certain that, once I am home again, I shall not touch them for ten
years to come.
Amid all these minor evils, which, after all, go to make up the
genuine flavour of Africa, there is at least one cheering touch:
Knudsen has, with the dexterity of a skilled mechanic, repaired my 9
× 12 cm. camera, at least so far that I can use it with a little care.
How, in the absence of finger-nails, he was able to accomplish such a
ticklish piece of work, having no tool but a clumsy screw-driver for
taking to pieces and putting together again the complicated
mechanism of the instantaneous shutter, is still a mystery to me; but
he did it successfully. The loss of his finger-nails shows him in a light
contrasting curiously enough with the intelligence evinced by the
above operation; though, after all, it is scarcely surprising after his
ten years’ residence in the bush. One day, at Lindi, he had occasion
to wash a dog, which must have been in need of very thorough
cleansing, for the bottle handed to our friend for the purpose had an
extremely strong smell. Having performed his task in the most
conscientious manner, he perceived with some surprise that the dog
did not appear much the better for it, and was further surprised by
finding his own nails ulcerating away in the course of the next few
days. “How was I to know that carbolic acid has to be diluted?” he
mutters indignantly, from time to time, with a troubled gaze at his
mutilated finger-tips.
Since we came to Newala we have been making excursions in all
directions through the surrounding country, in accordance with old
habit, and also because the akida Sefu did not get together the tribal
elders from whom I wanted information so speedily as he had
promised. There is, however, no harm done, as, even if seen only
from the outside, the country and people are interesting enough.
The Makonde plateau is like a large rectangular table rounded off
at the corners. Measured from the Indian Ocean to Newala, it is
about seventy-five miles long, and between the Rovuma and the
Lukuledi it averages fifty miles in breadth, so that its superficial area
is about two-thirds of that of the kingdom of Saxony. The surface,
however, is not level, but uniformly inclined from its south-western
edge to the ocean. From the upper edge, on which Newala lies, the
eye ranges for many miles east and north-east, without encountering
any obstacle, over the Makonde bush. It is a green sea, from which
here and there thick clouds of smoke rise, to show that it, too, is
inhabited by men who carry on their tillage like so many other
primitive peoples, by cutting down and burning the bush, and
manuring with the ashes. Even in the radiant light of a tropical day
such a fire is a grand sight.
Much less effective is the impression produced just now by the
great western plain as seen from the edge of the plateau. As often as
time permits, I stroll along this edge, sometimes in one direction,
sometimes in another, in the hope of finding the air clear enough to
let me enjoy the view; but I have always been disappointed.
Wherever one looks, clouds of smoke rise from the burning bush,
and the air is full of smoke and vapour. It is a pity, for under more
favourable circumstances the panorama of the whole country up to
the distant Majeje hills must be truly magnificent. It is of little use
taking photographs now, and an outline sketch gives a very poor idea
of the scenery. In one of these excursions I went out of my way to
make a personal attempt on the Makonde bush. The present edge of
the plateau is the result of a far-reaching process of destruction
through erosion and denudation. The Makonde strata are
everywhere cut into by ravines, which, though short, are hundreds of
yards in depth. In consequence of the loose stratification of these
beds, not only are the walls of these ravines nearly vertical, but their
upper end is closed by an equally steep escarpment, so that the
western edge of the Makonde plateau is hemmed in by a series of
deep, basin-like valleys. In order to get from one side of such a ravine
to the other, I cut my way through the bush with a dozen of my men.
It was a very open part, with more grass than scrub, but even so the
short stretch of less than two hundred yards was very hard work; at
the end of it the men’s calicoes were in rags and they themselves
bleeding from hundreds of scratches, while even our strong khaki
suits had not escaped scatheless.
NATIVE PATH THROUGH THE MAKONDE BUSH, NEAR

MAHUTA
I see increasing reason to believe that the view formed some time
back as to the origin of the Makonde bush is the correct one. I have
no doubt that it is not a natural product, but the result of human
occupation. Those parts of the high country where man—as a very
slight amount of practice enables the eye to perceive at once—has not
yet penetrated with axe and hoe, are still occupied by a splendid
timber forest quite able to sustain a comparison with our mixed
forests in Germany. But wherever man has once built his hut or tilled
his field, this horrible bush springs up. Every phase of this process
may be seen in the course of a couple of hours’ walk along the main
road. From the bush to right or left, one hears the sound of the axe—
not from one spot only, but from several directions at once. A few
steps further on, we can see what is taking place. The brush has been
cut down and piled up in heaps to the height of a yard or more,
between which the trunks of the large trees stand up like the last
pillars of a magnificent ruined building. These, too, present a
melancholy spectacle: the destructive Makonde have ringed them—
cut a broad strip of bark all round to ensure their dying off—and also
piled up pyramids of brush round them. Father and son, mother and
son-in-law, are chopping away perseveringly in the background—too
busy, almost, to look round at the white stranger, who usually excites
so much interest. If you pass by the same place a week later, the piles
of brushwood have disappeared and a thick layer of ashes has taken
the place of the green forest. The large trees stretch their
smouldering trunks and branches in dumb accusation to heaven—if
they have not already fallen and been more or less reduced to ashes,
perhaps only showing as a white stripe on the dark ground.
This work of destruction is carried out by the Makonde alike on the
virgin forest and on the bush which has sprung up on sites already
cultivated and deserted. In the second case they are saved the trouble
of burning the large trees, these being entirely absent in the
secondary bush.
After burning this piece of forest ground and loosening it with the
hoe, the native sows his corn and plants his vegetables. All over the
country, he goes in for bed-culture, which requires, and, in fact,
receives, the most careful attention. Weeds are nowhere tolerated in
the south of German East Africa. The crops may fail on the plains,
where droughts are frequent, but never on the plateau with its
abundant rains and heavy dews. Its fortunate inhabitants even have
the satisfaction of seeing the proud Wayao and Wamakua working
for them as labourers, driven by hunger to serve where they were
accustomed to rule.
But the light, sandy soil is soon exhausted, and would yield no
harvest the second year if cultivated twice running. This fact has
been familiar to the native for ages; consequently he provides in
time, and, while his crop is growing, prepares the next plot with axe
and firebrand. Next year he plants this with his various crops and
lets the first piece lie fallow. For a short time it remains waste and
desolate; then nature steps in to repair the destruction wrought by
man; a thousand new growths spring out of the exhausted soil, and
even the old stumps put forth fresh shoots. Next year the new growth
is up to one’s knees, and in a few years more it is that terrible,
impenetrable bush, which maintains its position till the black
occupier of the land has made the round of all the available sites and
come back to his starting point.
The Makonde are, body and soul, so to speak, one with this bush.
According to my Yao informants, indeed, their name means nothing
else but “bush people.” Their own tradition says that they have been
settled up here for a very long time, but to my surprise they laid great
stress on an original immigration. Their old homes were in the
south-east, near Mikindani and the mouth of the Rovuma, whence
their peaceful forefathers were driven by the continual raids of the
Sakalavas from Madagascar and the warlike Shirazis[47] of the coast,
to take refuge on the almost inaccessible plateau. I have studied
African ethnology for twenty years, but the fact that changes of
population in this apparently quiet and peaceable corner of the earth
could have been occasioned by outside enterprises taking place on
the high seas, was completely new to me. It is, no doubt, however,
correct.
The charming tribal legend of the Makonde—besides informing us
of other interesting matters—explains why they have to live in the
thickest of the bush and a long way from the edge of the plateau,
instead of making their permanent homes beside the purling brooks
and springs of the low country.
“The place where the tribe originated is Mahuta, on the southern
side of the plateau towards the Rovuma, where of old time there was
nothing but thick bush. Out of this bush came a man who never
washed himself or shaved his head, and who ate and drank but little.
He went out and made a human figure from the wood of a tree
growing in the open country, which he took home to his abode in the
bush and there set it upright. In the night this image came to life and
was a woman. The man and woman went down together to the
Rovuma to wash themselves. Here the woman gave birth to a still-
born child. They left that place and passed over the high land into the
valley of the Mbemkuru, where the woman had another child, which
was also born dead. Then they returned to the high bush country of
Mahuta, where the third child was born, which lived and grew up. In
course of time, the couple had many more children, and called
themselves Wamatanda. These were the ancestral stock of the
Makonde, also called Wamakonde,[48] i.e., aborigines. Their
forefather, the man from the bush, gave his children the command to
bury their dead upright, in memory of the mother of their race who
was cut out of wood and awoke to life when standing upright. He also
warned them against settling in the valleys and near large streams,
for sickness and death dwelt there. They were to make it a rule to
have their huts at least an hour’s walk from the nearest watering-
place; then their children would thrive and escape illness.”
The explanation of the name Makonde given by my informants is
somewhat different from that contained in the above legend, which I
extract from a little book (small, but packed with information), by
Pater Adams, entitled Lindi und sein Hinterland. Otherwise, my
results agree exactly with the statements of the legend. Washing?
Hapana—there is no such thing. Why should they do so? As it is, the
supply of water scarcely suffices for cooking and drinking; other
people do not wash, so why should the Makonde distinguish himself
by such needless eccentricity? As for shaving the head, the short,
woolly crop scarcely needs it,[49] so the second ancestral precept is
likewise easy enough to follow. Beyond this, however, there is
nothing ridiculous in the ancestor’s advice. I have obtained from
various local artists a fairly large number of figures carved in wood,
ranging from fifteen to twenty-three inches in height, and
representing women belonging to the great group of the Mavia,
Makonde, and Matambwe tribes. The carving is remarkably well
done and renders the female type with great accuracy, especially the
keloid ornamentation, to be described later on. As to the object and
meaning of their works the sculptors either could or (more probably)
would tell me nothing, and I was forced to content myself with the
scanty information vouchsafed by one man, who said that the figures
were merely intended to represent the nembo—the artificial
deformations of pelele, ear-discs, and keloids. The legend recorded
by Pater Adams places these figures in a new light. They must surely
be more than mere dolls; and we may even venture to assume that
they are—though the majority of present-day Makonde are probably
unaware of the fact—representations of the tribal ancestress.
The references in the legend to the descent from Mahuta to the
Rovuma, and to a journey across the highlands into the Mbekuru
valley, undoubtedly indicate the previous history of the tribe, the
travels of the ancestral pair typifying the migrations of their
descendants. The descent to the neighbouring Rovuma valley, with
its extraordinary fertility and great abundance of game, is intelligible
at a glance—but the crossing of the Lukuledi depression, the ascent
to the Rondo Plateau and the descent to the Mbemkuru, also lie
within the bounds of probability, for all these districts have exactly
the same character as the extreme south. Now, however, comes a
point of especial interest for our bacteriological age. The primitive
Makonde did not enjoy their lives in the marshy river-valleys.
Disease raged among them, and many died. It was only after they
had returned to their original home near Mahuta, that the health
conditions of these people improved. We are very apt to think of the
African as a stupid person whose ignorance of nature is only equalled
by his fear of it, and who looks on all mishaps as caused by evil
spirits and malignant natural powers. It is much more correct to
assume in this case that the people very early learnt to distinguish
districts infested with malaria from those where it is absent.
This knowledge is crystallized in the
ancestral warning against settling in the
valleys and near the great waters, the
dwelling-places of disease and death. At the
same time, for security against the hostile
Mavia south of the Rovuma, it was enacted
that every settlement must be not less than a
certain distance from the southern edge of the
plateau. Such in fact is their mode of life at the
present day. It is not such a bad one, and
certainly they are both safer and more
comfortable than the Makua, the recent
intruders from the south, who have made USUAL METHOD OF
good their footing on the western edge of the CLOSING HUT-DOOR
plateau, extending over a fairly wide belt of
country. Neither Makua nor Makonde show in their dwellings
anything of the size and comeliness of the Yao houses in the plain,
especially at Masasi, Chingulungulu and Zuza’s. Jumbe Chauro, a
Makonde hamlet not far from Newala, on the road to Mahuta, is the
most important settlement of the tribe I have yet seen, and has fairly
spacious huts. But how slovenly is their construction compared with
the palatial residences of the elephant-hunters living in the plain.
The roofs are still more untidy than in the general run of huts during
the dry season, the walls show here and there the scanty beginnings
or the lamentable remains of the mud plastering, and the interior is a
veritable dog-kennel; dirt, dust and disorder everywhere. A few huts
only show any attempt at division into rooms, and this consists
merely of very roughly-made bamboo partitions. In one point alone
have I noticed any indication of progress—in the method of fastening
the door. Houses all over the south are secured in a simple but
ingenious manner. The door consists of a set of stout pieces of wood
or bamboo, tied with bark-string to two cross-pieces, and moving in
two grooves round one of the door-posts, so as to open inwards. If
the owner wishes to leave home, he takes two logs as thick as a man’s
upper arm and about a yard long. One of these is placed obliquely
against the middle of the door from the inside, so as to form an angle
of from 60° to 75° with the ground. He then places the second piece
horizontally across the first, pressing it downward with all his might.
It is kept in place by two strong posts planted in the ground a few
inches inside the door. This fastening is absolutely safe, but of course
cannot be applied to both doors at once, otherwise how could the
owner leave or enter his house? I have not yet succeeded in finding
out how the back door is fastened.
MAKONDE LOCK AND KEY AT JUMBE CHAURO

This is the general way of closing a house. The Makonde at Jumbe
Chauro, however, have a much more complicated, solid and original
one. Here, too, the door is as already described, except that there is
only one post on the inside, standing by itself about six inches from
one side of the doorway. Opposite this post is a hole in the wall just
large enough to admit a man’s arm. The door is closed inside by a
large wooden bolt passing through a hole in this post and pressing
with its free end against the door. The other end has three holes into
which fit three pegs running in vertical grooves inside the post. The
door is opened with a wooden key about a foot long, somewhat
curved and sloped off at the butt; the other end has three pegs
corresponding to the holes, in the bolt, so that, when it is thrust
through the hole in the wall and inserted into the rectangular
opening in the post, the pegs can be lifted and the bolt drawn out.[50]
MODE OF INSERTING THE KEY
With no small pride first one householder and then a second

showed me on the spot the action of this greatest invention of the
Makonde Highlands. To both with an admiring exclamation of
“Vizuri sana!” (“Very fine!”). I expressed the wish to take back these
marvels with me to Ulaya, to show the Wazungu what clever fellows
the Makonde are. Scarcely five minutes after my return to camp at
Newala, the two men came up sweating under the weight of two
heavy logs which they laid down at my feet, handing over at the same
time the keys of the fallen fortress. Arguing, logically enough, that if
the key was wanted, the lock would be wanted with it, they had taken
their axes and chopped down the posts—as it never occurred to them
to dig them out of the ground and so bring them intact. Thus I have
two badly damaged specimens, and the owners, instead of praise,
come in for a blowing-up.
The Makua huts in the environs of Newala are especially
miserable; their more than slovenly construction reminds one of the
temporary erections of the Makua at Hatia’s, though the people here
have not been concerned in a war. It must therefore be due to
congenital idleness, or else to the absence of a powerful chief. Even
the baraza at Mlipa’s, a short hour’s walk south-east of Newala,
shares in this general neglect. While public buildings in this country
are usually looked after more or less carefully, this is in evident
danger of being blown over by the first strong easterly gale. The only
attractive object in this whole district is the grave of the late chief
Mlipa. I visited it in the morning, while the sun was still trying with
partial success to break through the rolling mists, and the circular
grove of tall euphorbias, which, with a broken pot, is all that marks
the old king’s resting-place, impressed one with a touch of pathos.
Even my very materially-minded carriers seemed to feel something
of the sort, for instead of their usual ribald songs, they chanted
solemnly, as we marched on through the dense green of the Makonde
bush:—
“We shall arrive with the great master; we stand in a row and have
no fear about getting our food and our money from the Serkali (the
Government). We are not afraid; we are going along with the great
master, the lion; we are going down to the coast and back.”
With regard to the characteristic features of the various tribes here
on the western edge of the plateau, I can arrive at no other
conclusion than the one already come to in the plain, viz., that it is
impossible for anyone but a trained anthropologist to assign any
given individual at once to his proper tribe. In fact, I think that even
an anthropological specialist, after the most careful examination,
might find it a difficult task to decide. The whole congeries of peoples
collected in the region bounded on the west by the great Central
African rift, Tanganyika and Nyasa, and on the east by the Indian
Ocean, are closely related to each other—some of their languages are
only distinguished from one another as dialects of the same speech,
and no doubt all the tribes present the same shape of skull and
structure of skeleton. Thus, surely, there can be no very striking
differences in outward appearance.
Even did such exist, I should have no time
to concern myself with them, for day after day,
I have to see or hear, as the case may be—in
any case to grasp and record—an
extraordinary number of ethnographic
phenomena. I am almost disposed to think it
fortunate that some departments of inquiry, at
least, are barred by external circumstances.
Chief among these is the subject of iron-
working. We are apt to think of Africa as a
country where iron ore is everywhere, so to
speak, to be picked up by the roadside, and
where it would be quite surprising if the
inhabitants had not learnt to smelt the
material ready to their hand. In fact, the
knowledge of this art ranges all over the
continent, from the Kabyles in the north to the
Kafirs in the south. Here between the Rovuma
and the Lukuledi the conditions are not so
favourable. According to the statements of the
Makonde, neither ironstone nor any other
form of iron ore is known to them. They have
not therefore advanced to the art of smelting
the metal, but have hitherto bought all their
THE ANCESTRESS OF
THE MAKONDE
iron implements from neighbouring tribes.
Even in the plain the inhabitants are not much
better off. Only one man now living is said to
understand the art of smelting iron. This old fundi lives close to
Huwe, that isolated, steep-sided block of granite which rises out of
the green solitude between Masasi and Chingulungulu, and whose
jagged and splintered top meets the traveller’s eye everywhere. While
still at Masasi I wished to see this man at work, but was told that,
frightened by the rising, he had retired across the Rovuma, though
he would soon return. All subsequent inquiries as to whether the
fundi had come back met with the genuine African answer, “Bado”
(“Not yet”).
BRAZIER
Some consolation was afforded me by a brassfounder, whom I

came across in the bush near Akundonde’s. This man is the favourite
of women, and therefore no doubt of the gods; he welds the glittering
brass rods purchased at the coast into those massive, heavy rings
which, on the wrists and ankles of the local fair ones, continually give
me fresh food for admiration. Like every decent master-craftsman he
had all his tools with him, consisting of a pair of bellows, three
crucibles and a hammer—nothing more, apparently. He was quite
willing to show his skill, and in a twinkling had fixed his bellows on
the ground. They are simply two goat-skins, taken off whole, the four
legs being closed by knots, while the upper opening, intended to
admit the air, is kept stretched by two pieces of wood. At the lower
end of the skin a smaller opening is left into which a wooden tube is
stuck. The fundi has quickly borrowed a heap of wood-embers from
the nearest hut; he then fixes the free ends of the two tubes into an
earthen pipe, and clamps them to the ground by means of a bent
piece of wood. Now he fills one of his small clay crucibles, the dross
on which shows that they have been long in use, with the yellow
material, places it in the midst of the embers, which, at present are
only faintly glimmering, and begins his work. In quick alternation
the smith’s two hands move up and down with the open ends of the
bellows; as he raises his hand he holds the slit wide open, so as to let
the air enter the skin bag unhindered. In pressing it down he closes
the bag, and the air puffs through the bamboo tube and clay pipe into
the fire, which quickly burns up. The smith, however, does not keep
on with this work, but beckons to another man, who relieves him at
the bellows, while he takes some more tools out of a large skin pouch
carried on his back. I look on in wonder as, with a smooth round
stick about the thickness of a finger, he bores a few vertical holes into
the clean sand of the soil. This should not be difficult, yet the man
seems to be taking great pains over it. Then he fastens down to the
ground, with a couple of wooden clamps, a neat little trough made by
splitting a joint of bamboo in half, so that the ends are closed by the
two knots. At last the yellow metal has attained the right consistency,
and the fundi lifts the crucible from the fire by means of two sticks
split at the end to serve as tongs. A short swift turn to the left—a
tilting of the crucible—and the molten brass, hissing and giving forth
clouds of smoke, flows first into the bamboo mould and then into the
holes in the ground.
The technique of this backwoods craftsman may not be very far
advanced, but it cannot be denied that he knows how to obtain an
adequate result by the simplest means. The ladies of highest rank in
this country—that is to say, those who can afford it, wear two kinds
of these massive brass rings, one cylindrical, the other semicircular
in section. The latter are cast in the most ingenious way in the
bamboo mould, the former in the circular hole in the sand. It is quite
a simple matter for the fundi to fit these bars to the limbs of his fair
customers; with a few light strokes of his hammer he bends the
pliable brass round arm or ankle without further inconvenience to
the wearer.
SHAPING THE POT
SMOOTHING WITH MAIZE-COB
CUTTING THE EDGE

FINISHING THE BOTTOM
LAST SMOOTHING BEFORE

BURNING
FIRING THE BRUSH-PILE

LIGHTING THE FARTHER SIDE OF
THE PILE
TURNING THE RED-HOT VESSEL
NYASA WOMAN MAKING POTS AT MASASI

Pottery is an art which must always and everywhere excite the
interest of the student, just because it is so intimately connected with
the development of human culture, and because its relics are one of
the principal factors in the reconstruction of our own condition in
prehistoric times. I shall always remember with pleasure the two or
three afternoons at Masasi when Salim Matola’s mother, a slightly-
built, graceful, pleasant-looking woman, explained to me with
touching patience, by means of concrete illustrations, the ceramic art
of her people. The only implements for this primitive process were a
lump of clay in her left hand, and in the right a calabash containing
the following valuables: the fragment of a maize-cob stripped of all
its grains, a smooth, oval pebble, about the size of a pigeon’s egg, a
few chips of gourd-shell, a bamboo splinter about the length of one’s
hand, a small shell, and a bunch of some herb resembling spinach.
Nothing more. The woman scraped with the
shell a round, shallow hole in the soft, fine
sand of the soil, and, when an active young
girl had filled the calabash with water for her,
she began to knead the clay. As if by magic it
gradually assumed the shape of a rough but
already well-shaped vessel, which only wanted
a little touching up with the instruments
before mentioned. I looked out with the
MAKUA WOMAN closest attention for any indication of the use
MAKING A POT. of the potter’s wheel, in however rudimentary
SHOWS THE a form, but no—hapana (there is none). The
BEGINNINGS OF THE embryo pot stood firmly in its little
POTTER’S WHEEL
depression, and the woman walked round it in
a stooping posture, whether she was removing
small stones or similar foreign bodies with the maize-cob, smoothing
the inner or outer surface with the splinter of bamboo, or later, after
letting it dry for a day, pricking in the ornamentation with a pointed
bit of gourd-shell, or working out the bottom, or cutting the edge
with a sharp bamboo knife, or giving the last touches to the finished
vessel. This occupation of the women is infinitely toilsome, but it is
without doubt an accurate reproduction of the process in use among
our ancestors of the Neolithic and Bronze ages.
There is no doubt that the invention of pottery, an item in human
progress whose importance cannot be over-estimated, is due to
women. Rough, coarse and unfeeling, the men of the horde range
over the countryside. When the united cunning of the hunters has
succeeded in killing the game; not one of them thinks of carrying
home the spoil. A bright fire, kindled by a vigorous wielding of the
drill, is crackling beside them; the animal has been cleaned and cut
up secundum artem, and, after a slight singeing, will soon disappear
under their sharp teeth; no one all this time giving a single thought
to wife or child.
To what shifts, on the other hand, the primitive wife, and still more
the primitive mother, was put! Not even prehistoric stomachs could
endure an unvarying diet of raw food. Something or other suggested
the beneficial effect of hot water on the majority of approved but
indigestible dishes. Perhaps a neighbour had tried holding the hard
roots or tubers over the fire in a calabash filled with water—or maybe
an ostrich-egg-shell, or a hastily improvised vessel of bark. They
became much softer and more palatable than they had previously
been; but, unfortunately, the vessel could not stand the fire and got
charred on the outside. That can be remedied, thought our
ancestress, and plastered a layer of wet clay round a similar vessel.
This is an improvement; the cooking utensil remains uninjured, but
the heat of the fire has shrunk it, so that it is loose in its shell. The
next step is to detach it, so, with a firm grip and a jerk, shell and
kernel are separated, and pottery is invented. Perhaps, however, the
discovery which led to an intelligent use of the burnt-clay shell, was
made in a slightly different way. Ostrich-eggs and calabashes are not
to be found in every part of the world, but everywhere mankind has
arrived at the art of making baskets out of pliant materials, such as
bark, bast, strips of palm-leaf, supple twigs, etc. Our inventor has no
water-tight vessel provided by nature. “Never mind, let us line the
basket with clay.” This answers the purpose, but alas! the basket gets
burnt over the blazing fire, the woman watches the process of
cooking with increasing uneasiness, fearing a leak, but no leak
appears. The food, done to a turn, is eaten with peculiar relish; and
the cooking-vessel is examined, half in curiosity, half in satisfaction
at the result. The plastic clay is now hard as stone, and at the same
time looks exceedingly well, for the neat plaiting of the burnt basket
is traced all over it in a pretty pattern. Thus, simultaneously with
pottery, its ornamentation was invented.
Primitive woman has another claim to respect. It was the man,
roving abroad, who invented the art of producing fire at will, but the
woman, unable to imitate him in this, has been a Vestal from the
earliest times. Nothing gives so much trouble as the keeping alight of
the smouldering brand, and, above all, when all the men are absent
from the camp. Heavy rain-clouds gather, already the first large
drops are falling, the first gusts of the storm rage over the plain. The
little flame, a greater anxiety to the woman than her own children,
flickers unsteadily in the blast. What is to be done? A sudden thought
occurs to her, and in an instant she has constructed a primitive hut
out of strips of bark, to protect the flame against rain and wind.
This, or something very like it, was the way in which the principle
of the house was discovered; and even the most hardened misogynist
cannot fairly refuse a woman the credit of it. The protection of the
hearth-fire from the weather is the germ from which the human
dwelling was evolved. Men had little, if any share, in this forward
step, and that only at a late stage. Even at the present day, the
plastering of the housewall with clay and the manufacture of pottery
are exclusively the women’s business. These are two very significant
survivals. Our European kitchen-garden, too, is originally a woman’s
invention, and the hoe, the primitive instrument of agriculture, is,
characteristically enough, still used in this department. But the
noblest achievement which we owe to the other sex is unquestionably
the art of cookery. Roasting alone—the oldest process—is one for
which men took the hint (a very obvious one) from nature. It must
have been suggested by the scorched carcase of some animal
overtaken by the destructive forest-fires. But boiling—the process of
improving organic substances by the help of water heated to boiling-
point—is a much later discovery. It is so recent that it has not even
yet penetrated to all parts of the world. The Polynesians understand
how to steam food, that is, to cook it, neatly wrapped in leaves, in a
hole in the earth between hot stones, the air being excluded, and
(sometimes) a few drops of water sprinkled on the stones; but they
do not understand boiling.
To come back from this digression, we find that the slender Nyasa
woman has, after once more carefully examining the finished pot,
put it aside in the shade to dry. On the following day she sends me
word by her son, Salim Matola, who is always on hand, that she is
going to do the burning, and, on coming out of my house, I find her
already hard at work. She has spread on the ground a layer of very
dry sticks, about as thick as one’s thumb, has laid the pot (now of a
yellowish-grey colour) on them, and is piling brushwood round it.
My faithful Pesa mbili, the mnyampara, who has been standing by,
most obligingly, with a lighted stick, now hands it to her. Both of
them, blowing steadily, light the pile on the lee side, and, when the
flame begins to catch, on the weather side also. Soon the whole is in a
blaze, but the dry fuel is quickly consumed and the fire dies down, so
that we see the red-hot vessel rising from the ashes. The woman
turns it continually with a long stick, sometimes one way and
sometimes another, so that it may be evenly heated all over. In
twenty minutes she rolls it out of the ash-heap, takes up the bundle
of spinach, which has been lying for two days in a jar of water, and
sprinkles the red-hot clay with it. The places where the drops fall are
marked by black spots on the uniform reddish-brown surface. With a
sigh of relief, and with visible satisfaction, the woman rises to an
erect position; she is standing just in a line between me and the fire,
from which a cloud of smoke is just rising: I press the ball of my
camera, the shutter clicks—the apotheosis is achieved! Like a
priestess, representative of her inventive sex, the graceful woman
stands: at her feet the hearth-fire she has given us beside her the
invention she has devised for us, in the background the home she has
built for us.
At Newala, also, I have had the manufacture of pottery carried on
in my presence. Technically the process is better than that already
described, for here we find the beginnings of the potter’s wheel,
which does not seem to exist in the plains; at least I have seen
nothing of the sort. The artist, a frightfully stupid Makua woman, did
not make a depression in the ground to receive the pot she was about
to shape, but used instead a large potsherd. Otherwise, she went to
work in much the same way as Salim’s mother, except that she saved
herself the trouble of walking round and round her work by squatting
at her ease and letting the pot and potsherd rotate round her; this is
surely the first step towards a machine. But it does not follow that
the pot was improved by the process. It is true that it was beautifully
rounded and presented a very creditable appearance when finished,
but the numerous large and small vessels which I have seen, and, in
part, collected, in the “less advanced” districts, are no less so. We
moderns imagine that instruments of precision are necessary to
produce excellent results. Go to the prehistoric collections of our
museums and look at the pots, urns and bowls of our ancestors in the
dim ages of the past, and you will at once perceive your error.
MAKING LONGITUDINAL CUT IN
BARK
DRAWING THE BARK OFF THE LOG
REMOVING THE OUTER BARK

BEATING THE BARK
WORKING THE BARK-CLOTH AFTER BEATING, TO MAKE IT

SOFT
MANUFACTURE OF BARK-CLOTH AT NEWALA

To-day, nearly the whole population of German East Africa is
clothed in imported calico. This was not always the case; even now in
some parts of the north dressed skins are still the prevailing wear,
and in the north-western districts—east and north of Lake
Tanganyika—lies a zone where bark-cloth has not yet been
superseded. Probably not many generations have passed since such
bark fabrics and kilts of skins were the only clothing even in the
south. Even to-day, large quantities of this bright-red or drab
material are still to be found; but if we wish to see it, we must look in
the granaries and on the drying stages inside the native huts, where
it serves less ambitious uses as wrappings for those seeds and fruits
which require to be packed with special care. The salt produced at
Masasi, too, is packed for transport to a distance in large sheets of
bark-cloth. Wherever I found it in any degree possible, I studied the
process of making this cloth. The native requisitioned for the
purpose arrived, carrying a log between two and three yards long and
as thick as his thigh, and nothing else except a curiously-shaped
mallet and the usual long, sharp and pointed knife which all men and
boys wear in a belt at their backs without a sheath—horribile dictu!
[51]
Silently he squats down before me, and with two rapid cuts has
drawn a couple of circles round the log some two yards apart, and
slits the bark lengthwise between them with the point of his knife.
With evident care, he then scrapes off the outer rind all round the
log, so that in a quarter of an hour the inner red layer of the bark
shows up brightly-coloured between the two untouched ends. With
some trouble and much caution, he now loosens the bark at one end,
and opens the cylinder. He then stands up, takes hold of the free
edge with both hands, and turning it inside out, slowly but steadily
pulls it off in one piece. Now comes the troublesome work of
scraping all superfluous particles of outer bark from the outside of
the long, narrow piece of material, while the inner side is carefully
scrutinised for defective spots. At last it is ready for beating. Having
signalled to a friend, who immediately places a bowl of water beside
him, the artificer damps his sheet of bark all over, seizes his mallet,
lays one end of the stuff on the smoothest spot of the log, and
hammers away slowly but continuously. “Very simple!” I think to
myself. “Why, I could do that, too!”—but I am forced to change my
opinions a little later on; for the beating is quite an art, if the fabric is
not to be beaten to pieces. To prevent the breaking of the fibres, the
stuff is several times folded across, so as to interpose several
thicknesses between the mallet and the block. At last the required
state is reached, and the fundi seizes the sheet, still folded, by both
ends, and wrings it out, or calls an assistant to take one end while he
holds the other. The cloth produced in this way is not nearly so fine
and uniform in texture as the famous Uganda bark-cloth, but it is
quite soft, and, above all, cheap.
Now, too, I examine the mallet. My craftsman has been using the
simpler but better form of this implement, a conical block of some
hard wood, its base—the striking surface—being scored across and
across with more or less deeply-cut grooves, and the handle stuck
into a hole in the middle. The other and earlier form of mallet is
shaped in the same way, but the head is fastened by an ingenious
network of bark strips into the split bamboo serving as a handle. The
observation so often made, that ancient customs persist longest in
connection with religious ceremonies and in the life of children, here
finds confirmation. As we shall soon see, bark-cloth is still worn
during the unyago,[52] having been prepared with special solemn
ceremonies; and many a mother, if she has no other garment handy,
will still put her little one into a kilt of bark-cloth, which, after all,
looks better, besides being more in keeping with its African
surroundings, than the ridiculous bit of print from Ulaya.
MAKUA WOMEN

Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ebook PDF Exploring Family Theories 4th Edition

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

(eBook PDF) Exploring Family Theories

Kelly Campbell, California State University, San Bernardino

Michael Merten, Oklahoma State University

Suzanne R. Smith is an associate professor of human development at Washington State

Multiple chapters have been reorganized so content is more clear and

Where Do Theories ComeFrom?

The cycle of theory building.

What Arethe Functions of Theory?

How Do WeEvaluate Theories?

It is important to recognize that no single theory is likely to measure up on all these

The Needfor Theorizing

Bengtson, V., A. C. Acock, K. R. Allen, P. Dilworth-Anderson, and D. M. Klein. 2005. Theory

Symbolic Interactionism Theory

First Overarching Theme

Second Overarching Theme

Third Overarching Theme

PRIMARY TERMS AND CONCEPTS

COMMON AREAS OF RESEARCH AND APPLICATION

MeaningIs a Central Element of Human Behavior

interactions prior to disclosure tended to have more positive interactions afterward, as

The Roleof Culture in Social Interactions

Newala, too, suffers from the distance of its water-supply—at least

The water-supply of New Newala is in the bottom of the valley,

NATIVE PATH THROUGH THE MAKONDE BUSH, NEAR

MAKONDE LOCK AND KEY AT JUMBE CHAURO

MODE OF INSERTING THE KEY

With no small pride first one householder and then a second

Some consolation was afforded me by a brassfounder, whom I

SMOOTHING WITH MAIZE-COB

CUTTING THE EDGE

LAST SMOOTHING BEFORE

FIRING THE BRUSH-PILE

TURNING THE RED-HOT VESSEL

NYASA WOMAN MAKING POTS AT MASASI

DRAWING THE BARK OFF THE LOG

REMOVING THE OUTER BARK

WORKING THE BARK-CLOTH AFTER BEATING, TO MAKE IT

MANUFACTURE OF BARK-CLOTH AT NEWALA

You might also like