Reading Notes for
Victor W. Turner, Schism and Continuity
*Preface to the 1996 Edition (by Bruce Kapferer)
*Preface to the 1972 Edition (by Max Gluckman, although note that this was originally Gluckman's "Foreword" to the original edition
*Preface to the 1968 Edition (by Victor Turner)
*Preface to the 1957 Original Edition (by Victor Turner)
Chapter I Historical and Ecological Background
*Chapter X The Politically Integrative Function of Ritual
Chapter XI The Chieftainship
*Chapter XII Postscript
* An abbreviated reading of the monograph should at least include the starred chapters
On fieldwork: Turner (1920-1983) and his wife Edith (1921- ) worked among the Ndembu for over two years in two periods, from 12/1950 to 2/1952 and from 5/1953 to 6/1954. During this period, he was a Research Officer at Rhodes-Livingstone Institute, a position arranged by Max Gluckman.
We can glean something of their field methods from the book itself, which demonstrates that they collected extensive genealogies, mapped villages (hut diagrams), took censuses, observed rituals and formal meetings, and attended to narratives of crisis and sequences of conflict. Sally Falk Moore attributes their collection of both statistical data and extended case studies as a methodological innovation of the Manchester school (see also Epstein 1967).
On the Ndembu in time and space: In 1950 the Ndembu were a loosely self-identified group of some 17,000 persons living in what was then the British colony of Northern Rhodesia (now the country of Zambia) and in the border zone with Angola. They were in a longstanding historical trajectory of migration, dispersion, and weakening central chiefly authority. The great Lunda empire of the Congo region had split in the early 18th century into many groups. Factors like the slave raiding of the 19th century and the exigencies of productive activities (cassava growing and hunting) had further dispersed the Lunda groups, and the course of political devolution was aggravated by British colonial control. How diachronic is Turner in the ethnography itself? [note/quote 1968 preface, xxiv]
What Turner found was (1) a vestige of the centralized past in the symbolic chieftainship (Kanongesha); (2) a local settlement pattern of what he termed "vicinages," or loose collections of villages; and (3) the village as the elemental, if highly unstable, social unit. The typical village was a rough circle of twelve or thirteen square huts housing a total of about thirty people in a wide clearing amid the thinly-forested high savannah plain.
Note that such village units (and their vicinages) were the analytical foci of his study. His analysis does not operate at the level of the Ndembu tribe, as did those of E-P, Fortes, and others.
On the central theme of the ethnography. Turner argues that structuring Ndembu relations are two fundamental principles: that of matrilineal descent and of virilocal marriage. The crux of the Ndembu predicament is that "these principles are situationally incompatible." The matrilineal principle prescriptively controls rights to residence, succession to office, and inheritance of property. By this, it is in the interest of each matrilineage to remain cohesive, and especially for the men of the matrilineage to keep their sisters co-resident so that their sister's sons, the next generation of matrilineal males, can be raised by matrilineal elders. However, brothers are also husbands, the Ndembu norm of virilocal marriage gives a husband the right to take his new wife to co-reside in his village (which is generally the village of his matrilineage). This creates obvious problems for the continuity of the wife's matrilineage. One solution would be to send all boys back to their mother's brothers at puberty, but the Ndembu do not prescribe that. It is left up to individuals.
The result, Turner shows, is instability, mobility, and conflict. Villages may be the core unit (there is pride in being an "old village"), but they are not solidary or enduring. Men are torn between their ties to their wives and children and their ties to their sisters and their sisters' children. And women are torn between leaving the village of their brothers and being separated from maternal kin-group and the family group they establish with their husband. Villages and marriages are inherently unstable; there is continual village fissioning, marital divorce, and individual mobility. The Turners' statistics show that four-fifths of men and fully nine-tenths of all women move at least once over their life courses.
Added to this fundamental structural contradiction are further factors that aggravate and complicate social order:
1. Ndembu gender ideology sharply demarcates male and female activities and sets them at odds—for instance, cassava cultivation vs. hunting (note the story on pp. 27-28 and see pp. 59-60).2. Ndembu age associations bind alternating generations against immediate generations.3. The demands of shifting cultivation itself require periodic village movements.4. Finally, I would suggest to you that the dramas of Schism and Continuity are even more complex because they are actually set in motion by two sets of contradictory structural principles. That is, in addition to the constant tension between matrilineality vs. virilocality, it turns out that there are multiple qualifications for headmanship that render succession perpetually open to challenge. [See below for further details.]
To Turner, "the essential feature of the process that is society is the discrepancy among its structuring principles." The ambitions and anxieties of individuals are given form and are set at odds by these structural contradictions. Crises inevitably ensue, engaging and enmeshing people (in so doing, we must admit that crisis provides a perverse kind of social order). But crises also inevitably call forth some mediation and temporary resolutions that, like a kaleidoscope, reconfigure the local field of social relations.
This sounds like Gluckman's perspective (which I have tagged "cohesion from conflict embodied in custom"), but Turner moves beyond Gluckman in two ways:
1. This first is in his methodological innovation of social dramas. Social dramas are his strategy for representing extended moments of a developing crisis, but Turner uses them for analysis as well as an ethnographic writing technique. He is trying to underscore that conflicts have their own "processual form." [Note that Edith Turner's account demonstrates how distinct from and subsequent to fieldwork was his "discovery" of ethnographic framework.] Turner also intends the exposition of and by social drama to represent the articulation of the general and the particular by combining the synchronic (elucidating general structural principles) and the micro-sociologically diachronic (through "social dramas"). Note, too, that this ethnographic framework was stimulated by theoretical ambitions as well as the field data; i.e., ethnography always lies at the intersection of the two.
2. Turner also moves beyond Gluckman analytically, in specifying the nature of rupture and the forces of maintenance. Parsing the title, the book is about "the schism of groups and relationships" and "the continuity of society and principle and value above the schism" (Gluckman). Continuity can be assured and schisms covered over by secular means (e.g., informal arbitration à formal legal procedures) but beyond that, also by ritual (to address the "moral discomfort" of the group). Conflict is potentially both integrative and disintegrative.
Social drama #1
The bewitching of Kahali Chandenda by his nephew Sandombu
(case on pages 95-98; analysis on pages 98-115)
[The first five of the book's social dramas all took place in a single village, Mukanza. The first two occurred before the Turners arrived, and the events are reconstructed for what they were told by the villagers.]
Kahali Chandenda (K.C.) and Sandombu are related as mother's brother and sister's son (MB/SS), like Nyamhula and Mukenji. Note their generational and matrilineal connections. K.C., then village headman, was not well-liked by fellow residents and had a reputation as a dangerous sorcerer. He was not wealthy and was considered as old-fashioned. The first incident began with a dispute about dividing the meat of an antelope that had been killed. Sandombu sent K.C. a lesser quantity and less quality cut than K. C.'s position warranted, which was a breach of MB/SS etiquette. K.C. retaliated at a village forum a few days later by insulting Sandombu. The two exchanged sorcery threats. Sandombu went away for a few days, and while he was gone, K.C. died. Previously, the Ndembu had used divination to determine the cause of suspicious death, but this was now prohibited under British rule.
There was concern and confusion over what and who had caused his death, and debate about who to select as the new headman. Sandombu returned to the village, but in the end he was not allowed to assume the headmanship. He was alleged to have a black liver, a sign of selfishness. Instead, Mukanza Kabinda was selected as successor.
Turner tried to get behind the facts of selecting a new headman after K. C.'s death. He insists that Sandombu was passed over not just because of his personality or allegations of witchcraft. Rather, the crux was the contradiction among competing structural principles. Turner concluded that for Sandombu, the man who would be headman, "his hospitality, his obtrusive ambition, and even his wild boasting in his cups, suicidal though it was at the time to his hopes, all stemmed from his position in the social structure" (99). What, then, was his structural position that left him "the odd man out" (103) in Mukanza Village?
The Ndembu headman's role carried no coercive authority but rather demanded a moral leadership, a command by prestige. The qualifying conditions were:
a. that he be a descendant of the founding ancestress;
b. that the position should not be a monopoly of a single line (i.e., rotation is a motivation for all lines to stay in the village), but there is also a preference of candidates of older generations over younger generations (see 104); and
c. that a headman must have personal qualities that could generate and maintain a following.
Difficulties almost always arose because that these rules usually didn't point unambiguously to a single person (see map). In this instance, Mukanza Kabinda and his brother were obvious candidates (the Malabu line had no male candidates), and M.K. had the edge because of his marriage to Nyamukola of the Malabu line. Sandombu though had forged links with both the Malabu line and with M.K., but even more he presented himself on basis of his personal qualities. That is, he was ambitious but also admired for being modern-thinking and generous. A third candidate, Kasonda, was generationally younger than both. [Note the summary of factors on page 108.]
Social drama #2:
The expulsion and return of Sandombu
(details on pages 116-120; analysis on pages 120-125)
After this first incident, Sandombu wasn't expelled by his fellow villagers (Turner says he was too valuable to fellow villagers), but fate pursued him relentlessly. Divination determined that his sorcery had killed a MS whose death grieved him ("all the more because he was unsure of his own innocence"). This time, he was forced to leave Mukanza and build a compound on his own, from which base he tried to attract a following.
However, the Turners found that doubts about Sandombu's guilt lingered in villager's minds, and when Sandombu made a plea to return, they granted it. There was yet another misfortune and divination for which it was determined that Sandombu was not responsible—nor for the earlier death! He sponsored a ritual of planting a tree symbolizing matrilineal unity to his deceased MS. He prayed with M.K., and they were reconciled.
Sandombu never gave up his ambition to be headman. In 1948-1951 he worked on a road crew and in 1952 he built a farm, generating resources and reputation. But he never did achieve his goal. Instead, Turner notes in his preface to the 1968 edition that when Mukanza Kabinda finally died of old age in 1967, he was succeeded by Kasonda. [Sakazao, another candidate whom Turner had thought most likely to succeed, had died at an early age in 1955.]
Social drama #3
Kasonda is accused of bewitching his Uncle Kanyombu
(details on pages 138-142; analysis on pages 142-148)
[this section prepared by Molly Margaretten] The third of Turner's social dramas began when his cook and "general henchman," Kasonda, was accused of bewitching his deceased Uncle Kanyombu. Compared to the reconstructions of the first two dramas, Turner himself was prominent as an actor who not only observed but also directly intervened in the final outcome of the social breach. This particular dispute unfolded during a malaria epidemic, which reinforced Turner's claim that a breach in the natural order was provoked by a breach in the Ndembu moral order: "More explicitly, in the context of village life, these misfortunes originate either in the malignity of kin with evil powers against other kin or in the punitive action of ancestor spirits against their living kin who have forgotten them or transgressed kinship norms" (p. 140).
When Kasonda and Turner arrived on the scene, two men had already died, Kanyombu (the headman's younger brother) and Kajata (a very old man). Three more people were very ill: Mukanza (the headman), Sakazao, and Ikubi. Three women, Nyamukola (Mukanza's senior wife), Nyakalusa (Sakazao's junior wife), and Manyosa (Mukanza's niece), regarded Kasonda with suspicion and hostility. Revealing their personal animosities and own fears of being accused as witches; the women denounced Kasonda as a sorcerer intent on succeeding the headman, Mukanza. Kasonda became extremely angry and denied any reason for wanting to harm his fellow villagers. Drawing upon his position as Turner's cook, Kasonda both defended himself ("I had plenty of beef, goat's flesh and duiker meat at Turner's place. I do not eat human beings even if other people in this village do" [p. 141]), and revealed some of the underlying tensions and jealousies that were becoming more pronounced with the encroachment of a cash economy (p. 136). Kasonda also remarked that Kajata had grown old and was therefore ready to die. However, most importantly, Kasonda claimed the villagers were not troubled by Kanyombu's vengeful ghost but rather were haunted by his moral spirit. This is a critical distinction, for in the case of a moral spirit, misconduct was blamed on the victim and not on a malevolent force (such as a sorcerer or witch). At this point, Turner offered to drive Mukanza to the hospital. Everybody agreed this to be the best solution, including Mukanza himself, who wanted to avoid his relatives and any more potential incidents of sorcery. Turner also dispensed quinine to the sick people; everyone except for Ikubi recovered.
Because Mukanza was under the tutelage of Turner, who was regarded as a stranger, the responsibility of Mukanza's fate no longer belonged to the villagers. More amenable to the idea that Kanyombu's ghost had not been invoked by revengeful medicine, Nyamukola then remembered that her husband, Mukanza, had not fulfilled his funerary promises to Kanyombu. In addition, Mukanza had used Kanyombu's hospital transport money (provided by Turner) for his own family needs. Likewise, more and more villagers began to blame Kanyombu's spirit, and not Kasonda, for their misfortunes. Thus, in a quick turnabout, the entire village accepted collective responsibility for neglecting the interests and final wishes of a dying man.
Although many latent conflicts surfaced in the course of this social drama, Kasonda managed to reunite the village in what Turner extolled as a political and diplomatic triumph. Unlike the women who were censured as "mighty fools" (p. 147), Kasonda minimized the animosities between the two lineages (Maluba and Koniya). By preventing the village from splitting into two antagonistic divisions, Kasonda (in a rather portentious statement by Turner) "strengthened the view that he and not Mukanza was the real peacemaker, the most important of an Ndembu headman's role" (p. 146).
Social drama #4
The expulsion of the witch Nyamuwang'a
(details on pages 148-150; analysis on pages 150-156)
[this section prepared by Julia Ochs] This drama was at the intersection of two events, a witchcraft accusation and a scheme to gain power and secure village leadership. First, the accusation. Nyamuwang'a, an elderly woman with no immediate male kin, was accused of using witchcraft to kill Ikubi, her classificatory daughter. Several factors led to Nyamuwang'a's accusation: her foreignness, the high yields of her crops and ambitious gardening practice, and her alleged nymphomania. Animosity was further heightened by Nyamuwang'a's social relations and role in the village. Turner points to a common pattern by which widowed or divorced women who are classificatory matrilineal kin of the village headman, but who do not have immediate male kin, are resented, become scapegoats for misfortune, and are frequently driven from the village.
With Ikubi's death, the accumulated antipathy and witchcraft suspicions of Nyamuwang'a broke loose. An angered Gideon beat up Nyamuwang'a, and Sakazao, exasperated by her disruption of the following he had begun to amass, forced her to leave his farm and go into exile. [This was to become his loss.]
A second line of dramatic developments followed Sandombu's utilizing divisions within the Malabu lineage to gather his own following so that he could succeed Mukanza as headman. While Nyamuwang'a was in exile, she was joined by her daughter Ikaya and Ikaya's child. Ever scheming Sandombu realized that bringing back Nyamuwang'a would increase his strength by adding three generations of matrilineal kinswomen to his following (power derives from the number of child-bearing females one has under one's influence). Thus, Sandombu invited Nyamuwang'a to live on his farm, and she eagerly accepted. One might conclude that so desperate was he to become headman that he allied himself with a witch, a prostitute, and a child. Turner notes because these new additions to his farm were social outcasts, "they could be guaranteed to remain loyal to him" (154).
However, when the time finally came for Mukanza to appoint a successor, he chose Sakazao. Still determined to become the head of at least one of the two villages over which Sakazao was given rule, Sandombu finds a way and is given permission to "succeed to the name of Kahali" which was the ancient title of the Mukanza headmanship. This move, which demonstrated that he was in line to assume leadership, seemed at least initially successful, as Mukanza gave the leadership of Nswanakahali to Sandombu. But Sandombu begins to regret having taken a new name when he realizes that Mukanza and Sakazao do not recognize his farm as a separate village, that they were "chuckling over their exploitation" of his mistake.
Social drama #5
Sandombu slanders and is slandered
(details on pages 157-161; analysis on pages 161-168)
[this section prepared by Danielle Robinson] Zuliyana, Sandombu's junior wife, accused her husband of campaigning for the position of headman—her accusations stemmed from the fact that Sandombu frivolously gave away millet ("to ingratiate himself with people") despite the fact that the crop was the product of her labor. Sandombu threatened to beat his wife.
Zuliyana was the daughter of Mukanza, the current village headman. Following her fight with Sandombu, Zuliyana returned home to tell her father that Sandombu slandered him by saying that Mukanza was his junior. Mukanza confronted Sandombu with the accusations. Sandombu denied the validity of Zuliyana's charges. Instead, Sandombu accused Zuliyana and her mother, Nyamukola, of trying to bewitch him.
Sandombu attended a village meeting, by request, to explain his conduct. Sandombu's case was mediated by Chayangoma—a blind member of the village who was "already dead" (mufu) and, therefore, had an impartial opinion since no villager would have motive to bewitch a blind man without family.
Chayangoma served Sandombu a straightforward, undemanding punishment: to apologize for his drunken outburst and pay 10s to Nyamukola, for whom he accused of sorcery, and new cloth to Zuliyana, for whom he neglected to recompense. Sandombu, however, refused to comply with his punishment; Sandombu's stated reason: he was wronged by his wife, who had instigated the fight and told false tales about him to her parents. Also, Sandombu pointed out that he made the accusations of witchcraft against Nyamukola and Zuliyana in anger.
Interestingly, at the same time as this case, Sandombu was involved in another case of slander involving the headman of a neighboring village, Chibwakata. Chibwakata, a longtime enemy of Mukanza village, had accused Sandombu of involvement in a plot of sorcery. Thus, Sandombu was simultaneously a defendant and a plaintiff in cases of slander.
In analyzing this social drama, Turner described the changed and changing socio-spatial system formed by the Mukanza Village: new members came into being; new cleavages, etc. While the basic principles governing residential affiliation remained (matriliny, unity of male matrilineal kin, virilocal marriage, the relations between genealogical generations, unity of uterine siblings), the relations between people brought into daily contact by these principles had changed. In fact, the status of genealogically linked persons had changed asymmetrically: Mukanza was now the headman; Sandombu was no longer a rival claimant for office, but Mukanza's junior.
Turner called attention to the improving social position of Sandombu (now a farm head with a following who would support his future claims to village headmanship). It is possible, according to Turner's evaluation, that Sandombu's improved position could result from the less serious nature of the charge against him by Mukanza (i.e. slander, not sorcery). The case was brought before the village in order to emphasize that Mukanza had nominated as his successor Sakazao, and not Sandombu. The case, therefore, "signalized Sandombu's exclusion from the succession."
The outcome of the case directly resulted from Sandombu's "heightened importance." Turner considered Sandombu's improved position as the reason why the case was downplayed in the court (instead of reported to law officials outside the Mukanza Village). Sandombu, in fact, improved his position by winning the case against Chibwakata, a major enemy of Mukanza village. Moreover, Mukanza hurt his popularity among his villagers by his purposeful non-involvement.
Turner argued that this fifth drama underscored the likelihood that Mukanza Village would divide along lineage lines after Mukanza's death. In conversation with Kasonda, Turner discovered Kasonda's intentions to start his own village nearby. Though Sakazao would be left with most of his lineage kin, some members of Sakazao's as well as Kasonda's respective lineage would follow Sandombu. As matters stood, the main link between the two lineages (Nyachintang'a and Malabu) was the marriage bond between Mukanza and Nyamukola. Turner explained that "since they have already become genealogically so distant, once that link snapped there will be little to hold them together" (165). The division of the village would most likely follow the lines of lineage segmentation, whereby Nyakapakata (Sandombu's lineage) would live apart from Chinenga (the other sub-lineage of Nyachintang'a). Sakazao Village would consist of the Malabu lineage. The shifting social relations were, according to Turner, proof that the fundamental cleavages between maternal descent groups would emerge over time (while, currently, marriage—i.e. that between Nyamukola and Mukanza—and alternate generation alliance were functioning to delay the residential schism between lineages). Ultimately, once the marriage between Mukanza and Nyamukola ended, the lineage cleavage, which coincided with generation cleavage, "would assert itself," causing an irreparable schism between lineages.
Social drama #6
Yimbwendi and Kafumbu secede from Mukanza
(details on pages 178-182; analysis on pages 183-203)
[this section prepared by Kathryn Wendell] This drama ensues from a breach of what Turner calls the "traditional" master-slave relationship. Although the British had outlawed slavery, the institution continued to exist in its own way within Ndembu society. When Kafumbu, a slave, took advantage of the British law in order to declare himself and his lineage-known as MPEZA-free from bondage, traditional relations between slave-owners and slaves broke down. The schism created by Kafumbu's declaration was particularly devastating, considering the circumstances under which it occurred. To paraphrase Turner, this was the crisis that almost resulted in the disintegration of Mukanza Village (178).
In 1928, Kahali Chandenda decided to move permanently to Mukanza where he assumed the role of headman. This angered Yimbwendi who wanted the position for himself-he decides to break away from Mukanza, encouraging his followers to join him. To augment the strength of his movement, Yimbwendi persuaded Kafumbu and his followers to come as well. When Kafumbu agreed and the two groups secede to form a new village, Mukanza is left with only half its former population.
Quick to note the shrinking numbers in Mukanza, the District Commissioner tries to combine the village with two other villages. This constitutes a major threat to Mukanza inhabitants who "take great pride in belonging to a village with a famous historical name" (183), and they responded by appealing to Ikelenge Area and Sandombu and others to return to their village. The others returned and the "dreaded amalgamation" did not take place. To sum up, schism resulted in fission (since no traditional mechanism could redress the slaves' breaking away from their masters), yet a complete rupture of social relations did not occur among all those concerned. Links of kinship and affinity persisted among followers of the two groups regardless of their leaders' animosity.
Social drama #7
Two headmen dispute over a death payment
(details on pages 267-272; analysis on pages 272-279)
[Note that this drama occurs much later in the book, as an illustration of inter-village relations. The Turners were resident in the village as it occurred. ]
[this section prepared by Diane Whitney] In July 1953, Kalusa, a resident of Shika village, died. Her sister, Nyamuwang'a, was immediately accused by members of her own village, Mukanza, of witchcraft. (Nyamuwang'a, with a history of visiting people who subsequently died, had recently visited Kalusa.) However, when the headman of Shika village was rumored to be contemplating a witchcraft action to evade paying the mpepi death payment, members of Mukanza village united against Shika. This unity was demonstrated by the nomination of Nyamuwang'a as executrix of Kalusa's estate. Thus, the crisis that threatened to divide Mukanza was averted through solidarity against Shika.
While the initial death payment was undisputed – and small, only 2s – negotiations of the larger and final death payment were expected to be tense. Three judges were brought in who were deemed by both sides to be fair and unbiased. For two of the judges this was because they had no close consanguineal ties with either Mukanza or Shika. Mukanza and Shika were each represented by delegates. Nyamuwang'a was represented by one of the people who had originally accused her of witchcraft. Sandombu, who had been accused of harboring a witch (i.e. Nyamuwang'a), was the spokesperson for Mukanza. Because he had no close kinship or affinal ties to Shika, Sandombu was able to speak more freely than the others.
Sandombu began by asking for the mpepi to be set at £5 on the grounds that Mukanza would lose Kalusa's two daughters to Shika and Shika's witchcraft accusations had caused bad feelings. Shika argued that the two villages has close ties and it was rude to ask for high mpepi from kin, Mukanza had divorced a Shika woman when she was on the verge of death to avoid a high mpepi payment, and Shika had paid 10s for a divination ceremony upon Kalusa's death which Mukanza had never performed. The judges decided that to keep relations on good terms, and based on Shika's arguments, Mukanza should pay £2 10s. Sandombu said Mukanza would not accept less than £3 10s; Shika grudgingly accepted in order to preserve peace between the villages. However, it was generally agreed that this was too high a mpepi and relations were strained between the two villages, becoming generalized to ill feeling between Lunda and Kawiku, until Mukanza held a Chihamba ritual to which it sent a special invitation to Shika.
For Turner, this case demonstrates "the way in which inter-village disputes help to promote intra-village unity; . . . the interest shown by representatives of the wider social system of the vicinage in what was primarily a matter concerning two inter-marrying villages; and . . . the role of matriliny in providing links between villages in different vicinages" (p. 272). This drama highlights both the unifying and divisive character of interpersonal ties between villages. "Every breach in a marriage, whether made by divorce or death, is accompanied by conflict between the villages, but the existence of other ties of affinity and kinship [– particularly children –] prevents the conflict from rupturing all ties between them. Cross-cutting affiliations ally those who are in conflict" (p. 273).
A Chihamba Ritual at Mukanza Village (spring, 1954)
(details on 303-310; analysis on pages 310-317)
Although Turner does not explicitly label this a social drama, his account and analysis of a Chihamba held in Mukanza
Compare the glowing evaluations of Schism and Continuity by Max Gluckman in his preface to the original edition and by Bruce Kapferer in his foreword to the 1996 edition with the mixed 1959 review by Stanner ("a work of apprenticeship done for the most part with journeyman's skills"!) and the review by H. S. Morris in the British Journal of Sociology