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.