| 婚姻支付再反思 |
| |
| 引用本文： | 钟独安. 婚姻支付再反思[J]. 中国农业大学学报(社会科学版), 2008, 25(2): 109-120 |
| |
| 作者姓名： | 钟独安 |
| |
| 作者单位： | [1]美国加州大学洱湾分校（Irvine）经济学教授; [2]香港中文大学哲学博士 |
| |
| 摘 要： | 杰克·古迪（Jack Gooay）和斯坦利·坦比亚（Stanley Tambiah）的名著《聘礼与嫁妆》,其框架有助于提出分析婚姻及相关社会经济过程的新的基本理论概念。文章从财富（wealth）和消费品的一系列分析性概念出发,从支付、礼物、遗赠和遗产可辨差异的跨文化理解出发,对该书提出了建设性的批判。我们知道,支付是将权利转换成资源的一种方式,礼物是稳固和加强同盟关系的一种方式,而遗产是界定财富持有群体、确立人口力量的工具。这些变量并不重叠,它们的特性具有跨文化的效力。如果将与婚姻相关的资源转让放在这些不同的范畴当中,人们就可以做出某些分析性的概括。因此,对于跨文化分析而言,为了避免在共同对话层面出现混淆,清晰描述社会过程的这些维度就很重要。除讨论聘礼与嫁妆的特性以外,我们还指出古迪对这些转让的描述并未促进我们的理解。比如,我们发现,无论如何都不应该将婚姻存续期间的遗产继承归类为嫁妆、礼物抑或支付。另外,他的“间接嫁妆”概念会在民族志上产生误解,因为这个概念既结合了来自一方的礼物和来自另一方的支付,又结合了来自一方的资产（wealth—assets）和来自另一方的消费品。
|
| 关 键 词： | 婚姻支配 聘礼 聘金 嫁妆 礼物 |
Rethinking Marriage Payments |
| |
| Abstract: | Relative to a set of analytical conceptions of wealth and consumption goods and relative to an understanding of the cross-culturally recognizable differences among payments, gifts, bequests and inheritances, this paper is a constructive critique of the well-known book by Jack Goody and Stanley Tambiah （1973）, Bridewealth and Dowry. This book is useful as a framework for advancing new theoretical concepts that are fundamental to the analysis of marriage and related socio-economic processes. We know that payments are a method of transferring rights to resources, gifts are a method for securing and strengthening alliances, and inheritance is the instrument for defining wealth-holding groups and establishing demographic power. These variables are non-overlapping and their characteristics have cross-cultural validity. If marriage related resource transfers are placed into disjoint categories, one is able to make certain analytical generalizations. Hence, for cross-cultural analysis it is important that these dimensions of social process be clearly delineated, in spite of confusion that arises at the level of common discourse. In addition to discussing the characteristics of bridewealth and dowry, we show that Goody＇s characterization of these transfers fails to advance our understanding. For example, we show that inheritance at the time of marriage should never be classified as a dowry, gift or payment. Moreover, his concept of ＂indirect dowry＂ is ethnographically misleading, because it involves a conflation of gifts from one party with payments from the other and a conflation of wealth-assets from one party with consumption goods from the other. |
| |
| Keywords: | Marriage payments Bridewealth Brideprice Dowry Gift |
| 本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录！ |
| 点击此处可从《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》浏览原始摘要信息 |
|
点击此处可从《中国农业大学学报(社会科学版)》下载全文 |
|
