Division of Labor by Gender and Postmarital Residence in Cross-Cultural Perspective: A Reconsideration

Cross-Cultural Research (Impact Factor: 1.21). 11/2003; Vol. 37(No. 4):335-372. DOI: 10.1177/1069397103253685


First theories proposed to explain determinants of postmarital residence
connected it with the division of labor by gender. However, at
the moment all the cross-cultural tests of this hypothesis using
worldwide samples have failed to find any significant relationship
between these two variables. In the meantime, the alternative explanations
of the postmarital residence led the author to expect that
such a relationship would be found if the societies with an extremely
low female contribution to subsistence were contrasted with
the rest of the world cultures. There are reasons to expect that an extremely
low female contribution should predict more or less
strongly the nonmatrilocal residence and less strongly (but still significantly)
the patrilocal residence. Aseries of worldwide crosscultural
tests performed by the author using five various sets of
coded data on female contribution to subsistence has fully supported
this hypothesis.

Download full-text


Available from: A. Korotayev,
  • Source
    • "Driver (1956; 1969) found support for the main sequence model amongst North American societies, and identified that the sexual division of labour between the sexes was a major factor in determining residence, and thus descent. Similarly, other studies have proposed various catalysts for a change in post-marital residence, including the presence of internal versus external warfare (Ember and Ember 1971), recent migration (Divale 1974), or the sexual division of labour regarding subsistence (White et al. 1981; Korotayev 2003). However, "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Descent systems express how a society organises kinship relationships. Inheritance of resources as well as rights and obligations can be traced patrilineally, matrilineally, a combination of both, or in a cognatic/bilateral fashion. Post-marital residence rules describing the kin group with whom a couple lives after marriage are often, but not always, correlated with the descent system. Murdock (1949) hypothesised that changes in the residence system would cause changes in descent, not the other way around. Here we present a Bayesian phylogenetic analysis of 67 Austronesian societies from the Pacific. These comparative methods take into account uncertainty about the phylogeny as well as uncertainty about the evolution of the cultural traits. Ancestral state reconstruction shows that unilineal residence and non-unilineal descent are the ancestral states for this group of societies. Descent changes lag behind residence changes over a 1000-year time period. Environmental or cultural change (both frequent in Austronesian prehistory) may be facultatively adjusted to via the residence system in the short term, and thus this trait may change more often.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: 1 What is Cross-Cultural Research? Human communities have a variety of practices, beliefs, social roles, norms, expressions, forms of organization and conflicts (economic, political, legal, religious, expressive and artistic) that exhibit various sorts of internal coherence as well as cleavages within communities. These coherences and cleavages bear many close connections to the different historical experiences, physical and social environments in which people live. They include configurations of elements and characteristic ways of interrelating that are shared with neighboring and interacting groups, and shared among dispersed groups that have common historical experiences and similarities, including common origin, common membership in historical civilizations, and languages that are mutually understood or that derive common families. Lines of cleavage, conflict, and marginality, of course, are part of cultural phenomena. Elements and relationships that individuals or communities have in common are shared in a variety of ways. Some, such as the more intensive patterns of interaction that derive from common residence, joint experience, and discourse in a common language or system of signs, are relatively well bounded. Other patterns of sharing or similarity derive from processes of dispersal: migration, diaspora, the trajectory of lives lived through spatial movements, social mobility, careers, distinctive histories. Interactions are by no means limited to localities, but to the trajectories of inhabitants who move through and between localities. Cultures consist of shared constructions that emerge out of social interactions of sets of individuals who inhabit overlapping social and physical spaces. Coherence may be viewed as an emergent property, but may be present or absent to varying degrees and along varying dimensions or trajectories.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of this article is to reflect on the relationship between average house floor area and marital residence pattern.This article brings three novel elements to this research problem: (a) it combines cases from the previous studies thus creating a larger empirical base, (b) logistic regression is used as an analytical technique which can test the significance and strength of the correlation between variables and establish explicit classification criteria with corresponding error rates, and (c) the effect of subsistence mode on the correlation between house floor area and residence is taken into account. New results confirm previous findings that there is a statistically significant correlation between house floor area and marital residence but not strong enough to warrant the use of floor area as a sole indicator of residence. Subsistence mode has a large influence on the correlation-goodness of fit of the logistic regression model and its predictive power are significantly higher in agricultural societies, whereas the correlation between house area and marital residence is not significant in the nonagricultural group of cases.
    Cross-Cultural Research 10/2010; 44(2). DOI:10.1177/1069397110378839 · 1.21 Impact Factor
Show more