Yes, Andy, I think the anthropological notion of kinship captures your
point that not all biological relatives are "kin". Anthropologist
David Schneider, for example, points out how kinship is really just
the Aristotelian notion of "identity", and that "kinship" is
fundamentally a matter of sameness of substance. Thus, political and
religious affiliations are, in his view, systems of kinship.
Seems like the same would be true of so-called "voluntary association"
(scare quotes because of skepticism of notions of voluntary and the
assumptions it makes about us as subjects). Any voluntary association
worth its salt will surely have this sense of shared substance (and
with regard to the making of this shared substance, Durkheim is
essential - but that's a different story for a different time!). And
don't most of these organizations have some sense of kinship built
into their relational terms, whether "brother" or "brotherhood" or
"family" or whatever?
-greg
On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
Yes, there is no doubt that the commitment many people have to
continuing the work of their parents and even ancestors, and their
investment in their children, evidences a project, an archetypal
project in fact. "Voluntary associations" are historically a
relatively recent invention, prior to which kinship was possibly
the most significant project in human life. Of course, it is not
always the case that a kinship relation always indicates the
relevance of the concept of "project" - I have cousins whom I have
never met and to whom I have no commitment whatsoever.
Andy