1
From: "Human Potential & Development."
Split Justification: Development fundamentally involves both our inner landscape (**Internal World**) and our interaction with everything outside us (**External World**). (Ref: Subject-Object Distinction)..
2
From: "External World (Interaction)"
Split Justification: All external interactions fundamentally involve either other human beings (social, cultural, relational, political) or the non-human aspects of existence (physical environment, objects, technology, natural world). This dichotomy is mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive.
3
From: "Interaction with Humans"
Split Justification: All human interaction can be fundamentally categorized by its primary focus: either on the direct connection and relationship between specific individuals (from intimate bonds to fleeting encounters), or on the individual's engagement within and navigation of larger organized human collectives, their rules, roles, and systems. This dichotomy provides a comprehensive and distinct division between person-to-person dynamics and person-to-society dynamics.
4
From: "Personal Relationships"
Split Justification: Personal relationships can be fundamentally divided based on whether their primary origin is an unchosen, inherent bond (such as family or blood ties) or a volitional, chosen connection based on mutual interests, affection, or shared values. This dichotomy accounts for all personal bonds.
5
From: "Kinship and Familial Relationships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between family relationships primarily established through shared ancestry or bloodlines (kinship by descent) and those formed through marriage, adoption, or other social and legal compacts (kinship by alliance). This provides a mutually exclusive and comprehensively exhaustive division for all forms of inherent and familial bonds.
6
From: "Kinship by Alliance"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between alliances that establish a spousal or domestic partnership between adults (e.g., marriage, civil unions) and those that establish a parental or guardianship role for an adult towards a child (e.g., adoption, foster care). These two categories are mutually exclusive, as a single alliance compact cannot simultaneously be both an adult partnership and a new parent-child bond, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all forms of kinship established through formal compacts.
7
From: "Alliances Establishing Adult Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes adult partnership alliances based on the number of primary partners involved in the alliance: either exactly two individuals (monogamous) or more than two individuals (plural). This division is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously be both, and comprehensively exhaustive, covering all possible numerical configurations of adult partners in such alliances, a critical structural element for kinship systems.
8
From: "Plural Adult Partnerships"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes plural adult partnerships based on the structural connectivity of spousal relationships within the alliance. The first category, "Alliances with a Single Shared Spouse," describes partnerships where multiple individuals are formally allied to a single common partner, who serves as the central spousal link (e.g., polygyny, polyandry), without necessarily forming spousal compacts among the multiple co-spouses themselves. The second category, "Alliances with Reciprocal Spousal Connectivity," describes partnerships where all participating adults are formally allied as spouses to every other adult within the alliance, forming a fully interconnected network of co-spousal relationships (e.g., group marriage). This division is mutually exclusive, as a partnership cannot simultaneously structure itself around a single shared spouse and also comprise fully reciprocal spousal compacts among all members. It is comprehensively exhaustive, as any plural adult partnership, by definition involving more than two individuals, must adopt one of these two fundamental relational topologies for its formal spousal alliances.
9
From: "Alliances with a Single Shared Spouse"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes plural adult partnerships structured around a single shared spouse based on the gender of that central spouse. The first category, "Alliances with a Male Central Spouse" (e.g., polygyny), refers to partnerships where a single male is formally allied as a spouse to multiple female partners. The second category, "Alliances with a Female Central Spouse" (e.g., polyandry), refers to partnerships where a single female is formally allied as a spouse to multiple male partners. These categories are mutually exclusive, as the designated central shared spouse within a specific alliance cannot simultaneously be both male and female. They are comprehensively exhaustive, as any alliance structured around a single shared spouse must have that central spouse be of a particular gender (male or female), thereby covering all primary structural forms of such plural adult partnerships.
10
From: "Alliances with a Male Central Spouse"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes plural adult partnerships with a male central spouse based on the kinship relationship among the multiple female co-spouses. The first category, "Alliances where co-spouses are sisters," refers to partnerships where the multiple female partners allied to the central male spouse are biologically or legally recognized as sisters to one another (e.g., sororal polygyny). The second category, "Alliances where co-spouses are not sisters," refers to partnerships where the multiple female partners allied to the central male spouse do not share a sibling relationship. This division is mutually exclusive, as the co-spouses within a given alliance either share a sisterly bond or they do not. It is comprehensively exhaustive, as any plural adult partnership with a male central spouse must, by definition, have its multiple female co-spouses fall into one of these two categories regarding their primary kinship status to each other, representing a significant structural and social distinction.
11
From: "Alliances where co-spouses are not sisters"
Split Justification: This dichotomy addresses a fundamental structural aspect of polygynous alliances where co-spouses are not sisters: whether there is an institutionalized hierarchy or formal equality among the multiple partners. It is mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously define its co-spouses with formally differentiated statuses and with universally equal status. It is comprehensively exhaustive, as any such alliance must fall into one of these two categories regarding the formal status of its co-spouses, profoundly influencing their roles, rights, and potential within the alliance.
12
From: "Alliances with formally differentiated statuses among co-spouses"
Split Justification: This dichotomy fundamentally distinguishes between two primary structural forms of formal status differentiation in polygynous alliances where co-spouses are not sisters. The first category, "Alliances with a formally designated Head Wife," refers to partnerships where one specific co-spouse is institutionally recognized with a unique, preeminent status as the 'head wife' or 'chief wife', often endowed with overarching authority, distinct privileges, or responsibilities that set her apart from all other co-spouses within the alliance. The second category, "Alliances with graded or segmented co-spouse statuses," encompasses partnerships where co-spouses possess formally differentiated statuses (e.g., based on order of marriage, lineage, or distinct household roles) that establish a hierarchy or multiple distinct categories among them, but without a single, uniquely designated 'Head Wife' whose status is qualitatively superior and overarching to all others. These two categories are mutually exclusive, as an alliance cannot simultaneously designate a single Head Wife and organize its differentiation solely through graded or segmented statuses lacking such a single preeminent figure. They are comprehensively exhaustive, as any plural adult partnership with formally differentiated co-spouse statuses must either concentrate unique preeminence in one designated Head Wife or distribute its hierarchical distinctions across multiple co-spouse positions.
✓
Topic: "Alliances with graded or segmented co-spouse statuses" (W6736)