I wrote a very long letter/message in response to a very good friend of mine, I have a tendency to seriously forget things that I have put in my head and my system of thought and I thought the letter in it self is very good in trying to clarify whats in my head. I also have a tendency to not be able to think when I'm angry, kind of neanderthal in my part - I think after this post I would like to kick Levi Strauss' ass for being such a white Frenchman, just as much as I want to kick Xavier Sandner's ass for being such a white Frenchman.
Cap'n Liyana Tassim Septembarrr 14 roundabouts 11:07 in the evenin'
Okay one thing I admit, I don't work well under pressure buuut
let's start off with one thing, I also remembered that there was a concept that I was utilizing and it was far more useful than clear cut questions of 'What is kinship?', If kinship was not necessisated by blood and that to inherit or receive money/land/goods/etc. was by way of what? So the concept I used was Carsten's degrees of relatedness. That I thought was an excellent idea, for one, if I used degrees as the main theory compass to explain the process of how people received inheritance/rights/positions, therefore, there was more validity to and truthfulness to the concept than not. So there were as you say positions but such positions does not necessarily (or as you say, categories of positions) entail specific rights, negotiation yes, is by way of one - but, what is salient in this feature? Degrees of relatedness, investment for one is both (in)tangible and I have detailed or (ofcourse I need to iron) the course in which people CAN negotiate their positions this was the feature that demarcates from fixed patriarchal patrilineal matriarchal matrilineal societies, the existence of PREFERENCE. If for instance other societies these rules are set or fixed and there is no way to go about it in bilineal societies this is not the case, therefore other means or ways are needed to explain said phenomenon.
On the question of rationality and irrationality, now I remember, I wrote a paper when I was doing political sociology between the English legal system and the Islamic legal system, one was highly rational and the other considered to be irrational - however, rationality does not imply that it is a 'good' thing rather, the system was built in such a way that it is difficult for people to be judged, waiting years in line to be brought to the court of law, this is because the system is highly rational and highly bureaucratic, on the other hand the Kadi judicial system was irrational and was subject to case by case basis, ofcourse this is traced by historical junction ala Michel Foucault. Irrationality therefore as I have found out does not necessarily mean that the system is bad, au contraire, irrationality is in fact in this cultural system is more beneficial especially when we are dealing with numerous cases quickly and effectively. Therefore, I do not agree that rationality is completely and wholesomely the best way to go about in judging people or a cultural state of mind so to speak. Btw, how sick are you mi amor? This I think forms my system of thought, I suppose it is different for yours. Well, now I am thinking straight - adieu