Kinship, or relatedness, is understood by evolutionary psychologists to be directly linked to genetics, and therefore, people who share more genes are generally closer to each other, whether in location, emotion, or interest. Susan McKinnon refutes this claim, saying that kinship and human relationships are much more complex than just genetics, and that scientists must broaden their views to include more than just biology. In her studies, she discusses the roles of gender and family in different cultures.
For example, McKinnon discusses evolutionary psychology’s idea of gendered asymmetry, in which men are concerned with the reproductive resources of women, while women are concerned with the productive resources of men. This links gender roles to biological sex. However, men are understood to also look for productiveness in finding their potential mates as well, since in many societies, women are tasked with certain jobs such as gathering food. There is no perfect division between all of the roles of the male from those of the female, as gender roles vary from culture to culture. One question may be raised: if not from biology, where do these gender roles stem from?
Many societies consider a family to be a mother, father, and their children. However, this is not always the case. In some cases, there are multiple mothers, including an egg donor, a child carrier, and the person who adopts the child. In addition, some cultures link kinship of children with their birth parents, those who raise the children, and those who feed and educate them. Warren Shapiro argues that all other relationships always stem from the biological ones, and proposes that in Western culture, although people have many “mothers,” such as godmothers and grandmothers, they all derive from the biological mother. However, if this were true, it would discount the idea that any person who cares enough could take on the role of adoptive mother in a manner just as loving as a biological mother. This is, seemingly, untrue, and one of the issues in choosing to look at kinship through either a genetic or a cultural lens is that it is easy to follow the guidelines of your means of analysis and forget to think outside the box.
One of the main issues concerning kinship and culture is the way in which raising non-biological children is viewed. Martin Daly and Margo Wilson explain that raising non-biological children is different from raising biological children, because the parent does not have a genetic reason to love them. They even cite the high rates of violence in stepparent-stepchild relationships, compared to their biological counterparts. However, is clear that this cannot be understood as a general rule, and that love is not defined by genetics. In house societies, children are allocated to families, and are loved in by their adoptive parents just as they would be by biological parents. In the United States, many older adopted children try to find their “real” parents and are disappointed in the lack of commonalities found. This is because it seems that the environment that a child is brought up in is what shapes him/her for the future. Some argue that “being” is what makes kinship legitimate, but it seems that “creating/doing,” or the work that is put into a relationship, is what makes a “real” family. It should be recognized that it takes more than giving birth or providing sperm for people to form bonds. One of the main forms of kinship is the spousal relationship, which is not (typically) formed through a genetic bond. It is formed through any sort of cultural traditions, such as a religion that allows a man to take multiple wives, or a society that forbids certain genetic relatives from being sexual partners. The spousal relationship is not defined solely by genetics, but rather on the spouses’ preferences and cultures.
Every culture and society has different views on what is considered a family. In some societies, adoption and gamete donation are seen as legitimate forms of parenting, but in other cultures, the act of raising a non-biological child is frowned upon. This is especially common in the Muslim Middle East, since mainstream Islam prohibits adoption and gamete donation. The religion stresses the importance of the purity of a biological lineage, and links inheritance to biological children. Adoption and bringing up orphans are seen as haram, or illicit, due to the strict moral codes set by the Quran. Many Muslims do not want to partake in these acts, since the child would be seen as either a bastard, or an illegitimate orphan. In the case of adoption or egg donation, the mother must cover herself in front of a non-biological son. Many Muslim men would feel uncomfortable if a daughter of different sperm lived among them, as they have unofficial daughter status, but are legally able to marry him. In the Muslim Middle East, ideas of kinship are fairly set in stone. However, there are always people who challenge the norms and set their own moral codes.
It is easy for Western onlookers to say that the Islamic views on adoption are immoral, yet this is when compared to their own cultures, from their own biases. Things that are considered moral in one culture, such as adoption and gamete donation, are considered immoral in another. This shows that there is truly a broad spectrum of thought, and that although humans are made up of the same materials, people adapt to their surroundings and cultures to create their own opinions and morals. In her article, Marcia Inhorn explains the way in which Muslims in Lebanon interpret their religion to accept the idea of IVF. Although it is forbidden, many of the men whose wives had received/were considering IVF justified their actions by love for their wives, and desires to make them happy. Even within Islam, religious laws differ, like in the way that the Shiite ruler Shaikh Fadallah issued a fatwa (ruling) that permitted egg through a loophole of a temporary marriage, in which a man would temporarily marry an unmarried woman, in order to provide a child that would be his.
Susan McKinnon’s main argument is that of soft cultural relativism. There may be genetics and values that are universal, but there is much more diversity in humanity well above the genetic level. Much of the criticism of her work is that she tries to delegitimize biology as the building blocks for kinship and the family. However, although there are certain factors that seem fairly universal after many studies, such as distaste towards incest, the idea of kin and family is extraordinarily different from culture to culture. But who is it that gets to decide what is legitimate and what is not? Is it the people in the society? Or their leaders? Is it ultimately a higher power? Or based on science?
One of the biggest issues in many scientific fields that contain classification is when people rank things in a hierarchical manner. In the 19th century, the field of anthropology consisted of scientists comparing races and collecting data about technology from different societies, and ranking them based on “primitiveness.” This is a fallacy, as a society with less advanced technology does not indicate lack of knowledge, it simply reflects the needs of the group in the area. One cannot compare kin structures in a judgmental manner, and scientists cannot simply call a group that considers adoption a sin immoral or backwards.
All humans tend to look down upon the “other,” and criticize those who are different from them. However, in a field like anthropology, in which the goal is to understand truths, people should put aside their superiority complexes and accept that different cultures work differently, despite the fact that all people are made of the same genetic material.
Nice post! You did a great job at mentioning the key themes of each piece, and in a manner that I actually better understood than my initial reading of the articles.
I particularly found Daly and Margo’s argument very intriguing because it is a topic that I have studied before. In my Pysch 110 course we discussed the idea of the “selfish gene”, basically our genes want to live on even after we die, so nature’s way of allowing our genes to be passed on is through natural selection and evolution. So finding a mate who is adaptively fit is very important across most, if not all, species of animals so that their genes can be passed on. We even discussed how male gorillas would kill the young of a female gorilla if they were not the father. I bring this point up because it seems to coincide with Daly and Margo’s argument. Of course humans and gorillas do not behave identically, but the idea of having a harder time loving or caring for a child that is not one’s makes a lot of sense evolutionarily, and thus genetically. I am sure we do not consciously think “Well their genes and my genes are different, I cannot possibly love them” and I agree with you that this cannot be a rule for all social relationships (ex. McKinnon’s argument about cultural differences), but I do believe their argument is backed by a lot of data suggesting that love for kin may be intercepted by genetic sharedness and may account for behaviors such as the statistic on violence against step-parents.
Hi– just weighing in on your gorilla comment. Things are not so simple. Genetic studies of wild gorillas have shown that many offspring may not be the children of the dominant silverback but of sub-ranking males. I do not doubt that young are often killed by males of various species in order to make room for their own breeding but this is not the invariant law it is sometimes portrayed to be. Thanks for you comments!
Yes this is also true, and to elaborate: because gorillas practice promiscuity it aids in paternal confusion which prevents the killing of various offspring, however if a group of male gorillas were to find a band of gorillas comprised of males, females, and children, in which they could overthrow the males, they may kill the young because it is clear that those are not their offspring/ do not share their genes. However once this new band is formed, paternal confusion would decrease the chance of infanticide, which furthers the idea that these gorillas will not kill these young for the simple possibility that the offspring is carrying their genes. So yes, it is much more complex and variant.
Hi Sylvie,
Thanks for this first blog of our semester. You do a good job of unpacking McKinnon. However, I would like to see more attention to the other readings for this unit and how they relate to one another. Also, when making claims about one of the readings, please include specific page citations so that we can follow up if we like. Do you agree with McKinnon or not? Thanks for the great lead off to our discussion today.
Dr. Seeman
Nice synopsis, Sylvie! You very effectively covered the main points of the three readings. I would have loved to hear more of your own thoughts: what is your response to the questions you raised? We already know the authors’ positions, I want to hear what your analysis and reflections are!
I want to touch on the theme of biological determinism that you raised. One of the issues I have with evolutionary psychology is this privileging of biology over all else. As McKinnon says on page 109, “His notion assumes that there is a straightforward, unmediated, and therefore self-evident relationship between an underlying biological (read genetic) “reality” and its realization in social categories.” I disagree with biological determinism for a few different reasons: there is a longstanding history (as McKinnon points out) in anthropology and hard sciences of using one’s biology (genes, chromosomes, hormones, etc) to hierarchically classify, categorize and rank various groups; how we conceptualize one’s ‘objective’ biology is never free of social constructions; it pigeon-holes what and who people are.
To expand on the aforementioned second reason, let’s look at gender. In Western cultures, gender is based on one’s apparent sex at birth — but sex is just one’s biological gender. Instead of waiting for a person to self-identify which gender class they feel most belonging to, a medical professional assigns a person to a gender class based on their biology. This determines who the person should and will grow up to be, without consideration of how they themselves identify. This type of determinism permeates to kinship relationships when one is talking about inherent kinship relationships based on gender; nothing is inherent to gendered kinship relationships if we stop considering one’s biological gender to be their inherent gender.
Sylvie I would push back on the idea that McKinnon is ‘delegitimizing biology as the building blocks for kinship and family.’ I think she, as she puts it is deconstructing them. I don’t think she is casting biology aside and claiming it has no value, I think she is simply calling into question the way we employ biology and, as such, challenging it. On page 149 Shapiro says, “…it is fallacious to present ‘deconstructionism’ as a freedom-promoting alternative to biological determinism.” I whole heartedly disagree — I think deconstructionism is the first step in taking a more comprehensive and well-rounded look at how we view ideas of gender, family and kinship.
Sylvie,
I liked the structure of your argument. You first explained what the article was focusing on and you then drew from different cultures to find evidence for and against what the author put forward. One thing that was intriguing to me was the idea of adoption/gamete donation in Muslim cultures is frowned upon. I think this idea of soft vs. hard cultural relativity becomes problematic when these cultures no longer exist in perfect isolation within a specific country. We now see countries such as the USA and parts of Europe with a growing diverse population, and we now have to start analyzing whether the laws and rules put in effect for a ‘western’ culture are still valid (or in line with) a majority population. Should cultures/religions be allowed to exist in isolation within a bigger population with their own rules and statutes, or will we now have to exercise a generic view and policy for all people? I believe the USA has leaned towards the latter (before Trump’s presidency) where we see this universal idea of human rights and advocacy of the rights have steered conversation and legislations towards this idea of equality of thoughts and actions. But are we now putting strains on sub cultures and religions to now fall in line with what is being proposed?
Hello Sylvie!
I really enjoyed your blog and I think you created a very clear critique of McKinnon (and seemingly Inhorn’s?) work. I liked her point on page 108, emphasizing the importance of culture on our sexual preferences rather than a consequence of purely innate desires. I think this section answers your question regarding the source of gender roles.
In addition, your explanation of different family structures and various mothers led me to wonder if the role of motherhood is constant. Surely, I’d assume that it is not across cultures, but I wish McKinnon would have interrogated that a bit more. She gives us some information– but I think that knowing exactly what various mothers are expected to do would have made her argument clearer.
Lastly, I like how you critique Western views on Muslim culture. I think it important that we respect other cultures and not believe that ours is better. At the same time, I wonder, is it possible to stop completely viewing another culture/people as completely separate from ourselves? I think we should embrace differences, but can we do that without “othering” people?
Sylvie,
Good post! I thought you did a really good job of summarizing some of the main points and you made them much easier to understand compared to the first time I did the readings. I think you also raise some good points that need to be addressed further. I somewhat agree with your idea that “creating/doing” is what makes kinship legitimate, but I would push back and say that cultural context is also important. While here in the United States it is very easy to say that a child’s environment is what shapes him or her into who they are, for many other cultures it is not the same. Kinship in other cultures may be based on historical familial ties in which “being” or having a certain name or certain familial ties does in fact make kinship legitimate. For example, royalty can give someone this particular “being” and can connect a family for centuries without forcing them to actually have to “work” at being a family.
I also thought that the point you brought up about how broad the spectrum of thought could be was really interesting. I think this idea is one that is really important to society today, but also one that many don’t seem to stop and think about. In a religion class I took last semester, we discussed how the values and beliefs of one religion can never be compared to another religion in regards to what is right and what is wrong. There really is no base of which to judge a religion’s values of off because everyone believes their religion is what is right. In reality, what really is right and what is wrong and what do we have to judge of off? This connects to your point in regards to reproductive technologies and different cultures because every culture is different and everyone adapts to the particular context in which they live. If everyone lives in a different cultural context, then how are we supposed to judge what is right and what is wrong when everyone is living in a different world?
Sylvie,
I think that you hit the main themes and topics discussed in the readings. The comparisons throughout your post really highlighted the differences between each author and provided a great opportunity to see how where each author is at odds with one another or on the same page.
The question you posed, “if not from biology, where do these gender roles stem from?” provided a good transition into the views that differ from what evolutionary anthropologists think. Your critique on scientific critique, along with this question, made me think of the ways that science looks for ways to essentialise things and pinpoint exact and specific reasons. Looking for a universal truth, a specific and exact answer, erases the many possibilities that can also be true.
With that being said, when you say that Western onlookers view Islamic perspectives on adoption as immoral, I would say that this can be attributed to the Western mindset that anything that they do is an absolute truth, morally right, and should be adopted by all others.