Cultural vs. Evolutionary Kinship
In each of their works, Shapiro and McKinnon establish a guide for the reader to understand kinship and its universal applications. The two differ on a few definitions of kinship, and more generally how kinship is determined. McKinnon, a social psychologist, attempts to create a blank slate for kinship that rejects genetic relationships and can be interpreted differently across different cultures. Shapiro, an anthropologist, casts doubt on McKinnon’s criticisms of genetic kinship and therefore confirms that genetic-based kinship is a useful guide for understanding kinship relations. When applied to the studies of Lebanese Muslim and Jewish Israeli cultural perspectives, it seems that genetics are the basis of kinship relations but there are some cross-cultural differences.
West vs. Rest Perspective
One of the main claims made by McKinnon and undermined by Shapiro is that there is a different categorization of kin in the rest of the world that does not exist in western cultures. She uses this claim to support her conclusion that evolutionary kinship or genetic kinship has developed an “idealized 1950s version of gender relations”(McKinnon, 130). McKinnon never defines the characteristics of the ideals she attempts to refute and also fails to show proof that entirely counters genetic kinship. As a reader, we can assume the ideals she describes are within her secondary conclusions on marriage and “multiplicity of motherhood”.
Marriage: Gender Asymmetry
McKinnon’s conclusion and subsequent evidence that the evolutionary theory on kinship in marriage is flawed because it presupposes that men control resources is in itself flawed. Her conclusion is based on the evolutionary assumption of gender asymmetry. McKinnon concludes that this assumption means inequality between the two genders while the description by evolutionary psychologists does not show that to be true. Evolutionary psychologists describe the inequality as limitations to each gender to fulfilling their desire to reproduce successfully. This inequality is reconciled by marriage in which each gender contributes to their abilities. McKinnon focuses on the female perspective and views it as disadvantageous, however, she fails to take the male perspective that their offering of “resources” makes up for their unequal contribution to the physical reproductive process. In her multitude of examples, she fails to show an example where the woman was placed in a disadvantageous position to the man. She also does not define what resources are and, in her evidence, shows examples where women have contributed resources in marriage. As Shapiro argues, kinship has been shown to take place bilaterally, showing equal importance on the maternal and paternal sides.
Kinship and Culture in the Middle East
The application of evolutionary kinship is clear in Inhorn’s experience with Lebanese Muslim Men. In all cases, there was a clear association between one’s genetics and one’s degree of kinship. While the Sunni and Shi’a restrictions to reproductive technology differ, their interpretation of Islamic law is based on maintaining bilateral kinship. Sunni Muslim tradition does not allow for a third party in IVF at all, as it is considered a breach in the marriage contract between a man and a woman. On the other hand, some Shi’a leaders allow for a third party either through a temporary marriage contract or the infertile parents’ assertion to give up their rights to the child.
Kahn’s Method of Study
Inhorn’s use of cultural context for understanding the decisions which motivate couples seeking alternative reproductive technology is very much missing in Kahn’s “Reproducing Jews”. In establishing the methods of her study, she frames the issues for Israeli women as a conflict between political incentives and religious (halakhic) guidelines. While reading her accounts with various women in her study, the cultural gaps are evident. For example, in one of her methods, Kahn states that she will not analyze the women as Ashkenazim (Eastern European) or Sephardim (North African or Asian).
Israeli Kinship and the Kibbutz
Her choice to omit this “ethnic” distinction leaves the reader clueless as to the role the “Kibbutz” plays for the individual women, the political arena and everyday life. For some of the women of Ashkenazi descent, the kibbutz would have been a part of their upbringing or their parents. Further, the kibbutz movement and its roots in communal living meant that some women or their parents were not raised in their own homes but by the women who ran the “children’s house” on the kibbutz. For the women of Sephardi descent, the idea of the kibbutz might strike a negative feeling as immigrants from North African countries were often turned away from kibbutz communities or horribly treated within kibbutz communities. The Kibbutz movement and its memory are just one of the cultural differences that drive the women in Kahn’s book and it will be interesting to see how she develops her conclusions without them.
Culture and Genetics in Jewish Israeli Kinship
Later in her study, however, Kahn inevitably encounters the cultural impact of the two groups in the choice of sperm donor for the women in her study. The Sephardi/Ashkenazi identification was one of the few details that the women were given by the clinic. Their reaction to discovering this detail reflects Jewish Israeli kinship as both cultural and genetic. Though Kahn fails to mention this fact, a child’s Sephardi/Ashkenazi identification in the Jewish religion is patrilineal. Therefore, while both the women and clinics voiced concern for physical attributes of the child, there is an inherent consideration for mothers maintaining their own traditions on both sides.
Sources
Marcia Inhorn, He Won’t Be My Son: Middle Eastern Men’s Discourses of Gamete Donation.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20 (2006): 94-120.
Susan Martha Kahn, Reproducing Jews: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception in Israel, 1-87 (Duke University Press, 2000).
Susan McKinnon, “On Kinship and Marriage: A Critique of the Genetic and Gender Calculus of Evolutionary Psychology,” In S. McKinnon and S. Silverman editors, Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture, 106-131 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).
Warren Shapiro, “What Human Kinship is Primarily About: Towards a Critique of the New Kinship Studies.” Social Anthropology (2008) 16: 137-153.
Although I do agree with you that McKinnon’s argument was flawed due to a lack of precision, I do think that Shapiro’s argument over simplifies cultural diversity and ignores how westernized evolutionary psychology is. I in no way mean to imply that all of evolutionary psychology is a westernized fiction that supports specific observations, I myself love hard sciences and want to study biological anthropology , but rather that perhaps some of the precision Shapiro discusses could have been due to biased observation. He himself is an evolutionary anthropologist so could it be possible he was looking for that precision in those cultures where perhaps it isn’t as obvious? Similarly to how he accuses of Mckinnon of ignoring said precision due to her field of study? I do not think these are answerable and I agree with your analysis but I’m wondering if you agree that this could also be a possibility?
I found this account of kinship, as proposed by McKinnon, to be very interesting. It was touched on in this blog post and I just wanted to further expound on the possible implications of such ideas of kinship. For example, when analyzing the Eskimo culture within Alaska, it was captivating to see how they view kinship not only as a means of inheritance (for lack of a better word, or rather the production of “new” generations) but of “replacement” in a sense that new kin is inspired by the roles of the past, and that they are hence obligated to adopt the jurisdictions of said role (hence, for example, why a mother (biological) may refer to her offspring as being her parents. I simply found that idea fascinating, that kinship can differ in such a dramatic sense in comparison to our western civilization and applications of kinship. I also was captivated by the fact that many cultures take the phrase “it takes a village to raise a child” quite literally in the sense that any woman on the matrilineal side may be referred to as “mother,” and that these women would thus all have equal obligation to care for the child in question — all as a mother or maternal figure. It will be interesting how the implications of such things contribute to the idea of reproductive technology in other cultures.
I loved this blog post because I felt that there were so many points made that contradicted the way I thought about different parts of these articles. For example, I previously considered Khan’s methodology imperfect (as all methodologies are), but sound. After learning about the prevalence and importance of kibbutz communities through Dani’s blog, I am left questioning the relevance this might have on her study. Ultimately, I do think Khan has a valid approach in her widespread exploration into different perspectives relating to assisted conception. I also appreciated the critical analysis of the McKinnon vs. Shapiro debate laid out here. However, I, personally, believe that Shapiro’s criticism is a tad too vindictive to resonate with me. His response to McKinnon’s article seems too aggressive and- in my mind- not wholly founded.
Thanks Dani, great blog. I was a little unsure though why you thought that Inhorn and Kahn’s work both support a genetic interpretation of kinship. Let’s talk about that in class today.
I enjoyed reading your thought process and analysis of how culture and genetics play a role in kinship. Though I agree that McKinnon’s argument may be flawed because of the lack of explanation and examples, I would also like to point out that Shapiro’s argument does seem to steer towards a bias that seemed to have completely overlooked some key points in McKinnon’s argument. As an anthropologist, it should not be in his nature to disregard the perspective of another scholar. Along with this, I’d like to believe that culture plays an immense role in kinship, though not as big as a role as genetics may have. A prime example would be in Khan’s study, which is flawed because of the omitting of the detail of whether or not the women studied were Ashkenazic or Sephardic. This lack of detail led me to question whether or not the research had any valid points if such pertinent information was omitted.
I enjoyed reading your blog post, and agree that genetics and different cultures play a large role in determining kinship relationships. I liked how you included the Israeli kinship perspective offered by Kahn and tied it into the cultural and biological debate. Also, I agree that Kahn should have analyzed the Ashkenazim and Sephardim women.
I really enjoyed the views you expressed in your blog post. I found it interesting to hear two social anthropologists explain their perspectives on the debate of how genetics or culture can play a role in kinship relationships. I hadn’t realized the extent to which other cultures differ from the Western perspective of kinship. I liked how you structured your reaction to the McKinnon and Shapiro debate, and agree with your stance that McKinnon’s argument was weakened by a lack of evidence and examples. I still learned a lot from reading about these various perspectives, but also wish that Kahn had went deeper into the Jewish culture, such as exploring how Ashkenazi and Sephardic women may differ in their views of determining kinship.
I agree with you in that McKinnon’s work was flawed in the way that it presented the ‘western’ family as being completely the family units observed in non-western cultures. I do feel that her work attempted to use examples of families that were most unlike the ‘western’ family as indicative that all non-western families were as different. Her work could be better used as a reminder that cultural research often occurs from a ‘western’ point of view and that we should seek to minimize these biases when studying other cultures. I think that Shapiro’s work did try to point out these flaws in McKinnon’s work, but he detracted from his credibility when attacking McKinnon as a feminist and a ‘communist’.
I find it interesting that you support Shapiro’s claim over McKinnon’s. I agree that she does fail to support some of her claims with evidence. I also noticed that you use Inhorn to support your argument on evolutionary kinship, however, I believe this can also be used to support McKinnon’s stance of anthropological kinship. Inhorn initially writes about the United States and how adoptions and sperm donations are considered to be the natural solution. As she then writes about her experience with Lebanese Muslim Men, readers can easily contrast the two countries and their different definition of kinship. Although Inhorn’s experience with Lebanese men does support the definition of evolutionary kinship, it cannot be used to support other cultures as well. By doing so, you are ignoring cultural relativism which has become very important to consider when defining the term kinship.
I enjoyed reading your perspectives about the arguments that McKinnon and Shapiro have made. You did a nice job on explaining how McKinnon’s conclusion on evolutionary theory is flawed due to lack of evidence and examples/evolutionary assumption of gender asymmetry. Also, one of the ideas that I could not agree to Shapiro’s claim is that cultural diversity does not play a big role in kinship; I think that culture is highly associated with kinship because it is one of the elements that shapes and forms relationships between people.
Overall, you did a nice job on explaining the two different arguments and your own point of view. Thank you for sharing!