Social groupings among the Rungus, a cognatic society of northern Borneo
G. N. Appell published this article in 1968 in the Journal of the Malaysian Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, drawing on his ethnographic fieldwork among the Rungus, a Dusun-speaking cognatic group in the Kudat District of Sabah. The article’s central thesis is that Rungus social groupings can be systematically classified according to whether they function as social isolates, aggregates, or collectivities within the jural and religious systems, and that the domestic family and village qualify as isolates in both realms while the long-house is predominantly a collectivity.
Summary
Appell introduces a three-part typology—social isolate, social aggregate, and social collectivity—to distinguish between groupings that hold rights as a corporate unit, groupings whose members hold rights purely in severalty with no recognition of the grouping’s social nature, and groupings whose social nature is partially recognized in that a member may act on behalf of others (pp. 197–198). This framework, which he applies separately to the jural and religious realms, allows him to move beyond the universal units of social anthropological analysis (groups, networks, aggregates) and identify what he calls “social isolates”—entities whose relevance is specific to a particular society’s logic.
The domestic family emerges as the most fully developed social isolate in both realms. In the jural sphere, the family enters into contracts for the purchase of nondepreciating goods (gongs, brassware, ceramic ware), bears debts as a unit, provides bride-price for sons from accumulated family assets, and pays or receives fines for delicts committed by or against its members (pp. 194–195). In the religious sphere, the family is the unit that enters into ritual relations with spirits: illness from an offended spirit may strike any family member, not just the offender, and the family as a whole must be cleansed when its property is ritually violated (pp. 195–196).
The village is likewise an isolate in both realms, though its jural and ritual personalities are less developed than the family’s. It holds residual ownership over a bounded territory, and the headman may sue trespassers for a piece of brassware or simply fire an encroaching swidden. Every decade or so the village holds a corporate renewal ceremony that closes the territory to nonvillagers; violation of this closure invalidates the ceremony and the offender is sued for a pig (p. 196). The long-house, by contrast, is neither a jural nor a ritual isolate in most matters. It has no corporately held property, no formal leader, and no specific office for initiating jural or ritual action. Instead, any skilled litigator may sue on behalf of co-members, making it a collectivity rather than an isolate (pp. 197–199).
Key Findings
- The domestic family is both a jural and a ritual isolate: it bears debts as a unit, provides bride-price from accumulated assets, and is the entity that enters into ritual relations with spirits (pp. 194–196).
- The village is both a jural and a ritual isolate, but with less developed personalities than the family; its headman’s recourses are limited to requesting cessation, suing for a piece of brassware, or firing a trespassing swidden (p. 196).
- The village renewal ceremony is held approximately every decade; violation of the territorial closure during this period invalidates the ceremony and the offender is sued for a pig (p. 196).
- The long-house is classified as both a ritual and a jural collectivity: it has no formal leader, no corporately held property, and no specific office for representing the group, yet a member may sue on behalf of co-members (pp. 197–199).
- The labut ceremony is the sole exception in which the long-house functions as a ritual isolate: the monginan (first builder) represents the long-house before the spirit world, and the pig’s head is given to him to keep (pp. 200–201).
- Even in the labut ceremony, the long-house is not a jural isolate, because the litigation for the pig is initiated by any skilled male rather than by a specifically recognized representative (p. 201).
Conclusion
Appell’s definitive takeaway is that the Rungus long-house occupies an anomalous position in the social system: it is a ritual isolate in only one infrequent ceremony (the labut sacrifice) yet never a jural isolate, a combination that is unusual because jural corporateness normally facilitates the initiation of restitution following ritual delicts. He attributes this asymmetry to the rarity of the labut ceremony—most long-houses may never encounter it in their life history—meaning the long-house seldom engages in activity requiring it to act as a ritual isolate, and thus never developed the corresponding jural personality (p. 202).
Context
- The article draws on Appell’s doctoral fieldwork (Ph.D. dissertation, Australian National University, 1965) and his earlier publications on Rungus residence patterns and long-house architecture (1964, 1966).
- Historiographically, the piece contributes a formal analytical typology (isolate/aggregate/collectivity) to the study of cognatic societies in northern Borneo, building on Oliver’s (1958) methodological framework for describing social structure and Derham’s (1958) theory of legal personality.