Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

KIN SELECTION, SYMBOLIZATION, AND CULTURE PATRICIA WILUAMS* In recent years, a powerful debate has been waged between the proponents and opponents of sociobiology about the relationship between biology and culture and whether there is one. Lumsden and Wilson [1] have produced an intricate mathematical theory involving "culturgens" that has been widely read and much criticized, most thoroughly by Kitcher [2]. Many others, too numerous to mention in this short space, havejoined the battle. This paper pursues the issue but is so modest by comparison that it can hardly be considered a skirmish in that epic war. The only thing it attempts is to offer one example of the biological foundations of human symbol use and to demonstrate how symbolization has enabled people to break the bonds (if such these be) of their biology. The foundation upon which this paper rests is a single chapter of Marshall Sahlins's The Use and Abuse ofBiology [3] entitled "Critique of the Scientific Sociobiology: Kin Selection." All references are to this chapter unless otherwise noted. This chapter, which Sahlins deliberately designs as an anthropological refutation of the idea that the theory of kin selection can be applied to people, actually not only supports the theory that the foundations of human behavior are biological but also suggests how deeply culture may be influenced by biology. Sahlins, partly misled by some sociobiologists, views the sociobiologically defined relationship between biology and culture as reductionistic, that is, he thinks that sociobiology says cultural artifacts are the direct products of biological needs and desires. For example, in the chapter prior to the one concerned with kin selection, he suggests that sociobiology posits a direct relationship between biology and culture such that biologically mandated aggression in individuals is the cause of wars between nations, and he notes correctly that the facts do not support this ?Department of Philosophy, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario. Mailing Address: P.O. Box 91, Covesville, Virginia 22931.© 1988 by The University of Chicago. AU rights reserved. 0031-5982/88/3104-0601$01.00 558 I Patricia Williams · Kin Selection and Culture conclusion. Wars are artifacts of culture, and warriors may enter into battle from a wide range of motivations. Similarly, in the chapter under consideration, Sahlins claims that sociobiology posits a direct relationship between kin selection and culture, but that the facts do not support this conclusion, either. He offers anthropological evidence in support of his position, arguing that there is no connection between genetic kin and the social uses of kinship in tribes. His position is that, if the empirical evidence does not show a direct, reductionistic relationship between kin selection and culture, then the biological theory of kin selection can be only falsely applied to people. As this paper will demonstrate, Sahlins's views are too simplistic. Properly interpreted, sociobiology does not suggest a reductionistic relationship between kin selection among people and human culture, nor do the anthropological data show that there is no connection between genetic relationships and social ones. Rather, the former relationships are mediated by caring emotions, the latter by symbolization. Because the language required for this discussion can lead to a confusion of biological with social kin, I hope to promote clarity by distinguishing among three concepts of kinship. My terminology differs only slightly from Sahlins's, which I sometimes found confusing. "Genetic kin" will designate people who are biologically related. "Symbolic kin" will refer to culturally recognized kin who have little or no biological relationship. The "concept of kin" includes both of the preceding and is useful for discussing them together and for discussing kin where the other two meanings are intertwined. It is clear from Sahlins's discussion that the concept of kin matters a great deal to tribal people. AU important social relationships rest on it— so much so that anthropologists have developed classifications of common social structures based on kinship. "Matrilineal" and "patrilineal," for example, designate lines of inheritance, matrilineal occurring through the female's conceptual kin, patrilineal through the male's. "Matrilocal" and "patrilocal" describe typical residence patterns. In patrilocal tribes, newly married couples live with or near the husband's parents; in matrilocal ones, with or near the wife's. The very applicability...