Page 39 - 《社会》2022年第4期

社会·2022·4

Lévi鄄Strauss’ Maison as an Institution: A Reappraisal and
Redirection
CHEN Bo
Abstract： This paper is divided into nine parts. After briefly reviewing the relevant
academic research in Chinese writing， as well as the static stereotypes held by the
Chinese and foreign academic circles on Lévi鄄Strauss’structuralism， the first part of the
paper discusses the background of the concept of maison proposed by Lévi鄄Strauss in the
study of kinship system， that is， the shared attention， exploration and theoretical
reflection in the West over the widely existed non鄄matriarchal鄄non鄄patrilineal heirs/
succession phenomenon in the world. The second part examines Lévi鄄Strauss’ thoughts
on the basic as well as complex structure of kinship system in his The Elementary
Structures of Kinship （1949）， revealing that his ideas about maison had already
appeared amongst his writing， especially about the various “deviations” of the basic
structure of kinship caused by political鄄economic interests. The third part introduces the
formulation of the concept of maison and its Chinese translation. The fourth part
discusses the misinterpretation in English language of Lévi鄄Strauss’ phrase “société à
maisons，” and how from it the Chinese translation“家屋社会” was derived. It suggests
that“maison” should be understood and translated as“家产亲属制” in Chinese. The
fifth part presents a translation of the critical term of “personne morale” in Lévi鄄Strauss’
definition of maison as“合众体” in Chinese，the way it should be interpreted for it is the
key to the concept of maison and the starting point for further studies of the maison in
stitution. In view of the widely accepted misinterpretation of maison among mainstream
Chinese and Western scholars， the sixth part re鄄examines Lévi鄄Strauss’ basic research
on the kinship system and his breakthrough contribution to the theory. The seventh part
examines the four scholarly traditions that were impacted by Lévi鄄Strauss’ maison，
namely the French school， the Austronesian school led by the Dutch structuralist van
Wouden， and the Anglo鄄American postmodern school promoted by British and
American anthropologists out of their dissatisfaction with the French school， and the
American archaeologic school. The eighth part introduces author’s own follow鄄up study
on how to use the concept of maison to re鄄examine Chinese history and practices in
various locations， with personne morale as the key analytic notion. The last part is a
concluding remark that summarises the significant contribution of maison to Lévi鄄
Strauss’ structuralism and its future implications.
Keywords：maison， Cognatic system， corporation， history complex structure

· 32 ·