The thesis of this chapter is that the categories and intercategory relations of section and subsection systems are derived from the highest–order superclasses of systems of kin classification. As Elkin (1933b: 90) put it, section and subsection systems “systematize” and “summarize” the more specific kin categories. Or as Radcliffe-Brown said (1951: 39): “The ‘classes’ [4 or 8] result from the giving of names to kinship divisions which can quite well exist, and do exist, without names as part of the kinship system organized by means of the kinship terminology.” This interpretation has not been generally understood, much less generally accepted, but it is substantially correct. Moreover, all other theories of the structures of section and subsection systems are deficient and defective in a number of ways.

THE STRUCTURE OF SECTION AND SUBSECTION SYSTEMS

The predominant opinion among anthropologists is that section (four–class) systems result from division of exogamous moieties (patrilineal or matrilineal) into two subclasses each, and that subsection (eight–class) systems result from division of sections into two subclasses each (see Thomas 1966 [1906]; Lawrence 1937; Berndt and Berndt 1964; Dumont 1966; Maddock 1973). There is disagreement, however, about the principles of subdivision and therefore about the structures of section and subsection systems.

According to one theory, sections arise from and are based on division of moieties (patrilineal or matrilineal) into alternate–generation subclasses. According to another (the so–called double–descent) theory, sections are the logical product of the intersection of patrilineal and matrilineal moieties.