Kinship in Anthropology

Annual Review of Anthropology, 1995

This review examines the state of play of kinship studies in late twentieth-century anthropology, paying close attention to theoretical advances and shifts in methodology and intent that have occurred since the 1970s. It highlights developments in Marxist, feminist, and historical approaches, the repatriation of kinship studies, various aspects of lesbian/gay kinship, and issues bearing on the new reproductive technologies. Contemporary kinship studies tend to be historically grounded; tend to focus on everyday experiences, understandings, and representations of gender, power, and difference; and tend to devote considerable analytic attention to themes of contradiction, paradox, and ambivalence.

The two failed orientations to kinship, nurture and fitness, are transcended as this collection of original kinship work moves forward, building on the rich theoretical and ethnographic past of kinship study to a reinvigorated future of new data, reconceptualization of paradigms, fresh debates and new theory. Using kinship to anthropomorphize nonhuman primates is rejected. Contributions from 18 distinguished scholars of kinship cover the four-field, cross-cultural science of anthropology. Issues in kinship study are explored through marriage, kin terms, space, incorporation, ritual, primate studies, and contributions from Russia. This collection carries kinship study into the future.

The two failed orientations to kinship, nurture and fitness, are transcended as this collection of original kinship work moves forward, building on the rich theoretical and ethnographic past of kinship study to a reinvigorated future of new data, reconceptualization of paradigms, fresh debates and new theory. Using kinship to anthropomorphize nonhuman primates is rejected. Contributions from 18 distinguished scholars of kinship cover the four-field, cross-cultural science of anthropology. Issues in kinship study are explored through marriage, kin terms, space, incorporation, ritual, primate studies, and contributions from Russia. This collection carries kinship study into the future.

Kinship, 2022

The world of anthropology has witnessed a recurring rhetorical title:"What Is Kinship All About?" and now this article titles itself "What is Kinship All About? Again." Why? Whereas we have over a century's worth of ethnography and theory focusing on the centrality of kinship in human society and in anthropological theory, in 2019 a Handbook is published that names itself "Kinship" but, despite its claim and to the contrary, it is not about kinship at all. The Handbook editor explicitly states that it is about "conceiving kinship," with kinship reduced to gendered social relatedness. In response, we reaffirm the centrality of kinship as a domain universal in human societies by way of a critique of the Handbook and a comprehensive review of its contributing chapters. Countering the Handbook's denialist-or in Harold Scheffler's famous term, dismantling-position, we bring to the fore the already determined universal properties that define the boundaries of the kinship domain and the logical properties that universally define the category of kinship.

Kinship, 2022

The world of anthropology has witnessed a recurring rhetorical title:"What Is Kinship All About?" and now this article titles itself "What is Kinship All About? Again." Why? Whereas we have over a century's worth of ethnography and theory focusing on the centrality of kinship in human society and in anthropological theory, in 2019 a Handbook is published that names itself "Kinship" but, despite its claim and to the contrary, it is not about kinship at all. The Handbook editor explicitly states that it is about "conceiving kinship," with kinship reduced to gendered social relatedness. In response, we reaffirm the centrality of kinship as a domain universal in human societies by way of a critique of the Handbook and a comprehensive review of its contributing chapters. Countering the Handbook's denialist-or in Harold Scheffler's famous term, dismantling-position, we bring to the fore the already determined universal properties that define the boundaries of the kinship domain and the logical properties that universally define the category of kinship.

2010

The Politics of Making Kinship. Historical and Anthropological Perspectives, edited by Erdmute Alber, David Sabean, Simon Teuscher, and Tatjana Thelen. Oxford: Berghahn, 2021

Late nineteenth-century anthropology already seems to have split into two cultures: racial anthropology on the one hand and social anthropology on the other. However, an intriguing analytical method exists that mediates this divide between nature and culture, the so-called “genealogical method.” I will trace the emergence of this method from Francis Galton’s Hereditary Genius (1869) and Lewis H. Morgan’s Systems of Consanguinity and Affinity (1871) to W. H. R. Rivers “Genealogical Method of Anthropological Inquiry” (1910) and Franz Boas’ The Mind of Primitive Man (1911). My aim in doing this is to re-contextualize the genealogical method. This method originated in, and continues to represent, a long-standing Western tradition of analyzing, and potentially interfering with, reproductive relations within populations. Rather than being grounded in the “naturalization” of a particular family model, therefore, the genealogical method originated as an analytical tool that mapped out these reproductive relations in a manner that was as consistent and exhaustive as possible. As such, it was not grounded in biology but rather in legal traditions of measuring kinship by degrees, as well as practices of administering and surveying populations in which notions of racial belonging often played a crucial role.

In this article, I reconsider bio-essentialism in the study of kinship, centering on David Schneider's influential critique that concluded that kinship was " a non-subject " (1972:51). Schneider's critique is often taken to have shown the limitations of and problems with past views of kinship based on biology, genealogy, and reproduction, a critique that subsequently led those reworking kinship as relatedness in the new kinship studies to view their enterprise as divorced from such bio-essentialist studies. Beginning with an alternative narrative connecting kinship past and present and concluding by introducing a novel way of thinking about kinship, I have three constituent aims in this research article: (1) to reconceptualize the relationship between kinship past and kinship present; (2) to reevaluate Schneider's critique of bio-essentialism and what this implies for the contemporary study of kinship; and (3) subsequently to redirect theoretical discussion of what kinship is. This concluding discussion introduces a general view, the homeostatic property cluster (HPC) view of kinds, into anthropology, providing a theoretical framework that facilitates realization of the often-touted desideratum of the integration of biological and social features of kinship. [bio-essentialism, kinship studies, homeostatic property cluster kinds, Schneider, genealogy]

Why kinship still needs anthropologists in the 21st century, 2024

With the rise of ancient DNA studies in prehistoric archaeology, terms such as matriliny and patriliny are commonly used in scholarly literature. From a sociocultural anthropological perspective, however, the two terms are not as simple and unproblematic as is widely accepted among archaeogeneticists. Matriliny and patriliny are umbrella terms for societies with a wide range of political and kinship practices, with or without a state. Moreover, archaeogenetic literature has assumed specific associations with matrilineal and patrilineal descent that are not supported by sociocultural anthropology. To properly understand the diversity of human sociopolitical forms in both the deep and recent past, archaeology – in its broadest sense, including archaeogenetics – must avoid essentializing prehistoric communities without exploring the empirical nuances that are well documented ethnographically. Finally, the article calls for more engagement in debates on kinship and sociopolitical organization in prehistory from sociocultural anthropological perspectives.