Fictive Kin Term Use and Social Relationships: Alternative Interpretations

Abstract

Three forms of kin relationships have been delineated by sociologists and anthropologists: consanguineal, affinal, and fictive. Kinship has long been recognized as a significant point of departUre for study of family, particularly in its consanguineal and affinal aspects. Less thoroughly studied has been nature of fictive kinship which encompasses adoption of nonrelatives into kin-like relationships. However, lack of empirical research on fictive kinship use in contemporary American society leaves unilluminated potentially valuable insights into character of consanguineal and affinal kinship in an urban, industrialized, rapidly changing society. In an attempt to empirically discern extent of fictive kin term use in American society, Ballweg (1968, 1969) surveyed two student samples, one from a Midwestern and one from an Eastern University. The majority of students in his samples reported using one or more fictive kin terms, 64 per cent and 56 per cent respectively. The terms aunt and uncle were most frequently reported and donor and recipient were likely to be of same sex. The findings characterize fictive kin term usuage as reflecting an affective over an extended period of time. Ballweg concluded that the application of a kin term to a specific appears to represent an attempt to reinforce and, in fact, institutionalize relationship (1969:86). Available literature concerning fictive kinship includes studies made in Japan (Norbeck and Befu, 1958), Latin America (Mintz and Wolfe, 1950; Foster, 1953; Sayres, 1956; and Deshon, 1963), and United States (Liebow, 1967; Ballweg, 1968, 1969). Fictive relationships were found extensively in each society; however, there was an apparent diversity in reasons for use of kinship terms for nonrelatives. Analysis of these studies suggests three fea ible tentative descriptions of use of fictive kin terms in contemporary American society: 1. As a form of address used for persons who assume status of supplementary or replac ment kin. 2. As a form of address which expresses familiarity within a personal relationship. 3. Use of term as a public validation of a special kind of association. While these are not necessarily mutually exc usive descriptions of fictive kin term usage in American society, it would seem likely that one descriptive modality would dominate as a rational for fictive kin term use as perceived by users. We will first discuss each of descriptive modalities and then report on fictive kin term use in one community.