The Murngin Problem

Much of the discussion of the Murngin subsection system has involved the comparison and development of mechanical models for the system, incorporating the reported configuration of subsections, marriage rule and kinship terminology, and placing it within the context of the anthropological theory of Australian Aboriginal kinship systems.

In a comment on Webb’s paper, Elkin (1933) was the first to place the Murngin and their subsection system within the context of Australian Aboriginal kinship studies. Rewriting the subsection transformations in the "usual Oceania symbols", and pairing the subsections as sections, he writes that if we deal only with the sections then "the normal rules of marriage and descent are followed" (1933:413). He clearly means here ’normal' for an Aboriginal kinship system. What is abnormal is that "a man and his son's son do not belong to the one subsection, as is the case in the typical systems" (1933:413).

Elkin places more credence in Webb’s account than Warner's, suggesting that Warner may have been influenced by theoretical assumptions about the working of subsection systems (1933:415), and citing as evidence that Warner almost ignores the subsections, which are "clearly quite important" and have "been most carefully arranged to fit in with a rule of marriage with the MBD" (1933:416). Marriage with the MBD is not mentioned at all in Webb’s paper, and Elkin believes that this "probably strengthens the value

of his evidence for the bare working of the subsections in his region" (1933:415).

This imputation of theoretical bias is interesting. Warner explicitly says that the subsections are of predominantly ritual significance and play no part in the regulation of marriage. Indeed Elkin seems to be the one trying to fit the Murngin into the theoretical framework of Australian kinship systems, and is one writer who sees the "kinship system" as a composite but coherent whole — at least as far as the rules of marriage, descent and subsection affiliation are concerned.

For Levi-Strauss, what is important is that the MBD is an eligible spouse, while the FZD is precluded. Fie postulates a system of alternation between two forms: if a man marries according to one system, then his son, and his sister, marry according to the other one. As Barnes points out, this double formula is equivalent to a single formula in which the men and women of each subsection make different marriages, and there are two isomorphic alternative models which fit these criteria (1967:18).

This solution is ingenious, but it is difficult to imagine that it could be conciously practiced by the Yolngu without having been reported. As was described in Chapter 4 however, one of these Levi-Strauss models fits the data better than that of Webb (Kupka and Testart 1980:78), which is closest to Yolngu ideology (Keen 1978:121). The Levi-Strauss model is incompatible with that of Webb (see Chapter 3, Figure 3.4), since Levi- Strauss took Warner's description of the subsection system as his point of departure, and believes that the marriages will be evenly divided between the two subsections of the correct section ("one out of every two marriages

conforms to one of the systems, while the other marriage conforms to the other system" (1969:189)), which directly contradicts Webb's report.

Levi-Strauss' model is a mechanical model and therefore cannot be validated by showing that it fits the data best. In fact, it is a model made specifically to integrate the unilateral marriage rule and subsection system, but it is not based on Webb's version of the subsections, which is said to reflect Yolngu ideology. Hence it is not superior to Webb's as a model of the ideal system, even though it fits the data better.

Although Kupka and Testart at no stage describe the subsection system as one of the regulation of marriage, they attempt to assess the relative merits of the various systems with respect to genealogical data. This effort is misguided: an example of the 'fallacy of misplaced concreteness'. The models assessed are all models of the ideal functioning of the system, and as such are not appropriately compared to what it is that the people actually do. None of the models is particularly good from the point of view of fit to the data, but this does not necessarily make them bad models of the ideal functioning of the system. Webb's description is said to be closest to Yolngu ideology (Keen 1978:121): later theoretical refinements have been aimed at fitting the model into a wider framework, or in articulating the subsections with MBD marriage or the kinship terminology. The subsection system and MBD marriage are not empirically linked: this suggests that there is probably nothing to be gained theoretically by refining Webb's description of the subsections to account for the marriage rule. And if this is true of the marriage rule, then it may also be true for the kinship terminology.

Conclusion to Chapter 4

The question of the articulation of the Yolngu subsection system with the regulation of marriage is still a long way from being settled. It is clear that the distribution of marriages between the subsections is not a random one, but it is also clear that to a very large degree the Yolngu do what they say they should: marry MBD and give subsections to children strictly according to the mother's subsection.

The relations between people and subsection classes are not as beautifully consistent as the models suggest. From purely pragmatic considerations, we would never expect a subsection system to work as perfectly in practice as it does in theory. Demography and politics, as well as individual waywardness, will ensure a certain levei of departure from the 'rules'. Sometimes this departure from the rules may not have a significant effect on the working of the system as a whole. Sometimes, as was shown above in the case of wrong marriage among the Yolngu, these departures are able to be perpetuated and can introduce significant departure of empirical reality from the ideals.

Thus the 'irregularity' in the system is in fact regularity, brought about by the persistent practice of marriage according to a rule which is formally independent of the subsection system.