宗族の規範と個人の選択 : 中国湖北省農村の招贅婚の事例から  [in Japanese] Chinese Lineage Norms and Individual Options : A Case Study of Uxorilocal Marriage in Rural Hubei Province  [in Japanese]

Access this Article

Search this Article

Author(s)

Abstract

本研究は、中国湖北省の農村地域における招贅婚(妻方居住婚)に関する具体的な資料を提出し、招贅婿の改姓と復姓及び帰宗現象に焦点を当て、そのメカニズムを解明し、漢人社会の宗族規範と個人の選択について検討する試みである。宗族規範に基づく漢人社会では、夫方居住の嫁娶婚が正統的な婚姻形態であり、妻方居住の招贅婚はその逆だと文化的に見なされている。招贅婚の家族において岳父と婿は契約に基づいて同じ家族を形成しているが、それぞれは異なる系譜の一員として、異なる集団及び相互に対立する利害関係を代表しているため、たとえ婿が改姓して息子としての権利と義務を引き受けても、岳父と婿は同じ父系出自のアイデンティティを共有することは難しく、両者の関係は壊れやすい。父系理念としての宗族規範は、岳父の婿に村する改姓要求を正当化する理由と動機づけになる一方、婿の出身宗族に復帰する力としても作用している。従って、社会状況が婿にとって有利に変わると、彼らはしばしば復姓や帰宗の行動をとる。また、父系理念以外に、岳父と婿の個人または出身家族と宗族をめぐる社会的、経済的及び政治的な力関係や婿自身の性格などの要素も婿の復姓と帰宗に大きく作用していると考えられる。しかし、改姓した招贅婿の中には契約通りに自分の役割を果たし、復姓と帰宗を行っていない者もいる。そこには契約に関する社会的規範ならびに婿自身の性格や岳父側が優位に立つ社会的、経済的及び政治的状況などの要素が作用していると考えられる。また、息子を持たない家族は族内の「過継子」よりもむしろ族外の招贅婿を優先的に取る傾向も見られる。このような行為を合わせて考えてみれば、招贅婚における当事者は、宗族の規範よりもむしろ状況に応じて個人の利益を最優先にして社会関係を選択操作し、行動している傾向がみられる。このような宗族規範と個人の選択の相違により、招贅婿には多様な形態が見られる。改姓しない年眼婿と、改姓した後に復姓と帰宗をした終身婿という両極の間に、いくつかの形態をその連続線上でとらえることができる。招贅婿の改姓と復姓及び帰宗をめぐる折中国成立前後の動きは、宗族規範と個人の選択のゆらぎを示す事例として興味深い。その多くは、解放前岳父側の父系理念に従って一度改姓した婿が、解放後の劇的な社会変化を利用して、出身宗族の父系理念を優先させたものである。しかし、それは、必ずしも従来の内的な要因による両者または両宗族の力関係の変化ではなく、むしろ政権交代及びそれに伴う新しい国家政策が婿に有利になり、彼らの復姓と帰宗を可能にさせ、促進させた結果である。この現象は、解放後、国家の宗族に村する諸政策が、一方で強大な宗族の力と機能を弱めたが、他方では、弱小な宗族の機能と規範を強めているという両側面があることを示している。この意味で、本稿は従来の宗族研究の中で見落とされてきた土地改革と人民公社時期における宗族の実態を別の角度から明らかにし、弱小宗族の動きにも着目する必要性を示したと言える。

<p>This study presents concrete data concerning uxorilocal marriage in a rural area of Hubei Province, China. Its focus is on surname change, surname reversion, and lineage reversion among uxorilocal sons-in-law. It explicates the mechanisms of these phenomena, and attempts thereby to re-examine lineage norms and individual options among the Han people. For Chinese lineage norms, virilocal marriage is socially and culturally ordained as the normal and orthodox form, while uxorilocal marriage is the opposite. Uxorilocal marriages -when they are found- tend to introduce tension into the family structure. Such families depend on a contract between the father-in-law and his son-in-law, with the son-in-law even changing his surname and assuming the duties of a son. However, it is difficult for him to share the same patrilineal line identity with his father-in-law, which makes the relationship fragile. This is because, as members of the same family, the two men share interests and form one community. As members of different original patrilineal lines, however, they represent separate lineages and conflicting interests. If the balance of power shifts, or more advantageous social circumstances for the son-in-law come about, he may initiate surname reversion and return to his own birth lineage. Surname reversion and return to their own birth lineage among uxorilocal sons-in-law, as well as fathers-in-law demanding that sons-in-law change their surname are phenomena that draw attention to the patrilineal principle, a principle dealing with loyalty to the patrilineal blood line. This principle is the reason and motivation behind fathers-in-law demanding that sons-in-law change their surnames to those of their fathers-in-law, and also accounts for the power of the sons-in-law to return to their own birth lineage. In addition to the patrilineal principle, the social, economic and political power relationship between father-in-law and son-in-law or between the family and lineage of the father-in-law and that of the son-in-law, as well as the character of the son-in-law, also greatly affect surname reversion and the return to their own birth lineage among uxorilocal sons-in-law. However, in Hubei Province some uxorilocal sons-in-law still uphold the contract and have not taken up surname reversion and return to birth lineage. The failure to revert was primarily a result of such factors as social pressure to keep the contract, individual temperament, the social, political and economic circumstances of the father-in-law's family, and untimely death. There is also the preference of villagers who have no sons to contract uxorilocal unions with uxorilocal sons-in-law from different lineages over guojizi (internal adoption) from their own lineage. Such behavior in itself means that the actor has put his own interests first, and sacrifices his original identity, the ideology of his lineage, and lineage interests. Individual actors usually respond to the situation by choosing and manipulating social relations in the pursuit of their own best interests. Lineage and family are, in this case, merely one important set of social relations among others. Just as the family and the lineage cannot satisfy the demand of all men to marry, the norms of family and lineage cannot govern the total behavior of all members of society. As an expression of the difference between lineage norms and individual options, there are many different types of uxorilocal sons-in-law in uxorilocal marriages. One can arrange them on a continuous line between two poles, that is, from type A, the "nianxian (impermanent)" uxorilocal sons-in-law who don't change their surname, to type Z, the "zhongshen (permanent)" uxorilocal sons-in-law who do change their surname but eventually revert to their original surname and return to their own birth lineage. Recent developments centering on surname change,</p><p>(View PDF for the rest of the abstract.)</p>

Journal

  • Japanese Journal of Ethnology

    Japanese Journal of Ethnology 68(4), 511-533, 2004

    Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology

Codes

  • NII Article ID (NAID)
    110006265599
  • NII NACSIS-CAT ID (NCID)
    AN00408358
  • Text Lang
    JPN
  • ISSN
    00215023
  • NDL Article ID
    7248468
  • NDL Source Classification
    ZG1(歴史・地理)
  • NDL Call No.
    Z8-240
  • Data Source
    NDL  NII-ELS  J-STAGE 
Page Top