Algebraic models of marriage systems have been in use for
nearly fifty years. These models continue to be a matter of
controversy. Most anthropologists have found algebraic
models abstract and unnecessary. Mathematical scientists
have tended to consider the value of these models self-evident. I argue here that the
anthropologists have been in
large correct, and that the crux of the matter comes down
to the question of what constitutes a mathematical model.
Different mathematical cultures answer this question in
different ways. Although there is some formal
mathematical content to this note, it is written with the
intent that the non-mathematical reader can easily absorb
Abstract algebraic models of marriage in anthropology began in 1949 as an
addendum to Claude Levi-Strauss's seminal The Elementary Structures of Kinship
. The addendum was written by the great algebraist Andre Weil "at Levi-Strauss's request"
[1969, p. 221]. Subsequently variations of the same algebraic
model have appeared in articles and books into the 1990's (for example, Ascher
). Perhaps the most influential use of the model was in the textbook by
Kemeny, Snell, and Thompson . The most ambitious application of the model
was in the text by Harrison C. White .
I will make reference in this article to my own paper on the subject . My
paper does have a few analytical features worth mentioning. However, the purpose
of this article is not to try to bring attention to my earlier work. The purpose of this
paper is nearly the opposite. Whereas I feel that I did a number of things beyond what
else I have seen in this area; to some extent I am embarrassed by the paper. I believe
that my work on algebraic marriage systems, like the others, has little substantial
value. Whereas many anthropologists have said as much quite forcefully, they
generally use the wrong arguments. The best paper attacking the algebraic models is
the paper by Korn and Needham . However, though their paper makes some
stinging points, they are too much caught up in mathematical notation as opposed to
mathematical substance, and the answer does not lie in the mathematics itself. The
problem with algebraic models of marriage systems is in what these models do not do.
The rest of this essay is concerned with two topics. First: what is a
mathematical model? Second: how good are algebraic models of marriage systems?
What is a Mathematical Model?
The question of what a mathematical model is turns up in the first chapter of
nearly every text on operations research and every text on simulation. It also occurs
frequently in probability texts and applied math texts. On one hand, essays on
mathematical models appear to be almost ubiquitous, but on the other hand it is
amazing that in physics books and engineering books this topic is generally not treated
explicitly. This is not because physicists are less philosophical than their counterparts
in other areas of the mathematical sciences, but because physicists use models in their
introductory courses and there is no need for a transition to modeling.
Mathematical models are generally defined to be mathematical representations
of the subject at hand. They are abstractions that represent ideal assumptions and
they are supposed to capture the salient features of the subject and to leave out the
irrelevant features. If the model is a good model, predictions made from the model
should be true of the subject that is modeled. The question of whether the model is
a good and valid model is the core philosophical question at the heart of much that is
written about models. Other related questions are:
- Which features of the subject are relevant for the model?
- To what extent can predictions based on the model be used?
- How accurate are the predictions?
Models and Predictions
The matter of predictions based upon models is core to the subject of models
and to this critique of algebraic models of marriage systems. I suggest that a model
is only as good as the predictions that it accurately makes. What is the purpose of a
model if not to make predictions? The answer is always the same: The purpose of
the model is to help us understand the subject. But if the model does not yield
predictions, what is the value of this understanding? I am going to give two historical
examples of models in physics and astronomy and then we will examine the various
models of the algebraic models of marriage.
Two Models by Kepler
Although mathematical models of nature seem to have been important to the
Greeks, mathematical models in the modern sense took off around 1600 with Galileo,
Kepler and others. Kepler constructed two models of interest to this paper. He was
very much a man of his own time and ahead of his time. The model for which he is
so famous is his laws of planetary motion. If we view these laws as a mathematical
model, we can see that it is very much a predictive model. The model not only
constructs the path of the planets, but also the speed of their revolution. It enabled
more accurate forecasting of planetary positions. It may be relevant that this model
was based upon painstaking analysis of data that was itself of unprecedented
Kepler constructed another model of the planetary system that is also well
known but not nearly as well known as his laws of motion (see Kappraff [1991,
p.265]). In his Harmonics Mundi, he showed that the orbits of the six planets could
be inscribed about the five platonic solids. In this model, the five solids are nested
inside one another and the six planets nest within the solids. Kepler published this
model and was proud of it for his entire life. The model was only predictive in one
sense; it implies that there are no new planets to be discovered. Two things need to
be said about this model. For its time, it is not a bad model. It is less mystical than
prior Greek theories of the universe. For our time the model is primitive. We do not
reject the model because its one prediction failed; the prediction could well have turned
out to be true. We reject the model because, by our standards it is contrived, and
because it is not predictive enough. I contend that the algebraic models of marriage
systems are more in the style of the Kepler's platonic solids model than in the style of
his laws of planetary motion.
The Quantum Physics Model
For many people, if there is one thing they know about quantum physics, it is
the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. In fact, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is
so important that in von Neuman's formalization of quantum physics, the Heisenberg
uncertainty principle is an axiom (von Neuman ). Quantum physics also has the
characteristics that it is difficult to understand and it is completely unintuitive.
However, it is has been perhaps the most successful model of modern physics. The
quantum theory of physics has been totally dominant in its domain (atomic mechanics)
because of two characteristics. First it is a mathematically consistent theory and
second it has been the source of thousands of predictions, and in all testable cases,
the predictions have been correct. The most famous single such prediction might be
Bell's theorem (an elementary account of Bell's theorem is given by Peat ).
Hence a mathematical model that is best known for its statement of what
cannot be predicted has been as successful as any model in science history, because
it is the exemplary predictive model. Following the example of quantum physics, we
should evaluate algebraic models of marriage systems for the criteria of how well it
Algebraic Models of Marriage
The Core of the Algebraic Models of Marriage
Algebraic models of marriage are based upon viewing clans and the relationships
between the clans. In some cases, specifically the Kariera, the Aranda, perhaps the
Tarau, and perhaps the Murngin, the structure is an algebraic group. This single
observation, which is apparently due to AndrĒ Weil, is the heart of forty-plus years of
writing on marriage systems and mathematics. However, it is not in any way a
remarkable observation. Clan systems are either hierarchial or they are not. If as in
the above cases, the clan relationships are not hierarchial, they are likely to be
symmetric. Group theory is a major part of abstract algebra. It could be described as
the mathematics of symmetry. Although group theory has many facets and
applications, the study of symmetry is a principal application. One of the best recent
introductions to group theory is Groups and Symmetry [Armstrong, 1988]. An
elementary essay introducing groups and symmetry is Chapter 9 (The Duellist and the
Monster) in Stewart . Otherwise, there are hundreds of books on group theory,
abstract algebra, linear algebra, and geometry that discuss the connection between
groups and symmetry. (Also there are cases, such as in linear algebra texts, where
it is not stated that the algebraic structure is a group.) It would be a remarkable
discovery indeed if there were symmetric clan structures that could not be described
in the language of algebraic groups. Even a theoretical example of such a structure
would be quite interesting.
If we are going to use algebraic groups to describe symmetrical clan structures,
there should be a pay-off or return: there needs to be some reason to bring group
theory into anthropology. This may seem obvious, or elementary, but it is not.
Anyone who has worked in certain areas of industry has seen mathematical models
and simulation models in particular that seem to have no purpose. On the subject of
simulation modeling, E. C. Russell [1983, p. 1 6] says:
The goal of a simulation project should never be "To model the . . ."
Modeling itself is not a goal; it is a means of achieving a goal.
That models without a purpose exist I believe is a consequence of the divergence of
mathematics and physics that has been going on for two-hundred years but which has
greatly accelerated in the last thirty years.
Again, the most obvious purpose of a mathematical model is to predict. Then
it is logical to ask what algebraic models of marriage systems predict. The answer is
nothing. Then let us ask a simpler question: What information do algebraic models
of marriage systems provide? In his genesis of algebraic models AndrĒ Weil [1969,
p. 221] says . . . I propose to show how a certain type of marriage laws can be
interpreted algebraically, and how algebra and the study of groups . . . can facilitate
its study and classification. Given that there have been forty-plus years since Weil's
essay it is reasonable to ask whether this has been done. Has anyone aided the study
and classification of marriage systems through the use of group theory or through any
use of abstract algebra whatsoever? Another approach is this: How are the traditional
anthropological methods for classifying marriage structures deficient?
Prediction and Falsifiability
A key element in the twentieth century view of scientific theories is falsifiability.
A scientific theory must be falsifiable. The notion of falsifiability seems nearly
equivalent to predictability. The criterion of falsifiability was a key doctrine in the work
of the eminent philosopher of science Karl R. Popper (see for example Popper ).
In particular a scientific theory must make predictions in order that these predictions
can be tested and so that the theory itself is tested. This seems like a reasonable
criterion for scientific theories and for models but it certainly is not a criterion met by
algebraic models of marriage systems.
What predictions do the algebraic models make? If algebraic models of marriage
systems are not predictive models they are so-called explanatory models. This begs
Explanatory models it seems don't
predict but they give us insights. Let us
take an example from my own paper
[Cargal, 1978]. The Kariera have four
clans. This system can be represented by
the graph in Figure 1.
- Can a model that makes no predictions be explanatory?
- What exactly does an explanatory model explain?
- How do we judge the merits of an explanatory model?
representation, the solid arcs represent clan
of marriage and the dotted lines represent
clan of child. This representation is a valid
way to introduce algebra since the graph is
also the Cayley graph of the Klein-four
group: Z2 Z2. This is the traditional
algebraic view of the Kariera. In my paper,
I suggested looking at the subclans of each
sex: ... there is sex differentiation among the clans referred to. Natives think in terms
of men of Clan A or women of Clan A ... [Cargal, 1978, p. 161]. I then gave a graph
of the eight subclans. Then, I relabeled that graph to achieve a Cayley graph of a
group. Figure 2 shows the group of subclans of the Kariera.
In this representation A1
denotes men of Clan A and C0 denotes women of Clan C. The relations are S and O. S means subclan of children of same sex
and O means subclan of children of
The group of Figure 2 happens
not to be homomorphic to the group of
Figure 1. This is a formal mathematical
statement to the effect that the two
groups are fundamentally different. The
group of order eight (eight elements) is
not merely a refinement of the group of
order four. The group of order eight that
I developed in my paper does not appear
anywhere else to my knowledge. It is
as valid as the standard group (to whatever extent the first group can be said to be
We have two algebraic representations of the Kariera tribe. These are two
fundamentally distinct models of the Kariera. If these algebraic models have any
anthropological content then two different models should give conflicting information.
At least the existence of a second model should provide new information given the
first model imparted information. My paper gives a great deal of analysis of this and
other groups. It is rather enthusiastic analysis and to some extent I find myself a little
impressed as I look at it now. But with the distance of more than twenty years (since
doing the research) I can ask, as anthropologists asked, What significance does this
have to anthropology? A second question is now rather insistent: What happened
in the last twenty years that I should now have developed an attitude far more
sympathetic to anthropologists than when I did my own work in marriage theory?
(This is answered in the addendum to this paper.)
Cultures of Mathematics
Until the turn of the century applied mathematics meant primarily mathematical
physics. Probability may have been serious in the eighteenth century, but statistics
is very much a twentieth century development (with merely a pre-history before
1900). Computer science started in the 1940's with a pre-history going back to
maybe 1930 or even to the nineteenth century. Operations research began in World
War I and took off with World War II and the development of computers.
Models in physics are different than models in many mathematical disciplines.
Mathematical logic, for example, is concerned a great deal with models that are quite
different than the models that interest physicists [See Bell and Slomson, 1977].
Models in statistics are different still [see Hinkelmann and Kempthorne, 1994]. In
much of mathematical culture a model must be a mathematical system that is formally
specified and which is internally consistent. There is absolutely no requirement that
it be useful. It is true that operations researchers and statisticians are interested in
models they can use to solve problems. But the importance of making predictions is
not emphasized enough (I don't recall it being emphasized at all). This is why E. C.
Russell made his edict I quoted earlier:
The goal of a simulation project should never be "To model the . . ."
Modeling itself is not a goal; it is a means of achieving a goal [1983,
p. 1 6].
Like all of us that have worked in industry, Russell has seen many computer
simulations with no stated goal but to model the system in question. These projects
can go on endlessly sucking up money, keeping (some) researchers quite happy and
accomplishing nothing else.
In anthropologists, I have seen two kinds of attitude. Generally, to the very few
anthropologists who can understand the mathematics, the (positive) worth of algebraic
models of marriage is self-evident. The remaining anthropologists are skeptical. They
tend to ask: What good is this model? What will it do for me? Mathematicians tend
to respond condescendingly knowing that the anthropologists are mystified by the
mathematics. Their reply is generally of the form: It will help us understand the
structure of the marriage system. Unfortunately, I do not remember any
anthropologist being prescient enough to ask What will this model predict?
C. P. Snow's The Two Cultures  is a justifiably celebrated work. He
discusses the rift in academia between the humanities and the sciences. (Incidentally
my personal experience is that people in the humanities refer to the book a lot, but the
only people I have met who actually read the book are in the sciences.) C. P. Snow's
analysis is still correct, however like all large cultures, the two cultures he mentions
have many subcultures (and this of course was known to Snow). It appears that in
the sciences that one manifestation of different subcultures is the understanding of
what a model is. One consequence of this is that in the case of what constitutes a
mathematical model, there may be an unlikely alliance between anthropologists and
physicists versus mathematicians.
Mathematics is Not a Science
Mathematicians who work in physics and engineering are scientists. However,
though it is said to be the language of science mathematics is generally considered
outside of science. This is because scientific facts must be verified empirically.
Mathematical truths must only be true to their axioms. The axioms must be
Cultural Anthropology: Is it a Science?
Anthropology is supposed to be a science. Anthropology has its subcultures
too. Physical anthropology can be quite different from cultural anthropology. For one
thing, physical anthropology has more of a hard science orientation. However, the
models of this paper concern cultural anthropology. Cultural anthropology is now
being influenced by people such as Derrida and Foucault who have pervaded literature
for the last two decades. Hence cultural anthropology may not be too hospitable to
a traditional concept of science (see Fox ). This is a further reason that
anthropologists may not care about mathematical models of marriage. Nonetheless
mathematicians are to apply their models to an area such a anthropology, the
paradigm that they should use is the one of the scientific method and of predictions,
testing and falsifiability.
There is good reason why mathematicians define their models the way they do.
However, in applying their models outside of mathematics, they might be wise to use
the standards of physics. Lastly, when mathematicians apply mathematics to
previously non-mathematical areas, the people who fail to understand the mathematics
may nonetheless be quite right in their criticism. It is important that the needs of the
applied area be recognized, that in applying mathematics, mathematicians should look
outside their own needs and their own culture.
I would like to explain why I came to reject an application of mathematics that
I had published. Since this is not germane to the arguments of the paper I am making
this merely an addendum.
Until recent times almost all math majors studied physics. Math majors are still
encouraged to take physics, and physics provides much motivation for calculus not to
mention most examples in differential equations and vector calculus. However, it is
becoming common for math majors to get around the physics requirement as I did, and
there is a smaller proportion of mathematicians with physics training than there used
to be. When I did my work in anthropology, my background was a master's in
mathematics with emphasis on logic and abstract algebra. At the time I published my
paper, I was working in aerospace and had made it my business to be comfortable in
statistics and computer science. Between 1983 and 1987 I did my Ph.D. in
operations research (which was a sub-department of industrial engineering at my
school). Operations research is a mathematical discipline with strong ties to statistics
and computer science but not physics. In 1988 I was again working in military
aerospace, essentially as an applied mathematician. A problem came up in classical
Newtonian physics. I merely needed to use computer models constructed for the
problems that I faced. However, I felt that I should understand the underlying physics.
Therefore I began the study of physics not realizing that it is addictive. Exposure to
physics changed my appreciation of the meaning of mathematical models.
Armstrong, M. A. Groups and Symmetry. 1988, Springer-Verlag, New York.
Ascher, Marcia. Ethnomathematics: A Multicultural View of Mathematical Ideas. 1991,
Bell, J. L. and Slomson, A.B. Models and Ultraproducts. 1971, North Holland, Amsterdam.
Burton, D. M. The History of Mathematics: An Introduction. 1991, William C. Brown,
Cargal, J. M. "An Analysis of the Marriage Structure of the Murngin Tribe of Australia."
Behavioral Science, 23, May 1978, 157-168.
Fox, Robin. "Anthropology and the "Teddy Bear' Picnic." Society, November/December
Hinkelmann, K. and Kempthorne, O. Design and Analysis of Experiments. Vol. I. Introduction
to Experimental Design. 1994, Wiley, New York.
Kappraff, J. Connections: The Geometric Bridge Between Art and Science. 1991, McGraw-Hill,
Kemeny, J. G., Snell, J. L., and Thompson, G. L. Introduction to Finite Mathematics (2nd ed.)
1966, Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.
Korn, F., and Needham, R. "Permutation Models and Prescriptive Systems: The Tarau Case."
Man, 5, 393-420.
Levi-Strauss, Claude. The Elementary Structures of Kinship. 1969, Beacon Press, Boston.
Luenberger, D. G. Introduction to Dynamic Systems: Theory, Models and Applications.
1979, Wiley, New York.
Peat, F. D. Einstein's Moon: Bell's Theorem and the Curious Quest for Quantum Reality.
1990, Contemporary Books, Chicago.
Popper, Karl R. The Logic of Scientific Discovery. 1959, Hutchinson of London, London.
Russell, E. C. Building Simulation Models with Simscript II.5. 1983, CACI, Los Angeles.
Snow, C. P. Two Cultures: And a Second Look. 1969. Cambridge University Press, New
Stewart, I. The Problems of Mathematics. 2nd. ed. 1992, Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Weil, Andre. "On the Algebraic Study of Certain Types of Marriage Laws (Murngin System)."
In C. Levi-Strauss, The Elementary Structures of Kinship. 1969, Beacon Press,
White, H. C. An Anatomy of Kinship: Mathematical Models for Structures of Cumulated
Roles. 1963, Englewood-Cliffs, N.J.
von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations for Quantum Mechanics. 1955, Princeton
University Press, Princeton N. J.