The April/September year 2000 special issue of L'Homme (154-155) on the theme of "Questions of Kinship (Parenté)" contains several extensive reviews of the p-graph approach. Collard 2000:638,640,646,651) reviews and identifies the work of White and Jorion (1992), Houseman and White (1998a, 1998b; including contributions to the volume by Godelier, Trautmann and Tjon Sie Fat 1998), and Schweizer and White (1998) -- using the p-graph approach -- as one of the main contributions to la theorie de la pratique approach to kinship today. Jamard (2000:735-736) devotes a long exposition to the methodological and theoretical importance of this approach:

"Methods and techniques [of kinship analysis] have strong implications on the theoretical side. For that reason, their use pertains to the reexamination of kinship nomenclatures. [In the Godelier et al., edited volume, 1998] One article vigorously distinguishes itself in the domain of precise procedures. In contrast with Tjon Sie Fat, who presents a meticulous algebraic treatment of purely terminological kinship, Michael Houseman and Douglas R. White, using a variety of computer tools, collaborate to show the emergent properties of a network of marriages that are effective through their dynamic aspect in the pratique -- behavioral practices -- of matrimonial alliances, where they find observed regularities that are not a simple effect of a terminological logic and rules of marriage. These constitute, at the level of practice, a sort of primary behavioral regularity [encodage], of a complex order. This is precisely demonstrated in that the two researchers, in the course of their analysis, are able to detect a structure of sidedness [structure à coté], or bipartite network where a pair of supersets of marriages, connected by agnatic and uterine decent links, operate so as to organize network configurations of marriage alliances across a range of societies in lowland Amazonia. The authors succeed in creating an empirical sociology of high quality that takes the first steps towards a conceptual and theoretical advance towards a sort of grounded theory (Glaser and Strauss 1967) based on facts established methodologically through carefully controlled working hypotheses [and precise analytic definitions] (translation from the French).

Augustins (2000a), in the same volume, reviews the network approaches taken in Schweizer and White (eds. 1998):

"The two editors recall that the objective pursued by network analysis is not simply to situate social action within a relational cadre but to envisage the processes of exchange operating beneath the flux of social phenomena, ones that put into play the resources available and the positions of actors in the processes of interaction.... It is however in the jointly written article of the two editors (White and Schweizer 1998) that the utility of the theory of graphs and its computer science applications is most evident. The great innovation of Douglas White is in effect to offer a veritable tool to ethnology: a computer program (or perhaps a family of programs) that makes visible, by simplification of the habitual genealogical diagrams (a couple being assimilated to a point or vertex -- in the theory of graphs -- and relations of filiation assimilated to lines or the arcs of directed graphs), the formal properties of a network. In this article, where the ethnographic base consists of data collected in Indonesia, the authors allow us to see how the actors, who share relations of filiation and of marriage alliance, are in fact embedded within differentiated structures where inheritance of land, ritual activities, and occupational specializations appear within a circulating flux of exchanges at the interior of the same network that, is a variety of ways, conditions them.

One of the most surprising chapters is without doubt that of Douglas White and Michael Houseman [Houseman and White 1998a] devoted to a study of Pul Eliya on the basis of the materials that Edmund Leach published in 1968. This remarkable work has, among other merits, that of reconstructing the quasi-totality of data of the ethnography for purposes of reexamination by means of the PGRAPH program. What is then revealed is that which Leach did not and could not see or comprehend without appropriate tools: that the marriages are in fact responsive to an immanent but barely visible logic that the authors call dividedness and more specifically, sidedness. The matrimonial network is bipartite, so that the marriages of parents and children partition in two distinct sets [roughly corresponding to continuity in the male line and discontinuity in the female line], but which have nothing to do with moieties. If the use of the computer tools demonstrates that "something" exists that confers a regularity to the marriages, however, this "something" -- the sidedness of the diagram -- is also difficult to translate into sociological or psychological terms [although it corresponds at the sociological level to the logic of the egocentered kinship terms used by Pul Eliyans] (translation from the French).

While the Pul Eliya and Amazonian analyses are concerned with a structural logic of dual organization entirely different from the structural themes of the present book, the extent to which the vocabulary of network analysis, adapted to the concerns of social structure, has entered the canon of social and structural anthropology in France. In the "Glossary of Kinship (Parenté)", Barry et al. 2000) devote entries to dividedness (p.724), sidedness (p.731), matrimonial network (p.730), and pratique matrimonial (p.729) as opposed to matrimonial norms. Hence, a network approach to kinship and matrimonial practices is firmly established within the French intellectual terrain of social anthropology, if not within the dominant paradigms of English-language paradigms (but see reviews of Schweizer and White (1998) by Dow (1999) and Gregory (2000)). Further, White's (1997) definition for "structural endogamy" has entered the canon in several recent publications (see Augustin 2000b: 594). As Augustin notes therein:

"One finds such clusters [of endogamy in bilateral society] in abundance in the majority of European societies in the form of matrimonial enfolding among a set of persons linked in a manner more or less distant.... [The] structural endogamy discussed by Douglas White [1997, Brudner and White (1997)] is the matrimonial concomitant of this same phenomenon (translation from the French).

Augustins, Georges. 2000a. (review) Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, Kinship, Networks and Exchange. L'Homme 154-155: 783-786.

Augustin, Georges. 2000b. À quoi servent les terminologies de parenté? 'Homme 154-155: 573-598.

Barry, Laurent S., et al. 2000. Glossaire de la Parenté. L'Homme 154-155: 721-732.

Brudner, Lilyan A., and Douglas R. White. 1997. Class, property and structural endogamy: Visualizing networked histories. Theory and Society 26:161-208.

Collard, Chantal. 2000. "Kinship Studies" au tournant du siècle. L'Homme 154-155: 635-658.

Dow, Malcolm M. 1999. (review) Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, Kinship, Networks and Exchange. American Anthropologist 101:692-693.

Glaser, Barney G., and Anselm L. Strauss. 1967. Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research. Hawthorne: Aldine de Gruyter.

Godelier, Maurice, Thomas R. Trautmann and Franklin E. Tjon Sie Fat, eds. 1998. Transformations of Kinship. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Gregory, Christopher. 2000. (review) Thomas Schweizer and Douglas White, Kinship, Networks and Exchange. American Ethnologist 27:243-244.

Jamard, Jean-Luc. 2000. La passion de la parenté. L'Homme 154-155: 733-748.