_____ . ___ .. ____ _________ -". ______________________ arr_

KIN KNOWLEDGE IN A FRENCH CANADIAN FAMILY

ABSTRACT

Author: Christiné M. Rinké Départmént of Anthropology, M.A.

Thésis Titlé: Kin knowlédgé in a Frénch Canadia1'l. .. ..Family

Thé théSis conCérns oné of thé many oral traditions

of Frénch Canada: kinship knowlédgé. Thé samplé consistéd of

tén individuals from four différént générations of a largé Frénch

Canadian family living in Montréal. Thé findings aré that kin

knowlédgé is influéncéd by two major factors: actual contact

with kin and thé transmission of facts about décéaséd, absént

or distant kin by mémbérs of one génération to thOSé of thé

néxt. Décréasé in family SiZé is a significant factor in kin

knowlédgé in this family. Oné of thé MOSt important findings

was that thé individuals of thé yOUngéSt génération knéW signi-

ficantly féwér kin than thOSé of thé oldér générations, and

that, fu!'thel'mOré, thé réason for this, was that théy Wéré not

providéd with information about their kin othér than thosé of

their immediaté family by théir closé kino As a résult, kin

knowledge as a tradition is losing its importancé in this

Frénch Canadian family.

m

\ .. ./

KIN KNOWLEDGE IN A FRENCH CANADIAN FAMILY

Submitted ta McGill University in partial fulfillment for the requirements of the degree of Master of Arts.

Montreal, Canada.

@) Christine H. Rinke 1972

Christiné M. Rinké M.A. Départmént of Anthropo1ogy March 1972

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

J'aimerais remercier tous les membres de la

famille canadienne française qui ont collaboré l la réali­

sation de cette étude. Je dois une grande dette de recon­

naissance l tous et chacun.

Afin de respecter l'histoire personelle et la

personalité de chacun, je leur ai donné le secret de

l'anonimité. Comme humble remerciement je dédie cette

th~se l cette famille canadienne française et l Ses

ancêtres.

l would also like to thank professors

Bruce Trigger and. Joan Miller for their invaluable help.

· 1

- 1 -

TABLE OF CONTENT~

CHAPTER l - Methodology

CHAPTER II - Extent and Structure of the Informants' Kin Universe

CHAPTER III - Factors Affecting Kin Knowledge

CHAPTER IV - Conclusions

'- APPENDIX

REFERENCES

22

55

83

91

107

n i l

1 i i 1

2

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER l

TABLE l - Generational position of informant~ in the sample.

15 ,

CHAPTER II

TABLE II Number of kin known, living and dead.

25

TABLE III Number of immediate kin. 32

TABLE IV Qualified knowledge of consanguines 36 and affines.

TABLE V - Ratio of consanguines to affines. 37

TABLE VI - Recall of living versus dead kin. 39

TABLE VII - Full knowledge and No knowledge of 40 dead kin.

TABLE VIII - Full knowledge of generations twice 45 removed and further.

TABLE IX Schematic representation of breadtb 49 and depth of kin included in the controlled kin uni verse.

TABLE X - Range of knowledge of kin. 52

3 -

LIST OF TABLES

CHAPTER III

TABLE XI Geographical location of kin in 59 the controllèd kin universe.

TABLE XII - Geographical distance between kin 60 in the controlled kin universe.

TABLE XIII Informants' godparents. 67

TABLE XIV Effective kin set. 73

TABLE XV Effective kin set as a percentage 74 of the total knowledge of living kino

TABLE XVI - Family gatherings o 77

TABLE XVII - Attendance of informants at family 78 gatherings.

TABLE XVIII - Wedding attendance from 1954 to 1971. 81

APPENDIX

TABLE XIX

TABLE XX

Kinship chart of the entire controlled kin universe.

- Genealogical chart of the entire controlled kin universe.

92

93

- 4 -

CHAPTER l METHODOLOGY

· .

~ 5

1. Introduction

The subject of this thesis is the knowledge of

kin in a large French Canadian family whose members aIl live

in urban centers. Its aim is to formulate and test hypothe­

ses concerning the differing extent of knowledge that various

members of a single family have of their kin.

This will be done in the following manner. The

remainder of this chapter will consist of the definition of

a controlled kin universe, a discussion of the selection and

size of the sample, and of the methods of data collection,

as weIl as what data were collected.

Chapter two will be an in-depth analysis of

the personal kin knowledge of each informant. It will compare

each informant's knowledge of kin with the controlled kin

universe and with the knowledge of kin of aIl the other

informants in the sample.

Chapter three will discuss factors affecting

kin knowledge with a view to explaining tentatively the

differential kin knowledge among members of the same family.

It will also consist of an extensive documentation of kin

6

gatherings in order to assess their importance as factors

affecting kin knowledge.

The conclusion wlll consist of a summary of

tlnehypotheses formulated throughout this thesls and a propo­

saI for future research.

This ls not a soclologlcal study of klnshlp

and my purpose ls not to attack or defend klnshlp theorles

of this sort that may be applicable t~ my data. Instead,

lt ls an analysls of orally transmltted knowledge, using

klnship facts as lts data. In thls analysis, kln knowledge

ls considered as one of the many oral traditlons of cultures

in general, and French Canadlan culture in partlcular. However,

the flndlngs in this thesis are not claimed to representatlve

of French Canada, but only of the French Canadian famlly

that was studled.

2. Methodology

The genealogical technique of enqulry and the

anthropological techniques of intenslve, unstructured inter­

views and particlpant observatlon were the methods used to

gather the data forthls study. The framework around which

most of the data was gathered was the genealogy. As an anthro-

"

7

pologist, l was more concerned to examine the recognition of ..

genealogical links by my informants than with the actual facts

of linkage, which is more the concern of a professional genea­

logiste

No structured questionnaires were used at any

time. Intensive interviews were conducted with each informant

using hisor her recall of kin as a basis for discussion. '\ . \ ..

Frequent interviews permitted the verification of previously

collected facts and allowed the collection of qualitative,

in-depth data. Many events occurred during the year of field . "

work, in which l was able to participate and observe the infor~

mants in my sample interacting with each other. This provided , .. . ,

for a better understanding of the data gathered during the

intensive interviews, and gave me some insights into potential.:'

topics for future research.

a. Definition of kin universe

The concept of kin universe used in this thesis,

although more restricted, corresponds to that of Firth, Hubert

and Forge (1970):

" ••• by 'universe of kin' we mean aIl persons known to our informant (EGO) as related to him by genealogical ties, whether of consan­guinity or of affinity, i.e., aIl persons 'recognized' by him as kin. 1f

(1970, p. 155)

8

"They also add that:

..... it may be necessary to distinguish a 'personal universe' of kin embraced by an individual as part of his ordinary know­ledge from a 'literary universel of kin known to him only from consultation of documents."

(1970, p. 125)

This study will be concerned with eliciting

each informant 1 s "personal uni verse" of kin rather than his

or her "literary universe" of kin.

b. Controlled kin universe

In order to limit the extent of kin that could

possibly be recalled by aIl the informants to those that were

common to aIl the informants in the sample, an objective

control1ed kin universe was determined before the data on

kin know1edge was collected from the informants. By common

kin is meant, those re1ated to aIl ten informants by one or

many lineal and collateral links, but by no more than one

affinaI link. (See definitions on pages 50-51).

This controlled kin universe includes aIl the

consanguines of one apical male, who is related to aIl the

informants in the sample, as weIl as their spouses, irrespect-

ive of seXe It does not include the consanguines of these

affines. The total controlled kin universe includes one

hundred and ninety-one ind1viduals.

9

The '. controlled kin uni verse was established

by consulting an official genealogy of the family of the

apical male and his first wife. This man is the father of

informant l, the grandfather of informants 2,3,4,5, the great-,

grandfather of informants 6,7,8, and the great-great-grand­

father of informants 9 and 10.

Also consulted were a collection of letters

written between 1930 and 1935, as weIl as a genealogy of the

apical male's line which was obtained from his sister's

daughter. These provided not only genealogical information

but also insights into the life of the apical male and his

relatives and, into factors affecting kin knowledge.

The gathering of each informant's knowledge of

kin took place dur~ng the first interview only. It was con­

trolled by means of questions directed to determine knowledge

of kin in the controlled kin universe only.

TABLE XX in the appendix is a genaalogical

chart that enumerates the total kin universe that each of the

ten informants in this study ideally should have been able to

recall. It serves as a basis for comparison for each of the

personal universes of kin collected from the ten informants

in the sample.

The list of aIl the informants' common k1n 1s

g1ven at the left of TABLE XX. AlI the names are f1ctit1ous~

L-

10

This genealogy covers six generations. The informants them­

selves are members of four of these six generations, as

represented in the schematic chart on page 15 (TABLE I).

The oldest generation, which consists of the

father and mother of the apical male is represented by the

number 6. The generation of the apical male is Depresented

by the number 5, the generation below by the number 4 and so

on until the most recent generation which is represented by

the number 1. Crosses after names indicate dead kin.

In addition to setting forth the ideal kin

universe, TABLE XX indicates the genealogical knowledge or

"personal kin universe" of the ten informants in this study.

Each separate "personal kin universe" is listed in-the infor­

mant's numbered co1umn, i.e., 1,2,),4,5,6,7,8,9,10. This

table is to be read three dimensionally. It-not only indicates

what kin each informant remembers or-does not remember, but

also qualifies this recall by uSing different check marks.

The meanings of the check marks are the following:

vi full knowledge

vt partial knowledge

vf quarter knowledge

o no knowledge

\..."

Il

Furthermore, by uslng dlfferent slgns beside

each check mark, this table also indicates in what generation

each recalled or non-recalled kin ls located with reference

to each lnformant. Each lnformant ls equal to EGO ln his

own column. The meaning of the dlfferent slgns is the

following:

0

* -/

+

SI

-" :

five generatlons ab ove EGO's generation

four generatlons,above EGO's generation

three generations ab ove EGO's generatlon

two generations above EGO's generation

one generatlon above EGO's generatlon

EGO's generation

,.,.,. :

one generation below EGO's generatlon

two generatlons below EGO's generation

three generations below EGO's generation

The reason for indlcating this third relation­

ship ls to determlne whether members of an informant's own

generation, or those close to it, were more frequently recall­

ed than those two or three generatlons removed from that of

an informant.

The controlled kln unlverse ls also set forth

12

in a conventiona:;L anthropological manner 1"n TABLE XIX in

the Appendix.

c. Sample

The sample consists of ten individuals of

French Canadian origin who are aIl related consanguineally.

This particular group of individu~ls was chosen because they

were aIl members of a family whose structure was judg~d to

be similar to that of many French Canadian families in Quebec

today. The particular informants in the sample were chosen

from each of the four generations of this family that are

still living. Informant 1 is the only one from her genera­

tion that is still alive. As far as possible, the other infor­

mants are representative of their generations in number (the

larger the number from one generation, the more kin that

generation actuallY had in it) and ln age and sex distribu­

tion.

Eight of the lnformants live ln Montreal. The

nlnth informant is sixty-nlne years old and has 11ved aIl but

four years of his llfe in Montreal. He ls therefore consl­

dered as being a Montrealer. The tenth lnformant lives 1n

Los Angeles, Callfornia. He was, however, visltlng Montreal

for a few wekks, during whiChtlme he was lntervlewed.

13

Informant 1 ls a seventy-flve year old female.

She ls the eldest ln the sample ana ls classlfled as belonglng

to generat10n 4, wh1ch represents the ch1ldren of the ap1cal

male, who h1mse1f belongs to generatlon 5. Informant 1 ls

the ha1f-sister of the mother of lnformants 2,3,and 4 and the

slster of informant 5's father. She ls also the half-slster

of lnformants 6, 7, and 8's grandmother and of lnformants 9

and 10's great-grandmother.

Informants 2,3,4, and 5 are of generatlon 3.

They are the grandchlldren of the ap1ca1 male. Informants

2 and 5 are males, and are 69 and 53 years old respect1vely.

Informants 3 and 4 are females, and are 66 and 60 years old.

Informants 6,7, and 8 belong to generat10n 2. They are the

great-grandch1ldren of the ap1cal male. Informants 6 and 7

are fema1e, 8 1s male. These 1nformants are 37, 25 and 19

years old respectlvely. Informants 9 and 10 are female and

male and of generat10n 1, wh1ch ls the youngest ln the sample.

They are the great-great-grandch11dren of the aplcal male,

and the1r ages are 13 and 16 years.

Informant .6 1s the daughter of male informant

2, who is the eldest son of a fam11y of fourteen and the

brother of informants 3 and 4. Informant 9 ls the daughter

of informant 6, and the grandaughter of informant 2.

In summary, informants 1,3,4,6,7, and 9 are

females, and lnformants 2,5,8, and 10 are males.

14

The 1nformants in th1s sample are from what

they themselves refer to as ~ ~ d1fferents (two d1fferent

beds). This 1s represented schemat1cally in TABLE l, on

page f1fteen. Th~ apical male had two w1ves. He had nin~

ch1ldren by h1s first wife, 1nclud1ng the mother of 1nfor­

mants 2,3, and 4 and f1ve ch1ldren by h1s second w1fe, includ-

1ng informant 1 and informant 5's father. Furth~rmore, the

apical male's second wif~, the mother of informant 1 and the

grandmother of informant 5, had been marr1ed prev10usly and

had had four ch11dren by her f1rst marr1age. This fam1ly 1s

referred to as le tro1sitme 1!! (th~ third bed).

('

Generations 6

5

4

:3

2

l

(

TABLE l Generational position o~ in~ormants in the sample

~- *10

IA-;=.

.::I!:­firsn ap-wife

Â;:

(1958) "(1955)

'n- • 2nd wife's lst husband

A: male 0: female shaded symbols:" dead kin .: informants ( ) :date of b1rth =: marriage bond ~: marr1age terminated by death followed by re~rr1age "

r

..... 1..1\

16

Data Co11ected

a. Individua1 kin universes

Interviews were conducted with each of the ten

informants in such a manner as to determine each informant's

know1edge of kin inc1uded in the contro11ed kin universe defined

above. These ten genea10gies are the data to be ana1yzed.

The determination of actua1 know1edge of kin was

limited to the first interview, in a11 cases. In so doing, it

was hoped that a11 the data co11ected wou1d be equa11y repre­

sentative of each informant's persona1 kin know1edge.

By doing this, and a1so by interviewing a11 in­

formants within a short time span, and without each one having

any rea1 idea of what he or she was going to be interviewed

about or who e1se was to be interviewed, it was be1ieved that

the data gathered wou1d in fact be exc1usive1y representative of

the normal working kin know1edge of ten different individua1s.

A11 attempts to contact other kin during the inter­

view were discouraged. No information about kin and their names

passed on to me subsequent to the first interview was registered

in the record of an informant's kin know1edge; this was· because

of the strong probabi1ity that such information was obtained

from, or remembered as a resu1t of, discussions with other kin

and therefore, was not part of the original persona1 know1edge

of kin, or at 1east, not sufficient1y so to be remembered at

the time of the interview.

17

It could be argued that such a technique of only

taking into account data gathered in the first interview. is

unsound and not representative of the informant's kin knowledge.

AlI the informants of the sample, however, were consanguines,

whose contacts among themselves were more or less frequent,

thus allowing a "cramming session" in preparation for a possi­

ble interview or a verification of given answers with subsequent

corrections and/or additions passed on to the interviewer. Thus,

given the circumstances, this procedure was judged to be the

best tactic available. It also provided uniform data, which

l judge ideal for the formulation of hypotheses.

b. Added materials

Subsequent to the first interview, which, as

mentioned above, was limited to the collection of data on kin

knowledge, in-depth interviews were conducted with aIl ten infor­

mants in order to gather facts concerning family gatherings, tra­

ditions and communication patterns batween kin and to establish

the importance of kinsmen in each informant's social life.

Additional data were obtained as a result of

participant observation at various kin gatherings which took

place during the past year (1970-7l). Such gatherings included

festivities to celebrate birthdays and anniversaries, as weIl

as formaI meetings to pay respect to two members of the family

who died during the past yearo

L

18

4. Souroes

Although their work does not deal spwoifioally

with the problem in whioh l was interested, differing kin know­

ledge among oonsanguines, Firth, Hubert and Forge's (1979) study

of kinship in a middle-olass seotor of London, Families and their

Relatives, was helpful in the struoturing of my analysiso Their

sample inoluded oonsanguines, however, no speoial attention is

paid to oonsanguinity as suoh, in the analysis of their data~

This eliminated any possibility of oomparing my data to their's

on a one-to-one basis, but in spite of this, some oomparisons

were possible and are made throughout this study.

Philippe Garigue has written a great deal about

the Frenoh-Canadian family. His researoh on kinship knowledge

was done from 1954 to 1958 and published in La Vie Familiale

des Canadiens Français (1970). The sample for this study was

made up of thirty individuals from Montreal. While he oautions

that his concluslons oannot be generallzed for aIl the French

Canadians living in cities, aIl members of his sample were

born in the Montreal region, and aIl are now residlng in

Montreal. (1970, p. 54). The analysis is therefore pertinent

to my own and ls referred to throughout thls thesis.

5. Llterature on French-Canadian kinship

A great deal has been written about the French­

Canadian family in rural and/or urban areas. Much less has

19

been written on the Freneh-Canadian kinship system, per se,

and, as mentioned above, Philippe Garigue is the on1y author

who has written on kinst),ip reea11, at any 1ength. Unfortuna­

te1y his data are now somewhat out-of-date.

There are two sehoo1s of thought eoncerning the

French-Canadian fami1y. Some authors e1aim that lt is the sur­

vival of the old peasant fami1y in rural France. (Brunet 1881,

Lestapis 1956). Horace Miner, in st. Denis: A French-Canadian

Parish (1939) states that the French-Canadian faml1y system was

brought over from France in the seventeenth century, and has

remained unchanged. (p. 72).

Philippe Garigue (1960) counters by arguing that

the specific form of family organization in existence in France

when the first settlers 1eft for New France, the "communauté

taisible"l, was never introduced as an institution into New

France. (1960, p. 182). Speaking of the ear1y years of New

France he states that:

"The organization of the French-Canadian family of that period can be deseribed as that of a conjugal household with strong ties of kinship with other house­holds, but with a high degree of autonomy."

(1960, p. 183)

1. The "communautéS taisib1es" were based on the practice, among commoners, of a father keeping with him his married sons, and of married brothers often remaining together after the death of their father as a joint family living under the same roof. Pro­pert y and especlally land was held for the benefit of al1 the members of the househo1d, who pooled their resources.

( Garigue, 1960, p. 182)

20

More regent theories stress that the present­

day French-Canadian family, whether in rural or urban areas,

is traditional, and identify what is traditiona] in French

Canada as being rural in origine However, this family struct­

ure, is changing as the result of the increasing pressures of

industrial urbanizatlon. Some of these theories use Redfield's

folk society concept. Redfield himself, in his introduction

to Horace Miner's book on St. Denis (1939), claims that rural

French Canada was half way along the continuum between the

folk and the urban types of societies.

says:

Philippe Garigue disagrees with this when he

"There are a large number of insti­tutions within each community whose nature is contrary to the basic assump­tions of the folk society."

( 1960, p. 187)

After studying the effects of urbanization on

kinship recognition in Montreal in 1954 and 1955, Garigue

came to the fol1owing conclusion:

"While some societies are undoubtedly more urbanized than others, it seems that the critical factors in diminishing kinship recognition are the cultural values of the society, not its degree of urbanization."

( 1956, p. 372)

21

Marcel Rioux disagrees with Garigue's theory.

He claims that:

" •••• there are extensive spatio-temp­oral variations within French Canada on the question of kinship recognition and that these variations are due pri­~rily to a difference in the degree of urbanization in the various segments of this socio-cultural whole; cultural values might be affected by the social transformations that urbanization brings about, but in the case of kinship reco­gnition it seems that the urbanization factor is primordial."

( -~1956, p. 385)

The present work-does not claim to settle this

argument or limit itself specifically to studying the effects

of urbanization on kinship recognition. The data was gathered

with a view to developing hypotheses on'kinship recognition

among French-Canadian f~milies living in a large urban area,

and not to testing already existing ones. The relationship

of at least some of these hypotheses to problems of urbani-

zation will, however, be clear enough.

L·

CHAPTER II

- 22 -

EXTENT AND STRUCTURE OF INFORMANTS' KIN UNlVERSE

Î

.1 i d

. ':" ~

~ 23

L

1. Size of Kin Universe

This section is the first of a series of

quantitative and qual,itative analyses which are undertaken

in order to shed some' light on the similarities and differences

in kin knowledge among the informants in this sample, who are

all members of the same family.

By size of kin universe i5 me~nt the qualified

number of kin actually recalled by each informant. The total

potential number of kin that could be recalled is one hundred

and ninety-one.

In order to give some depth to this basically

quantitative analysis, four classifications of types of kin

knowledge or kin recall were established. These were used

in the interpretation and counting of each informant's recall

of kin. This ultimately revealed the size of his or her kin ~'

uni verse. The four classifications of personal kin knowledge

are as follows:

full knowledge: name and surnsme and correct genealogical position

partial knowledge: name or surname (except in the case of consanguines) and correct sex and genealogical position.

quarter knowledge: no recall of either name or surname but correct sex and genealogical posi­tion; or recall of consanguine's surname only with correct sex and gen&alogical position.

L

24 -

no knowledge no recall whatsoever.

Each informant's knowledge of kin is recorded in TABLE II

below.

r (

Generations

Informants

Full know1edge

Partial knowledge

Quarter know1edge

No know1edge

("

TABLE II

Number of kin known. living and dead

4 3

1 2 3 ·4 5 6

121 92 138 96 44 57

7 3 4 4 3 1

10 1 15 16 22 10

53 95 34 75 122 12'

2

7 8

58 37

8 4

13 9

112 141

1

9

9

2

0

180

r , "

10

6

2

6

177

N \J\

26

a. Full knowledge

Informant 3 has the greatest total knowledge of

k1n, followed by informant 1. Both of these 1nformants are

female, unmarr1ed, and ret1red or sem1-ret1red from the1r

business careers. The fact that they are older, unmarr1ed

women encourages more contacts w1th k1n, and consequently

more knowledge of them. Dy contrast, hav1ng to br1ng ch1ldren

along, espec1ally young ch1ldren, d1scourages any k1nd of v1s1-

t1ng, v1s1ts to k1n 1ncluded. Also, because these two women

are single and ret1red, 1t creates a certain respons1b1l1ty

for the1r k1n. Hav1ng no ch1ldren of the1r own to take care

of them, v1s1t them and invite them to the1r homes, these

dut1es are p1cked up by the1r younger s1bl1ngs, and by nephews

and n1eces o Thus, they are in contact w1th more of the1r

k1n than are the1r older s1bl1ngs who have marr1ed but who

have the1r own ch1ldren to care for them, and tend to restr1ct

k1n contact to these ch1ldren. This 1s clearly the case for

informant 2. This leads me to hypothes1ze that the amount of

k1n knowledge 1s d1rectly related to the amount of contact

w1th k1n. (By contact 1s meant any form of communication: face­

to-face, telephone, letters, etc.}o

Informant 3, however, has a greater knowledge

of k1n than does informant 10 This 1s not only because she

27

has more siblings than informant l, but also because these

slbllngs have more chlldren and grandchildren than dofue

slblings of informant 1, who have no grandchlldren yet. Also,

lnformant 3's contact with her kin is more frequent and ext­

ensive than informant les contact with her kin.

Further proof of the importance of contact with

kln as a factor influencing kin knowledge was revealed by an

investigation of informants 6 and 7. Both are young married

housewives of the same generatlon. Informant 6 has four

children, informant 7 has one. Informant 6 is the eldest of

twenty-one first cousins, who have eleven affines and ten

children, not including her own. Regardless of her seniority

among first cousins, informant 6 has no more kin knowledge

than informant 7. Why?

Upon examinlng the type of kin knowledge that

each of these two informants possesses, it is seen that the

older cousin has more knowledge of her father's generation

and the generation above his, whereas the younger cousin

(there ls twelve years difference between them) has more

knowledge of the younger cousins of her generation, those

of her own age and their affines and children. The reason

for this, as revealed through further interviews with aIl

the informants, was that informant 6 is a person who values

her privacy and prefers not to attend family gatherings,

such as weddings, christenings and thelike. The only oc ca-

28

sions on which she comes into contact with her kin are fune­

raIs. She was forced to attend family gatherings as a child,

which explains her knowledge of the older generations, but as

an adult she does not socialize with kin of any generatIon,

thus explaining her lack of knowledge of them.

Informant 7, on the other hand, never knew

many of the members of the older generation, as they were

either dead or had moved to other cities when she attended

family gatherings. Her frequent attendance at later gather­

ings explains her knowledge of her kin, expecially her younge~

kin. This situation leads me to conclude that kin knowledge

not only is greatly influenced by contact with kin, but is

influenced by it regardless of the actual time of contact in

an indi vidual' s life spe.,n.

The hypothesis of amount of contact is given

additional weight wh en one examines the cases of informants

8, 9, and 10. Informant 8 is of the same generation as infor­

mants 6 and 7, but he is eight years younger than informant 7.

His contact with kin is also much less frequent than that of

informant 7. Further, he never met his older kin of genera­

tion 4, two generations removed from his own, as they were

already dead. This explains his smaller knowledge of kin.

Informant 9 has never met any of her grandfather's (informant

2 ) thirteen siblings, nine of whom are alive. She had met

only her mother's brother and her father's ~isters and brothers,

who are not included in this study. This explains her minimal

29

knowledge of kin. This informant is the daughter of-infor­

DBnt 6, who, as mentioned above, does not visit her kin'. The­

refore, her child does not see"them either.

Informant 10 knows only his parents and his

grandparents. The former have no siblings. This informant

lives in Los Angeles, California and has never had the oppor­

tunity to meet MOSt of his kin. He had, however, met one of

his mother's mother's thirteen sib]Dgs. In fact, he sees her,

her husband and their four children about once a year when they

visit him and his family in California. He spent a few weeks

with them in Montreal during the past summer. However, upon

being asked to name some of his grandmother's sisters and/or

brothers, he was unable to do so. The explanation for this

seems to lie, not in lack of contact, but in lack of kinship

education. What also prevents the child from associating his

grandmother and her sister _is the discrepancy in age between

fue two women. His grandmother ls sixt y-four years old and her

slster ls fort y-six years old. One could be the daughter of

the other. In fact, the latter sister is almost the same age

as this informant's mother and, therefore, is MoSt likely per­

ceived by him as being of her generation. These facts indicate

that in addition to the amount of' contact with kin, another

factor influencing kin knowledge is kinship education.

Informant 5 is a special case. As indicated in

the chart on page fifteen (TABLE I), he is the son of in~ormant

L·· 30

l' s brother and therefore of the "second bed". AlI infor-

mants in this sample were rated on their knowledge of aIl

"three beds". As there were many more descendants from the

"first bed", it is understandable that informants 2,3, and 4,

who are of this bed, know more kin than informant 5, who is

of the "second bed'·. An in-depth analysis of this phenomenon

of the "three beds" will be made later in this chapter, in

the section on the range of the kin uni verse.

There is a great difference between the amount

of kin knowledge possessed by informants 1,2,3, and 4, and

informants 5,6,7,8,9, and 10. These informants, as mentioned

above, belong to four different generations. If the explana­

tbn of the difference in kin knowledge lay solely in the gene-

ration gap, what would explain the lack of difference in kin

knowledge between informant l and informants 2,3,and 4, who

are of the fourth and third generations respectively? And,

what wou Id explain the difference between informants 2,3,4 and

informant 5, who are of the same generation? The full expla­

nation seems to lie elsewhere than in the generational diffe­

rence. There seem to be important additional factors that

are common to informants 1,2,3 and 4, but are not present

among the rest of the informants.

One important factor appears to be the size of

each informant's family of orientation2, in which the basic

2. Family of orientation means EGO, his parents and siblings.

31

variable 1s the number of s1bl1ngs. Informant 1 1s from a

fam1ly of f1ve s1bl1ngs. In addition, her mother had four

ch1ldren by a prev10us marr1age and her father ni ne ch1ldren

by h1s prev10us marr1age. Therefore, this informant has,-in

effect, seventeen brothers, s1sters, half-brothers and half­

s1sters, who aIl l1ved together at one t1me or another. In­

formants 2,3,4 are from a family of fourteen s1blings. On

the other hand, informant 5 1s from a fam1ly of three, infor­

mant 6 from a fam1ly of two, informant 7 from a fam1ly of

three, informant 8 from a fam1ly of four, informant 9 from a

fam1ly of four, and iriformant 10 from a fam1ly of three

Sibl1ngs.3

TABLE III that follows 1s an illustration of

this.

3. An add1t1onal factor, the number of s1bl1ngs in each 1nformant's parents' families, was also invest1gated. No clear pattern could be deduced, however, and no hypothes1s covering these more remote relat1onsh1ps has been formulated.

( ('

TABLE III

Number of lmmedlate kln

Generat.lons 4 3

Informants 1 2 3 4 5

No. of slb11ngs: lnformant's 17 13 13 13 2 generatlon*

No. of slb11ngs: lnformants' 5 8 8 8 4 parents' generatton**

* thls does not 1nc1ude the 1nformant ** th1s does not 1nc1ude the 1nformant's parents

2 •

6 7 8

1 2 3

13 13 13

1

9

3

1

r

10

2

0

Vol 1\)

L

33

The hypothesis l am proposing is that extent of

kin know1edge is great1y inf1uenced by the number of sib1ings

(brothers, sisters) in one's fami1y of orientation. As

shown in TABLE II, this exp1ains the differences in the

extent of kin know1edge between informants 1,2,3,~, and infor­

mants 5,6,7,8,9,10. The support that TABLE III offers for this

hypothesis tends to disprove the exp1anation that differentia1

kin know1edge is duc to generation gaps and. indicates that dif­

ferentia1 fami1y size is more relevant for exp1aining differences

in kin know1edge. In other words, the difference is not beoause

informants are from different generations, but beoause they

are from fami1ies of different sizes, regard1ess of the gene­

ration to whioh ··they be1ong. This is i11ustrated by infor-

mant 1 and informants 2,3,~ who are from different generations,

but who be10ng to fami1ies of simi1ar size and whose.: kin know-

1edge is similar, and by them and informants 5,6,7,8,9,10

who are a1so of different generations but of different fami1y

sizes and whose kin know1edge is different. The 1arger the

size of one's fami1y of orientation, ·the 1arger one's total

kin know1edge tends to be.

This hypothesis is direot1y re1ated to one

mentioned previous1y: that the amount of kin know1edge is

inf1uenced by the amount of contact with kin. Siblings are

the kin with whom one is usua11y in most oontact, if not

during adu1thood, then at 1east during chi1dhood. This a1so

supports the previous hypothesis that the age at which one is

in contact with kin is not a factor inf1uencing know1edge of

kin.

The fact that two women out of ten informants

have the most extensive know1edge of kin, strong1y supports

Firth, Hubert and Forge's (1970, p. 161) finding that women

are more know1edgeab1e about their kin than are men and

Philippe Garigue's statement that women's know1edge of kin

is more extensive than men's (1970, p. 68). This a1so supports

Firth, Hubert and Forge's (1970, p. 139) theory that women are

usua11y "kin keepers" or "kin repositories", who 'tact as re-

taining mechanisms for kin know1edge". "Kin keepers" will

be discussed in greater detail in Chapter III. Given the

above facts, l would hypothésize that women are more prone to

be "kin keepers" than men are.

b. Partial knowledge

The majority of instances where informants had

only partial knowledge of kin, that is, when they knew only

the'name or surname of th~ir kin, were affines of the infor-

mant's consanguines, especially one or two generations removed

from that of the informant.

This leads me to hypothesize that affines of

consanguines, especially one or two generatmnB removed from

an' informant, are less 1ike1y to be remembered by their full

35

name, than are other kin.

c. Quarter knowledge

The majority of instances of quarter knowledge

of kin were cases of informants not recalling either the

Christian or family name of kin that were generally two or

three generations removed from them. They knew these people

as kin by their genealogical position only. For example, in­

formant 4 knows that her sister's daughter is married and has

a female child, no more.

These data suggest that kin two or three gene­

rations removed from that of an informant are Most likely to

be known as kin by their genealogical position only and not

as persons with names and personalities.

2. Composition of Kin Universe

This section seeks toqualify kin recall even

- further by distinguishing between recall of consanguines and

recall of affines and between recall of live and dead kin.

a. Consanguines and affines

The following table represents, in absolute

numbers, each informant's qualified knowledge of consanguines

versus affines.

(' ( ('

TABLE IV

Qua1ified know1edge of consanguines and affines

Generation 4 3

Informants 1 2 3 4 5

c. A. Co A.- c. A. c. A. c. A •

Full know1edge .2.2 25 1Q. 22 109 29 1.2 21 .lZ :7

Partial knowledge 1 6 0 1 1 l 1 l 0 1 Quarter knowledge 6 4 1 0 7 8 8 8 ,:7 1.2 -No knowledge .1§. 17 .§! 14 20 14 ~ 26 51 11

Generation 2 1

Informants 6 7 8 9 10

C. A. C. A. C. A. C. A. C. A.

Full know1edge 44 13 1±2 9 JQ. 7 8 1 6 0 - -Partial know1edge 0 1 1 1 1 l 0 ,g, 2 0

Quarter knowledge 6 4 l.Q. 3 1 2 0 0 2 1

No knowledge 1Q. 53 il 41 ~ 49 ~ 56 124 53 ---------c: consanguines A: affines

The numbers indicated are absolute numbers. The table shou1d read: informant l's full kin knowledge is made up of 96 consanguines and 25 affines •

. : -.::" ... ;. '';:·;1.r..::::~;:.:·~ : '~~~_. '';'.~~~:--;.-,~:--':'! ._- -,-- -- -,··-·-~~ .. -.:,qf' .• V\R,;r4~~~~~-'-~~~.!i1I1"if;ilI/lIJD:I!I"'--""----

'u)

0--

-.~---~--

L

37

TABLE IV indicates that, on average, the full

kin knowledge of informants 1 to 10 inclusive, included 83%

consanguines and 17% affines, or a ratio of four consanguines

to one affine. This ratio is somewhat higher than Firth,

Hubert and Forge's (1970, p. 163) finding of three consan­

guines to one affine. However, given that the kin universe

in this sample was controlled, these data cannot be compared

with those of Firth, Hubert and Forge.

Partial knowledge, on the average, consisted

of 22% consanguines and 78% affines, or a ratio of approxima­

tely one consanguine to four affines. Quarter knowledge, on

the other hand, was in the ratio of one to one. (50%-50,%). No

knowledge of kin had a ratio of approximately three consan­

guines to two affines (64'%-36,%). In summary, the average

ratio of knowledge of consanguines to affines is as follows

for each category of kin knowledge:

TABLE V

Ratio of consanguines to affines

Consanguines Affines

Full knowledge 4 1

Partial knowledge 1 4

Quarter knowledge 1 1

No knowledge 3 2

TABLE V indicates that consanguines tend to

be either fully known or knownnot at aIl, whereas, affines

have a tendency to be partially known or not at a1lo Further­

more, both consanguines and affines are equally heard of, but

not known, in the sense of my definition of quarter knowledge.

On the basis of these facts, l would hypothesize

that in this sample consanguines are more likely to be fully .

known and recalled, whereas affines are more likely to be but

partially known and recalled.

b. Dead kin versus living kin

TABLE VI, which fOllows, illustrates each infor­

mant's full knowledge of kin as weIl as lack of knowledge of

his or her living kin versus his or her dead kin. TABLE VII

converts these absolute figures into percentages to facilitate

the analysis.

r

Generation 4

Informants l

1. d.

Full know1edge 82 39

No know1edge 46 1

Generation

Informants 6

1. d.

Full knowledge 51 6

No knowledge 80 43

~- ----

l, living d: dead

(

TABLE VI

Recall of living versus dead k1n

3

2 3

1. d. 1. d. 1.

68 24 100 38 13

12 23 23 11 56

2

1 8

1. d. 1. d. 1.

52 6 35 2 9

69 43 95 46 131

4

d.

23

19

1

9

d.

0

49

-

5

1.

33

90

10

1.

6

~29

d.

11

32

d.

0

48

(

\,.,J ~

The numbers indicated are absolute numbers and not percentages.

_.:". __ " ~~- :.::.~' :,-,- r-;.: ,._-. .. -.,;-,.""";;..t ... ...--.._~---,---_. ·_-_.w"<_ .... ,....Ol"",;.:;;~~ ... -~~Ç'~.".~:-~.rs"itt-;A~~-.......... ~:.. • .a ... --_ •• ------.. _

L·

40

Reduc1ng TABLE VI above to percentages of the

total of the two categor1es of know1edge ( full know1edge and

no knowledge), and l1m1t1ng the table to knowledge of dead

k1n only, the results of the analysis become much c1earer.

They are as follows:

TABLE VII

Full knowledge and No knowledge of dead k1n

Generat10n 4 3 2 1

Informants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Full knowledge 32% 26% 27% 24%' 25% 10% 11% 5% 0% 0%

No knowledge 14 25 35 26 27 36 39 33 28 27

In other words, 32% of 1nformant l's full know­

ledge of k1n 1s of dead k1n, whereas 14% of her lack of kin

knowledge concerns dead k1n.

An average ·of 27% of aIl k1n recal1ed by infor­

mants 1,2,3,4,5 are dead k1no Unfortunately, we cannot truly

compare th1s f1nd1ng w1th F1rth, Hubert and Forge's (1970,

41

p.' 162) f1nd1ngs that, on the average, only 34-35% of

people's k1n knowledge concerns dead k1n because a d1fferent

proport1on of the k1n un1verse 1n th1s study m1ght actually

have d1ed 1n comparison to F1rth, Hubert and Forge's k1n un1-

verse. However, l agree w1th the1r explanat10n of the low

recall of dead kin versus a11ve kin:

fI •••• no person recollects his complete genealog1cal un1verse at least for more than a few generat10ns; witt1ngly or un­w1tt1ngly he makes some selection from a range of poss1ble k1n. In su ch selec­tion the dead would seem to be at a disad­vantage, since strong t1es of sentiment for -.their memory are likely to operate only for a few of them, usually those who have been closest to EGO. fI

(1970, p. 162)

The fact that there ex1sts no s1gnificant

d1fference in number of dead kin recalled by males (1nformants

2 and 5) and females (1nformants l,3,and 4) in th1s sample

also agrees w1th F1rth, Hubert and Forge's (1970,p. 163)

find1ng that women do not remember the1r dead k1n more than

men do.

Informants 6,7,8's knowledge of dead k1n

( 10%, 11% and 5% of total k1n knowledge respect1vely) rates

much lower than that of informants 1,2,3, and 4 and also much

lower than Firth, Hubert and Forge's average knowledge of

dead kin. The explanation for th1s 1s 1dent1cal to that for

42

the difference in total kin knowledge between informants

1,2,3,4, who had a high total of k~n knoWledge and informants

6,7,8, who had a lower total of kin knowledge, namely that

the extent of kin knowledge is greatly influenced by the size

of one's family of orientation. As people grow old, their

parents and parents' siblings die. The larger one's origi­

nal family of orientation, the more extensive a person's

eventual possible knowledge of dead kin.

There is another factor that explains infor­

mants 6,7,and 8's small amount of knowledge of gead kin.

Knowledge of kin basically covers two or three generations,

one's own, that of one's parents and that of one's children,

if one has any. AlI the kin of informants 6,7,8 are still

relatively young (very few are over sixty-five). This also

partially explains the fact that informants 9 and 10 know

no dead kin at aIl. These informants are thirteen and six-

teen years old, respectively. AlI the kin they know are one

or two generations above them and aIl are still alive.

Another factor that can influence the lack of

knowledge of dead kin by younger informants in a family is

the absence of the teaching of kin knowledge by parents and

eIders. Interviews with the informants in this sample revealed

this to be the case for informants 6,7,8,9, and 10. None of

these informants recalled their parents talking about dead

relatives and teaching them facts about these relatives.

L

Informant 5's knowledge of kin comprises 25%

dead kin, almost as many as informants 2,3,4. Yet, he is

not from a large family of orientation. Informant 5's exten­

sive knowledge of dead kin can,be explained, however, by the

fact that the great majority of kin known to him (he is fifty­

three years old) are one and two generations above his own.

Many of these kin are dead. In addition, thi~ __ informant has

very few close kin one and two generations below his own, who

would sdd to his potential knowledge of live kin.

3. Depth of kin universe: knowledge of generations twice removed and further.

·/rhis section deals with knowledge of the gene­

rations above an informant's basic family and that of his

parents and those below his children's generation.

Firth, Hubert and Forge (1970, p. 164), speaking

of generations above that of the parents of an informant, state

that "the element of personal knowledge rapidly diminishes and

soon reaches a point at which any personal contact between

informant and kinsman specified was impossible. 1f They limit

their hypothesis to generations past and their concept of

impossible contact with kinsmen seems to rest on the death

of older kinsmen. l would not limit the causes of impaired

L 44

contact to death. Extending the argument l alr~8.dy applied

to full knowledge of consanguines, l would propose that

absence of contact, regardless of cause, tends to diminish

or suppress kin knowledge and, furthermore, that, this applies

to the generations below those of an informant, as weIl as

those above his.

l have, therefore, measured the depth of an

informant's kin universe by exsmining his knowledge of kins­

men two and three generations below his own; in other words,

of aIl kin of his grandparents' generation and above, as weIl

as aIl kin of his grandchildren's generation and below, if

such kin existe The reason for my decision to include aIl

kin of the latter categories is that l believe that people

of the grandparents generation, especially grandparents'

brothers and sisters, are likely not to be in contact with

grandchildren, grandnieces and grandnephews. This happened

in the case of informant l, who is the half-sister of infor­

mants 2,),4's mother and thus the gre~t.~aunt of informants

6,7,8 and the great-great-aunt of informants 9 and 10.

TABLE VII Indlcates clearly that knowledge of

great grandparents ls non-existent.

r-'-

( r

TABLE VIII

Full knowledge of generations twice removed and further

Generation 4 3 2 l

Informants l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

4 gen. above EGO l' 2' l'

3 gen. above EGO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 gen. above EGO 0 4 8 6 2 7 4 l l l

2 gen. below EGO 34 9 15 8 0 - - - - -3 gen. below EGO .

0 - - - - - - - - -.

The numbers represent full knowledge of kin only. , name of an ancestor without knowledge of exact generation, believed by aIl informants

who identified him to be the first arrived from France. ; these generations"are not born yet in relation to each informant.

)lank l have no complete information of these generations, My informants have none at aIl.

~

L

46

Informants 1,3,4 gave me the name of the man

whom they believe to be their ancestor from France. After

verification of official documents, however, l found that

only informant 3 correctly identified this ancestor. It

must be added that this informant studied the genealogy of

her family. The ancestor identified by informants land 4

is the same person. He, however, was only the paternal grand­

father of informant l and the paternal grandfather of infor­

mant 4's mother.

Kin of the ten informants' grandparents' gene­

ration are not widely known. Knowledge is restricted to

father's father, father's mother, mother's mother, mother's

father and a few great aunts·and uncles. Further interviews

revealed the cause of this lack of knowledge as being absence

of contact with kin in each informant's grandparents' genera­

tion, and lack of transmission of knowledge of these kin by

parents and grandparents to their children and grandchildren.

Philippe Garigue in his 1954-1958 research found that know­

ledge of grandparents' generation was often reduced to two or

four individuals, whereas, that of great-grandparents was

reduced to one. (1970, p. 55).

As informants 6,7,8,9, and 10 are too young

to have grandchildren, they are omitted from this discussion.

The other informants' grandchildren and those of consanguinal

relatives of the same generation are fairly weIl known, excépt

L

47

in the case of lnformant 1. This informant ls the only one

to have kln three generations below her own. 'She does not

have any knowledge of these kin. This can be explained by

the fact that these kin were not her great-grandchildren but

those of her half-sister. In addition, Shé has had contact

'\'lith only one of them, an infant, on one occasion'- to my

knowledge.

This evidence supports the hypothesis that the

depth, in terms of generations above and below, of one's

knowledge of kin ls greatly lnfluenced by one's contact or

lack of contact with kin.

4. Bange of kin unlverse

This sectlon examinés how far kin knowledge

extends both laterally and in depth. One of the peculiarities

of this sample is that, although aIl ten informants are related

consangulneally, they are aIl not part of a common single line

of descente As mentioned previously, the apical male had two

wlves who bore him nlne and five children respectlvely:. His

second wife was a widow who already had four children of her

own when she married him. As a result, this apical male's

chlldren and grandchildren and those of his wlves are classlfied

by aIl their kln, and aIl the informants in thls sample, as

being from what is referred to in French Canada as trois ~

: 1 1

1

1 1

1 1 i

i ~

~ ~ if r ~ l 1

î

f

~ 48

differents or "three different beds".

Schematically these "beds" can be delineated

as illustrated in TABLE IX which follows.

(-

Generat10ns 6

5

4

3

2

TABLE IX:

FIRST BED

•

('

Schemat1c representat10n of brea:!th and_-.depth of k1n 1pcluded 1n controlled k~n un1verse

~BED

1-

3RD BED

1

f1r~uT'a'1cal male 1 =::::;:::. Id w1 fe 1 ~ rr--- 1 2t w1fe' 8

w1fe

1 1 lst husband

1 T-YA"UI L.6-.~"

1 ~;;2)A=b 1 -SI

1 ~ 1

1 1 1

l - 4 ë Aà4 c=) .4 0 l 1 Il: male 0: female shaded symbo18: ead k1n ;:.: marr1age Dond :fI:: 1nformants ~: marr1age term1nated by death and followed by remarr1age

Th1s chart does not represent all the k1n 1ncluded 1n the controlled k1n un1verse. That 18 1llustrated 1n TABLE XX 1n the Appe~d1x.

r

~ \()

L·

50

The controlled kin universe ( TABLES XIX,XX,

pages 92, 93 -106) includ.es the following people who are repre­

sented in the schematic chart above: the children of the

"first bed", their children, their children's children and

their children's children's children and the children from

the "second bed", their children and their children's chilâren,

(the generation below this latter one is not yet born). It

includes, however, only the children of the "third bed" and

their children, no further. The reason for this is that

contact has been lost with these kin and information about

their descendants was not available at the time of this

study. l know, however, from interviews, that offspring of

the "third bed" are referred to as cousins by offspring of

the "first bed" and "second bed" and therefore, are considered

as kin.

The manner in which l will evaluate the genea­

logical brea&nas weIl as the depth of my informants' kin

knowledge is not, however, by assessing each informant's

knowledge of his or her kin from the three different "beds".

Instead, l have"chosen to measure the range of kin universe

by quantifylng the lineal, collateral and affinaI links bet­

ween each informant and the kin of which he or she has know­

ledge. A lineal link signifies kin above and below EGO in a

direct consanguineal line; a collateral link means siblings

of kin related to EGO in a direct consanguineal line; an

51

affinaI link means kin related to EGO's consanguines, whether

lineal or collateral, by marriage. This method·:of composite

measurement is not one used by the members of the controlled

kin universe, nor is it a measure common in our western culture ,

to define one's kin. Rather, it is a straightforward quanti­

tative measure used by the author to provide a uniform basis

for comparison of each of the ten informants' range of know-

ledge of his or her kin uni verse.

TABLE X represents the range of each informant's

knowledge of kin. As explained previously, consanguines of

affines were not included in the controlled kin uni verse.

r ( ('

TABLE X

Rangs of know1edgs of k1n

Generat10n 4 3 2 1

Informants l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Full know1edse

(no. of 11nks removed from EGO)

1 6 18 16 17 7 8 6 5 6 5 2 10 43 42 40 Il 15 12 9 2 1 3 25 20 47 25 1 25 28 18 1 -4 43 7 15 Il 7 6 Il 4 - -5 31 4 13 3 16 - 1 1 - -6 6 - 5 - 2 3 - - - -7 - - - - - - - - - -

Part1a1 and quartsr know1sdge

, 1 - - - - - - - - - -2 - - - 1 - - 1 2- -'

1 1 :3 5 2 7 13 3 1 3 6 1 2 4 :3 1 4 3 - 9 13 5 - 5 5 8 1 1 2 4 1 4 - - -6 1 - 6 1 15- - - - - -7 - - 1 - 3 - - - - -

EGO 1s each 1nformant 1n h1s/her numbered column.

-"_ .. --"._~._--'------"";""~~-=---...\.t"'::-;''T.'<IT:::~~~''' _______ _

~ N

53

The statlstics in TABLE X indicate that most

informants have extensive knowledge of kin who are one to

four links removed from them. Informants 9 and 10 are an

exception, their full knowledge only covers kin two links

removed from them.

The reason why fewer kin are known who are

one link removed than who are two and three links removed

from EGO is that the only kin that are in the former category

are those of one's families of orientation and procreation,

if there are any. As explained in TABLE III, page 32, in

this sample the informants' families of orientation varied

from one to seventeen kin.

Informant 1 knows many kin five links removed

from hero This is explained by the fact that she is the

only informant of her generation in the sample, and, because

she ~nows the youngest generation in the controlled kin

universe. In other words, kin who are two and three links

removed from informants 2,3,4, are three ànd four links

removed from informant 1. In addition, as informant 1 is

from the .. second bed 1', this removes her even further, in

terms of number of links, from these kin. Therefore kin

two and three links removed from informants 2,3,4, are four

and five links removed from informant 1.

Informant 3, who is the most knowledgeable of

aIl, knows kin six links removed from her. Furthermore, this

distance is not a result of her being one generation further

L.

54

removed or one "bed" further away than the other informants

in the sample, as was informant one. Informant 5 is also .

one "bed" further away than the other informants in the sample,

this explains why he has knowledge of kin five links removed

from him, whereas most other informants have knowledge of

kin four links removed from them.

Partial and quarter knowledge, on the average,

seems to be centered on kin three and four links removed fro~

EGO, except in the case of informant 5, where it is six links

removed. (This was explained above). These kin are from the

"first" and "third beds" and are mostly affines of consanguines,

thus explaining their remoteness.

From these facts, it seems that full knowledge

of kin is concerned mostly with kin one, two and three links

removed from EGO, and that partial and quarter knowledge, on

the average, is of kin three and four links removed from EGO.

These findings agree with Philippe Garigue's

1954-1958 findings that knowledge of kin includes many more

kin within one's own family of procreation (one link removed

by the present criteria) than any other kin.(1970, p. 54-55).

As my criteria for assessing the breadth and

depth of kin knowledge were different than those used by

Firth, Hubert and Forge, it was impossible to compare my

findings with theirs.

i

1

1 i f

1 ~

- 55 -

CHAPTER III FACTORS AFFECTING KIN KNOWLEDGE

'---.-.

L 56

This chapter will look into.the importance of

various factors influencing kin knowledge, such as, the availa­

bility of documentary information. It will seek to discover

the influence of family estates in the promotion of family

gatherings. Geographical distance between kin will be examined

as a factor promoting and/or hindering kin knowledge. Further­

more, each informant's effective kin set will be determined

and analyzed as to its influence in the knowledge of kin.

Kin gatherings will also be analyzed. concerning their influence

on kin knowledge.

1. Documentary information

The amount of documentary information available

to the informants in this sample was not only limited, but

not equally available to aIl the informants. Informant 2,

who is the first son of a family of fourteen, has in his

possession an official family genealogy which dates back to

the arrivaI from France of his father's ancestor as weIl as

his mother's ancestor. This genealogy has been seen by infor­

mants 3,4 and 6. However, of these, only informant 3 has

57

retained any correct kin knowledge concern1ng her ancestors.

l believe that this is due to the fact that this informant

makes an effort to retain kin knowledge prov1ded either by

official genealogies or other documents. In other words,

she is what Firth, Hubert and Forge refer to as a "kin keeper".

(1970, p. 139).

This same informant (3), also has in her posses­

sion some letters written by a maternaI cousin (the apical

malels sister's daughter), between 1930 and 1935, giving

details of life at that time on the family farm. Also record­

ed in these letters, are the names of aIl the kinsmen who

gathered there to visit their ancestor. These letters had

not been s.een by the other informants at the time of the

study. Regardless of possessing these letters, however, in­

formant 3 had not recently refreshed her memory with the kin

knowledge contained in them. This is because she had lent

them to a cousin who Just recently found them after a two

year disappearance. Therefore, it is highly possible that

the information had once been memorized, but was forgotten

over the years without the documentary evidence, i.e., the

letters themselves being present to sustain it.

20 Family estate

After the death of the apical male in August

58

1932, the ancestral fam1ly farm and land at St. Michel, near

Quebec City, was sold to a distant cousin. This brought to

an end the era of large family gatherings on the ancestral

land and no doubt was one of the factors that contributed

to the reduced amount of kin knowledge possessed by the infor­

mants of this samp1e, in that, as kin no longer had a focal

gathering place, frequent contact between them was no longer

structured.

3. Geographical location and social contact

Another important factor in kin knowledge is

the geographical location of one's kin. The informants in

this samp1e are all from Montreal, with the exception of infor­

mant 2, who retired five years ago and moved from Montreal to

a town thirty-five miles outside the city, and informant 10,

who resides in Los Angeles, California.

TABLE XI is in the form of a map showing the

place of residence of all the living and dead kin included

in the controlled kin uni verse.

('

st. Jerome X 02 +0

o : live kin + : dead kin

019 + 9

(

TABLE XI

Geographical location of kin in the controlled kin universe

PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

07 ~ ~St. Vallier + 8 )CSt. Michel 0 9

. Gregoire 0 10 + 14

088 + 7

+ J

.)( Concord, New Hampshire 0 8 +2

X Los Angeles 0 5 +0

r

\J\ \Q

60

Taking Montreal as a base, the following table of distance

can be drawn up.

TABLE XII

Geographical distance between kin in the controlled kin universe

Montreal 35 miles

100 miles

200 miles

250 miles

4,000 m~les

Live kin

Dead kin

88

7

2

o

10 35

31

8

2

Although it might be expected that greater

5

o

geographical distance between kin would reduce contact and

therefore promote a lesser knowledge of kin, this is not

the case in this sample. The kin who live farthest away,

i.e., in Los Angeles, California, are known to every infor-

mant in this sample, except informant l, although they have

been away from Montreal for six years. Informant l does not

know the three children living in Los Angeles (informant 10

is one of them). In this case, however, lack of contact is

not due to geographical, so much as genealogical, distance

L·

61

since they are the great-grandchildren of her half-sister.

Kin living in Concord, New Hampshire, are

partially known by informants l,J, and 4. The consanguines

are known by their full name, the affines by their genealo­

gical position only; that is, they are known to exist, no

more. Kin in the family's ancestral village of St. Michel,

near Quebec City, are not known, as they are affines and

distant cousins. Those in neighboring St. Vallier are known

by informants 1 and J, as they are of the "third bed tt and

are consanguines and affines of the apical male's second

wife.

Kin in Quebec·City, however, are weIl known.

Frequent contact occurs between the Montreal and Quebec City

kin. The reason for this, is that the two mothers of these

kin were favourite sisters and frequently visited each other.

They also exchanged children for visits and holidays. Kin

in St. Gregoire are not well known. No contact is maintained

with them. The head of the family is the eldest son of the

apical male and his first wife. He is a church bQadle and

has not attracted visits from his kin. The Saint Jerome

residents (i~formant 2 and his wife) are known by all.

The kin living in Montreal do not aIl maintain

contact with one another nor do they aIl know one another.

Active contact is between the brothers and sisters of infor­

mants 2,J,4 and some of thelr children. As mentioned pre­

viously, informant 6 (the child of informant 2) is not socia-

L

62

b1e and, therefore, 1s not 1n contact w1th her k1n, whereas

1nformant 7 1s. Informant, 1, a1though from the "second bed"

as opposed to the IIfirst bed", of which informants 2,3,4,6,7,

8,9,10 are descendants, keeps in fairly close contact with

these k1n. Being an e1derly single woman, she is always

1nvit"ed to family gatherings of the "f1rst bed" and the

"second bed", although separate1y, as descendants of the two

"beds" are not in social contact with each other. They know

each other, however, by genealogical pos1t1on if not by full

name, as was demonstrated 1n the case of informant 5, who 1s

of the "second bed" •

The follow1ng hypothes1s can be drawn from these

facts: geographical distance is not an important factor 1n

knowledge of kin wh en there is a strong motive for social

contact between kin, such as keep1ng in contact w1th siblings,

parents, grandparents, cousins, e1ther by actual v1sits, or

by telephone and/or letters because of a feeling of obliga­

tion toward one's kin or because of friendship t1es with

them.

Philippe Garigue states that:

" •••• it seems that geographical movement or rural-urban "migration" does not hinder relations' between kinll •

( 1970, p. 57)

63

4. Period of grandparents death

Firth, Hubert and Forge (1970, p. 136) state

that a person's know1edge of his kin of grand parental genera­

tion, i.e., grandparents and their sib1ings, is re1ated to

the age of that person at the death of his/her grandparents.

That is, if one's grandparents die when one is very young,

it 1s high1Y likely that one will not have met them, or will

not remember them. l believe this to be a factor in kin

know1edge. Indeed, in the case of informants 6,7,8 it is an

important factor. These informants know but one of their

two grandparents, the other having died when they were very

young. (Their other two grandparents are not included in the

controlled kin universe as they were affines of one of their

parents). As a resu1t, these informants knew some of their

gran~mother's siblings, but none of her dead husband's

siblings.

Informants 2,3,4 knew their grandfather", the

apical male and his second wife. They did not know their

grandmother, who was the apical ma1e's first w1fe. Informant

4 spent an entire summer vacation on the ancestral farm with

her grandfather when she was twelve (forty-eight years ago).

She was living with the chi1dren of the "second bed" with

whom she has since lost contact. Regardless of this contact

with her grandfather, her knowledge of his siblings is very

poor.

64

From thls, l would hypothesize that knowledge

of grand par entaI siblings is influenced by the tlme of an

informant's grandparents' death in relation to this informant's

age. However,· this is not the only factor Influencing this

type of knowledge. Actual contact with grand parental siblings

is also very important in promoting knowledge of them, as is

verbal transmission of facts concerning them.

5. Verbal transmission

A very important factor in kin knowledge is the

transmission by one's mother and father, their siblings and/or

their parents, of information concerning kin: names, persona­

lities, genealogical positions, traditionsl.and related matters.

This is especially important as the size of the family of

orientation diminishes, particularily in large urban areas.

Ohe of the reasons Informants 1,2,3,4 have a wider knowledge

of kin than informants 6,7,8,9,10, is because they are members

of much larger familles of orientation. These larger families

of orientation increase the members' knowledge of kin. Another

reason, and an important one, is that their parents reputedly

often spoke about their kin and of the genealoglcal links

between varlous kin. It is possible that these two reasons

are linked, that is, it is possible that there is likely to

be more talk of family in larger families than ln small families.

In addition to being from a small family of

orientation, which provlded less contact with kin, as there

were fewer immediate kin, informants 6,7,8,9,10 were never

instructed as to who their great aunts and uncles were, let

alone who their first cousins were and are. "They have no idea

who their ancestors were because no one ever told them.

Information gathered during in-depth interviews

revealed that the actual transmission of facts about kin took

place in the home, as mentioned above, and/or during family

gatherings. Both types of occasions were more or less infor­

maI, though the home teaching tended to be somewhat more

structured and formalized, if it took place at aIl. Oral

transmission of kinship facts during family gatherings was

informa.l, in that it consisteq of the older generations,

versus the younger generation exchanging news about kin.

This was not aimed at educating the children, but more so at

informing the adults about already known kinsmen.

From this, l would hypothesize that in the

absence of actual contact, verbal transmission becomes a

very important factor in the acquisition of kin knowledge,

and that it tends to be most common where familY gatherings

are frequent and bring together large numbers of kin.

Other methods of verbal transmission are dis­

cussed later in this chapter. However, the present analysis

is far from exhaustive.

~. 66

6. Traditions

In the family of informants 2,J,4, each child

was taught to keep in touch with his maternaI cousins by

exchanging Christmas cards with the cousin who occupied the

same seniority rank among siblings as he or she did. As the

family that these three informants belonged to was the largest

(fourteen siblings) and as the other families had but four

children, only the first four siblings practiced this custom.

These included informants 2 and J. This tradition promoted

kln knowledge among first cousins.

Another tradition was that of choosing a chiId's

godparents among his parents' siblings or the child's grand­

parents. Godparents are required by the Catholic church

(to which the majority of the kin in the controlled kin universe

belong) for a child to be christened. Contact was maintained

between the child and his godparents to ensure their love and

affection. Such contact promoted kin knowledge of these aunts,

uncies and grandparents. If a child's parents died, the god­

~arents were responsible, at least morally, for the child's

upbringing, his education and the fostering of his religious

beliefs.

TABLE XIII illustrates this practice. It lists

the godfathers and godmothers of each of the ten informants

in the sample.

TABLE XIII

Informants' 50dparents

Informants Godfather Godmother

1 father's son father's daughter (her half brother) (her half slster)

2 mother's slster's mother's slster husband.

3 father's 7th brother father's 7th brother's ~ wlfe

4 father's lst brother father's lst brother's wlfe

5 mother's father mother's mother

6 mother's father mother's mother

7 mother's slster's mother's s1ster husband

8 famlly fr1end mother's unmarr1ed s1ster

.,

9 mother's father mother's mother

10 father's father father's mother

68

It ls obvlous from TABLE XIII that all ten ln­

formants had some form of contact wlth one or two of thelr

kin by virtue of the fact that they were thelr godparents.

These kin were one or two generations above that of each

informant, except in the case of informant l, whose godpa­

rents were two of her half-siblings from the "first bed".

Because they were much older than she, they qualified as

responsible godparents.

In all cases, except informants'l and 8, the

godparents were man and wife. Informant lis gOdparents, as

seen above, were brother and sister, and informant 8's were

an unmarried aunt (informant 3) and a family friend.

7. Kin keepers

Firth, Hubert and Forge (1970, p. 139) define

a "kin keeper" as a "person, usually a woman, who made it

her special interest to keep posted with kin information and

to impart it to other kin". They also define it as a person

who "acts as a retaining mechanism for kin knowledge".

In my sample, informants 1 and 3 can be desi­

gnated as "kin keepers". My definition, however, would have

to differ slight1y from Firth, Hubert and Forge's, in that

these women do not accumulate kin information in order to

L· 69

impart it to other kin. Instead, they accumulate this know­

ledge as a hobby. If someone should. require 1nformation about

their k1n, either one of these women would gladly g1ve 1t.

Their reputat10n among the1r k1n, as l am fam1liar w1th it,

is one of being knowledgeable about kin. l was often told

by my informants when quest10n1ng them about their knowledge

of k1n "don't ask me, ask 1nformant l, or ask informant ),

she knows". In other wordf;l, what different1ates these 1nfor­

mants from those in F1rth, Hubert and Forge's sample is that

the women in this sample do not appear to accumulate informa­

tion about kin with the expressed purpose of being retain1ng

mechanisms or kinsh1p educators, nor for the prestige that

accompanies such a position, but rather for the1r own plea­

sure. The1r reputation among their kin does not stem from

them acting as educators but from the fact that they are the

eldest and thus that they know the generat10ns above them and

also because they are known to keep in touch with a large

number of kin no one else is in contact with.

8. Practices pertaining to knowledge of kin

Informant l, from the "second bed", has a

pecu11ar practice that she and her brothers and s1sters in­

vented, she claims. It is with reference to her mother's

70

brother's wives. AlI these women, consanguines as weIl as

affines, are referred to as aunt, which they rightfully are.

However, instead of the term aunt being followed either by

their surname or their Chr1stlan name, lt ls followed by

the1r husband's Chr1st1an name. FOF exampIe, Mary Smith who

is marrled to John Brown ls not referred to as Aunt Mary or

Aunt Brown, but as Aunt John. l dld not f1nd th1s pract1ce

anywhere else. Its efffects however, are revealed in th1s

informant's recall of these women. She has forgotten many

of the1r surnames and recalls only the1r husbands' Chr1st1an

names and some of the women's ma1den names. The latter l

cannot expIa1n.

There is also another pract1ce whlch seems to

be common to aIl lnformants in thls sample who have chl1dren,

or who are older and have no chl1dren, such as 1nformants I

and). Only lnformants 8, 9 and 10, who are too young to

have ch11dren, do not follow th1s pract1ce although they are

subjected to 1t by their eIders. The practlce 1s the follow-

1ng: when an older person 1n speaking to a kinsman, one or

two generatlons below his own, with reference to other kin,

the older person w111 qual~fy each k1n spoken of wlth the

kinsh1p term that the younger person should use followed by

the first name of the person referred to and not the kinship

term the older person would normally use. For example, infor­

mant 2, when speaking to h1s daughter (informant 6) about his

71

sisters and brothers refers to them as "Aunt Jeanne, Uncle

Paul", which are the kinship terms his daughter should use

and not those he uses wh en addressing these kin or wh en talk­

ing about them with his other siblings. In the same instance,

when talking to his grandaught,er (informant 9), informant 2

will refer to himself and his wife as grandfather and grand-

mother. This seems to be a mechanism, l am not certain whether

conscious or unconscious, to teach the younger generations the

proper kinship terms and relationships applieable to their

various kin.

9. Effective Kin Set

The effective kin set are kin with whom the

informants are in active social relations. Firth, Hubert

and Forge (1970) deseribe them as follows':

..... the sets of people ••• that are more than a name and a description, that the recognition of the relationship has some effect, however minimal, on the social life of the informant".

(1970, p. 195)

In an interview subsequent to the first kin

knowledge gathering interview, each informant was asked how

often within a period of one year he had contact of any kind

72

with the living kin he or she had reca11ed in the first inter­

view. The li st of kin obtained from him or her during this

interview was read out and each informant quantified his or

her contact situations with that kinsman or kinswoman, as

"very of ten" , "often", "not of ten" , and "never".

"Contact" was exp1ained as meaning face-to-face

encounters, te1ephon6 conversations and correspondence. It

did not inc1ude news of a kinsman gathered and transmitted

by a person other than the informant.

TABLE XIV quantifies the type of contact that

each of the ten informants has had in the past year (1970-71)

with the kin that he or she reca11ed in the first interview.

( (' r

TABLE XIV

Effective Kin Set

Generation 4 3 2 1

Informants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

CONTACT Verl. often

f.k. 17* 11 13 11 14 8 8 8 9 5 p.q.k. - - - - - - - - 2 -

% 18%** 16% 10% 12% 28% 13% 10% 17% 100% 38 Often

f.k. 4 3 4 12 2 3 11 11 - -p.q.k. - .. - .~- ~- -- -- 1 - - -

% 4% 4% 3% 14% 3% 5% 16% 23% - -Not often

f.k. 16 14 25 23 5 - 22 10 - 1 p.q.k. 1 - - 2 3 - 9 4 - 7

% 18% 21% 22% 29% 15% - 42% JO% - 62 % Never

f.k. 45 40 58 27 12 40 11 6 - -p.q.k. 12 1 18 14 16 10 10 8 - -% 60% 59% 65% 45% 54% 82% 32% 3e% - -

Total live k~n known .22 .22 118 ~ .8 .2! .~ !±1 li 1J

f.k.: full knowledge of kin p.q.k.: partial and quarter knowledge of kin ~: actual number of kin ~~: percentage of aIl kin known that informant has this kind of

contact with This table does not include kin who are dead, or died during the past vear.

'1 Yl

74 -

In summary, each informant's total effective

kin set represents the following percentage of his or her

total knowledge of living kin.

TABLE Xv.

Effective kin set as a percent-age of the total knowledge of living kin

Informants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Percentage 40% 41% 35% 55% 46% 18% 68% 70% 100% 100%

Some of these figures correspond with those

gathered by Firth, Hubert and Forge (1970) in their study,

others differ greatly. They found that, on the average, the

effective kin set of informants corresponded to "one-third of

the average number of live kin" known to these informants.

(Firth, Hubert and Forge, 1970, p. 196).

The statistics in TABLES XIV and XV seem to

indicate the fQllowing: informants 7,8,9 and 10's knowledge

of kin is ,much influenced by contact with kin, regardless of

its degree, as 70% and 100% of the kin known by these infor-

75

mants are people wlth whom they are in contact.

In terms of thelr knowledge of kln, lnformants

1,2, and 3 are the least lnfluenced by thelr contact with

ldnsmeru Informant 6 ls an exceptlonal case. As mentloned

prevlously, she rarely sees any kln or has contact wlth them,

except for her lmmedlate famlly. She was, however, forced to

be.ln contact wlth her kln as a chlld and most llkely remem­

bers some of these kln from thls early contact and frQm con­

versationE wlth her father (lnformant 2) about them.

The above facts would lead me to hypotheslze

that the knowledge of kln of younger informants ls more llkely

to be influenced by the presence or absence of contact with

kln, than ls the knowledge of kln among older informants.

Thls confirms the flndlngs in Chapter II, part 2, whlch revealed

that the younger informants knew fewer kin because they were

not in contact with many of their kin, nor did they receive

any information about kin with whom they were not in contact.

100 FamilY gatherings

Philippe Garigue states that: "kflowledge of kin

is the result of many factors, the main ones being the hOlidays,

family gat.herings, weddings and funerals". (1970, p. 55).

AlI the informants in the present sample were

asked to enumerate every family gathering they attended from

L· 76

August 1970 to September 1971, and aIl those to whloh they

had been invlted but did not attend. This was done to assess

the struotured oontaot wlth kln to whioh eaoh informant was

exposed durlng the oourse of a year, that ls, aIl of the oooa­

s~.ons when he or she oould have been in oontaot wi th a large

number of kin at one time.

There are three oategories of fam11y gatherings,

some of whioh the informants in the sample oould attend and

some of which they could not attend, beoause they were not

invlted. These oategories are the following:

Category A: family gatherings restrioted to kin of the "first bed".

Category B: faml1y gatherlngs restrlcted to kin of the "second bed".

Categ.,ry C: faml1y gatherlngs of kin of the "first bed" that were open to a few kin of the "second bed".

TABLE XVI be10w 11sts aIl fami1y gatherings

that ocoured from August 1970 to September 1971 incluslve1y.

TABLE XVII lndicates which lnformants attended whlch gatherings.

( (

TABLE XVI

Fami1Y gatheripgs

Kin attendance by generation

("

Category of

gathering Description of gatherings

Total 4 J 2 l

A 1. August, summer gathering at home of informant 4 !!± 13 l

C 2. November, funer al of relative No.26* Jl 2 19 10 1

C 3. December, gathering at home of relatives Nos. 62 &63 gz 1 16 9 1

B 4. December, Christmas among relatives of "2nd bed" 1& 2 6 8

B 5. March, Easter among relatives of "2nd bed" 1& 2 6 8

A 6. April, wedding of relative No. 49 .il 6 4 2

C 7. May, mother's day gathering at home of relatives Nos. 42 & 48

l! l 11 2

A 8. June, wedding of relative No. 60 II 5 8 3

C 9. September, funera1 of relative No. 65 (husband of Inf.7~ &2 17 12 **

B 10. Various birthdays, anniversaries among kin of "2nd bed" II 2 6 8

* the numbers correspond to those in TABLES XIX and XX. ** the chi1d of the deceased and his wife,Inf.7, was not at the funera1,she was too young.

-..J -..J

( C" (

TABLE XVII

Attendance of informants at fami1Y gatherinss

Generation 4 3 2 1

Informants 1 2 ·3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Category A gatherings .....,

00 1 0 x x 0 0

6 0 0 0 0 0

8 0 0 0 x 0

Category B 4 x x

5 x x

10 x x

category C 2 x x x x x x x x 0 * 3 x x x x x x * 7 x 0 x x 0 0 * 9 0 x x x 0 0 x x 0 *

79

Informant l is the one who attended the most

kin gatherings to which she was invited during a one year

span. (Six out of seven). She was invited to more kin gather­

ings than informant 5 because she keeps more in touch with

kin of the "first bedtl than does informant 5. The latter,

who is also of the"second bed" attended four out of the six

gatherings to which he was invited.

Informants J and 4 have each attended five out

of seven kin gatherings during the past year. The two gather­

ings they both missed were weddings of younger kin. Gifts

were sent, although they did not attend.

Informant 2 no longer attends many kin gather­

ings other than funerals and one yearly family"gathering at

Christmas time. The reason is that he does not like to travel

from his home in the country to the city, where Most gather­

ings are held, as it tires him tao much.

Informants 6 and 9, as mentioned previously,

do not have much contact with kin other than their family of

orientation. They do not attend large family gatherings,

except in the case of the funeral of an uncle, which was

attended by informant 6 this year. It was the first time in

years that she had been seen by kin, l was told in later inter­

views.

Informants 7 and 8 attend some family gatherings,

though not on a regular basis.

"-.. .. 80

These facts seem to indicate that attendance

at family gatherings during the past year (1970-71) by each

informant corresponds to the amount of kin .knowledge each of

them possesses. This tends to verify the hypothesis that

contact with kin increases knowledge of kin.

11. Weddings

This section examines the attendance at the

weddings of all the kin of generation 2 who are from the

"first bed". The purpose is to attempt to shed some light

on attendance at family gatherings and the reasons motivating

it through the years.

There are two categories of weddings: At not

many kin are invited; B, many kin are invited. Of a total

of eleven weddings over the past seventeen years, seven

belonged to category A and four to category B. As the number

of guests invited is a personal matter, the first category (A)

will not be analyzed as to reasons motivating attendance.

Category B includes weddings to which all the aunts and uncles

of the kin being married were invited. This totalled between

twenty and twenty-one,affines included. The attendance by

year at the weddings is set forth in TABLE XVIII.

~

Year

1954

1962

1969

1971

81

TABLE XVIII

Wedding attendance 1954-1971

Total number of kin invited

20

2G

21

20

Total number of kin who attended

19

20

13

5

There is obviously a sharp decline in attend­

ance of invited kin from the 1962 to the 1969 wedding and an

even greater decline from the 1969 to the 1971 wedding. Inter­

views revealed that kin preferred to send gifts only, if they

were invited. They did not want to incur the cost of a wed­

ding outfit and/or they simply sa id they had more important

things to attend to, such as meetings with friends, or matters

pertaining to their family of orientation.

These findings, and especially the interviews

82

surrounding them, revealed the growing d.etachment from

kin-centered occupations and their ensuing obligations.

More distant kin no longer seem to be as important as one's

fami1y of procreation. In addition, they are becoming 1ess

important than one's persona1 friends.

- 83 -

CRAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS

.. .

84

The purpose of this thesis was to attempt to

formulate hypotheses that would shed some light on the pro­

blem of differing extents of knowledge that consanguines have

of their kin. The hypotheses were formulated in the light

of data gathered from ten informants, over a period of one

year.

Analysis of the data reveals that knowledge

of kin is influenced by two major factors: a) actual contact

with kin, and b) verbal transmission of facts concerning kin

from one kinsman,to another.

Amount of kin knowledge is directly related to

the amount of contact with,kin, regardless of the actual time

of contact in an individual's life span. Furthermore, the

difference in the amount of kin knowledge among individuals

is not influenced by the difference in their generational

~ositions, but by the size of their families of orientation.

The larger the size of one's family of orientation, the

larger one's total knowledge of kin. As siblings are the

kin one is usually most in contact with, if not during adult­

hood, at ~ea$t during childhood, a greater number of siblings

promoted a greater knowledge of kin.

L·

85

Women are more knowledgeable about kln th~n

are men. Also, ln agreement wlth Firth, Hubert and Forge's

findings (1970), this study has found that women are more

prone to be "kin keepers" than are men. Women, however, do

not remember dead kin more than men do.

Affines of consanguines are less likely to be

remembered by thelr full name, than are other kln. Also,

the depth, ln terms of generatlons above and below one's own,

of one's knowledge of kln, ls greatly influenced by an lndlvi~

dual's contact or lack of contact with these kln. Therefore,

the period of one's grandparents' death ls an lmportant

factor influencing knowledge of kin.

The tradition of chooslng kinsmen as a chlld's

godpa~ents, promoted contact between these kinsmen and the

child, and therefore, promoted knowledgeof kln. The present

study also revealed that, when there ls a strong motlve for

soc laI contact wlth kin, geographlcal distance ls not an

important factor limltlng knowledge of kin. The amount of

contact wlth kin is also lnfluenced by the frequency of

structured occaslons promoting encounters among groups of

kin, regardless of size.

In the partlcular French Canadlan famlly dis­

cussed ln this thesls, two phenomena are occuring that appear

to be contrlbuting to a reduction ln the amount of knowledge

of kin among the informants. Firstly, the number of structured

86

oooasions when kin meet is dlmlnlshing. One example of this

ls the dlsappearanoe of the family farm, where kin from aIl

over the prov~noe would gather onoe a year. These reunions

would reunite kin from aIl "three beds" in the,oontrolled kln

universe. The farm was sold and"now there is no suitable

gathering plaoe for such a large number of kin, sinoe urban

dwelllngs oannot usually aooomodate over one hundred guests,

with Many ohildren Included. As a result, the kin gatherings

that take plaoe today are muoh smaller and provide muoh more

restrioted opportunities for oontact with kln and c~ntribute,

therefore, to a lesser amount of kin knowledge. Secondly,

those kin gatherings that are structured, such as weddings,

yearly gatherings and christenings, are attended by an

inoreaslngly small number of kin, regardless of the number

invlted. The data revealed a growing detachment fram kin­

centered aotivlties and their ensuing obligations. Kin no

longer seem as important as one's own nuolear family. Fur­

thermore, they are beooming less important than one's per­

sonal friends. AlI this contributes to a diminishing motiva­

tion to acquire and retain knowledge of kin. Figures on

attendance of Informants at family gatherlngs durlng the past

year (1970-71), correspond to the amount of knowledge of kln

each informant possesses. That is, the informants who posses­

sed the greatest amount of kln knowledge were also those who

attended the greatest number of family gatherings.

87

The second major factor tha~ influences know­

ledge of kin is verbal transmission of facts concerning kin,

either from one generation to another, i.e~, from grandparents

or parents to grandchildren and children or between members

of the same generation. This study revealed that ancestors,

i.e., kin three generations above one's own, are virtually

unknown. Some informants knew but one grandparent and not

even the name of his or her spouse. Early death of grand­

parents deprived informants of occasions for contact and,

lack of verbal transmission by their parents of facts con­

cerning grandparents, (either written, such as genealogies,

letters from these kin, or orally transmitted) resulted in

absence of knowledge of these kin. AlI the younger informants

of the first and second youngest generation in the sample

(there were five such informants) said that they had never

been imparted any facts about kin other than those with.whom

they or their parents were currently in frequent contact.

Thus, as a result of fewer opportunities for

contact with kin and of the absence of verbal transmission of

facts about kin, the younger informants in the sample knew

significantly fewer kin than dld the older lnformants.

These facts lead me to reflect upon a problem

of broader scope that is currently affecting French Canadian

society: the progressive loss of lts distinctive cultural

attrlbutes as an ethnie group surrounded by a larger, almost

88

overpowering ethnic majority. Popular theory maintains

that French Canadians are losing their distinctiveness because

they are forced by the larger English Canadian industrial

society to earn their living in a language other than their

own. This situation, in turn, is favourable to the acquisi­

tion, or assimilation by French Canadians of other English

Canadian mores, values and custom~, to the detriment of their

French Canadian heritage.

l am not denying the force of such an argument.

The situation does existe However, l question the validity

of attributing the loss of a people's heritage solely to the

fact of their having to earn their living in a language other

than their own. My hypothesis is .. that French Canadian heritage

is being lost because it is not being transmitted to its full

extent from one generation to the other and within the same

generation. This, l believe, is influenced by the increasing

number of small nuclear families, consisting of two to four

siblings. Furthermore, the siblings from small nuclear

families, once married, become dispersed throughout one or

many cities. Traditions such as kin knowledge, famiIy gather­

ings, anniversaries, become more difficult to sdhere to and

Iess important. Personal friends and related obligations

become more important to a nuclear family than obligations

to one's collection of kin.

89

Knowledge of kin, as explained in Chapter l,

is considered by this author as being one of the many oral

traditions of a culture. In the three preceding chapters,

it has been demonstràted that this oral tradition is slowly

being lost in the particular French Canadian family under

analysis. What about aIl the oral traditions of French

Canadian society in general? What effect does the trans­

mission or absence of transmission of oral traditions and

other traditions have on the preservation or deterioration

of French Canadian culture in a bilingual milieu such as

Montreal? This is what l propose to examine in depth in

future research.

The scope of such research will be much

broader than that of the present work. As the majority of

traditions under study will be oral traditions, that is,

traditions that are transmitted by means of language, in

depth knowledge of the field of sociolinguistics will be

a must.

l agree with Dell Hymes' theory that language

behaviour shou1d be studied as part of a commu~ity's social

organization. (Hymes, 1964). Some of the basic questions

that shou1d be asked are those asked by Dell Hymes (1964):

"What are the communicative events, and their components

in a community? What are the re1ationships among them?"

(1964, p.-34).

90

Moreover, as the research will be conducted

among French Canadians living in a bi1ingua1 milieu and

influenced. by two different languages and cultures, greater

attention will be given to 1inguistic theory related to

bilingualism. Susan Erving-Tripp (1964) states that "biIin­

guaIs who speak on1y with other bilinguals may be on the road

to merger of the two languages, uniess they are strong pres­

sures to insu1ate by topic or setting". (1964, p.97). This

app1ies direct1y to the prob1em stated above. . .

Furthermore, in addition to sociolinguistics,

this researeh will require in depth know1edge of psycho1ogy,

particuIari1y in the field of learning, as related to the

learning of oral traditions.

- 91 -

APPENDIX

l" V'

l

Generations

,

ÂlZ 119 11'

1

.,'

1

1

IKinship Chart of the EntiI

; ,

/J. : males 0: female.s shaded symbols : dead kin x : sex unknown =: marriage bond :f:: marriage terminated by death and followed by 'remarriage ~: marriage terminated by divorce '

Nos. : each corresponds to a name in TABLE XX Circled numbers: informants in the sample in this study

TABLE XIX

1

;he Ent1re Controlled Kin Uni verse

,==. /to" '"

1If; '".

1'" 'l /II. b1//7

."

t'l\·

(

Generation 4

Informants 1

1. 4, Arthur Poulin + ,=

2. 4, Antoinette Lemire + ,= J. J, Léo Poulin ..;-

4. ), Eva Savard ..;f-...

5. 2, Claudine Poulin / ...

6. 2, Marcel Tassé , If

7. l, Jean-F. Tassé ."

8. l, Anne-M. Tassé •

'* 9. l, Pierre-Le Tassé ., 10. l, Marie-C. Tassé •

(-

TABLE XX

Genealogical chart of entire controlled kin universe

J

2 J. 4 S

,+ ,+ J+ ..1+ ..;+ ",+ .;+ .;+

..;= ..;= ..;= .;=

..;= ..;= .;= ,}= ,- ..;- .;- •

/- ,- .;- • ... ... ... ... , ..; $ • ... ... ... ... ..; ..; • • ... ... ... ... ..; ,

• • ... ... ... ... , ./ .;- •

(

2 1

'" VJ

6 ? 8 9 10

..;-

" .. -• • - - - .. ,.

1 1 .; • vi .;+ .;+ ..;+ - ; .; .;+ $+ - ..

+ .t-· ..;= j= ..;.- .;+ +

• .Ir:tI ..;= = ,+ +

•

./ - JI. - ..;= = • •

.; - $- I~ = ,- -$- r = • •

f .r r = • •

.... ,,~ - -- .. -.. -.. -.- " .. '-- ... _- ........ __ ....... ".-. --- •••. '_Co , •.•• ,,, ..• ,,"'= ... """""'"""' ... ,..,;,.l •

( (- c

Generation 4 3 2 1

Informants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

, j+ 11. 2, Jacques Poulin 1 ./- ./- ./ - .;- ,= 1= = +

!' • " $+ + 12. 2, Florence Patry ,- I- i - $- ./= $= =

• • ., " " " .. 13. l, ;Maxime Poulin ./ ./ 1 j- .1- j= = • • •

+ ./- 1= j= 1= = ./+ ./+ .1+ -- • 14. 3, Rachel Poulin • •

.;= ./= ./= = + $+ + • • '" 15. 3, Léon Demers 1- 0{:" • • • •

1- ;= j= ;= .;= ,+ ,+ .;+ -- • 16. 3, Fernande Poulin ..

/- .;= .;= ./= .;= .;+ /+ .;+ • • 17. 3, Reine Poulin • l-

I- 1= .;= j= ;= ./+ ;+ ./+ • --18. 3, Paul Lemieux ./ " + 19. 2, Nicole Lemieux 1 ./- ./- j- JI- ;= ./= ,,= • ;+

" 20. 2, Gérard LaNoraie .; .;- .;- ./- ,ft- 1= ;= j= + j+ • ", " " .. .. . -

21. l, Gérard LaNoraie • ./ ; ./ • 1- j- ;- • ;= t/t " .. .. ..

22. l, Hél~ne LaNoraie 1 ./ J .1- ./- ,,- = ;= • • • .; " " " " 23. l, Paul LaNoraie ./ 1 .; $- ./- .;- = ,= • • •

+ .;= '. ./= ;= = + + + -- • 24. 3, Alice Poulin • • • •

25. 3, Madeleine Poulin ./- .;= .;= ;= ;= ;+ .;+ ./+ -- • • •

;'; :. ->:~-~,;, -;. ..;.~. !';';~,,:::'~.~:; >;r:;:...:.-... ::;.:::;:; .. ~::,-,;o;i .i..:;.:a.:.;:f.;,.. .... .,;;...;I--:.aaAr-.·=-'~·, .... ~-_·_---·· .------- ....... ...... -.-....=..-;..-=~-:p..-.D""" "'""---.---p--~-~- ._.-_ .. _-----~

(. ....

(' (

Generation 4 3 2 l

Informants l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6' + ,- ./= 1= ./= 1= ,+ ,+ ./+ .- .-

2 • 3, Gerard Chalis •

27. 2, Michel Chalis ; .l- ,- ,- ,- 1= .;= ;= + + -. + 28. 2, Michelle Gaulois ;- .I- I- ;= $= ,= +

• • .', • •

290 2, François Chalis ./ ,- ./- ./- .1- ..;= ;= ./= + + " • •

• 30. 2, Mimi P~quin .;- .;- , - ",- .1= 1= $= + + -.0

• \J\ ." • • • •

31. l, Claude Chalis .; .; .; Jr ;- .1- = = • - .;= .;= .;= .;= 1+ .;+ /+

.- .-32. 3, Jeanne Poulin ./ •

.;r ,= . .;= .;= ..;= .;+ .;+ j+ .- .-

33. 3, Walter Shenke •

34. 2, Christine Shenke .; .;- ',- ,- .;= ,= .;= + + • • • -.

35. 2, Richard Reiner .;- ..1- = r r + + • • • • • -. + 36. 2, Paul Shenke .; .r ..I- f ;= ..;= ;= +

• + r r ;= = + + + .- .-

37. 3, Paul-E. Poulin • • •

./ r ..;= r r .;+ .;+ .;+ .- .-

38. 3, Paul Poulin • .;- r r .;= .r .;+ .;+ 1*"

li> .-39. 3, Madeleine Bonnier • •

• 40. 2, Charlotte Poulin .; .ï .r J .;= .;= .;= + + • • •

l-

I

.~~ --- ---- ----···-#-_ .......... c*....!.~.:o_~"" .. ·~-=:::cr....:::_..:I __ .... ~"'~ ____ ••

(- ( (

Generation 4 J 2 1

Informants 1 2 J 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

, = + + - I- I- 1= ,= 41. 2, Renaud Poulin • 1 • • • • - = = = = /+ /+ + • •

42. J, Pauline Poulin j j 1 1 j • • • = = 1= = + 1+ + • •

43. J, Harold Riches • 1 / • • • • • , = *' - - - 1= = + 44. 2, Diane Riches 1 j / 1 • / $ • • \() ,

+ + 0--- - = = = 45. 2, Lawrence Powell • 1 1 • • 1 • • ", , , , , - = = 46. l, Kathleen Powell • • 1 1 • .. j • • • ." , , , , - = = 47. l, John Powell • • J j • • 1 • • •

= = = + /+ ~+ • -48. J, Philip Brant • l' /: , .$ • • , + + 49. 2, Claudia Brant - - - - = = $= .; / 1 1 / 1 1 • • ,

= + + 1= = 50. 2, Bob Breem • • • • • • • • - = = = = /+, j+ J'-+ .... •

51. 3, Jacqueline Poulin j 1 1 , 1 • • - = = = = /+ ,+ .;1+ • • 52. 3, Charlemagne Lapiere i 1 1 , 1 • • ,

= + - - - = ,= + 5J. ~, Pierre Lapierre 1 / / / • / ./ • • , + - - = .j. = = + 54. 2, Pierrette LanctSt • ~ 1- • • .. • • + , , , , , .1 .; - = = 55. l, Linda Lapierre • • • • · . • •

(' ( (

Generation 4 3 2 1

Informants 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

+ -. -. -. -. 56. 1, Nancy Lapierre j- =- = • • • • • • .. 57. 2'.,-Luc.1.e:I"apierre j j- .;- j- 1= .;= = + + • • •

-. 58. 2, Frank Bilota $- 1- .1= j= = + + • • • •

'1' -. -. -. , 59. 1, Kim Bilota 1- .JI JJ- .;- = = • • • '" oô

60. 2, Richard Lapierre j- J- J- .;= ,= j= + + -..J

•

61. 2, Pauline Vanier , = = = + + • • • • • •

62. 3, Marcelle Poulin 1- 1= ;= 1= j= J+ .;+ ..;+ - -.. .. 63. 3, Jean-C. Deschamps ;- ;= j= y= j= j+ .;+ .;+ - -• • , 64. 2, Josée Deschamps j .;- .I- j- .1- j= ..;= j= + + • •

+ , 65. 2, Yves Provost .; j- j- j- ,,= .;= ,j.= .---±-_--- + • •

66. 1, Isabelle Provost <1- , , , , _. ------ "----

/ .I j .1~ j- $- = = • • •

67. 2, Jean-M. Deschamps .:

/ /- J- j- (J- r .;= ..;= + + • • , 68. 2, Sylvie Deschamps ; J- j- ..;- .1= ..;= ..;= + + • •

69. 3;;, .Raymond e Poulin .1- j= .1= j= .1= .;+ /+ ..;+ . - -• '70. 3, Jean Baule ,,- j= j= j= ,,= r .j+ .;+ - -•

. :., .. _· __ ·-·-· .. _-... ·_·t.~· ... ....;···;~.:>·,--.-.:;:.";;;,."it:.-w;;;;;.::;;~~·:;·--~-_~i~-----

('

Generation

Informants

71. J, Micheline Poulin

72. J, Conrad Hawke

7J. 2, Pierre Hawke

74. 2, Marc-A. Hawke

75. 2, Catherine Hawke

76. 2, Robert Hawke + 77. 4, Joseph Lemire

78. 4, Marie Goulet +

79. J, Philippe Lemire

80. J, (spouse)

81. 2, (child)

82. 2. (child)

8J. J. Emile Lemire

84. J. Mary Lemire+

85. 4. Elise Rinfret+

4

1

j­

j--.

j -.

• -. j

-. • j=

.;=

.;-

• -. • -. • j­

.;-

1=

2

j=

j=

j­

j­

j­

.;­,+

+

= • = -.

• -.

= • =

• +

•

J

.;= ,= j­

.;­

..;­,,­,+

+ • ,=

= •

•

= ,=

+ •

J

(

4

.;= j=

,­j­

..;­

.;­

.;+ +

• =

• =

• =

• =

• +

•

5

j=

.1=

•

•

• ,+ +

• =

• =

•

•

= =

• +

•

6

j+

./ j=

=

j=

= • •

• •

• +

+ • =

• =

• +

+ • •

•

2

7

j+

j+

j=

.;=

.;=

.;= •

• -• +

+

= • =

• +

• +

• -•

8

j+'

j+

.;=

.;=

..;= ~=

-•

• +

+ •

::1

• =

• +

• +

-•

9

•

•

•

•

.. •

•

•

•

•

•

•

-•

+

+

+

+

-.. .. • •

+

+

--..

1

c-

10

•

" • ., ,,+ $+

$+

$+ .-• -.;,

• • • •

• +

• +

• -• •

•

'" co

("-

Generation

Informants

86. 3, Béatrice Lemire

87. 3, Annette Lemire

88. 3, Jeanne Lemire

89. 3, Fernande Lemire +

90. 4, Mary Lemire

91. 4, Nilda Lemire +

92. 4, Alfred Plante+

93. 3, Antoinette Plante

94. 3, Jackson

95. 3, Jeannette Plante

96. J, (spouse)

97. 3, Ethel Plante

98. J, Roland Ge11nas+

99. 2, Peter Gelinas

100. 3, Fortunate Plante

4

1

.I­

I-

1-

./-

1= 1= 1= I­i­

I­

I­

.I­

I-..

1 ,-

2

= • =

= • = •

;+ ,+ ,+

== •

= • = • =

•

= -•

• = •

3

./=

1= ;= 1= ;+ ./+

J+

.le

.,= ,= $=

~-;= .; 1=

3

(

4

= • =

• =

• =

• ,+ ;+ $+

,= $=

$=

= •

;-JI-=

• $=

5

= • =

• ;:_=

• =

• +

• ;+ $+

= • = • = = • = =

•

• =

•

2

6 7 8

+ + + • • • + + +

• • • .+ + + • • .. + + + • .. .. .. • • • .. .. .. • • .. .. .. • • + + +

• • • + + +

• • + + +

• • + + +

• • • + + +

• • • + + +

• • • = = =

• • • + + +

• • •

1

9

..

.. • .. • .. -

• .;

• .;

• ;

• .-

•

• .. • ..

.. • +

• .. •

(-

10

..

.. • ..

..

.. • .;

• .. • .. • .. • ..

.. • ..

.. • +

• .. •

'" '"

co

Generation

Informants

101. 4, Laura Lemire+ + 102. 4, Joseph Degas

103. 3, Marie-L. Degas

104. 3, Annette Degas

105. 3, Ulrich Givre

106. 3, Pauline Degas

+

107. 3, Raoul Hauteui1

108. 2, Jacques Hauteui1

109. 2, (spouse)

110. 2, Lise Hauteui1

111. 2, Pierre Patry

112. l, Beno!t Patry

113. l, Bernard Patry

114. 2, Renée Bauteui1

115. 2, André Patry

4

1

;= j=

•

j­

j­

j­

j­

j'

l' j'

" ", • .-•

" j

;'

2

1+ j+

= •

j=

;= .;= j=

•

•

•

• .. • .. •

•

•

IJ

3

r j+

j=

;= ,= j=

.;=

.;-

•

j­

,-" " j-

I-

(0

4

;+ 1+

= j=

;= ;= ;= j-

•

•

• , • .. • ,-•

5

;+ .f+

= •

1= .,= .;= $=

•

•

•

• .. ..

•

•

•

6

... •

... • +

•

/+

+ •

1+ +

• = •

= •

= • =-•

•

• =

• =

•

2

7

... 1

... • +

• +

• + •

$+

+ •

$=

= •

.$=

= •

•

•

1= =

•

8

... •

... • +

• + • + • + • +

•

= •

= •

= • = •

•

= • =

•

9

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

... ~ -~ ...

...

...

...

...

+

+

+

+

= = +

+

1

(

10

...

... •

;

• ...

• ...

• ...

• ...

• +

• +

• +

• +

•

= •

= •

+ •

+ •

1-' o o

c

Generation

Informants

116. l, Jean-F. Patry

117. l, (fema1e)Patry

118. l, Sophie Patry

119. 2, Jean-F. Hauteui1

120. 2, (spouse)

121. 3, Cécile Degas

122. 3, Marie-J. Degas

1Z3. 3, Noe11a Degas+

124. 3, David Degas~

125. 4, Arthur Lemire +

126. 4, Alice Lemire+

127. 4, C1éophas Boulier

128. 3, Antoine Boulier

129. 3, Aimé Boulier

130. 3, Gérard Boulier

4

1

",

• .;,

•

• .: .; ..

.;­

.;­

.;-

•

* •

,= = •

•

•

2

.. • .. • .. •

•

.;=

.;= ;=

= • +

• +

• +

• =

• = •

= •

3

.. ./ .. • .. .; .;-

.;=

.;= ;= .;=

+ • ;+ .;+

.;= r .;=

)}

('

4

.. • ,

.. •

1-

.;= 1=

.;= 1=

+ • + • +

•

= •

= •

= •

5

.. • .. • .. •

•

.;=

.;= = = • +

+ • + •

= • = = •

6

•

•

= •

= .i

.;+ ;+

+ • +

•

-• -•

-+ • +

• + •

2

7 8

•

• •

$= = •

= = • • + + • • + + • • + + • + + • • - -• - -.. • - -• + +

• • + +

• + + • •

9

= •

= •

= • + • + • •

• •

• •

• -• ... .. .;.

• ;.

• -..

•

1

r

10

= •

= • =

+ • + · -•

--•

-• ...

• .;.

.. ;.

• -• .. •

1-' o 1-'

(

Generation

Informants

131. 3, Albertine Boulier

132. 4, (spouse)Boutier

133. 4, Mathias Lemire +

134. 4, Cécile Régis

135. 3, Jacques Lemire

136. 3, (spouse)

137. 4, Régina Lemire+

138. 4, Gédéon pou1in+

139. 4, Flore Savage

140. 5, Phydime Lemire+

141. 5, Olympe Be1eau+

142. 5, Ludivine Lemire+

14). 4, Albert Lemire+

4

1

• =

•

'=. ,= ,­$­

;= ;=

= • ,+ ;+ ~+

;= 144. 4, Gracieuse Messier 1=

145. ), Fernand Lemire .;-

2

= • +

•

.;+ +

•

./

= • ;+ ;+

+

,­,-1-

t1+ ,+ ,=

:3

; = .JI. +

, +

t +

1=

JI=

;+ .;+

+

-..; /-

-1 :'.' .;+

..;+

;=

:3

(

4

= • +

•

.;+

.,. +

1= = •

.;+

.;+ +

-..; -; -,

.;+

..;+

.;=

5

= • +

•

..;+ ,. +

= •

= •

,;+

~+

+ • -.; -,; -1

,;+

,;+

..;=

6

•

•

•

•

•

•

..;

-1

•

•

•

+

+

+

-.-

-.. .. .. • .-

+

--.-

2

7

/

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

+ .-

+

+

---.. .. ..

,;,

.-

-+

-.-

8

+ • -• -• -• +

• +

• -.-

• .-

• .. •

,;,

• .. •

;

• .. •

+ •

9

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

--.. .. .. .. * * * ..

•

-.. .. ..

" .. • .. •

1

c-

10

.-

• ... • .. • --• ..

• .. • .. •

* •

* •

* • .. ...

• ;

•

1---1 o 1\)

ca.

Generation

Informants

146. J, Yvette Aubert

147. 2, Serge Lemire

148. 2, Claude Lemire

149. J, Marthe Lemire

150. 3, George Frober

151. 2, Richard Frober

152. 2, Diane(spouse)

153. 2, Denis·Frober

154. 2, Beno!t Brober

155. 3, Gls~le Lemire

156. J, Raymo~d Gagné

157. 2, François Gagné

158. 2, Marie-J. Gagné

159. 4, Blanche Lemire

160. 4, Hector Lemire+

4

1

j-.. ; ..

; ;­j-

.. j

.. ~

;' j'

;­;-

; ..

j'

.;=

.;=

2

== •

•

•

/=

= · .~ •

•

•

•

;= =

•

•

~+

/+

J

.:j*

.;­

$-

j=

,= $-

JI-: $-

•

;= ~=

/­

~­

/+

;+

J

(

4

.JI:!;:

•

•

$=

= •

•

•

1= = •

•

;+ ;+

5

j=

;-

1-

1= /=

j-

I­;-

~­

;= ..;= I­

I­.;+

..;+

6

+ • = •

= • + • +

•

= •

= •

= • = • + • + • = •

= • .j­

I-

.. 2

7

+ •

= •

= • + • + •

= •

= •

= •

= • + • + •

= •

= •

.;-•

•

8

+ •

= •

= •

+ • + •

= •

= •

= •

= • + •

+ · = •

= • ..;-

• •

9

• • + • + •

-• •

• + • + • + • + • •

• •

• + • + • ..

• .. •

1

c

10

• • + · + • •

•

-• + • + • + • +

• •

• •

+ • + • -• ..

•

..... o \JJ

(-

Generation 4

Informants 1

16L. 4, Georgina Cartier /=

162. 4, Juliette Lemire+ ;= 163. 4, Philippe Lemire+ j=

164. S, Louis Va1dor+ ;+ 165. 4, Louis Va1dor+ ;= 166. 4, Virginie Lemire+ ;= 167. 3, Maurice Va1dor 1-

168. 3, Cécile Va1dor

169. 4, Alice Va1dor+

170. 4, Joseph Lemire +

171. 3, Maurice Lemire

172. 3, René Lemire

173. 3, Rolande Lemire

174. 3, Laurette Lemire

175. 3, (daughter)Lemire

1-

1= 1= I­

I­j-

1-.

1-

2

,,+ ;+

+

.J'.--

+

+ •

= • = • + •

+ • = •

= • = •

= •

= •

3

.r ;+

+ •

/-­

Jr + •

j=

= •

./+ ,;+

= •

= •

= • =

= •

3

(

4

F ;+

+

--../ + • + •

= •

= • + •

+ • = •

= •

= •

= •

= •

S

.;/+

+ • +

•

--$ + • + •

= = + • + •

= = • = • =

•

= •

2

6 7 8

-- --• • •

--..

• •

-- --• .. .. • • •

; ;

• • •

-- --• • + + · • • + + • • •

-- --• •

-- --• • • + + • • • + +

• • • + +

• • • + + • • + + • • •

9

-- .. --

.;

•

--.;.

.. *"

;

•

--.;

• + ..

• + --•

--..

--.;

+ • • + • + •

+ --• + •

r

1

10

.. • .;

• .. •

*" .. • .. •

-•

-.;

• •

• •

• •

--•

--

1--' o .(::"

(-

Generation

Informants

176. 4, Laura Valdor+

177. 4, Anna Valdor+

4

1

,= r

178. 'S, Egyptienne Lemire+ ;+ 179. 5, Théodore Caron+ $+

180. 4, Théodorie caron+ ;= 181. 4, Rachel Caron+

182. 5, Aurélie Lemire+

183. 5, Octave Santier+

184. 4, Aur~le Santler

185. 4, Régina Santier

.r­

.;+

;+

r r

186. 4, (spouse) Santler ~

187. 5, Amélie Lemire+ .~

188. 5, George Lemire+

189. 5, Virginie Lemire+

;+ ,;+

2

+ • + ·

/'" '" •

.;+ + •

-• '" •

+ • +

• + •

.;'" '" •

'" •

3

+ •

.r­/'"

1'"

.;+

.;+ ..

• '" • +

+ • + •

,'" '" •

..;'"

3

(

4

+ • + •

1'"

$'"

/+

.+

'"

'"

+

+

+

,,'" '" • '" •

5

+ •

+ •

'" •

'" •

.+

.+

'" •

'"

+ · + · + .. '" • '" •

'" •

~II

:. 6

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

.. '" .. ... ~

'" .. .. ...

-.. .. .. .. ..

• _.'

•

2

7 8

'" • •

'" • • .. • •

" • • ;

• •

'" • .. • •

" • • • • '" • • '"

• • .. • • .. • • .. •

'"

'" .. .. • '"

.. -.. '" .. .. ..

9

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

..

.. * * .. ~ ..

...

* ... .. .;

* * *

1

r

10

.. •

,,;,

* •

* • .. • .;

•

" .-' .

•

•

* .. ~ .. .:.

* * '* · .":

1-' o V\

(-: C' c ! '

Generation 4 :3 2 1

Informants 1 2 3 li- s 6 7 8 9 10

190. 6, Jacques B.Lemire + , - - - * * * 0 • • • • • • • • • • •

191. 6, + , ... .. .. .. Agathe Bertler * * * 0 0

• • • • • • • • • •

1-' 0 0\

c _\

----------------- --------- ------

107

REFERENCES ClTED

BOILY, Robert

1971

108·

Québec 1940-1969. Biblio~raphie: le système politique québécois et son environment, Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal.

BRAZEAU, E. Jacques

1964

BRUNET, L. A.

"Language Differences and Occupational Experience" in Marcel Rioux and Yves Martin, French-Canadian Society, pp. 296-306, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto/Montreal.

1881 La Famille et ses Traditions, Montréal.

CHALIFOUX, Jean-Pierre .

1968 (unpublished) Bibliographie sur des questions actuelles, La Bibliothèque, Centre d'Etudes canadiennes françaises, McGill University, Montreal.

ERVING-TRIPP, Susan

1964 "An Analysis of the Interaction of Language, Topic and Listener.", in American AnthrogolOgist, Volo 66, No. 6, part 2, Dec. 1964, pp. 6-102.

FALARDEAU, Jean-Charles

1964 "The Changing Social Structures of Contemporary French-Canadian Society" in Marcel Rioux and Yves Martin, French-Canadian Society, Vol. l, pp. 106-122, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto/ Montreal.

GARIGUE, Philippe

1956a "French Canadian Kinship and Urban Life" in American Anthropologist, LVIII, No. 6, pp. 1090-1101, reprinted in Marcel Rioux and Yves Martin, French Canadian Society, Vol. l, pp. 358-371, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto/Montreal.

1956b A Bibliographical Introduction to the Study of French Canada, Université McGill, Département de Sociologie et Anthropologie, Montréal.

1

109

GARIGUE, Philippe (cont'd)

1958

1960

1962

1966

1968

1970

GERIN, Léon

Etudes sur le Canada français, Université de Montréal, Faculté des sciences sociales, écono­miques et politiques, Montréal.

"The French Canadian Family" in M. Wade, La:· Dualité Canadienne, University of Toronto-press, Toronto, pp. 180-200.

"Organization sociale et valeurs culturelles canadiennes-françaises" in Canadian Journal of Economies and Political Science, Vol. 28, May 1962, pp. 189-203.

L'Option politique du Canada français, Editions du Lévrier, Montréal.

"Une politique familiale québécoise, in Relations, No. 305, pp. 146-148, Montréal.

Bibliographie du Québec {1955-1965~, Les Presses de l'Univer'ité de Montreal, Montreal.

Analyse du comportement familial, Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal.

en collaboration - Léon Gérin et l'habitant de Saint Justin, Les Presses de l'UniverSité de Montréal, Montréal.

La Vie Familiale des Canadiens-français, Les Presses de l'Université de Montréal, Montréal.

1964 "The French';Canadian Family - Its Strength and Weaknesses" in Marcel Rioux and Yves Martin, French-Canadian Society, Vol. 1, pp. 32-56, McClelland and Stewart Limited, Toronto/Montréal.

GOFFMAN, Erving

1964 "The Neglected Situation" in American AnthroEo­logist, Vol. 66, Noo 6, part 2, December 196 , pp. 133-136 0 •

110

HYMES, Dell

1962 "The Ethnography of Speaking" in Anthropology and Human Behavior, The Anthropologioal Sooiety of Washington, Washington, D.C., pp. 13-54.

1964 "Introduotion: Toward Ethnography of Communioa­tions", in Amerioan Anthropologist, Vol. 66, No. 6, part 2, Deo. 1964, pp. 1-34.

LAMONTAGNE, Maurioe and Jean-Charles FALARDEAU

1947 "The Life Cyole of Frenoh-Canadian Urban Families" in The Canadian Journal of Eoonomios and Politioal Soienoe, Vol. XIII, No. 2, pp. 240-247. '

LESTAPIS, Stanisla§ de, s.j.

1956

MARTIN, Yves

"Le bouleversement de la famille traditionelle" in Relations, Vol. 16, pp. 183-186, Montréal.

1964 "Urban Studies in Frenoh Canada" in Maroel Rioux and Yves Martin Frenoh-Canadian Sooiety, Vol. l, pp. 245-256, MoClelland and Stewart, .Toronto/ Montréal.

MINER, Horaoe

1939 St. Denis. A Frenoh-Canadian Parish, Chioago, The University of Chioago Press.

PIDDINGTON, Ralph

1961 "A study of Frenoh-Canadian Kinship" in Inter­national Journal of Comparative Sooiol06Y, Vol. 2, pp. 3-22.

1965 "The Kinship Network among Frenoh Canadians" in International Journal of Comparative Sooiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 145-165.

REDFIELD, Robert

1939 "Frenoh-Canadian Culture in St.Denis" intro­duotion to Horaoe Miner's St. Denis, A Frenoh­Canadian Parish, Chioago, The University of Chioago Press.

111

RIOUX, Marcel···

1959 "Kinship Recognition and Urbanization in French Canada, In Contributions to Anthropology, National Museum of Canada, Bulletin No. 173, pp. 1-11, reprinted in Marcel Rioux and Yves Martin French-Canadian Socièty, Vol. l, pp.37!-385, McClelland and Stewart, Toronto/Montreal.

TREMBLAY, M. -Adélard

1966 "L'éclatement des cadres familiaux traditionels au Canada-français" in Relations, Vol. 305, pp. 131-132, Montréal.

TREMBLAY, M.-Adélard and Gérald FORTIN

1963a

1963b

"Enquête sur les conditions de vie de la famille canadienne-française: l'üni vers des besoins" in Recherches Sociographigues, Vol. IV, No. l, pp. 9-47.

"Enquête sur les conditions de la vie de la famille canadienne~française: l'univers des aspirations" in Recherches Sociographigues, Vol. IV, No. 3, pp. 313-336.