In our class, we have touched upon how bioethics, and within that assistive reproductive technology, inherently includes a discussion and understanding of the concept of kinship. Kinship refers to how we relate to people closest to us and has two points of focus: the first following biological descent and the second acknowledging social and legal relations. In her chapter “On Kinship and Marriage: A Critique of the Genetic and Gender Calculus of Evolutionary Psychology,” Susan McKinnon illustrates how kinship is regarded from the standpoint of a social anthropologist versus that of evolutionary psychologists. McKinnon believes that evolutionary psychologists understand kinship in a “digital” manner, a very black and white structure based off of genetics, and in this chapter she argues that this is not human reality but instead that kinship does not relate directly to biological structure given varying cross-cultural understandings and expressions (McKinnon 109). McKinnon goes on to say that there is nothing self-evident about biological kinship, and while in many cultures distinctions are made between biological and other forms of kinship who counts as “real” kin is not necessarily genetically-defined but instead could be defined for instance by social action or groupings of people who live together (McKinnon 115). Ultimately, McKinnon draws from her evidence to depict how evolutionary psychologists choose to simplify kinship systems to a view that focuses on Euro-American appreciation of genetics and gender roles which in effect develops a hierarchal system of marriage and other manners (legal, spiritual, etc.) in which kinship is recognized or developed. McKinnon brings her point home by asserting that the evolutionary psychological perspective ignores the multiplicity of human existence and fails to recognize that kinship is relativistic and defined by culture rather than nature.
On the contrary in his article ,“What Human Kinship is Primarily About: Toward a Critique of the New Kinship Studies,” Warren Shapiro attacks what he names the “constructionist” position on kinship that McKinnon takes due its lack of attention to focality and failure to provide accurate evidence. Shapiro meticulously goes through pieces of McKinnon’s evidence to disprove their legitimacy and illustrate how her distinction of genetic calculus versus kinship via social relationships is ultimately devoid of meaning. Shapiro maintains that McKinnon’s approach does not follow focality theory appropriately resulting in a disrespectful study of other cultures; he goes on to lament that the ultimately Marxist approach McKinnon takes is far from an appropriate cultural comparison and is instead aimed at denouncing the west and its traditional family views (Shapiro 137).
After analyzing both arguments, I think that while McKinnon could have more aptly characterized the cultures from which she drew examples out of context as Shapiro suggests, Shapiro’s criticism of McKinnon’s article is unwarranted and largely unfounded. Shapiro believes that procreative kin are recognized as a near universal, and I personally disagree and think that this opinion proves McKinnon’s point that while kinship is culturally relative many of us take an ego-centric view and see the west’s biologically driven kinship system as the “real” way of categorizing these relationships. Furthermore, Shapiro attempts to claim that developing kinship relationships is such an individual process that it is not effective to even attempt to separate these experiences into different types of systems. I disagree and think that the sciences that describe life inevitability rely on categorization of sorts. Shapiro then goes further to take his argument against McKinnon as a crusade against anthropology denouncing the entire fielding as “a child of Enlightenment skepticism” which I think is blowing his difference of opinion far out of proportion (Shapiro 148).
The last source in this module, “‘He Won’t Be My Son’: Middle Eastern Muslim Men’s Discourses of Adoption and Gamete Donation” by Marcia C. Inhorn discusses how in the Sunni Muslim world assistive reproductive technology has previously been vehemently prohibited by religious doctrine, but now both in vitro fertilization and gamete donation are becoming available in Middle Eastern populations. Inhorn illustrates how in the Muslim Middle East, moral reactions to the west’s infertility solutions are shaped by Islam and many muslim men cannot accept the possibility of “social parenthood via adoption or gamete donation” (Inhorn 116). However, in recent years attitudes of some Muslim men are shifting as they are beginning to accept the possibilities of assistive reproductive technology in the hopes of pursuing aspects of marriage and fatherhood otherwise unattainable. This article serves as a case study to prove McKinnon’s point that kinship systems are culturally relative and determined by more than a straight genetics tree. Contrary to the perspective of an evolutionary psychologist, Inhorn’s article exhibits how in this case the understanding of kinship is relatively fluid and changing as technology and religion transform. However, similar to Shapiro’s encouragement of accurate cultural comparisons, Inhorn’s study also determines that appropriate research and respect is due for the cultures at hand bringing up how Muslim men are so often approached with stereotypical perceptions that impedes research on their religiosity and marriage practices.
In conclusion, this module delves deeper into the idea that kinship systems are a pillar necessary to tackle the intersection of religion and assistive reproductive technology, and the reliance of the human experience upon culture—hence why it is so valuable to study this topic from an anthropological perspective.
Sources
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.
Marcia Inhorn, “He Won’t Be My Son: Middle Eastern Men’s Discourses of Gamete Donation.” Medical Anthropology Quarterly 20 (2006): 94-120.
I enjoyed reading your blog post, Jacqueline! I will venture to say that I agree with you when saying that Shapiro’s criticism is largely unprecedented. For I believe that McKinnon did make some very interesting claims as far as the perception of kinship in namely different cultures. The insinuation that biological relatedness takes precedence in terms of kinship is something that I personally can disagree with. Cultural relativism is an important concept and is something that must be recognized when it is analyzed within the bounds of kinship. Different cultures view behavior and interaction over biology, and I believe that to be something that is completely reasonable and not a falsifiable — or invalid — perspective.
I really enjoyed reading Jacqueline’s breakdown of the McKinnon vs. Shapiro debacle. I appreciated that she provided her own viewpoint with supporting evidence. I also enjoyed her unravelling of the Inhorn article and how she connected it back to McKinnon’s view of kinship and Shapiro’s ideas about cultural comparisons.
I agree with you that Shapiro views kinship relationships as near-universal, and doesn’t attempt to separate kin relationships into the different ways by which they are effectively used throughout the world, in different cultures, religions and geographic areas. Also I agree that McKinnon could have (and should have) better described and detailed cultural differences.
I enjoyed reading your post and the application of McKinnon’s theory to Inhorn’s article.
While I do not agree with many of Shapiro’s arguments or his tone, my bias toward science favors the logic regarding the genetic origins of kinship. From a scientific perspective, neither of these authors gives high-level objective evidence for their arguments. I would be very interested in reading an evolutionary biologist viewpoint on this matter, as I believe our evolving understanding of epigenetics will continue to influence how scientists view this issue.
At the end of the day, I believe that our background and its associated predispositions and biases determine our view of kinship, and our views are likely to be minimally swayed by the persuasive arguments of alternative perspectives.
There is no doubt that Shapiro believes kinship is a universal understanding of strictly blood relations. He argues that genetics will always trump cultural and social situations. I believe that by completely disregarding these cultural factors, Shapiro heavily favors a very Western ideology that places genetics on a higher pedestal. I also agree that Shapiro’s criticism of McKinnon’s perspective was very unwarranted. Though his argument is valid and blood relations are relative to the idea of kinship, this does not in any way invalidate McKinnon’s ideology that kinship can also be affected by cross-cultural understandings.
I enjoyed the structure of your analysis of the debate between McKinnon and Shapiro. I liked that you included your own views into your reaction and compared them to both debaters. I found myself thinking the same things you commented while analyzing their debate. For example, I also believe that McKinnon’s argument could have been aided with the use of my examples and further explanation. I thought that Shapiro was too general with his explanation of kinship relationships, and neglects the different perspectives cultures have outside of the West.
Your post was very helpful to read! You’ve actually cleared up some parts of the reading that I found difficult to understand. Although I do support McKinnon’s argument more than Shapiro’s, I also do see where she falls short. Providing examples of the cultures that she is gathering information from could have strengthened her argument. However, it does not make her argument any less significant. Shapiro’s argument is strong, but I cannot stand for purely defining kinship in terms of genetics and biology. Cultural relativism is a very important aspect of kinship which I think Shapiro fails to acknowledge. In order to examine this aspect, McKinnon’s anthropological is far more valid.
I like how you mentioned that cultural research of Middle-Eastern men is often informed by negative stereotypes formed in the west, and I think that this is one of the issues that McKinnon hopes to draw attention to with her essay.
I agree that studying cultures and perceptions of kinship is important when implementing new health sciences, as it enables dialogue that can encourage the adoption of new technology where it is useful while being respectful of the cultural environments that inform people’s views on healthcare.
I agree with you that certain aspects of Shapiro’s argument are ethnocentric and that by saying that there is some universality to the ideal 2 parents and kids and not defending that adequately seems to favor western ideals. However, I disagree that his focalization theory is entirely ehtnocentric because I think he is saying something similar to Geertz that one has to pay very close attention to the minutiae to get a better understanding of the culture as a whole. With that being said, I do think it would be easy for him to see focalization where there is none due to his intrinsic bias.
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.
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.
I enjoyed reading your blog post and you did a great job on analyzing the arguments that McKinnon and Shapiro have made. I also disagree with the part where Shapiro claims that developing kinship relationship is an individual process and how he does not attempt to separate these relationships into different types of system. Other than genetics, I think that different cultures can be relative to categorizing kinship relationships. Also, you did a nice job on connecting McKinnon’s argument to “He won’t be My Son” module that kinship systems are more than genetics and are culturally relative.