You have not been recognized as a subscriber to the AHR online. About 277 words from this article are provided below; about 557 words remain.
 
If you are a individual member of the American Historical Association, you may:
• login here if you have already registered for online access.
• Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.
• Set up your online account for the first time. AHA members can go to the AHA individual membership section to locate their member numbers.

If you are not a member of the American Historical Association, you can:
• Join the AHA and receive many member benefits including print and electronic issues of the American Historical Review.
• Purchase a research pass to gain two hour access to the entire History Cooperative web site. You will have full access to current issues of the American Historical Review (104.3-present). Note: the Research Pass does not provide access to JSTOR's holdings of the American Historical Review.

Instititutions can:
• Subscribe to this journal and receive print and electronic issues.
• Activate your existing subscription so that we recognize your IP number ranges.
| Book Review | The American Historical Review, 105.3 | The History Cooperative
105.3  
Journals link Search link Partners link Information link
June, 2000
 
The American Historical Review

Table of contents
List journal issues
Home
Get a printer-friendly version of this page
 
 


Book Review



Asia



David Wakefield. Fenjia: Household Division and Inheritance in Qing and Republican China. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press. 1998. Pp. x, 261. $42.00.

David Wakefield's book is a detailed, interdisciplinary, empirical study of an important phenomenon whose nature has heretofore been mostly assumed rather than documented: the processes of household division and inheritance in Qing and Republican China. As such, it should quickly become the standard work on the topic. 1
     Wakefield has used rare collections of household division documents from several regions in the eighteenth and ninteenth centuries. These documents are very detailed records of the composition of the family at the time of division and of the shares of property given to each of the heirs. Although the total sample contains only 166 cases and thus is unimpressive statistically, Wakefield makes the best of the data at hand and is able to discover both general principles and specific class and regional "orientations," or variations on these general principles. 2
     Wakefield's findings are not surprising: they tend to verify what we had projected backward from ethnographic findings in the twentieth century. The majority of households waited to divide until after they had reached the phase of the patrilocal developmental cycle when married brothers, each with wife and some or all with children, formed joint households with their parents or surviving parent. Only about a third of households, however, waited until after both parents were dead before dividing. Wakefield speculates productively on what this tells us about the tension between economic incentives, which in certain circumstances tended to hold joint households together, and psychological tensions, which inevitably constituted a force for division. . . .


There are about 557 more words in this article. Please log in (or, if you are not yet an authorized user, please go to the User Setup page) to gain full access rights. Or if you're already logged in register your subscription.