Conclusion

Summary

An egalitarian system is profoundly disturbing by virtue of the fact that it tends to undermine family and village holdings.

- Martine Segalen

Realty and reciprocity

We have pointed out many ways in which obligation was tied up with the exchange of land and other forms of wealth. In Neckarhausen, in the nineteenth century, the authority exercised by parents over adult children and the respect the latter were supposed to demonstrate were both derived expressly from the fact that parents were the source of wealth. Having to make explicit what had always been implicit suggests a weakness in the argument, but parents also wove a web of obligation through a calculated strategy of property devolution.

The paradoxes and ambiguities of family obligation are best illustrated by the readiness of family members to care for each other. Whenever an aged parent or uncle or a long-ill brother or sister was nursed for any length of time, the relatives responsible for the care kept careful book. They expected to be able to utilize any common rights such as a garden or portion of firewood, and they always put in a bill at the final division of the estate. Siblings sometimes agreed among themselves how the matter should be taken care of and paid a specified amount to the one who offered care. But more frequently, a parent or uncle contracted for the care, passing on various properties and making specific agreements with one child or niece or nephew for cooking, washing, and nursing, explicitly setting the price.