Why did David Schneider argue that anthropologists made Western assumptions about kinship?

David Schneider argued that anthropologists inadvertently imposed Western cultural assumptions onto the study of kinship, thereby undermining the cross-cultural validity of their research. His critique centered on several key points:

• Biological Bias: Schneider observed that anthropologists consistently assumed kinship was universally based on sexual reproduction or biological ties. Because European and Euro-American cultures view sexual procreation as the core symbol of kinship, scholars used this as an analytic foundation, despite knowing that many cultures define kinship through different symbolic systems or do not link sexual intercourse to procreation at all.1
• Arbitrary Domains: He argued that the division of social life into distinct categories—such as kinship, politics, and religion—lacked analytic validity. By treating these as separate, universal domains, anthropologists failed to recognize that kinship is often deeply intertwined with other ideological spheres in ways that vary significantly across societies.1
• Normative Patriarchal Assumptions: Schneider noted that classic kinship theory often took Western patriarchal structures for granted. For example, researchers frequently assumed that male authority over wives and children was a "natural" constant. Consequently, when studying matrilineal societies, anthropologists viewed the absence of this specific patriarchal role as an "unnatural" puzzle rather than a different, valid social organization.2

Ultimately, Schneider’s work highlighted that what anthropologists previously considered "natural" or universal was often merely a reflection of their own cultural biases.1