You might be surprised to hear that most scholars of social organization think that marriageis evolving itself out of existence, or at least out of its social relevance, replaced by things like cohabitation, civil unions and any number of other imaginable secular and non-secular configurations of households. Now maybe this is just a red herring meant to distract us from how relatively slow the academic community has been to join this important yet contentious social discussion (Think of same-sex marriage as the climate change of the social sciences). But can we really sum up all the emotion and debate over this evolving ‘institution of marriage’ into what is really no more than a disagreement over the definition of terms? Yes and No.

The No: Lots of people want to define marriage, but is there or has there ever really been a universal definition? Nowhere in anthropologist Robin Fox’s authoritative (1967) volume on kinship (with which this article shares its title,) will the reader find a definition of marriage. There should be no doubt that such a conspicuous omittance is both intentional and revealing. Why? Well rather than start out with the good stuff up front, it strikes me that I should follow Fox’s wisdom and start instead at the hard, outer shell of the tootsie-roll pop that is kinship, working our way inwards to the chewy reward.

Fox writes,

“‘Kinship’ is simply the relations between ‘kin’, i.e. persons related by real, putative or fictive consanguinity.” (p. 33)

Some definitions: putative: adj. commonly regarded as such. fictive: adj. imaginary. consanguine: adj. Of the same lineage or origin.

He continues,

“‘Real’ consanguinity is difficult to pin down of course, and our own scientific notions of genetic relationship are not shared by all peoples and cultures. … Consanguinity is a socially defined quality… What we must avoid doing is fostering our own particular view of consanguinity onto the rest of mankind, however ‘true’ we may think it. … It is what people do with their definitions - the social use to which they are put - that matters.” (pp 33-35)

Just because computers have made the path of genetics so easy to follow, does not mean we should assume that procreation provides a foundation for understanding kinship. Practices such as adoption and fosterage are the most obvious of many examples where genetics do not enter into kinship relations. So functionally speaking it is not genetic patterns but local definitions, that is what the people themselves hold to be true about the interrelationships between those in their immediate, extended and adjacent households, which provide the bases for kinship.

So if we can eliminate genetics as a fundamental principle of kinship, then we have eliminated the biological act of procreation from matters of kinship as well. The term marriage, then, could reflect any imaginable circumstance when otherwise unconnected networks of consanguinity are joined.

The Yes: As I believe I mentioned once or twice before in this blog, I have the great benefit of belonging to a consanguine network (family) of two mothers, a sister, brother, as well as many others which follow no reducible logic of inclusion beyond the details of my own life-history. To all in this family, my mothers’ relationship is viewed as marriage, regardless of these larger social and political debates. Yet there are two reasons why this is just not enough - and why larger social exploration of these definitions DO matter.

First, we live under the protection of a civil system that does not offer the same kinds of support to our family as it does to families that fit the institutionalized, discriminatory definition of marriage. More than 1000 specific rights and benefits under various state and federal laws are restricted to heterosexual couples, most of which have to do with being someone’s next of kin. Discrimination is never truly in anyone’s best interest, but in this case I challenge anyone who opposes gay marriage to explain how they benefits from a child not receiving proper health care or a life partner of 50 years not having the authority to make end-of-life decisions for their spouse.

Second, these civil benefits are just a symptom of a more fundamental issue: what I can only think to describe as legitimacy and authenticity of a family within the context of their community, culture and society. Think ’second class citizen.’ I am not, nor have I ever been ashamed of my mother, but I regret a time when as a young child I was made to feel ashamed by another child who publicly called my mother a lesbian. That is the failing of the society, not the child, not me, and not my mother. Shame is a tool of social control that penalizes difference, not wrongdoing, and therefore has no place in a society that purports to value diversity and equality. No one should ever be made to feel anything but lucky to have a loving parent and a loving family.

Family is not in the eye but in the heart of the beholder - you only really know family when you feel it.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 18th, 2007 at 3:40 pm and is filed under Anthropology, Current Events. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.