Kinship can be difficult to understand when considering the many different relationships, cultures, religions etc. that people have. The readings for this module all demonstrated that defining kinship can be difficult and complicated, especially with new and emerging reproductive technologies. In class we discussed that there are two distinct branches when it comes to kinship. One is concerned with descent, genealogy, genetics and evolution, while the other is concerned more with social and legal relations. Anthropologist break down kinship by consanguineal, affinal, and fictive kinships. All of these components, definitions, and takes on kinship make its study even more challenging.
In the article “Complexities: Beyond Nature and Nurture”, Susan McKinnon challenges “both the presuppositions about genetics and gender that underlie the narratives of evolutionary psychologists and the theories of mind and culture that inform these presuppositions” through the anthropological lens. She argues that evolutionary psychologists often focus solely on genetics, natural selection, investment in sexual relations, among other biological based presuppositions without considering the variation of cultures and kinship relationships around the globe.
On the other hand, Warren Shapiro challenges McKinnon’s views in the article “What human kinship is primarily about: toward a critique of the new kinship studies”. He focuses on focality theory to argue against McKinnon’s claims positing that when thinking carefully people do consider “closer” genetic kin and that there is a focalization about it. He seems to side with evolutionary psychologists and claims that they do acknowledge that they do not know the intricacy of social and cultural contexts.
In “He Won’t Be My Son” by Marcia Inhorn, we learn about the attitudes towards adoption and gamete donation among the Lebanese Muslim families who undergo IVF. We also gain more perspective on the intricate complexities of the intersections of religion, science, kinship, parenthood etc. Fathers of children who are adopted or conceived by gamete donation hold this notion that the child “won’t be my son” due to the many cultural and religious views the community has. Yet there are those who consider these methods to create a family.
Personally, it came to no surprise to read about the complexities of kinship and about reproductive technologies with different religious and cultural contexts. One of the reasons why I decided to double major, exploring both the hard sciences and social sciences, was because I often saw this clash between biological aspects and cultural ones. Though I was not surprised about it, I did learn more about the different aspects that evolutionary psychologists and anthropologists consider with kinship.
Possible discussion questions we should consider in class are:
- What factors aside from genetics and social systems, are we not considering when studying kinship?
- Are McKinnon’s claims that evolutionary psychologists ignore the historical and anthropological record fair?
- Do you agree with the “collectivist” label Shapiro places on McKinnon’s argument and his argument for “focality”?
When it comes to McKinnon, I very much agree that genetics and evolution alone cannot give us the entire picture of what kinship is. There are complexities about culture, kinship is relativistic on culture, and not reducible to genetics. There are nuances such as people that you would consider kin, adopted children etc. However, I do not think that genetic components can be ignored. Though difficult to study, there are questions we can attempt to answer, for example about gestational trauma and how that later on affects kinship relationships. Studying the genetics of these children can give us some information and requires careful analysis. Other questions require experimental design but does have many ethical implications and limitations. There are many notions that have recently come to light such as that generational trauma can be inherited that are flawed in methodology and can be improved. Genetics can give us a good idea of biological components that are influential, but they also can’t give us all of the answers.
Not only is kinship complex, but it has very important implications in our societies such as in the legal system. Kinship is the system by which we organize our relationships. Like we discussed in class, in America, kinships are established by contract. This has serious implications for example is who can make medical decisions for a spouse, child, or family member. While in other cultures and religions, this would drastically change based on the way kinship is viewed. Inhorn’s text is an example of the complexities of how kinship structures change the way we view kinship relationships.
One of the last points of contention we discussed about kinship was if we could show which was more dominant, nature or nurture? People from different fields will have their own opinions, but personally, I find that question very difficult to answer. Both have a very significant and varying degrees of influence on kinship.
In addition to trying to explore these questions, perhaps we should consider how the two can help us answer questions about kinship than solely focus on their differences. Biology and ethnography alone might not give us the answers we seek.
I very much enjoyed reading your blog post! I found the article entitled “He Won’t Be My Son” to be particularly fascinating. In fact, I was slightly in disbelief, especially when I came across the fact that abortion is strongly frowned upon and forbidden in that culture. So, in my own curiosity and need for confirmation, I messaged my friend who lives in Jordan and asked them about how it is all perceived in that culture. Not only did I find it to be true (abortion is shameful, and that surrogacy and gamete donation is strictly forbidden), but I was also educated about “nursing brothers and sisters,” the purpose of marriage, and the true extent by which the preservation of lineage is upheld and the importance it holds. It truly is fascinating to learn about how kinship and reproduction are approached by people in different cultures and in different parts of the world.
I love that Justin tied in concepts we learned in class with the readings from this module. I also really appreciate these discussion questions, and the fact that he provided his own thoughts. I agree with him that both biological and cultural factors play a role in kinship, but I tend to err on McKinnon’s side that kinship and social relationships are more culturally than biologically constructed.
I agree with you- kinship can be difficult to understand when considering the many different perspectives offered by McKinnon, Shapiro and Inhorn. I believe that ethnography is the key factor to better understanding kinship relationships, and how they were put into place across different cultures, customs, and geographic areas. It does seem, as you state, specifically referring to Inhorn’s article, that the intersections between religion, and science are the most prominent when determining why IVF for example is looked so down upon in the Muslim world. Also, great job tying in concepts we learned in class to your blog post!
I really enjoyed reading your blog post! Thank you for adding very thought-provoking discussion questions in your post. I agree that kinship is a very hard concept to explore and define. However, as I read through the different arguments that McKinnon and Shapiro provide, I cannot help but think, why can we not include both perspectives when studying the idea of kinship? There are no doubt blood relations and genetics play an immense role in kinship but in addition to this consanguinity relation, there is also the importance of cultural upbringing and how this affects how we proceed to carry ourselves throughout life. I believe ethnographic studies is the key to understanding how both genetics and culture plays a role in kinship, whether it be on individual scales or bilaterally.
I enjoyed your analysis of McKinnon and Shapiro’s debate on the differing perspectives of kinship relationships. I liked that you included discussion questions to help the reader think deeper into this issue, and that you included your own views in your analysis. I agree with your conclusion that both perspectives, biological and cultural, each play their own part in this issue.
Kinship can be a difficult field to define because it interweaves both the social sciences and hard sciences. I find McKinnon’s stance against evolutionary psychologists to be fair because these individuals do not acknowledge anthropological aspects and other components such as culture when determining what kinship is. The general definition of kinship is “blood relationship” but for different cultures and religions, this definition may not always fit into what their culture may find suitable or appropriate. After reading “He Won’t Be My Son” we are able to explore the challenges of kinship in a different culture. It is clear that many individuals who practice Islam do not believe adoption or IVF is a genuine way to have children. I found this reading to be very interesting because we were able to contrast it to other nations such as the United States that believe contracts or adoption papers can create family ties or bonds. I agree with your statement that genetics and evolution cannot entirely define what kinship is. Culture has a huge influence on what the definition is and it is necessary to explore. In my opinion, the definition of kinship is relative to the culture or religious beliefs of an area.
I agree with you in that we shouldn’t minimize the influence of non-biological kin while acknowledging the obvious importance of biological relationships in shaping cultural views about families and kinship. I also appreciate the depth with which you analyzed the works and the questions you proposed to discuss in class.
I enjoyed how much of your opinions you shared in your blog post! I was wondering if you had any ideas with regards to your first question. The only thing I could imagine not falling directly into either the social or genetic category would be different interconnections between various cultures and science but even that could be considered social. I do agree with you that I think there is a delicate balance between the social and hard sciences where I think both Shapiro and McKinnon are correct to some extent.
Jazmin,
I definitely agree that nature vs. nurture is not a polarized dynamic. Overall one cannot dominate over another, though I do believe that depending on what topic you apply them to, one can trump the other. Also, your commentary about gestational trauma leads my thoughts to how nurture can influence nature. For example, some groups have a higher prevalence for certain diseases, because of their position in the social hierarchy of their cultures. I think there is some disease that became more common among Black Americans, because of generations of harmful treatment by society. I’m not sure how much anthropology gets into these sorts of things though.
Jacqueline,
I see you agree more with Mckinnon than you did Shapiro (I, by default, also did). Your summary of Shapiro’s argument claiming Mckinnon is disrespecting other cultures got me thinking that he’s doing the same thing by focusing on biology. And your comment on humans’ ego-centric views and on how Mckinnon could have better characterized the cultures she cited made me again question whether a truly moderate view can be taken on these sorts of things. Good job!
Dani,
Reading your article was interesting because I disagree with using “gender asymmetry” as a reason for siding with Shapiro’s argument. As I mentioned with another classmate who posted, I believe both arguments are biased, though I question how moderate one can be in academia in general (though objectivity is the supposed basis). And thank you for the information on the Kibbutz movement, I do believe such history, especially in this case, if I understood properly, affects kinship considerations, would be worth it to take into account.
Jazmin.
I definitely agree that nature vs. nurture is not a polarized dynamic. One cannot be instigated over another, though I do believe that depending on what topic you apply it to, one can dominate the other. Also, your commentary about gestational trauma leads my thoughts to how nurture can influence nature. For example, some groups have a higher prevalence for certain diseases, because of their position in the social hierarchy of their cultures. I think there is some disease that became more common among Black Americans, because of generations of harmful treatment by society. I’m not sure how much anthropology gets into these sorts of things though.
It was very nice to read your well-organized opinion and the discussion questions you’ve posted helped me to reflect back on my thoughts as well. I agree with you that both genetics and culture play important roles in determining kinship. I also think that it is hard to answer whether nature or nurture is more dominant than the other. These two processes are crucial in human development and I think they both affect kinship in different ways. I also liked your comment in the end that we should pay more attention to how the two ideas help focus more on kinship rather than focusing on its differences.
Thank you for sharing!