Anthropology is a science that studies the cultures of the various groups and societies of human beings. The meaning of the anthropology word derives from the Greek language: “?????p??” and “?????”. “Anthropos” means man, human being in its general connotation whilst “logos” means reasoning, thinking, though, raison d'être. “Logos”, in the Greek philosophy is one of the basic fundaments of thoughts and what makes human beings human (Heraclites, 4th century BC). These two terms are extremely powerful and meaningful, especially if linked together.
What are we expecting from anthropology? It seems to be a complicated challenge to study the human culture, since it is constantly evolving, mutating and because of its unpredictable characteristics. It is necessary, therefore, to consider every specific culture like an alive organism, which characteristics differ substantially, even though these mutations are often not noticeable. Faith Elliot (1986:11) summarizes Marx’s argument: “social relations are historically specific and subject to change. [...] Humankind’s capacity to produce is constantly developing as technology expands.”
It could be said that it is unattainable to have knowledge of all cultures and their facets; however it is possible to take a snapshot of a given subject and analyze it in detail during an established time and location. Before deep research and detailed analysis, we can change our camera lens with a wide-angle lens to take wider and broader angle pictures. The day in which our film will be developed (maintaining my photographic metaphor) we will have images representing the general information and the general patterns of the subject.
One of these subjects is the family.
Our world hosts diversified forms of family; for that reason, due to the vastness of its features we will proceed to analyze one of the most commonly known types: the western nuclear family. Subsequently we will compare it with its cultural and geographical opposite: the family in the Trobriand Islands (Papua New Guinea).
Western culture presumes that the family is made up of a husband and his wife and one or more children. The stereotyped family is said to be the elementary structure and cell of the society by virtue of its internal rules, bonds and commitment that should be reflected into the society itself and vice versa . On this subject Charlotte Seymour-Smith (1986, 111): “families in some respects perpetuate through the socialization process the ideology and value systems of the wider society" clearly states the role of the family in the society.
Despite the idealization of the concept of family, western societies are facing radical changes amongst their “primary cell”. An increasing number of couples (heterosexual or homosexual) nowadays are the family, freely choosing the absence of future offspring; or, in place of the nuclear family, there are “the joint family groups, in which two or more relatives of the same generation and their spouses and children live together” (Michael C. Howard, 1993: 197) Before moving to the Trobriand Island, southeast of New Guinea, It would be helpful to illustrate Engels’ theory regarding the birth of the modern family. In the 19th century, it was believed that kinship systems had developed through similar stages in different parts of the world, from matrilineal to patrilinear and agnatic systems, and from “primitive promiscuity” with no identifiable marriage arrangements, to polygamy and then monogamy.
According to Engels (1968), the western family became patrilinear and gained the feature that distinguishes itself from other kind of families, after overtaking different evolutionary stages. The family evolved from the “consanguine family” status, in which there was sexual intercourse between sibling and incest between parents and offspring was commonly practiced. Appealing to the natural selection, Engels states that the next stage of the family evolution is the “Punaluan Family” (Hawaiian term for partner or intimate mate), in which incest between close relatives was prohibited. During this period the “Mother right” emerges (Engels terminology doesn’t imply the world right as commonly known), because it was impossible to acknowledge the identity of the children’s father. During this stage there are signals (stronger bonds within the couple) for proceeding to the next stage: the “Pairing Family”.
A certain amount of pairing marriage is now the custom (group marriage is still practiced, though) in which “among the numerous wives, the man had a chief wife (one can scarcely yet call her his favourite wife), and for her he was the most important among the others. [...] Such habitual pairing becomes more and more established as the gens developed and as the number of classes of “brother” and “sisters” between marriages was now impossible increased.” (1968: 47)
The natural and economical evolution for the pairing marriage is the “Monogamous family” which features a strong marriage tie, “the supremacy of the man” (1968: 62) and the patrilinear descent system. According to Engels, the birth of the monogamous family is a direct consequence of economic motivations: it was necessary to guarantee that children could inherit the wealth accumulated in the previous generations. Engels claims that the origin of monogamy “was not in any way the fruit of individual sex-love [...] marriage remained as before marriage of convenience”. (1968: 65).
The above theory represents the common thought of family in the 1884 and after a couple of decades a Polish aristocrat inaugurates a new era in anthropology, which overthrew the old concept of research and cultural studies.
Bronislaw Malinowski, a pioneer of modern anthropology and fieldwork, studied in detail the family structure of the Trobrianders and he reported his experience in the book: Sex and Repression in the Savage Society (1927). Malinowski’s goal is to test the universality of the Oedipus complex; for that reason, he analyzed the Melanesian society in all its aspects, including sexual habits and kinship relations. His objective (verify the existence of a universal complex) is indeed useful for the purpose of investigating the nature of the family, since the Polish ethnographer describes the traditional pattern of a matrilineal society in which our common institutions (kinship, fatherhood and children behavior) appear to be the opposite of the western societies model.
It is important to consider that the point of view in “Sex and Repression in the Savage Society” is an ethnocentric patriarchal perspective and although Malinowski realizes the differences between the societies, he does not focus on the importance of the matrilineal descent system among the Trobrianders. However, the ethnographer describes what is the matrilineal social order as “kinship that is reckoned through the mother only and succession and inheritance descent in the female line” (Malinowski, B. 1927:9) The picture that Malinowski took of the Trobriand islanders depicts a specific matrilineal system during a specific time; therefore, it is important to be aware of generalization consequences. However, we can argue that generally matrilineal systems feature a father figure that is unknown within western societies. The father, according to Malinowski (1927:10) is “thus a beloved, benevolent friend”, who does not force his son to any constraints nor compulsions. He is “not a recognized kinsman of the children” since the mother’s brother complies with the duties. Thus, the maternal uncle represents the rules and the law, whom the children must obey. Among matrilineal society not only is the uncle who “supplies his sister and her household with food” but also he is “the principle of discipline, authority, and executive power within the family” (1927: 11). Amongst matrilineal system the father is “not the head of the family, he does not transmit his lineage to his children, nor is he the main provider of food” (1927: 30). Malinowski’s argument continues with a description of the Trobriand husband’s role, which contrasts compared with western habits. The ethnographer found that the father in the Trobriand society did not argue with his wife or exercise any control over her. Such a “gentle” behaviour, in the Melanesian islands, is a consequence of the inverted husband-male role: if he is deprived of legal rights to his children, in contrast is economically responsible for his sister and plays the father figure role in relation of his sister’s children. On the contrary, in western families, the institutionalization of the mother’s brother’s rights and the deprivation of the father legal obligation are totally unknown aspects. Within the western society the father is perceived to have a patriarchal role since he is the head of the family and holds in his hands the patria potestas. (It is essential to underline that Malinowski was writing full of Victorian prejudices and nowadays cultural habits in western families are radically changed. Modern western families differentiate a great deal from precedent family’s structure: within the couple, duties and responsibility are often melted and dissolved together; therefore there is balanced division of legal and economic commitments between the mother and the father). Malinowski (Bronislaw B. 1932) attributes the origin of the matrilineal descent system to the total ignorance of male semen properties. “The idea that it is exclusively and entirely the mother, who builds up the child's body, the man in no way contributing to this formation, is the most important factor in the legal system of the Trobrianders. Their views on the process of procreation, coupled with the certain mythological and animistic beliefs, affirm, without doubt or reserve, that the child is of the same substance as its mother, and that between the father and the child there is no bond of physical union whatsoever. . .”
Engels evolution theory is just an interpretation of the family, which we must consider with caution and prudence, as reflects economic perspectives (Marxist theories) and since in some people’s opinion is an obsolete model. In addition to Engels’ speculations, we evaluated the matrilineal kinship system obtained from Bronislaw Malinowski’s “Sex and repression in the savage society”.

What are the conclusions, then?
As it appears, differences in the sphere of family’s structure are doubtless noticeable and relevant; consequently relationships and interactions, economic strategies, as well as “complexes” diverge a great deal depending on the latitude, ecology, political circumstances and ideology systems.
Consequently, the extraordinary complexity of the human brain entails that standardization or attempts to fossilize each culture within fixed behavioural patterns are not possible.
It is important to point out that every society is an independent as well as a dependent organism on other societies-organisms; this characteristic implies that a constant strain between conservative feedbacks (interpret as nationalisms) cohabit with a centrifugal force towards external influences. People, ideas, technologies and ideologies nowadays cross nations and cultural borders continuously and with an increasing rate. Family, meant as extension of the society, is therefore deeply influenced by external changes and sensitive to economic fluctuations.
Anthropology can trace family habits oscillations paying attention to demographic data, economic changes and political influences. What anthropology can help us to do is to predict the targets, which people and their families, the societies and their features are aiming to. It is vital to avoid misunderstanding regarding the vocabulary I have used above: it is known that unidirectional evolution is not applicable to alive organisms (as we previously meant the family and the society), consequently we must weigh up the word “evolution” and “targets” with careful consideration. The epoch in which we are living presents dense flows of communication and interaction between the opposite side of the planet and with our spoken words and e-mails cells of culture travel through borders and nations.
In our patriarchal society where capitalism and economic laissez-faire are strong ideologies, a large percentage of families struggle for economic survival, whilst matrilineal subsistence systems, in which there are not attempts to prevail and subjugate the environment , appear to feature winning economic strategies and very strong bonds within kin. Everyday we come in possession of data regarding almost every cultures and subcultures in the planet; why can we not acquire some of the advantages deriving from matrilineal systems and subsistence economies and integrate them in ours habits and social structure? Why can we not learn from our object of studies some of the basic cohabitating rules and respect for the environment?

Bibliography
Charlotte Seymour-Smith, 1986. Palgrave Dictionary of Anthropology , Chippenham and Eastbourne: Macmillan Publishers LTD.

Engels, F. 1968. The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Moscow: Progress Publishers.

Faith R. Elliot, 1986. The Family: change or continuity? London: The Macmillan Press LTD

Michael C. Howard, 1993. Contemporary Cultural Anthropology. New York: Harper Collins College Pubs

Malinowski, B. 1927. Sex and Repression in the Savage Society. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul

Malinowski, B., 1932. The Sexual life of Savages in North-Western Melanesia: an ethnographic account of courtship, marriage and family life among the natives of the Trobriand Islands, British New Guinea. In Johann Jakob Bachofen, 1992. Myth, Religion, and Mother Right. Princeton University Books. (http://www.pinn.net/~sunshine/book-sum/bachofen.html)