Rival Couvade

Androgynous Parents and Guest Children: The Huaorani Couvade
Author(s): Laura Rival

Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 619-
642
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034825 .
Accessed: 29/04/2014 06:05
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ANDROGYNOUS PARENTS AND GUEST
CHILDREN: THE HUAORANI COUVADE*
LAURARIVAL
ofKent
University
Despitethecurrentpopularity ofthepost-feministmotto'genderis theeffectofdiscourse,

and sex the effectof gender'whichdefinessexualityas eroticaand ignoresits life-
transmitting I arguethattherecanbe no soundtheorizing
function, ofsexandgenderwhich
doesnotaccountforprocreative sex.I basemyargument on a discussion
ofthewayinwhich
theHuaoraniIndiansofAmazonian Ecuadorconceptualize humansexuality as thechannel
through whichparenthood is createdand intimate formed.Childbirth
relationships rites
(knownin theliteratureas couvade)forman essentialpartofthisprocess.Havingreviewed
pastanthropological
interpretations of thecouvadeand suggested some modifications to
accountfortheandrogynous natureofprocreative inAmazonia,
life-giving I showthatsocial
reproductionamongtheHuaoraniis notprimarily dependent on predationandwarfare, but
on theincorporation
ofthenewborn. in theConclusiontopostmodern
Returning viewson
I highlight
sexuality, thelimitation ofanalyses
ofsubjective whichdo notaddressthe
identity
beginningandperpetuation oflife.
Everything thattheawareness
suggests ofsexualdifferences
andthedistinction
betweenthe
andthematernal
paternal function
areconstituted
simultaneously
(Bourdieu1977:93).
Genderdifferentiation
is,atthebottom, ofparentage
thisdifferentiation (Yeatman
1982:10).
Allourcustomscomefromlife,andaremadeforlife;we do notexplainanything,
we do not
believe(in) anything 1980:30,mytranslation).
(Saladind'Anglure
Simonede Beauvoir(1949) arguedthatbiologywaswoman'sdestiny, andthat,

accordingto existential
philosophy,thismadewomanintothesecondsex.What
shemeantbythisisthatwhereasmancantranscend lifethrough hiscreative
acts,
womancan do no morethanrepeatlifethrough theprocreative powersofher
body.My purposeinwriting thisessayis to showthat,contrary tothecommon
Eurocentricviewsowellcaptured byde Beauvoir, togivelifeisinmanysocieties
seenas an actofcreation.To makethisargument, I use thebirthritespractised
throughout Amazoniaandknownintheanthropological as couvade;
literature in
thosepractised
particular, bytheHuaoraniIndiansoftheEcuadorianAmazon,
ofwhichI havefirst-hand knowledge.I showthatthebirthofa childrepresents
an essentialmomentof the lifetransfer process,by whichthe in-marrying
* CurlEssayPrize1997
Inst.(N.S.) 4, 619-642
J. Roy.anthrop.

620 LAURARIVAL
husband becomes a kinsmanto his wife and to her housegroup.This process

involves the recognitionof both a new person and the web of relationships
withoutwhich she or he would not existas a fullsocial being. In the course of
makingthe argumentthatto procreateis a quintessentially creativeact,I review
anthropological ofthecouvade,reflecton thedevaluationofbirth
interpretations
by some of the most influentialtheoristsof Amazonian anthropologyand,
finally,challenge the predominantpost-feministposition which, as I see it,
reducesthe meaningof human sexuality'to the individual'sdesirefora sexual
identity.
'Two making'sex: sexualcomplementarity

Upon arrivinginJuly1996 in theHuaorani communitywhereI havecarriedout
most of my fieldwork,I was closelyand relentlessly questionedby mywomen
'kin' about my reproductivestate.This was because on a previousvisit seven
monthsearlierI had plainlylied to themin thehope ofgettingmoreaccurateand
detailed informationon procreation,pregnancyand birth,and said thatI was
pregnant.Now trappedin the lie, I triedto elude theirquestionsby sayingthat
thisearlypregnancyhad endedwitha miscarriage. Atthispoint,myclassificatory
sister and close informantHueica made an appearance. She was slowly
approaching,holdingherthirdson bornjust a fewhoursbeforemyarrival,and
showingthesignsoffatigueand physicalstrainthatdeliveryleaveson a woman's
face.Had I reallybeen pregnanton thatpreviousvisit,I would have givenbirth
moreor less atthesame timeas Hueica. Noticingmygrowinginfatuation forher
baby and acknowledgingmy childlessness,she oftengave me the newbornto
carryaround.This of coursedid notgo unnoticedand raiseda seriesof specula-
tions in people's minds. One late afternoon,as I was sittingin Hueica's house
with the baby on my lap, visitorspoured in foran impromptudrinkingparty.
There was an unusual tensionin the air and a word I had neverheard before,
tapey,gotrepeatedseveraltimesamidstloud laughsand ribaldcomments.Broad
jokes flewfasterand faster, and the men's shakingwithlaughterstartedto make
me feelvaguelyuncomfortable. It all became unbearablewhen two of mymale
cross-cousins,who were moreor less myage,directedtheirgaulois-
classificatory
eriesopenly at me: if I so wished for a baby,I only had to ask them. Their
behaviourwas mostunusual. Huaorani men had nevertreatedme as a desirable
femaleand I had so farenjoyedthe freedomand peace thatbeing a kinswoman
gives.I receivedno dirtylooks,no ambiguouscommentsor provocativegestures,
just amusingrequestsconcerningmy own femalerelatives,such as 'If you live
withus, yourdaughterwill haveto stayand marryone ofour sons',or 'Bringme
youryoungersister,I am boredwithjust one wife'.I swiftly wentto findrefuge
near Hueica by the hearthand shoutedback thatI would not listento theirbad
words. Hueica added angrilythattheywould all have to leave the house ifthey
keptmisbehaving,and 'normal'conversationresumed.This is how I came across
the word tapey,the only 'obscene' expressionto be found in the Huaorani
language.Obscene, for,unlessused betweena woman and herhusband,itcauses
considerableembarrassment and discomfort.Tapeyis what women say to men
when theywrant to copulate.It means: 'Let's make anotherchild'.2
In Huaorani culture,sexualityis the reproductiveactivityby which hetero-
sexual pairs (men and women who are not siblings,belong to the same gener-

LAURARIVAL 621
ation and are of approximatelythe same chronologicalage) are 'two making'

(minapa), or 'sleep as one' (aromemd; mo means both 'to sleep' and 'to be
married') and, consequently,'multiplythroughcopulation' (ninicopa). Nine is
what all sexed animals do to reproduce,from crocodiles to birds,jaguars,
monkeysor dogs. Making love involvestwo personsin one hammock,and only
two, so if a man has severalwives,he goes in turnsfromone hammockto the
next.Husbands and wives sleep togetheras partof growingintoan organicunit
which will eventuallyproduce children.Sexual intercourseis overtlygeared
towards reproduction.Having babies is not seen as a by-productof sexual
pleasure,but as a rewardin itself,foradulthoodis about pairingand givingbirth
to children.The fewunmarriedmen I know livewiththeirmarriedsistersand
act as second husbandsin termsof the divisionof labour.The singlemothersI
know livewiththeirmothersand marriedsisters.Their childrenhave no father,
forno man has sharedsubstancewiththemthroughrepeatedintercourseand no
man has performedthecouvadeforthem.There is 'no good reason' (ononqui),it
is said,forthebirthof thesechildren.
whicha Huaorani would translateas 'we livewell' (huaponiquehue-
Sensuality,
monipa),is not centredon genitalia,nor is genitalpleasuretheexclusiverealmof
adult heterosexuality. Children activelyseek sensual pleasure, for sensuality,
which does not requiresexual maturity, is an essentialpartof belongingto the
collectivity.Whereasreproductivesexuality, the conscious and focusedactionof
makinga child,is goal-oriented,sensuality, like all formsof bodilypleasures,is
amorphousand diffuse.It is promiscuouswell-being,one of theways in which
the longhouse sharing economy is materialized.People living in the same
longhousegraduallybecome of the same substance,literally'of one same flesh'
(aroboqui baYnanobain).The physicalrealityof livingtogether, thatis,of continu-
ously feedingeach other,eatingthe same food and sleepingtogether,develops
intoa commonphysicality, whichis farmorerealthangenealogicalties.As I have
discussed elsewhere (Rival 1992; 1996a), on-going common residence in the
longhouseformsthesociologicalbasis ofthesharingeconomy.Sharingpractices
expressand continuouslyre-asserttogetherness, and the repeatedand undiffer-
entiatedactionof sharingthatgoes on withinthe longhouseturnsco-residents
into a single, indistinctsubstance.3The principleby which people become
related throughcommon living applies to diet restrictionsas well. 'When a
memberof the longhouseresidentialgroup (nanicabo)is sick,all residentsmust
respectthe same food prohibitionsto help him or her recover.By contrast,
cognaticrelativeslivingelsewherehave no such restrictions. Relatednessmay
resultfromconsumingtogether,or avoidingfood together.4 Everyonein the
nanicabopartakesin everyoneelse's care and well-being,and the more people
spend timetogetherthe more theybecome alike.Personsand communitiesare
processesthatunfoldin time,throughthe cumulativeexperienceof livingside
by side, day afterday.Nanicabomembersshare illnesses,parasites,a common
dwellingand a common territory. Sensual bonding,as diffuseas food sharing,
unfoldsas one aspectofthepleasureoflivingin each other'scompany.Sensuality
is practised,notas therealizationofprivatefantasiesbut as thebodilyexpression
of sharing.This implies thatthe need forcomfortand physicalcontactis not
necessarilyeroticized.The wish forcontactis not construedas sexual,nor the
desireforaffection takento be a desireforsex (see also Liedloff1986: 151, 152).
notsurprising
It is therefore thattheevangelicalmissionarieswho translatedpart

622 LAURARIVAL
of the Bible into Huaorani had greatdifficulty in findingthe rightterm for

adultery. They finallysettledfornanotohuenono(literally, 'someone who's having
fun'),and resortedto themade-upexpression'someone who's repeatedlyhaving
fun' (ee queteantene'tohuenga)to translate'prostitute'.But Huaorani sexualityis
not predicatedon the repressionof sexual desire. More, as orgasm is not
consideredthe ultimate,mostpleasurablebodilyexperience,itsattainmentdoes
not constitutethe main channel for the buildingup and the release of sexual
energy.In myview,thealmost'anti-orgasmic'characterof Huaorani sexualityis
not caused by the fearof losingvitalsubstancesand lifeforce;rather,it results
fromthe diffuse,unfocusednatureof sensuous pleasure.
Huaorani culturedoes not representmen and women as classes of people
constitutedby and throughsexual desire,except,perhaps,in mythsabout the
lethalsexual attractionbetweenhumansand animals.A greatnumberof myths
involvewomen who copulatewith animals(anacondas,monkeys,tapirsand so
forth),become pregnant,and, theirinsidesdevouredbythe monstrousfoetuses
theycarry,die. The mythof a young woman fatallyattractedto a giantearth
wormwho residesundergroundbeneaththelonghouseand nextto thehearthis
particularlyexplicitabout the awesome pleasureshe derivesfromher repeated
sexualencounterswiththebeast.The onlymythabout male bestiality relatesthe
storyof a manwho findsthegenitaliaoftheAmazoniandolphinidenticalto,and
farmore desirablethan,thoseof a human female.He derivesso much pleasure
from copulatingover and over again with the she-dolphin that he ends up
wastingall his blood and semen,drowns,and dies in his animallover'sdwelling
at the bottomof the river.5 As I understandthem (on the basis of conversations
with informantsand of ethnographicobservations),these mythsexpress the
asocial natureof excessivesexual desireand unreasonableattraction. They also,
albeitmore indirectly, suggestthatsexualityis reallyabout 'child making'and
thatthisactivity,whichshould onlyoccurwithinthesame species,startsas tapey6
and ends up as baromipa, 'creatingthechild'.
literally,
Men'sparticipation
inthebirth
process
Althoughthereis no nativetermfor'couvade',7theinstitution existsamongstthe
Huaorani in waysverysimilarto those describedin Amazonian ethnology.8 As
elsewherein Amazonia, Huaorani birthobservancesfundamentally consistin
perinataldietaryand activity restrictions
forbothparents.Some timetowardsthe
end of the pregnancy, the expectantcouple stop eatingfishand most typesof
meat. They are only allowed toucan (yahue', Ramphastog cuvieri)and curassow
(bare,Cracidde)meat.9In case ofpolygyny(men oftenmarrytwo or three[classi-
ficatory]sisters),the otherwifeor wives eat,workand sleep as usual, and so do
all the siblingsof the baby-to-come.From the timethe motherenterslabourto
some days followingthe birth,the fatherrestrictshis food intake to boiled
plantainor manioc broth.He avoids huntingand staysat home as much as
possible, preferablylyingin his hammock,where he spends the nightalone
(ratherthanwithhis youngerchildrenand wife,as usual).
When askedwhytheyrestrict theirdietand dailyoccupationsbeforeand after
childbirth, men invariablyanswerthat,first,theydo so because theirwives do;
and that,secondly,the newborn,who 'is one flesh'with its motherand father,
mustbe protectedfromwastingaway.The couvade is nota male ritebuta riteof

LAURARIVAL 623
a couple. Parentsare anxious to protectinfantsfromdiarrhoeaand weightloss,

perceivedas a formofbodily'liquefaction'.Food taboosare aimed at 'hardening'
thebody,thatis, at reinforcing itsintrinsicenergy.The goal is to make the baby
vigorousand strong,so itcan growfastand developintoan independentmember
of the longhouse.Men I interviewedinsistedthatboth parentswere protecting
theinfant'svigourand assistingitsfastgrowththroughfasting.This factseemed
to be farmore significant to themthantheprecisedetailsofwhatparticularfood
should be avoidedand why.Whatmatteredalso was thatdietingparentsbehaved
differently fromfellowco-residents.Only parents-to-beavoidedwalkingin the
forest,to protectboth themselvesand the child fromanimal attacks.During
conversations withinformants, I also realizedthattheseprotectivemeasuresand
restrictions were notdifferentfromthoseobservedbythesick.In eithercase,the
endangeredvitalforceof particularindividualswas restoredthroughcollective
effortand the strictlimitationof importsfromwithoutthe longhouse.
Individualbehaviour,however,seems to varya greatdeal withinthesegeneral
guidelines.Couvade restrictions may last froma period of six months (three
monthsbeforeand threemonthsafterbirth)tojust one week. Iffewinformants
observethe most stringentdiet (manioc broth),almostall reportsome kind of
fastingin connexionwiththeirwives' pregnancies.The biggestchange in food
intakeI havedetectedis theradicalshiftfroma mainlymeatto a mostlyvegetable
diet.It is also worthmentioningthatifnot all youngfathersobservethecouvade
today,those who do not are not actingdifferently fromtheirwives. In other
words,thereis no case ofwomen dietingand givingup ordinaryactivitieswhile
theirhusbandsdo not,or,forthatmatter,of husbandsrespectingcouvade rites
when theirwives do not. When Hueica was expectingher second child, for
example,she accepted froma North Americanmissionarynurse vitaminand
mineralpills,which,althoughexplicitlyprescribedforher,she sharedwith her
husbandNanto. Many youngparentsfindperinatalobservancesbothersomeand
impractical.Nanto, currentlythe Health Co-ordinatorof the Organizationof
the Huaorani Nationalityof Amazon Ecuador (ONHIAE) spends much time
visitingindigenous communitiesand meetingofficialsin the provincialand
nationalcapitals.Justbeforetakingon thisresponsibility, he and hiswifeleftthe
house of his parents-in-law(wheretheyhad residedsincetheirwedding) to live
in his parents'village.As Nanto's dutiespreventedhim fromcomingbackhome
forthe birthof his thirdson (brieflyalluded to at the beginningof the previous
section),Hueica's mothertrekkedall the way fromher home to be with her
daughterduringchildbirthand help herlook afterthetwo oldersons. This time,
as herhusbandwas away,Hueica did not observecouvade restrictions, and I am
almostcertainthatNanto did not restrict his food intakeor activitieseither;but
he did radiohis wifefromtheorganizationheadquartersat leastonce a day.And,
althoughboth have greatfaithin modern medicine,had anythinggone wrong
duringthedelivery, or had thenewbornbeen unwell,theywould have immedi-
atelystartedcouvade restrictions, and Nanto would have come back home right
away,no matterwhat.10
Huaorani men do not 'imitate'childbirth, but takean activepartin it,often
actingas midwives.Unless labourstartsduringthenightand themotherhas no
timeto reachthekitchenarea,birthsstilltakeplace nearthehearth,whichis now
locatedaway fromthe sleepingquarters.Huaorani women give birthin an old
hammockespeciallyhungnearthehearthforthispurpose." The middlecord is

624 LAURARIVAL
pulled out when labour pains finallyappear.The hammock,now split in two

halves in the middle,allows the newbornto pass rightthroughthe hole onto
largeleaveson theground.The expectantfatherhelps hiswifeduringlabourby
massagingherback. He appliesstingingnettles(huento, a common analgesic)on
her stomach,back and temples.He may reach into his wife'sbody ifthereis a
as when,forinstance,theumbilicalcord is wrappedaroundthebaby's
difficulty,
neck. He also knows how to assisther in breechdeliveries.The fathercuts the
umbilical cord with a sharp instrument(usually a knife-shapedpiece of
bamboo),wrapstheplacentain tfielargeleaveson whichthebabywas born,and
buriesthe bundle withthe afterbirth in the nearbyforest,at the footof a slow-
growingtree.Traditionally, theplacentawas placed in a specialclaybowl (caanta),
also used by a girlto drinkwhen she menstruates forthefirsttime.This bowl is
stillused by men to prepareand storecurarepoison.12
A younghusband is aided in all thesetasksby his mother-in-law(he usually
resides uxorilocally),at least until he acquires sufficientknowledge and
experience.He mightin factdo no morethanobserveherduringthebirthofhis
firstchild.But by thethirdor fourthdeliveryrolesare reversed:theprospective
fatheris in charge;his wife'smothermightnot even be present.The othermen
of the longhouse,especiallythe father,unmarriedbrothersand brothers-in-law
of the mother-to-be,if theyhave not desertedthe communal dwelling,keep
aloof from other co-residentsand move about inconspicuously.Today,few
Huaorani stilllive in longhouses,but birthshave remainedcommunaleventsin
which a woman's close female kin (her grandmother,mother,classificatory
mothersand sisters)activelyparticipate, along withher husbandand theyoung
childrenwho arecommonlyassociatedwithherhousehold.Even when she lives
virilocally,a woman seeks to involveher motherin the birthprocess. It is not
uncommonforherhusband'smotherand fatherto leavethecommon residence
just beforelabourpainsstartand come backwhen theinfantis severalweeks old.
Whereas it is the officialfather(the man who lives uxorilocallywith the
pregnantwoman and formsan economic partnershipwith her) who cuts the
umbilicalcord,receivesthe newbornand buriestheplacenta,anyman who has
contributedsemen may observe the taboos associated with the couvade, by
which he publiclyacknowledgeshis creativecontributionto the makingof the
child.It took me a long timeto understandthatwhen an informant mentioned
severalnames in answerto my question about who theirfatherwas, or when
people were arguing about who exactlywas the fatherof a person whose
genealogyI was tryingto chart,theywerenotfoolingme, confusinggenealogical
and classificatoryfatherhood,or making bad jokes. Alleged or claimed
fatherhoodcan be translatedintoa multiplicity of more or less officiallinksthat
blur distinctionsbetween cognaticand affinalkin,and between the biological
and social aspectsof kinship.The factthatmore thanone fathercan be socially
recognizedis notwithoutconsequences."3Children(particularly male children)
who would have been potentialaffineshad co-fatherhoodnot been claimed,are
now half-siblings. Whereasco-fatherhooddoes not seem to have much impact
on marriagealliances,formostalliancesare consideredacceptableas long as the
rule emicallyexpressedas 'if the mothersare different[i.e. not sisters]the
childrencan marry'is respected,it multiplieslinks and reinforcessolidarity
betweenmen,both inter-and intra-generationally. However,giventhatinsemi-
natorsgive up theirroutineactivitiesand restricttheirdiet but are not involved

LAURARIVAL 625
in thedeliveryofthechildtheyhave helpedcreate,and giventhatthenewborn's

maternalgrandmother helps in thebirthof hergrandchildbut does not observe
couvade restrictions,only the officialfatherfullyparticipates,alongside the
mother,in the birthprocess.14
All men (butonlytwowomen) I interviewed aboutcouvade restrictionsended
up mentioninga popular mythabout a timewhen babies were raised by their
fathers.Because women did not know the muscularmovementsto expel babies
out of theirbodies,men were obligedto cut theirwives open, extractthe babies
and feed them untiltheywere old enough to fendforthemselves.As women
neversurvivedthe operation,and as therewere not enoughwomen availableto
remarry, men could have only one child. The mythcan be summarizedas
follows:
It was a tragic,
terrible
periodof our history,
formarriedmencouldonlyhaveone child,
whomtheydelivered bykillingtheirwives.Womenhada birthcanalanda hole,butitwas
toonarrowtoletthechildout,so menhadtocuttheirpregnant wivesopentogetthebaby
out.
One day,wegonhue'5observedan expectantcouplefroma distance.The womanwasclose
to givingbirth,so herhusbandwentto theforestto preparethespearsforthecaesarean
section.He wasin griefatthethought ofhavingto killandburyhiswifeandraisethebaby
on kapamo juice.16Butwhilehe wasbusymaking hisspears,thelittlerodentcamenearthe
pregnant woman,heldherinthebackandtaught hermuscular movements todilatethebirth
canal.The babywas bornjust beforeitsfather's return.He was absolutely stunnedand
delighted.The wordspreadaround,and pregnant womenfromthevicinity cameto learn
fromthewomanwho hadgivenbirthwithoutlosingherlife.Fromthenon,theHuaorani
racegrewandmultiplied.
When tellingthismyth,men put the stresson how terribleit isforthehusbandto
lose his wife.The new fatherhas no problemcopingwith,caringfor,or feeding
the child. But he is now spouseless and leftwith a single child. The primary
concernhere,which is with what happens to the wife/mother, representsthe
almostexactreversalof the concernexpressedin thecouvade.
Hostingthenewborn
There is only one termin Huaorani, which literallymeans 'in the process of
beingborn' (tequeenaringa), to translatefoetus,newbornand infant.As in other
partsofAmazonia, the childis said to resultfromthecoagulationoffemaleblood
and male semen.17I feltduringconversationswith informants(observingthe
movementof theirscooped hands) thattheywere tryingto impresson me that
thereshould be an equal proportionof semen and blood, and hence repetitive
sexual intercourse.18 As the clot forms,it is activated- energized- by the
Creator's19 soul matterand becomes a child.So the child is all formedfromthe
start;thereis no processof transformation or metamorphosis, onlya processof
growth.Likewise,deliveryis not sufficientto give birthto the child, who is
definitivelyborn onlywhen the fatherand the motherhave ended the couvade
restrictions,and when a classificatory grandparent(a grandmotherfora girl,a
grandfather fora boy) has givenhim or her at leastone personalname. Going a
stepfurther, I would saythatthemomentof birthis not thebeginningof lifeper
se, but ratherthe transferfrom one dwelling (the womb) to another (the
longhouse).20The wordfor'guest'is actually'theone who is born' (neefnaca); the
word for'host', 'the one who is at home' (ne ocoinga);and theword forwomb,

626 LAURARIVAL
'the place where childrenmultiply'(huinehgancoo). All this suggeststhatbirthis

partof a wider process of gradualincorporationby which children,who start
their lives in the mother's womb, are progressivelyintegratedwithin the
longhouse sharingeconomy.This requiresa period of transitionduringwhich
theyare exclusivelyfedby theirbiologicalparents.
Accordingto Huaorani etiquette,hostsmustgive to theirguestsunilaterally
and upon request.Guests are consideredto be pure consumers,just like new-
borns, at least when theyfirstarrive.Outside formalattendanceat drinking
ceremoniesor feasts,visiting,whichis alwayssurroundedwithan auraoftension
and uneasiness,is fairlyrestricted.Visitingconnectsclose kinwho, havingceased
to live together,now partakein the sharingeconomy of different longhouses.
The connexionis therefore neverbetweenthevisitorand all themembersof the
visited longhouse. The visitoris the guest of one or, at most, two or three
longhousemembers.A marriedman livinguxorilocallywho goes back to spend
some timewithhis motherand sistersrepresentsthetypicalvisitor.If he comes
accompanied by his wife or anothermember of theirlonghouse, these stay
outside. He alone, the authorizedguest,sits inside the longhouse. The wife
partakesin thecommensalityof thevisitedlonghousefromwithout,conversing
with the hosts throughthe palm wall and, when food is served,she receivesa
share indirectly,from the hands of the officialvisitor.Another reason why
visitingcreatesuneasinessis thatguestsare suspectedofwantingto prolongtheir
visitwiththe intentionof shifting allegiancefromone longhouseto another,or
to find refugethere aftera raid. Because guests may potentiallycease to be
exogenous to the nanicabotheyvisitand turninto new co-residents,visitingis
alwayson thevergeofleadingto a processofincorporation and,as such,is intrin-
sicallyambiguous.
Withthebirthof each child,parentsare likehoststo newcomers,theirguest-
children,whose attachmentto the longhouse is at firsttenuous. Parentsare
involvedin thebusinessof creatinga new life,thatis,of addingnew membersto
the nanicabo,and theyprotectthe fragileconnexionbetweenthe child and the
nanicaboby respectingcouvade restrictions which entailthe alterationof their
sharingpatternswithinthe longhouse. From this perspective,parents,whose
productiveactivitieshave diminishedalmostto nothing,have verylittleto give
away to co-residentsfromwhom theyreceive much less than theynormally
would, because of the stringentfood prohibitionstheyare following.In other
words, parentsundergoingthe couvade, while directingmost of theirgiving-
away practicesto the newborn,the privilegedcentreof theirsharingrelations,
shareless withtheirfellowco-residents.
The child existsas a personfromthe firstconscious parentalacts of feeding,
whichdenote,at the same time,theparents'partialexclusionfromthe nanicabo.
Moreover,theirfastingand inactivity stronglyidentifythemwith the newborn
withwhom theyforma communityofsubstance.When bothparentsobservethe
couvade restrictions, the child is publiclylinkedto caretakers;it is a welcome
guest. The parental ritualbehavioursignifiesthatthe child'sexistenceis uncon-
ditionallyaccepted.A non-desired childcannotbecome a person;it is killedand
buriedwiththeafterbirth. A woman pregnantagainstherwishesdoes not abort,
but,havinggone throughthepregnancywithoutobservinganycouvade restric-
tions,buriesthe newbornwith the placentarightafterdelivery.It is extremely
difficultfororphansto survive,evenwhen theyhave been adoptedor when they

LAURARIVAL 627
are undersomeone's protection.Social bondingstartsbeforebirthand develops

and grows afterbirth as the child's needs are satisfiedand its expectations
fulfilled.Well-beingis a primeconcernofsocial life,and so is caretaking. Parents,
throughtheirrepeatedacts of unilateralgivingaway (i.e. sharing),transferlife
substanceonto a separateindividual,who is no more linkedto the motherthan
itis to thefather, and who is made to feeljust as at home in theexternalworld as
itwas in thewomb.
The couvade, therefore,also relatesto a certainconceptionof childrenas
inherentlysocial, of child developmentas the natural developmentof self-
reliance,and of individualsas theirown proprietors. A child's inferiorstrength
and dependenceupon adultsdoes not implythatitsmotivesare not social, nor
thatitshould be treatedwithless respectthanan adult.There is no tracehereof
theview thatchildhoodis an antisocial,animal-likestagein the individual'slife
cycle,or thatit is the painfuland conflictiveprocessbywhich childrengrowup
onlyiftheirneedsarefrustrated, and ifowningparentsand owned childrenstand
in an adversaryrelationship.There are no wild instinctsto tame or domesticate
throughsocialization.If the newborn demonstratesits willingnessto live by
performingsuccessfullyduringdeliveryand by activelybreastfeeding;if its
genitrixand genitor(s)show theirintentionto welcome and host its new life
throughperforming thecouvade; thenthenewbornis consideredhuman,hence
social,thatis, as social and humanas itcan be at thisearlystage.The implication
is, therefore, thatthe child's processof becominga personfullyimmersedin a
developedweb of sharingrelationsis inseparablefromthe processby which its
parentsbecome parents,i.e. a married,reproductive couple fullyinsertedwithin
a matrifocal housegroup.As we shallsee below,thisis particularly crucialforthe
child'sfather.
In additionto the couvade, two importantritualpracticesdenote the great
importanceof becominga father.The ritualrecognitionof paternityfindsfull
expressionin thesacrificeof a youngchildon thegraveof itsdyingfather.It was
notuntilthesummerof 1996,when I had mymosttrusting informants role-play
I
a killingraidand the buryingof a dyingwarrior,that could fullyappreciatethe
natureand importanceof what I call a child sacrifice,forlack of a betterterm.
When a warrioris foundin agony,leftwithspearsrunthroughhis body and no
chance of surviving, his male relativesdig a shallowgrave,to which he is carried
by his femalerelatives.His wifeputstheiryoungestchild in thegravewithhim
and the two die by suffocation.When questioned on this issue, informants
unanimouslyansweredthatthiswas done 'so thefatherwould not leavetheland
alone, so he would not feellonelyin the afterworld'.
In the second ritualmarkingthe social significanceof fatherhood,a man of
matureage, with some of his childrenalreadymarried,and fullyincorporated
intohis wife'shousegroup,acquiresthe abilityto establishconsanguinealtiesof
a morepersonaland mysticalnature.He becomes a shamanwhen the spiritof a
jaguar adoptshim as his fatherand comes to visithim at nightin the longhouse.
The jaguar spiritfirstappearsin dreams.If welcomed and encouragedto come
back, he makes the man 'die' temporarilyand takesthe place of his soul. He
speaksand chants,refersto theunconsciousmanwhose bodyhe possessesas 'my
father',and addresses the man's wife as 'mother' and the man's childrenas
'siblings'.The termforshaman,meniera, may deriveetymologically fromminie,
'jaguar' and 'bara',mother. Furthermore, dead shamans are said to transform into

628 LAURARIVAL
femalejaguar cubs who eventuallypossess other mature men who in turn

become shamans. Contraryto the common practicein NorthwestAmazonia,
however,a shamanis nevercalled to purifythe newbornand its parentsbefore
theirreintegration within the longhouse. Is the fatheradoptinga jaguar son
conceptualizedas a female-likeagentwiththe capacityto engendera child?Or
is it,rather,thatthe male body can, afterhavingbegottenhuman children,host
a spiritual,animalforce?I do not know.But whateverthe answer,what remains
significantin thisformof incorporationis thatit takesthe formof a father-son
relationship.
Anthropological ofthecouvade
interpretations
The couvade is classicallydefinedas thecustombywhich'thefather, on thebirth
ofhis child,makesa ceremonialpretenceof beingthemother,beingnursedand
taken care of, and performingotherritessuch as fastingand abstainingfrom
certainkindsof food or occupations,lest the new-bornshould sufferthereby'
(Tylor1888: 254). More accurately, it has been describedas 'a set of ideas and
relatedconventionalbehaviourthatintimately associatesa man withthebirthof
his child' (Riviere1974: 425). It has fascinatedanthropologists, as botha typically
Amazonian rite and a particularly tellingpiece of anthropologicaltheorizing.
WVhat is strikingabout thedifferent interpretationswhichhavebeen proposedin
thecourseofthelast150years,is theirreconcilability oftheviewsgivingprimacy,
afterMauss (1979), to the idea of human individuation- fosteredand protected
sympathetically bycouvade restrictions - and thosereducingitall,afterBachofen
(1861), to a paternityritual institutionalizing the father'sright.It is clear,
however,thatin thelightofthecurrentunderstanding ofkinship,no longerseen
as a social identitygiven at birthand fixedin a set of structuralpositions,but,
rather, as a processofbecoming(Carsten1995; Strathern1989; 1992),we should
stoposcillatingbetweenthesetwo positionsand startthinkingaboutthecouvade
as a ritecorrespondingto theprocessbywhich a new human personis brought
to lifeand new relationships arecreated.It is onlybecause oftheentrenchedview
thatthe social is graftedonto the biological,withthe corollarypropositionthat
biology is woman's destiny,or thatfemale is to male as nature is to culture
(Ortner1974),21 thatthe two positionsare keptas rivalalternatives.
Withoutfullyreviewinghere the anthropologicaldebate on the couvade,22I
should simply like to stress that all the explanationsofferedso far have
naturalizedthe mother-childbond, and have eitherignoredor misrepresented
thejoint effortthroughwhich the husband-wifepair transfers lifeonto a new
human person,thusremodellingthe configuration of affinaland consanguineal
tiesin theirsocial group.This neglectis particularly obvious in theearlyreports
on Carib childbirths, which all revealthe (male) European astonishmentat,and
disapprovalof, the father's'sicklybehaviour',23seen as passive,cowardlyand
shocking,especiallywhen contrastedwiththeswiftrecoveryofthemother,who,
farfromconvalescingas a Europeanwoman would, resumesherdomesticwork
immediatelyafterdelivery.However, the Carib parturientshocks the seven-
teenth-century French,Dutch or Englishman farless thanherspouse does. She
might be very distant from her European, civilized counterpart,yet her
behaviouris intelligible:it is savageand animal-like:in one word, natural.But
the comportmentof the new father,which has no counterpartin the natural

LAURARIVAL 629
world,24appearsutterlyanomalous. The father'slying-insubvertsnot onlythe

orderof culture,but also the orderof nature:it is not a pre-civilizedbut an anti-
civilized practice.Lionetti (1988: 143-2), who discusses the ways in which
sixteenth-century Europeanmyth-makers spreadstoriesaboutAmerindianmale
breastfeeding,Amazon warriorsand otheraberrantsexualinversionssupposedly
observed in the West Indies, has shown the politicalimplicationsof Western
colonialfantasiesaboutsexualdifference, rootedas theywere (and stillare) in the
fearof,and culturalanxietyabout,the confusionof the sexes.25
Tylor's theoretical hesitation between mystical contagion and paternal
functionis ultimatelydue to the same biased oppositionbetweenmother-child
(biological) bond and father-child (spiritual)connexion.His lucid remarkthat
'South Americantribesconsciouslybelievethatdifferent personsare not neces-
sarilyseparatebeings' and thatthe couvade expressesthe nativedenial of 'that
physicalseparationof "individuals"which a civilisedman would probablyset
down as a firstprinciple'(Tylor 1865: 292), loses all its power as he goes on
opposing, and this despite the counter-evidencehe cites,26the nature of the
mother-childand father-child contagion.Whereashe takesthe formerto be real
(it is, consequently,perfectlyrationalfor the motherto observe food restric-
tions),he findsthelatterto be theresultof thesavagemind'sconfusionbetween
imaginaryand real relationsand, as such, purelymysticaland derivative(Tylor
1865: 293). The distancefromopposingrealand naturalmother-child contagion,
and artificialand culturalfather-child contagion,to arguingthatthe functionof
thecouvade is to assertand realizetheprimacyoffatherrightis,indeed,minimal.
Althoughfoundin otherpartsof theworld,the couvade is firstand foremost
an Amazonian rite. When analysed in its proper regional context,with no
pretentionof developinga generaltheoryto explainits originand institutional
development,the couvade appears clearlyfor what it is, i.e. a rite of co-
parenthood.Metraux'sshortarticleon the couvade writtenfortheHandbookof
SouthAmericanIndians (1946-1950) was the firstsyntheticand comparative
analysisof this custom in the Amazon region. In it, Metraux emphatically
stressedthat the Amazonian couvade was not motivatedby a male desire to
imitatechildbirth, and thatperinatalfood and activityrestrictions appliedto both
parents.VWhilefollowingTylor (1865), Frazer (1910) and Crawley (1927) in
interpreting theserestrictionsas a formof sympathetic magic,he also notedthat
food prohibitionswere primarilyaimed at the temporaryeliminationof animal
fleshfromthe parents'diet. Metraux (1946-50: 374) then concluded that,for
those who practisedit, the couvade was the 'expressionof the close bond
betweenthe fatherand the infant'sclingingsoul'.
The challengeof explainingthe couvade as both a riteof parenthoodand the
expressionofa strongspiritualconnexionbetweena fatherand his childhas been
takenup more recentlyby Riviere(1974) in an influentialcontributionto the
debate.His solutionto theconundrumis thatthecouvade,not unlikeChristian
baptismor compadrazgo in LatinAmerica,is a riteof spiritualcreation.Riviere
thus interpretsthe couvade as primarilyconcerned with the creation of a
completeperson,composedofa bodyand a mind- or soul. The new individual's
physicalpartis delivered(i.e. born) but the spiritualpartmustbe created,and if
thefatherparticipatesin the formerhis primaryresponsibility is in the latter.In
thesame lineofreasoning,Mengetinterprets theprocessbywhicha new human
person is broughtto life and new relationshipsare created in terms of the

630 LAURARIVAL
'universalsystemof elementarysymbolics'(Menget 1979: 257). One elementof

thissystemis therepresentation ofvitalfluids,whichstructures theconstitution
of the person, her or his relationshipto society and the creation of new
individuals.Menget,followingHeritier(1979), and perhapsmore in tune with
lowland South American social philosophies (Seeger et al. 1987), as Riviere
would himselfcontendtoday(pers.comm. 1997), thuslocatesthephenomenon
of spiritualcreationwithin a more general theoryof substances,which also
encompasses incest prohibitions.He findsthatthe classificationof food into
forbiddenand recommended,which underlinesdiet restrictionsand incest
taboos, and codifies the fundamentalopposition between weak substances
(water,milk,sperm,whiteflourand lean meat)and strongsubstances(foodsrich
in blood and fat and fermentedfoods), works to ensure thatthe progressive
separationof parentalsubstance,dividedby the couvade,does not get reunited
throughincestualunion.
Ifwe now turnto moreethnographic materials,we notethatmostAmazonian
anthropologistshave insisted, like Metraux, that couvade restrictionsare
observedbybothparentsand, likehim,have been primarily concernedwiththe
activeparticipationof the fatherin the birthprocess,as if the mother'sritual
restrictionswere naturaland matter-of-fact. Such oversightmay be due to the
fact that pregnantand breast-feedingwomen in Westernsocieties are also
subjectedto all sortsof behaviouraland dietarychange.Whereas,likeMetraux,
most ethnographershave paid more attentionto food restrictionsthan to
behaviouralones, theyhave, unlike him, stressedthatcouvade restrictions are
essentiallysimilarto those observedon manyotherliminaloccasions,such as a
girl'sfirstmenses,illness,death,or shamanicinitiation.A comparisonof their
accounts shows that in addition to practisingbirthobservanceswidely and
explainingthem in quite similarterms,Amazonian Indians also usually: (1)
conceiveofthechildas theproductofpaternaland maternalinfluences(in other
words,the child resultsfromthecomplementarity of shape and substance,or of
two substancessuch as blood and semen); (2) believethatrepeatedsexual inter-
course beforeand throughoutpregnancyis necessaryforthe foetusto develop
and grow; (3) grant a special role to the mother's mother during delivery,
sometimesin partnership withherson-in-law;(4) equate theend ofthecouvade
withthenaming(withor withoutceremony)ofthechild;(5) preferto space and ***
limitthe numberoftheirchildren;(6) and,finally, tryto achieve(and use infan-
ticideifnecessary)an equal numberof male and femalechildren.Beside these
common features,which should forman essentialpartof anyproperanalysisof
childbirthritualrestrictions,thereis some variationin thedurationand severity
of thecouvade. The mostsalientare: (1) the intervention of a shamanto reinte-
grate the couple and the newborn within the communal dwelling; (2) the
preferred locationfor,and theparticipationofthefatherin,thedelivery;(3) and,
finally,
theexclusivity of physiologicalpaternity(i.e. whetherseveralgenitorsare
recognizedor not).
The six common featuresidentifiedabove apply equally to the Huaorani
couvade. They highlighttwo importantcharacteristics of Amazonian birth
practices.The firstone is thatchildbirthdoes not constitutea radicalbreak- itis
not an event- but, rather,the processby which a new human lifeis gradually
incorporatedwithinthelonghouse.The secondcharacteristic is thatchildbirthis
at once child-centredand parent-focused. Perinatalrestrictions protectthe child

LAURARIVAL 631
and createnew relationshipsbetween,on the one hand,the child,his fatherand

his mother,and, on the otherhand,the parentsand the housegroup.They also
emphasize, along with native theoriesof procreationand sexuality,that the
creationof a new human liferequiresthe same involvementfromthetwo sexes,
even ifequal participation in childmakingaffectsmen and women differently.
It seems to me thatRiviere's(1974: 432) exclusivefocuson the transcending
effectofculture,whichworksat orderingand transforming rawbiologicalmatter
(he sums it up with the formulaBirth:Couvade :: Nature:Culture),risksthe
dangerof overlookingthe two centralcharacteristics mentionedabove. In the
Amazonian context,the individuationof the child does not depend only on its
gettinga soul as well as a body,but on its being placed withina fieldof social
relations,ultimately leadingto itssuccessfulincorporationwithina specificsocial
group. By givingpriorityto a hierarchicalsymbolicorderingwhich makes the
spiritualcreationof the child not only necessaryto itswelfarebut also socially
more significant thanitsbiologicalbirth,Rivierecould be read as ignoringsuch
placement.Furthermore, giventhefather'sspecialrolein creatingthechildspiri-
tually,his interpretation implicitlyleads one to inferthatfatherhoodis more
social than motherhood.This is in some ways the conclusion also reachedby
Bloch and Guggenheim(1981) in theirstudyof Christianbaptism,and by most
Melanesianistsinterestedin male initiationrituals(see in particularGodelier
1982). I am not denyingthatsome Amazonianmale initiationrites(Hugh-Jones
1979), like theirMelanesian counterparts, promotethe symbolicappropriation
offemalereproductive powersbymen. But to assimilatethecouvadeto theritual
rebirthof male initiandsunder the controlof senior male relativeswould be
entirelymisleadingand would representa real distortionof the ethnographic
data.
The couvade is nota riteoffatherhoodbuta riteofco-parenthoodwithspecial
implicationsfor men, given the uxorilocal nature of Amazonian societies.
Menget's interpretation is similarto Riviere'sin thatboth look forthe signifi-
cationof the couvade,not withinthe institutionitself,but withinthe structural
and abstractpropertiesof dualist categoriesof substance which, ultimately,
determinethe social order.Menget's structuralist theoryis attractivein thatit
draws no distinctionbetween bodily substances and food substances (food
substancesare processedby,and in,bodilysubstances),a view sharedby anthro-
pologistswho view kinshipin termsof biologicalprocesses (see, forexample,
Carsten1995). The problemwiththistheory, as withmanystructuralist theories,
is that ittriesto derivemarriage rulesfrom incest prohibitions.I do nottakeissue
with Menget on his well-takenpoint thatAmazonian parentsunderstandthe
protectionof theirnewbornsin termsof the substanceswhich make up the
person,but,rather, on hisoverlookingthesociologicalsignificance ofthefather's
recognitionthathe and his newbornsharethesame substance.Ritualabstinence
by a man on the birthof a child correspondsto his public notification thathe is
connectedto thischildand to itsmother,quite independently frommarriageand
residence.Through observingthe couvade restrictions, a man claims to be a
father.If he lives uxorilocallywith the child's mother,his claim furthershis
incorporation withinhiswife'snanicabo as kin,whileatthesame timemakinghis
relationto his sisters(potentiallythe futuremothers-in-lawof the child) more
affinal.Menget's global representationalsystem ultimatelyarticulatesthe
categoriesof 'same' and 'different'.AmongtheHuaorani,identityand alterity do

632 LAURARIVAL
not overlap neatlywith gender categories.Within the category'true human

beings', that is Huaorani people as opposed to all other kinds of people and
spirits,the gender category'woman' includes the most alike and the most
different.Whereasmothersand daughters(i.e. sisters)are mostidentical,female
cross-cousins (mengui)are most 'other'. If men's relationships- even that
between male cross-cousinsof eithersex - are always'consanguinizable',it is
absolutelyimpossibleto consanguinizerelationshipsbetween mengui.This is
whywomen are botha sourceof identityand of difference.
Sperber's (1996) critiqueof Menget entirelymisses the sociologicalsignifi-
cance ofthecouvade,forhis interestin theend is notto understandthecouvade
in itsAmazonian contextbut to criticizewhat he sees as the arbitrary natureof
most anthropology. For Sperber,anthropologists do not explain socio-cultural
phenomena:theymerelyinterpret them.Menget,he continues,shouldhavefirst
describedthe individualmental statesof the Txikao men he discusses at the
beginningof his articleand triedto answertwo questions:(1) how did thisritual
firstappear?and (2) in which sense can it be said to be beneficial?The latter
questionultimately raisesthemorefundamentalquestion:(3) whyis a particular
representation more contagiousand more frequentlyimplantedin a particular
population?Sperber'shypothesisis thatthemanundergoingtheritebelievesthat
the precautionshe takes do preventthe dangersand risksassociatedwith the
transmissionof life.His startingpoint,therefore, is Frazerian;it is sympathetic
magiche seeks to explain.For this,he focuseson the cognitivemechanismsby
which such a potentiallyharmfulfastingritualas the couvade is selected and
transmitted over generations,and identifiesfourpsycho-socialreasons under-
pinningthemagicalbelief:(1) all misfortunes call forexplanation;(2) authority-
holders are entrustedwith the responsibilityof determiningthe cause(s) of
misfortuneand of prescribingpreventiveremedies,and withthe taskof trans-
mittingthe group's customsand lore; (3) when misfortunestrikes,those who
were supposed to have behaved in a certainway and have not are held respon-
sible.They,therefore, abide bythecustomas a meansforpersonalprotection;(4)
because the couvade has no real efficacy, its persistencemust be explainedin
termsofthefactthatactorsmake inadequateinferenceson thebasis of observed
facts.One could well saythatSperber'sthesisdoes littlemore thanre-examine
Homans's (1941) synthesisof Malinowski's (1954) and Radcliffe-Brown's
(1965) positions on ritual and anxiety27 fromthe viewpoint of evolutionary
psychology.
There are severalproblemswithSperber'shypothesis, thefirstone beingthat
he naturalizesthemother-child bond bythinkingofthecouvade as primarily the
father'sconcern,and bytakingthereasonsforthemother'sprecautionary obser-
vationsbefore,duringandjust afterchildbirthto be obvious (Sperber1996: 54).
Then thereis the problemthatby seeingthe couvade as a defencemechanism
againstthe risksof childbirth,
he does not explainwhybeliefsstructured around
sympatheticmagic and contagionare so widespreadin Amazonia, particularly
when it comes to the ritualassociationor pairingof closelyrelatedentitiessuch
as begetter/begotten, or predator/prey
killer/victim, (Taylor1950: 349). In each of
these cases, the individuationof 'self' and 'other' is at stake.Finally,Sperber's
hypothesisin no way addressesthe factthatthe newborn'swelfaredepends on
its insertionwithin a web of relationships.All the available ethnographic
evidence supportsthe contentionthatthis is as profoundand transmittable a

LAURARIVAL 633
motivationas the concernwith protectingthe baby's health.As I have triedto

show, the Huaorani's understandingof the couvade is inseparablefrom the
notionthatpeople who livetogethercome to sharethe same substance,and that
the good healthof longhouseco-residentslargelydependson sharingpractices,
includingthatoffastingtogether.The incidenceofperinatalriskis not higherin
Amazoniansocieties,nor are newbornsperceivedas fragileand weak individuals
anymorethanin other,non couvade-practising societies.Like manybirthrituals,
are at leastas much parent-centred
couvade restrictions as theyare child-centred
(Bloch 1992). I thereforewish to argue, againstSperber,thatthe couvade is
profoundlyAmazonian and its existenceintrinsically linked to the structural
be theyuxorilocallyincorporatedor not.
positionof fathers,
thevalueofreproductive
Conclusion: sexuality
I have so fardiscussedthe role Huaorani people attribute to sexualityand child-
birthin the creationof parenthoodand the formationof intimaterelationships,
and criticallyreviewed past anthropologicalinterpretations of the couvade,
suggestingthattheirgreatestfailurehas been to overlookthefactthatprocreative
life-giving is alwaysrepresentedas involvingthecomplementary participationof
the two sexes, oftenimplyingthe constitutionof some kind of androgynous
agency.I would now like to summarizemy argumenton the birthprocess in
manyAmazonian societies,and conclude thatit should be analysedfromthe
viewpointofitstransformative effecton theprocreativecouple and,in particular,
on the father.This leads me to reassesstoday'sdominantthesisin Amazonian
anthropology thatwarfare,predationand devouringare thenecessarymeans for
the constitutionof collectiveidentitiesand fortheirsocial reproduction.Finally,
I will go back to thefeministand post-feminist quandarieswithwhich I started
thisarticleto arguethatsubjectiveidentitycannotbe properlyanalysedwithout
referenceto thebeginningand perpetuationof life.
As I havetriedto show,thenewbornchildis a keyelementin thereproduction
of Huaorani social life. The birthprocess - of which couvade ritesforman
intrinsicpart- representsa stateofinceptionas well as theincorporation ofa new
life at severallevels. First,thereis 'the social placing of the newborn' James
1997), thatis,therecognitionof thechildbeforeitsfullsocial integration which,
inAmazonia,occurswiththenamingceremony.In otherwords,theinceptionof
lifeis sociallymarkedpriorto the social recognitionof hereditary transmission.
Then thereis the factthat couvade restrictionsare meant to secure the child's
initial attachmentto life. Life, far from being taken for granted,is seen as
dependingas much on the attentionand care the child gets fromthe sharing
community,as on the child's will to live - and to live with a particularset of
parents(see Wagley1977: 135). The parentsdo not give lifeto the child, but
fosterits introductionwithin the longhouse communityof substance. It is
because newborn babies are guests of theirparents,on whom they exercise
exclusivedemand-sharing rightsas partoftheirprogressive incorporation within
the sharingcommunity,that Huaorani couvade restrictions, I have argued,
temporarily re-orderthe longhousesharingeconomy.Finally,thefatherand the
motherhave workedand made the babytogether;theyhave sharedthe capacity
to producekin. So the childcan also be said to createan enduringcouple out of
itsco-residingparents.The couvade,in thislight,represents a 'second marriage',

634 LAURARIVAL
and not a 'second birth'primarilyconcernedwith spiritualcreation(Riviere

1974: 431). It does not replacethe creativity of biologicalparentswith thatof
spiritualparents,but celebratesreproductivesexuality,that is, women's and
men's powerto createnew socialbeings(bodies and souls). The factthatin many
Amazonian societiesmarriageis not the object of any ceremony,and thatit is
publiclyacknowledgedonlyaftera couple has one or twohealthy, thriving babies
(Kensinger 1984) confirmsthat childbirthmaterializesthe conjugal tie, and
createsmarriage.So thewifeand the husbandare in a sense 'reborn'as mother
and fatherduringthe birthprocess.28 This seems to be confirmedby the nature
of couvade restrictions,which,as Guss (1989: 135) has so rightlystressed,make
theparentsof a newbornchildfollowthedietof an infantand relivethroughout
thefastingperiodthefirstyearsof a child.
Ifthe birthof a childirrevocably transforms sexuallymaturemen and women
into parents,it remains neverthelesstrue that fatherhoodand motherhood
constitutetwo non-equivalentformsof parenthoodundertheuxorilocalregime
prevailingin manypartsof Amazonia.29A numberof authorshave stressedthe
factthatthe couvade makesthe social unitof parents-and-child visible (notably
Da Matta 1971; Fock 1963; Seeger 1981). This in no way impliestheirallegiance
to a Malinowskian functionalistinterpretation of the nuclear familywith its
universalfunctionof nurturingchildren,forit is thefactthatmothersundergo
couvade restrictions as nativemembersof the longhouse,while fathersdo so as
incomers,which is sociallysignificant. By dramatizingmen's equal participation
in procreationand by makingit visible,perinatalobservanceshave the catalytic
effectof furthering the absorptionof in-marrying men intotheirwives' houses.
The rule of uxorilocalpost-maritalresidence,and the criticalimportanceof
fathering childrenin men's socialcareers,aretwocloselyrelatedsocialfacts.Men
starttheirmarriedlivesas affinalguests,almostas visitors,but progressively lose
theiraffinalguest statusthroughfathering, i.e. co-hosting,childrenguests.By
increasinglyparticipating in theirwives' nanicabothroughliving,sharingfood
and bringingchildrento life,marriedmen end up belongingto the groups
amongstwhichtheyresidewiththeirwives.When theirdaughtersreachpuberty
theytakethemon a ritualhunt,as iftheincipientsexualmaturity oftheirfemale
offspring representedthepromiseof moreconsanguinity - morekinship.When
some of theirsons and daughtershave marriedand bornethemgrandchildren,
theyletthejaguar-spirits visitthem,adoptingthemas sons.And theymeetdeath,
theirbodies marredand riddledwiththe spearsof the enemy,along with their
last child, buried by theirwives and wives' female kin as fullyincorporated,
consubstantialkin.
Whatabout co-genitorswho participate in themakingofthechildand respect
couvade restrictions withoutactuallybeinguxorialfathers, thatis,livingwiththe
childand itsmother?Co-fatherhood,I would argue,is identicaltowifeswapping
(Viveirosde Castro 1992: 168-72), in the sense thatthesetwo veryAmazonian
practicesequallyrenderkinshipcategorieselusiveand ambiguous.This is partic-
ularlyclear in the Huaorani case, where a single term (nanoongue)is used for
'wife','husband', 'wife's (classificatory)
sisters',and 'husband's (classificatory)
brothers';where manyin-marrying men end up developingconjugal ties with
one or two of theirfirstwives' youngersisters(thereforestrengthening their
evolvingpositionas insidersand fathers),and wheremen,who are occasionally
permittedto havesexwiththeirclassificatory wives,'co-sire'thechildrenoftheir

LAURARIVAL 635
classificatory brothers.True,Huaorani housegroups(nanicaboiri) are unusual in

theirextremepreference forlimitingthenumberofin-comingsons-in-law,their
high percentageof double cross-cousinmarriages(i.e. alliances between two
longhouses united throughcross-sex siblingship),and their 'filial adoptive'
relationshipto the supernaturalworld. Huaorani societymay be extremein its
treatmentof the wife-husbandrelationshipas the axis of consanguinity, and of
the brother-sister It neverthelessremainsthe case that
one as the axis of affinity.
the widespreadcharacterof shared biological paternitythroughoutAmazonia
must be accounted for.Paradigmaticconsanguinityis not purelyfemale,nor
paradigmaticaffinity purelymale, everywhere(Descola 1993: 175; Viveirosde
Castro 1992; 1995).
Finally,I have brieflyalluded to the factthatsexual isomorphism30 (i.e. the
reproductivepower of husband-wifeor brother-sister cross-sexpairs) equally
underpinsHuaorani representationsof procreation,social reproductionand
fertility - as either'naturalabundance' or 'increasethroughgestation'.31 The
Huaorani maywell be exceptionalin their'victimsofpredation'syndrome,32 but
theirculturalinsistencethattheycan reproducethemselveswithoutthe inter-
ventionof externalcreatorsnonethelessrequiresAmazoniananthropologists to
exercisecaution in theirclaim thatkilling,cannibalismand predationare the
primarymeans of social reproductionthroughoutAmazonia (Menget 1985;
Viveirosde Castro 1992; 1995), or thathomicideand warfare(in oppositionto
biologicalprocessessuch as birthwhicharenotspecificto humans),theproducts
of consciousnessand intentionality, are the realsourcesof a group'sfertility and
procreativepower (A. C. Taylor1996). My endeavourin thisarticlehas been to
demonstratethatthe birthprocessis a richculturaldomain,at leastin societies
practisingthe couvade, and thatlifegivingmayinvolveas much consciousness
and intentionality as, lifetaking.
as, and be politicallyas significant
It is ironic that while a dominant currentin Amazonian anthropology
identifieswarfarewith identityformationand subjectivewill, constructivist
socialtheorymakesofsexualembodimenta centralissue,and ofsexedbodies the
privilegedterrainto testthe discursiveconstructionof the real and the material
(Butler 1993). Neither of them,however,has verymuch to say about procre-
ativity.In contrastto an earliergenerationof feministscholarswho challenged
patriarchal ideologiesthatreducewomen's primecontribution to societyto their
biologicalcapacityfornurturingand reproducing,the new gendertheoristsare
fundamentallyconcernedwith individualsexed subjectivityand the embod-
imentof sexual identity. Their main claim is that,as sex is no more an essential
propertythangenderis, it is no longerusefulto differentiate sex fromgender.
Their unitsof analysisare no longergendercategories,i.e. 'men' and 'women',
but 'fullyindividuatedsubjects'constitutedthroughtheirsexual desires.Sex is
the most decisiveand crucialcomponentof one's social identity, giventhatthe
individualsubjectis an effectofhis or her (sexual) desire,and thisindependently
of his or her genitalia.Moore (1994: 6), for example, assertsthat 'there are
different waysof beinggenderedbecause thereare different waysof livingone's
sexuality'.What I find remarkableabout these theorizationsis thattheytreat
reproductivesex as entirelyideological,oppressiveor irrelevant. Butler(quoted
in Segal 1994: 27-8), forinstance,remarksthat'mostwomen will spend almost
all theirlivesnotpregnant, notgivingbirthand notsucklingtheiryoung'.As, she
goes on, non-parenthood an objectivesocio-economicfactfora majorityof
is

636 LAURARIVAL
women in industrializedsocieties,pregnancyand childbearingare notthereality

offemalebodies; theyareno morethantheproductsofideologyand prescriptive
discourses.This leads herto conclude thattheinstitution of reproductionis not
a salientquestion for thinkingabout gender in our Western,end-of-second-
millennium,context(see Rivaletal. in press).
I could have mimicked performativetheoryin my interpretation of the
couvade, and presentedexpectantfathersas parodyingbirthingmothersin an
excess of ironical consciousness used to deflectthe compulsive characterof
sexual reproductionby imitation.This, however,would have really done
violence to the ethnographicmaterial.The creationof a new life,which is an
importantcomponent of adult identityformation,is a joint project,which
transcendsgenderdifference. The unitof analysisis not theindividualmaterial-
izingthroughhegemonicdiscourse,but theconjugalbodygivingbirthto a third
body.
NOTES
I dedicatethisessaytomyCaneloQuichuafriend whohaspatiently
LeonardoViteri, explained
to me themeaningofAmazonianhusbandhood and to Ningui,my'littleson',
and fatherhood,
huinehiie,monitohuaponiquehuemonipa,
monitonanomoca, amonipa.Fieldworkamong the
manomay
Huaoraniwas supported bytheWennerGrenFoundation forAnthropological Research(Grant
#GR5146), withadditional funding fromtheLinneanSocietyofLondon.Theworkon whichthis
articleis basedwasoriginally presentedintheDepartment ofAnthropology atOxford,in October
1996.I amverygrateful to PeterRiviere,who inspired me towriteon Amazonianbirthrites,and
whocommented on earlierdrafts.
Manythanks alsotoMarilyn Strathern andEduardoViveiros de
Castrofortheirinvaluablecommentsand criticisms. I am grateful to SimonHarrisonforhis
editorial suggestions.
' Anydictionary definition (theone frommyPetit Robert forexample)mentions thattheword
'sexual'was coinedin 1742 froma Latinrootto describewhatis relativeto male and female
reproductive functions. The term'sexuality', coinedin 1838,was firstused by biologistsas a
synonym for'genitality',torefer tothesetoftraits characteristicofeachsex.Itwasnotbefore1924
thatsexuality came to meanall thebehaviours relating to sexualinstinct, sexualdesireand its
satisfaction. In otherwords,thenotionofsexuality as we knowithasdevelopedwiththebirthof
psychoanalysis.
2 Ironically enough,missionaries of theSummerInstitute of Linguistics (SIL) haveused this
wordto translate thehonourable, male-centred Biblicalterm'tobeget'.
I If livingtogether turnspeopleintothesamesubstance, theprocessis notirreversible. The
sharingof a commonsubstancelastsonlyas longas it is sustainedthrough continuous sharing
practices. It is notpermanent, andcanbe discontinued. However,reversing theprocessisa serious
matter. Individuals wholeaveone groupforanother undergoa changeofidentity, whichis usually
marked bytheadoption ofa differentpersonalname.Theyhavebecome'other'andcannotgoback
to thelonghousetheyleft,wheretheywouldbe takenformalevolent spirits,who havereturned
onlytokillanddevourtheirformer kin-associates.
4Da Matta (1982) was the firstanthropologist to stressthe importance of 'substance
relationships' in nativeAmazonia, andtodiscusstheconcomitant beliefthatparents influencethe
physical appearance andhealthoftheirchildren according to thefoodstheyeatoravoid.
I The brother-sister incestmyth,in whicha brother transforms himselfintoa mosquitoand
seduceshissisterbygetting intoherthroat,couldalsobe interpreted as a formofanimal-human
intercourse, butitdoesnothavetheeroticchargefoundin theothermyths(Rival1996b).
6 The suffix endingtapey derivesfrom- or at leastis relatedto - theexpression tey,which
indicates forceandvitality. The samesuffix is foundinmaney, theactionofinserting maniocstalks
intotheholeshastily createdwiththedigging stickintotheforest groundbeforetreefelling. The
expression teyisusedbyhunters whenblowinga dartthrough theblowpipe. Baromipa, on theother
hand,is alsousedtotalkaboutthemaking ofa blowpipeorspearbya manandthemaking ofa pot

LAURARIVAL 637
bya woman.I am notsurewhether thetermbaromipa is also usedwithreference to theconjoint

makingofa hammockbytheconjugalpair.However,andrevealingly, baromipa hasbeenusedby
theSIL missionaries to translate'God's creation'.
I Thisisgenerally thecase.ButtColson(1975),Da Matta(1982)andGuss(1989)notethattheir
informants referto perinatal restrictions
withthe samegenerictermtheyalso applyto other
periodsoffasting andconfinement. To myknowledge, onlytheWayapistudiedbyGrenand(1984),
whouse a similartermtorefer tobothparental birthobservances anda birdsitting on topofeggs,
viewthecouvadeas a kindofhumanbrooding.
8 Forinstance, Arhem1981;Barbira-Freedman n.d.;Basso 1973;ButtColson 1975;Da Matta
1982; Grenand1984; Guss 1989; Harner1972; Huxley1963;Jackson1983; Kensinger1995;
Menget1979;Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971;Riviere1974;Seeger1981;Shapiro1972;Wagley1977;
Wilbert 1974.
9 Thisis a list- farfrom exhaustive - ofsomeofthetaboos.Rootcropssuchaspapachina, camote
andsweetpotatomustbe avoided,otherwise thechildwillnotstandon itsfeet,andwillbe too
heavytowalkwell.Parents shouldeatonlyplantain andmaniocandavoidalltypesofmeat.Assoon
as labourpainsstart, parents mustavoidoba,bayaenca andnihuimo fish.It is acceptable(accordingto
someinformants only)toeatyeye, queremeneandtarano fish.It is prohibited toeathowlerorwoolly
monkeyheads,as well as thefeet,tailsand headsof otheranimals.Squirrelmeatis forbidden
duringpregnancy but can be eatenafterchildbirth. Cohatai(wildturkey) shouldnotbe eaten.
Whenthebabyis severalmonthsold,theparents caneatwoollymonkey again.Whenitis older,
theycan eat howlermonkeyagain.Theyshouldnoteat maniocwhichhas been cookedin the
morning. It shouldbe putina baskettodryandbe eatenatsunset.Anyofthesetaboos,ifviolated,
causesa specific abnormality intheinfant. As notedbyM6traux(1956:369),avoidances are'based
on thebeliefthatsomeunfavourable characteristic
oftheanimalorplantcouldbe sympathetically
transmitted totheinfant'.
10As Barbira-Freedman (n.d.) reportsforthe Lamistasof the Peruvianmontafia, greater
integration withinthenationalsociety doesnotnecessarily putan endto couvaderites.
11In mostAmazonian societies(seeforexample Arhem1981;Gray1996;Grenand1984;Harner
1972;Hugh-Jones 1979;Jackson1983;Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971;Wilbert1974)womengivebirth
outside,mostoftenin theirgardensor in shelters builtat theedgeof theforest. The Tapirape
(Wagley1977),theTxikao(Menget1979)and someGuyanaShieldCaribgroups(ButtColson
1975)choose,liketheHuaorani,togivebirthathome.
12 In a myth aboutformer times'whenhumansandanimalswerethesame',thesunandcreator
ofalllivingthings, Huegongui, who is referredtoas 'ourgrandfather', is intentionally takentoa big
firebyhistreacherous riverottergrandchildren, anddies.His wife,'ourgrandmother', picksthe
ashes,gathers theboneremains andpilesthemup ina leaffunnel, whichsheplacesabovea caanta
claybowl.The watershepourson themdripsintothebowl,dropbydrop.Whenshecomesback
thefollowing morning, she findsa four-month-old babyin thepot; it is herhusband,reborn.
Today,menpreparecurarepoisonbyscraping theoontavine(Curarea tecunarum) ontomdleaves
rolledintoa funnel. Theyplacethefunnelabovea smallclaypottheycallcaanta, slowlyruna small
quantity ofwateroverit,andplacethepotfilledwithblackliquidovertheembersofthecooking
hearthforseveralhours.
13 Multiple genitors seemtobe morecommonincentral Brazilthanin thenorthwest Amazon.
A gooddescription is offered bySeeger(1981:149):
A manwho believesthathiswife'snewbornis nothischildmayobservedietrestrictions
veryseverelyuntilthechildgetssick;thenhe knowsthatthechildis nothis,sincethechild
becamesickinspiteofhisobserving therestrictions.
Or he maynotobserveanyrestrictions
andnotethatthechildstayshealthy. is considered
Thislast,however, a badprocedurebythe
restofthevillage.
Wagley (1977:133)reports amongtheTapirape,
that, Whenitwasknownthata womanhadhad
withseveralmen(four,fiveor more),thenthechildhad "toomanyfathers"'.
intercourse As this
would endangerthe child'shealthand well-being,the newbornwas buriedat once withthe
AmongtheTimbira(Nimuendaju1946,citedinPaige& Paige1981:192-3),themother
afterbirth.
mustnameall thepossiblegenitors at thetimeof delivery.
All namedmen mustperform the
couvade.
thenewborn's
14 Bycutting navelcord,thefather
publicly hiswillingness
demonstrates toaccept
wellillustrated
Thispointisparticularly
paternity. in Holmberg(1969:177-84,192-4).

638 LAURARIVAL
15A smallmouse-like rodentwhichcomesin thekitchen atnightto feedon maniocandsweet

potato.
16
Kapamois a rootsimilarto maniocin appearance, butwitha juicysweetwhitefleshwhich
canbe eatenrawlikea fruit.It is stillgiventobabiesandyoungchildren tobreast
as a complement
milk.Otherversions mentionthatfathers on woollymonkey
raisedtheirchildren brains.
17 It shouldbe noted,however, thata majorityof groupsfavoura patrilateraltheoryof
conception. The Arakmbut, forexample,believethata man'ssemenis a partofhisphysical and
spiritualbeingthatis transferredtohiswife:
ofsemenin herwombresultsin theformation
The gradualaccumulation ofa childwho is
ofthefather.
a reformation
substantially areaccountedforbytheinfluence
Anydifferences
wereresponsible
oftheshapeofthewomb,orthefactthatseveralfathers fortheformation
ofthechild.
18
amongtheApinay6.
Da Matta(1982:171)notesa verysimilarreasoning
theoriginal
19 Huegdngui, 'ourgrandfather'
ancestor, (monito is attheoriginofall animal
meme),
andhumanlifeon earth.
20
CompareReichel-Dolmatoff thepassagefromone
(1971:140):'The newlybornchildeffects
uterine to another'.
existence
21
See Crawley's(1927:182-3)exceptional
insight forhistime:
[of the couvade]reallyerrsin not takingintoaccountthe
Each of theseexplanations
woman'ssideofthequestion.Theyshowa sympathy withthefatherandthechild,butforget
themother,andarethusa moderndocument, thehistory
illustrating ofwoman'streatment
byman.
22
For thehistorical debatefollowing Tylor's(1865) coiningof theterm'couvade'see Tylor
(1888; 1892a;1892b)andMurray(1892a;1892b;1892c).See Tylor(1888),Roth(1893),Crawley
(1927:175-202)andFrazer(1910,vol.i:72-3,vol.iv:244) fordiscussions ofwhyTylorabandoned
his earlierpositionthatthecouvadewas a formof sympathetic magicand adoptedBachofen's
socio-politicalexplanation. See Malinowski(1927) forthe functionalist view thatthe couvade
legitimizes thefather's socialrole,and Douglas(1975) thatit actsas a bindingforcein societies
wherethemarriage linkis weak.Levi-Strauss (1962) brieflydiscussesthecouvadeas a formof
totemic thought in thecontext ofnamingsystems. Riviere's(1974)influentialexplanation stresses
the dual (body/mind) constitutionof the human person.Menget (1979) definescouvade
observances inrelation toincesttaboos,intermsofa general structuro-symbolicgrammar ofstrong
(hot) and weak (cold) substances. More recently, Sperber(1996) has explainedthecouvadein
evolutionary-psychological termsas an epidemiologically communicated culturalrepresentation
relating to perinatalrisks.Surprisingly enough,despitetheobviousinterest thecouvadeshould
haveforculturalmaterialism andcultural ecology, no-onehasever- at leastto myknowledge -
triedtodemonstrate theadaptive valueofthecouvade,exceptperhapsindirectly as a formoffood
prohibition (Ross1978).
3 OnlyRochefort (1665:550),who is thefirst to describea Caribfather undergoing couvade
restrictions,and thosewho havewritten abouttheCaribbeannativeson thebasisofRochefort's
first-hand observations, comparethemto a supposedly similarold Frenchpeasantcustom.There
is no mention ofthewordcouvadeinDutertre (1661-71:372),forexample.
24 TylorexplicitlywritesinTheAcademy (5 Nov.1892,p. 412) thatitisbecauseofitsetymological
reference tobrooding orhatching thathe upgraded thelocaltermcouvade to thestatusofa general
concept(withwhichhe couldmeasurehistorical development andsocialprogress) todefinebirth
customscharacterized bytheconfinement andrestriction ofthefather fora periodafterthebirth
ofhischild.The institutional development ofthecouvadewasinhisviewsomewhat modelledon
thenaturalevolutionof sexualreproduction frombirdsto mammals.However,exceptforthe
Wayapistudiedby Grenand(1984), who use a similartermto referboth to parentalbirth
observances andto theactionofa birdsitting on itseggs,thereis no evidencethatthecouvadeis
emicallyperceivedas a kindof humanbrooding.Murray's(1892) etymological and historical
investigations haveconvincingly shownthatRochefort's (1665) derogatory use of thetermfaire
couvadereferred toa Frenchsatirical expression usedtoderidethecowardly behaviour ofmenwho
do notgetinvolved inpublicaffairs orfight,butinsteadstayathomelikehenscrouching downontheir
eggs,or,inAmerican slang,'chicken-hearted' I wouldliketopropose,
or'chicken-livered'. although
thiswouldrequirefurther thattoappreciate
investigation, thederogatory meaningattached tothe

LAURARIVAL 639
comparison ofcowardly menwithhens,one mustcontrast itwiththesexualconnotations ofcock

symbolism. The Gallicrooster is thesymbolofvirility (as theemblemoftheFrenchnation-state,
it expressesconqueringand victoriouspatriotism) and of sexual prowess(Don Juansand
Casanovasare called 'cocks' in popularFrench).Interestingly, the ungentlemanly, recreant
connotation has survivedintomodernFrench,in whichcouvaison, the termforbroodingor
incubation, derivesfromtheverbcouver, a verbcommonlyused to mean 'hatching a plot' or
(meditating schemesofvengeance'.
25 Sadly, the influence of suchprejudicedinterpretation has madeitswayeven intocurrent
encyclopedic definitionsofcouvade(Hunter& Whitten 1976:93-94;Jones1995:124).
26 See forexample thecitation froma Tamanacinformant recorded byAbateGilij(Tylor1865:
289-90).
27 Couvade ritesreducemale anxiety about the uncertainties of birth,but, if performed
incorrectly or notatall,theritesmaycreateor increase anxiety. See Paige& Paige(1981:40-1)for
a discussion ofthispoint.
28 This is thesensein whichI interpret Levi-Strauss's (1962:258-59)remark thatbothparents
respecting couvaderestrictions imitate thechild.
29 I am awarethatmystructural-functionalist argument focusedon theuxorialconditionof
Huaoranifathers does notadequately explaintheroleof thecouvadein societieswitha strong
patrilocalideology.A trulypan-Amazonian explanation of the couvademay requirethatwe
transcend thesociological levelofunilocalmarriage rules,todefinethejuralandphysical natureof
Amazonianfatherhood, followingHouseman's (1988) structural thesisregardingthe non-
empirical and universal character ofthedifferences betweenmaleand femaleparenthood within
theframework oftheirhierarchical integration.
30 Cross-gender social interactions are conflictive and cosmologiesmale-biasedin some
Amazonian It is wrong,however,
societies. to interpret all complementary oppositions(self/other,
kin/affine,victim/killer, andso forth)
virilocal/uxorilocal, insexualterms, as iftheywerevariations
on thesame universaltheme.Moreover,thefactthatcosmological systems are saturatedwith
sexualand otherbodilyimages(Reichel-Dolmatoff 1971;Roe 1982)shouldbe understood as an
expression of theimportance of organiclife,fertility and biologicalreproduction in Amazonian
thinking.
31 In Rival(inpress)I detail theprocessbywhichthecouple (notthetwoindividuals forming it)
hosting a maniocdrinking ceremony symbolizes, as an indivisible unit,a treeundergoing theslow
biological processleadingtomaturation andfruiting, andarguethatbearing a baby(gestation)and
bearing fruit(fruiting)areconceptualized as identicalprocesses.
32 The Huaorani socialuniverse is partitioned
intotwoirreducible andessential categories,'the
truehumanbeings'(Huaorani)and'thecannibals'(all non-Huaorani), who standin a relation of
unilateral predation, withman-eating predators replenishing theirstrength and vitalityat the
expenseoftheHuaorani,theirhumanvictims.
REFERENCE
Arhem,K 1981.Maakunasocialorganization: a studyindescent, alliance

andtheformationofcorporate
groupsinthenorthwestAmazon.Uppsala:ActaUniversitatis Upsaliensis.
Bachofen,JJ.1861.Das Mutterrecht.Stuttgart.[Reprinted inMyth, andmother
religion (trans.)E.
right
Mannheim.London:Routledge & KeganPaul,1967].
Barbira-Freedman, F. n.d.The couvadeas a riteofmanhood?Fromwestern Amazoniato Britain.
ms.
Basso,E. 1973.TheKalapaloIndians ofcentralBrazil.New York:Holt,Rinehart & Winston.
Beauvoir,S. de 1953(1949).Thesecond sex(trans.)H.M. Parshley NewYork:Knopf
Bloch,M. 1992.Birthand thebeginning of sociallifeamongtheZafimaniry of Madagascar. In
Comingintoexistence: birthand metaphors ofbirth(ed.) A. Goran.Gothenburg: Institutefor
AdvancedStudiesin SocialAnthropology.
Bourdieu,P 1977.Outline ofa theory (trans.)R. Nice. New York:Cambridge
ofpractice Univ.Press.
J.1993.Bodiesthat
Butler, inthediscursive
matter: of'sex'.New York:Routledge.
limits
ButtColson,A. 1975.BirthcustomsoftheAkawaoi.In Studies insocialanthropology:
essaysinmemory
ofE.E. Evans-Pritchard(eds)J.M.Beattie& G. Lienhardt. Oxford:Clarendon.
Carsten,J. 1995.The substance of kinshipand theheatof thehearth:feeding, personhood and

640 LAURARIVAL
relatedness amongMalaysin PulauLangkawi. Am.Ethnol. 22,223-41.

Crawley,E. 1927(1902).Themystic rose:a study
ofprimitivemarriageandofprimitivethoughtinitsbearing
onmarriage, vol.2. London:Methuen.
Da Matta,R. 1982.A divided world: Apinaye (trans.)A. Campbell.Cambridge,
socialstructure MA:
HarvardUniv.Press.
Descola, P 1993. Les affinit6s selectives:alliance,guerreet predationdans l'ensemblejivaro.
L'Homme 33 (126-8),171-90.
Douglas,M. 1975Implicit meanings:essaysinanthropology.
London:Routledge & KeganPaul.
Dutertre,J.-B.1667-71.Histoire generaledesAntilles parlesFran,ais.
habitees Paris.
Fock,N. 1963. Waiwai:religion andsociety ofan Amazonian tribe(Ethnogr.Ser.8). Copenhagen:
NationalMuseumofDenmark.
Frazer,
J.1910.Totemism andexogamy. London:Macmillan.
Godelier,M. 1982.La production desGrands Hommes. Paris:Fayard.
Gray,A. 1996.TheArakmbut ofAmazonian Peru.1,Mythology, andhistory.
spirituality Oxford:Berg.
Grenand,F. 1984.La longueattenteou la naissancea la vie dansune soci6teTupi.Soc. Suisse
Americanistes 48, 13-27.
Guss, D. 1989. To wveave and tosing:art,symbolism and narrativein theSouthAmerican rainforest.
Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press.
Harner,M. 1972.TheJivaro: peopleofthesacredwaterfalls.
Heritier,F. 1979.La symbolique de l'incesteet de sa prohibition. In La fonctionsymbolique:essai
d'anthropologie(eds) M. Izard& P Smith.Paris:Gallimard.
Holmberg, A. 1969.Nomads ofthelongbow.GardenCity,NY NaturalHistoryPress.
Homans,G. 1941.Anxietyand ritual:the theoriesof Malinowskiand Radcliffe-Brown. Am.
Anthrop, 43, 164-72.
Houseman,NM.1988.Towardsa complexmodelofparenthood: twoAfrican tales.Am.Ethnol. 15,
658-77.
Hugh-Jones, S. 1979. 7he palmand thePleiades:initiation and cosmology in northwestAmazonia.
Cambridge: Univ.Press.
Hunter,D. & P Whitten 1976.Couvade.In Encyclopedia ofanthropology.
New York:Holt,Rinehart
& Winston.
Huxley,F. 1963(1956).Affable savages.London:RupertHart-Davis.
Jackson, J. 1983. Thefishpeople:language exogamy and Tukanoan in northwest
identity Amazonia.
Cambridge: Univ.Press.
James,W 1997.Placingtheunborn:on thesocialconstruction of new life.Kaberry Memorial
Lecture,(ms).
Jones,A. 1995.Couvade.In Larousse dictionary
ofworldfolklore.
Edinburgh: Larousse.
Kensinger,K. (ed.) 1984.Marriage practices
inlowland SouthAmerica(III. Stud.Anthrop. 14). Urbana:
Univ.ofIllinoisPress.
1995.Howrealpeople oughttolive:theCashinahuaofeastern
Peru.Prospect Heights:Waveland
Press.
IAvi-Strauss,C. 1962.La pensee sauvage. Paris:Plon.
J.1986(1975).7hecontinuum
Liedloff; concept.
Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Lionetti,R. 1988.Le laitdupere.Paris:Imago.
Malinowski, B. 1927.Sexandrepression insavage London:Routledge
society. & KeganPaul.
1954(1948).Magic, science
andreligion.New York:DoubledayAnchorBooks.
Mauss,M. 1979. Bodytechniques. In Sociologyandpsychology:
essays byMarcelMauss(trans.)B.
Brewster. London:Routledge & KeganPaul.
Menget,P 1979. Tempsde naitre,tempsd'etre:la couvade.In La fonction symbolique:
essais
d'anthropologie(eds) M. Izard& P.Smith.Paris:Gallimard.
(ed.) 1985.Guerre, soci6teetvisiondu mondedanslesbassesterres de l'Arneriquedu Sud.
J. Soc.Americanistes
71,specialissue.
Metraux, A. 1946-50.The couvade.In Handbook ofSouthAmerican Indians,vol. 5 (ed.)J.Steward.
Washington: Smithsonian Institution.
Moore,H. 1994.A passion fordtfference.
Cambridge: PolityPress.
Murray, JA.H. 1892a.Couvade:thegenesisofan anthropological term.Academy 1069,(24 Oct.)
389-90.
1892b.Couvade:thegenesisofan anthropological term. Academy 1072(19 Nov.),000-0.
1892c.Couvade:thegenesisofan anthropological term.Academy 1076(17 Dec.), 567-8.

LAURARIVAL 641
Nimuendaju,C. 1946.TheEastern Timbira (trans.,ed.) R. Lowie.Berkeley: Univ.of California

Press.
Ortner, S. 1974.Is femaleto maleas natureis to culture?In Woman, cultureandsociety (eds) M.
Rosaldo& L. Lamphere. Stanford: Univ.Press.
Paige,K &J.M. Paige1981.Thepolitics ofreproductive ritual.
Radcliffe-Brown, A.R. 1965.Taboo.In Structure andfunctioninprimitive
society(ed.) A.R. Radcliffe-
Brown.New York:FreePress.
Reichel-Dolmatoff, G. 1971.Amazonian cosmos: thesexualandreligious
symbolism oftheTukano Indians.
Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress.
Rival,L. 1992.Social transformations and the impactof formalschoolingon theHuaoraniof
Ecuador.Thesis,University ofLondon.
1996a.Hijosdelsol,padres deljaguar: losHuaorani hoy.Quito:Abya-Yala.
1996b.Blowpipesandspears:thesocialsignificance ofHuaoranitechnological choices.In
Nature andsociety:
anthropologicalperspectives(eds) P Descola& G. Palsson.London:Routledge.
in press.Marginality witha difference: howtheHuaoraniremainautonomous, preserve
theirsharingrelations and naturalize outsideeconomicpowers.In Hunters andgatherersin the
modern context: resistance
conflict, andseW-determination (eds)M. Biesele& P Schweitzer. Providence:
Berghahn Books.
, D. Slater& D. Millerin press.Sex and sociality: comparative ethnography of sexual
objectification.
Theory, Culture & Society.
Riviere,P 1974.The couvade:a problemreborn. Man (N.S.) 9, 423-35.
Rochefort, C. de 1665 (1658).Histoire naturelle etmorale desIslesAntilles
de l'Ame'rique.Rotterdam:
Arnoult Leers.
Roe,P 1982.Thecosmic zygote.New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers Univ.Press.
Ross,E. 1978.Food taboos,dietand huntingstrategy: theadaptation to animalsin Anazonian
culturalecology. Curr.Anthrop. 19,1-36.
Roth,L. 1893.On thesignification ofthecouvade.J. Inst.22,204-41.
anthrop.
Saladind'Anglure, B. 1980.'Petit-ventre': lenfantgeantdu cosmosinuit.L!Homme 20,7-46.
Seeger,A. 1981.Nature andsocietyincentralBrazil:theSuyaofMattoGrosso. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
Univ.Press.
etal. 1987.Sociedadesind(genas & indigenismo noBrasil.Rio deJaneiro: UJRJ, EditoraMarco
Zero.
Segal,L. 1994.Straightsex.thepoliticsofpleasure. London:ViragoPress.
Shapiro,J. 1972.Sex rolesandsocialstructure amongtheYanomamaIndiansof northern Brazil.
Thesis,ColumbiaUniversity.
Sperber,D. 1996.La contagion desidWes.Paris:OdileJacob.[Englishtranslation: Explaining a
culture:
naturalistic
approach.Oxford:Blackwell, 1997.]
Strathern, M. 1989.After nature:English kinship inthelatetwentiethcentury.New York:Cambridge
Univ.Press.
1992.Needingmothers, needingfathers. ms.
Taylor,A.-C. 1996.The soul'sbodyanditsstates:anAmazonian perspectiveon thenatureofbeing
human.J. Roy.anthrop. Inst.(N.S.) 2, 201-15.
Taylor,D. 1950.The meaning ofdietary andoccupational restrictions
amongtheIslandCaribs.Am.
Anthrop. 52,343-49.
Tylor,E.B. 1865.Researches intotheearly history ofmankind andthedevelopment ofcivilization.
London:
J.Murray.
1888.On a methodof investigating thedevelopment of institutions,appliedto lawsof
marriage anddescent.J. anthrop. Inst.17,245-72.
1892a.Couvade:thegenesisofan anthropological term. Academy1070(5 Nov.),412.
1892b.Couvade:thegenesisofan anthropological term. Academy1075(10 Dec.), 542.
Viveirosde Castro,E. 1992.Fromtheenemy's pointofview:humanity anddivinity in an Amazonian
Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress.
society.
1995.Pensandoparentesco Amerindio. InAntropologiadoparentesco:
estudos Amerindios(ed.)
E. Viveirosde Castro.Rio deJaneiro: UFRJ.
Wagley,C. 1977.Welcome totears:theTapirape ofcentral Brazil.New York:OxfordUniv.Press.
Wilbert,J.1974.Yupafolktales. Los Angeles:LAC Public.
Yeatman,A. 1982. The procreative model:the social ontological bases of the gender-kinship
system. SocialAnalysis14,3-30.

642 LAURARIVAL
invit6s:la couvadechez les Huaorani

et enfants
Parentsandrogynes
Resume
N'hesitantpasa contrer la devisepost-feministe 'le genreestun effet du discours, etle sexeun
effetdu genre'(pourtant trespopulaireaujourd'hui), parcequ'elle confondla sexualit6 avec
et choisitd'ignorer
l'erotisme, le rolejoue parcelle-cidansla transmission de la vie,l'auteur
defendla position
que toutetheorie du sexeetdu genredevrait de la fonction
partir procreatrice.
L'argumentest developpea partirde la conceptionque les Huaorani de l'Amazonie
equatoriennese fontde la sexualitehumaine. Ellerepresente poureuxunevoieprivilegiee pour
creerla parenteet formerles relations intimes.Les ritesde naissance(plus connusdans la
ethnologique
litterature sousle nomde couvade)fontpartieintegrante de ce processus. L'auteur
passeen revueles interpretationspasseesde la couvade,etsuggere de les modifier dansun sens
qui permetteprendre en comptela natureandrogyne du phenomene procreatiftelqu'ilestvecu
etrepr6senteenAmazonie.Elledemontre ensuiteque la reproduction socialechezlesHuaorani
ne dependpasau premier chefde la predation etde la guerre,maisplutotde l'incorporation du
nouveau-n6. se termine
L'article parune brevediscussiondes positionspost-modernes surla
jugeeslimitees
sexualite, eterronees,carprivilegiant subjective,
l'identite ce qui rendimpossible
touteanalysedesconceptions indigenes concernant le debutetla perpetuation de la vie.
Department EliotCollege,
ofAnthropology, University KentCT2 7NS.
ofKent,Canterbury,
e-mail:l.m.rival@ukc.ac.uk


Rival Couvade

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rival Couvade

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Androgynous Parents and Guest Children: The Huaorani Couvade

Author(s): Laura Rival

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

Despitethecurrentpopularity ofthepost-feministmotto'genderis theeffectofdiscourse,

Simonede Beauvoir(1949) arguedthatbiologywaswoman'sdestiny, andthat,

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

husband becomes a kinsmanto his wife and to her housegroup.This process

'Two making'sex: sexualcomplementarity

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

ation and are of approximatelythe same chronologicalage) are 'two making'

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

of the Bible into Huaorani had greatdifficulty in findingthe rightterm for

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

a couple. Parentsare anxious to protectinfantsfromdiarrhoeaand weightloss,

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

pulled out when labour pains finallyappear.The hammock,now split in two

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

in thedeliveryofthechildtheyhave helpedcreate,and giventhatthenewborn's

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

'the place where childrenmultiply'(huinehgancoo). All this suggeststhatbirthis

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

are undersomeone's protection.Social bondingstartsbeforebirthand develops

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

femalejaguar cubs who eventuallypossess other mature men who in turn

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

world,24appearsutterlyanomalous. The father'slying-insubvertsnot onlythe

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

'universalsystemof elementarysymbolics'(Menget 1979: 257). One elementof

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

and createnew relationshipsbetween,on the one hand,the child,his fatherand

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

not overlap neatlywith gender categories.Within the category'true human

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

motivationas the concernwith protectingthe baby's health.As I have triedto

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

and not a 'second birth'primarilyconcernedwith spiritualcreation(Riviere

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

classificatory brothers.True,Huaorani housegroups(nanicaboiri) are unusual in

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

women in industrializedsocieties,pregnancyand childbearingare notthereality

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

bya woman.I am notsurewhether thetermbaromipa is also usedwithreference to theconjoint

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

15A smallmouse-like rodentwhichcomesin thekitchen atnightto feedon maniocandsweet

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

comparison ofcowardly menwithhens,one mustcontrast itwiththesexualconnotations ofcock

Arhem,K 1981.Maakunasocialorganization: a studyindescent, alliance

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

relatedness amongMalaysin PulauLangkawi. Am.Ethnol. 22,223-41.

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

Nimuendaju,C. 1946.TheEastern Timbira (trans.,ed.) R. Lowie.Berkeley: Univ.of California

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

invit6s:la couvadechez les Huaorani

This content downloaded from 131.111.184.21 on Tue, 29 Apr 2014 06:05:31 AM

You might also like