Subject: Re: [HM] Warlpiri/Malekula and groups
From: Marcia Ascher (aschaca@clarityconnect.com)
Date: Wed Sep 27 2000 - 16:56:46 EDT
This is just to clarify the recent note by Michael Deakin which seems to
attribute to me a belief that I do not hold. When he wrote:
> My own article initiated some correspondence with Marcia Ascher,
> and we ended up simply having to agree to differ.
>
> But my view then was (and still remains):
>
> "...it was the author of the article who supplied the mathematics.
> _We_ may find it implicit in theclan structure of the Arunta, but
> this is not the same thing as saying that the Arunta are engaging
> in group theoretical discourse."
the author he is referring to is Hans Lausch who he referenced earlier in
his note.
Further, in the correspondence he refers to I wrote (on April 21, 1998):
> I am, for example, quite careful to distinguish between "mathematical
> ideas" and "mathematics" and to make clear in my discussion that the
> Warlpiri kin system does NOT imply that they "are engaging in group
> theoretical discourse."
I do, indeed, agree that the Arunta (or Warlpiri who I discussed) are NOT
engaging in group theoretical discourse.
In my discussion of the logic of the Warlpiri kin system (in my book
_Ethnomathematics_), I make quite clear that it is we who are introducing
group theory for purposes of description and further understanding. And,
after discussing the Warlpiri system as a dihedral group of order 8, I
conclude the section with the following (p.76):
"A Warlpiri, of course,does not go through this analysis. Each knows
what absolute section he or she is in and learns what obligations and
behaviors belong to being in that section. Also, each person knows
behavior and obligations appropriate to different modes of relation and
which of them goes with which section. Each person also knows, and that
is the crucial point this discussion has tried to bring out, that
everyone who is, was, or will be in the culture is bound to everyone
else. Relatedness spreads beyond individuals to entire sections. The
logic of the system cannot be expressed with our kin categories nor does
it lend itself to our notions of close kin versus distant kin or your kin
versus my kin. Obligations and behaviors are in the present but also
extend backward and forward in time. They are obligations and behaviors
to people but extend through them to the land, the flora and fauna, and
whatever else, large or small, is in the environment. Every aspect of
the culture--political, economic, religious-- is encompassed by this
system."
I find the original question that Judith Grabiner's colleague asked to be
quite interesting. [ The question was:
"Have any members of these societies gone on to universities and
studied modern algebra, and, if so, did understanding their own kinship
systems help or influence their study of algebra?" ]
I've passed it on to someone who might know, but, as yet, have had no
response.
Marcia Ascher
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Sep 27 2000 - 23:15:33 EDT