KINSHIP OVERVIEW: SOCIAL BEHAVIOR, PATHOLOGY, AND PSYCHOTHERAPY
Kinship is the primary organizing principle in human relations; it is a multidisciplinary and versatile construct that focuses on modes of CLASSIFICATION and NAMING in genetic relationships, marriage, friendships, alliances, and social relations in general (Bailey, 1987). Fox (1975, 1979) says that all societies CLASSIFY KIN, a process that he views as a species-typical, universal attribute.
The use of kinship categories is flexible in humans, however, and is highly attuned to environmental and cultural contingencies. Sociobiologists have focused on the bioevolutionary aspects of kinship classification whereby a given organism somehow "RECOGNIZES" the degree to which it shares genes with other members of its species (see Hepper, 1990). According to sociobiologists, an organism will tend to be more "altruistic" and less aggressive toward "close kin" with whom it shares a relatively large number of genes (see Daly, Salmon, & Wilson, 1997).
More traditional anthropological definitions of kinship emphasize blood relationship, geneology and lineage, gender roles and marriage rules, rules of social exchange, and shared cultural symbols (Freeman, 1974). Underlying all these notions, however, is the issue of WHO is kin- namely, the problem of CLASSIFICATION (Bailey & Wood, 1993; Wood, 1995).
At base, kinship is the product of a process of classification that typically occurs unconsciously or with minimal conscious effort. The most primitive form of classification is us versus them whereby a given individual, tribe, society, or culture distinguishes between the in-group and the out-group (Bailey, 1999). Once one is categorized as within the in-group, then he or she is then classified as being CLOSER (e. g., brother, sister, mother, father, husband, or wife) or FARTHER from the classifier (e. g., distant in-laws, cousins, and various nonrelatives).
HOW WE CLASSIFY AND CATEGORIZE OTHERS DETERMINES, IN LARGE MEASURE, HOW WE RESPOND TO THEM. Do we get a warm, hedonic feeling in a certain person's presence, or do we feel anxious, insecure, and ill at ease? Or, at the extreme, do we hate this person, fear this person, or wish harm on this person? It is all a matter of how we classify others and place them into particular categories.
There are two major forms of "true" kinship: biological kinship where a given classification is grounded in shared genes or family heredity, and psychological kinship where a target individual is classified "as family" in the absence family heredity. In both instances individuals are included in the "family" matrix and are basically treated as family. In theory, the strongest form of biological kinship is between a mother and her child and the strongest forms of psychological kinship are between adoptive parents and their children and between husband and wife in the marriage bond.
MOTHER-INFANT ATTACHMENT AND KINSHIP
Before and immediately following birth the mother is "kin" with the infant, but it has no kinship with her. The mother is aware of her basic and deep natural relationship with the infant, and she also chooses to “classify” the infant as-kin; by contrast, the infant is unaware of its genetic relationship with the mother, for its recognition and classification mechanisms have not yet been activated. It is during the critical period of attachment that the infant's kin recognition mechanism is progressively activated, and it is able to distinguish between itself and the mother or mothering one.
The mothering one is, thus, ultimately classified as the infant's most primal biological kin, and all others are implicitly consigned to the out-group. Gradually, the infant and young child is able to make more refined social distinctions including those between mother and other biological kin, between kin and nonkin, and between various socially and culturally defined categories.
Given the vast imbalance in social power between mother and infant (see Bailey, 1999), activation of the mother's KIN-RECOGNITION AND CLASSIFICATION MECHANISMS is of great adaptive significance. Whereas the infant can only appeal to the mother with a pleasant, warm response or a loud, unpleasant protest, the mother literally has the power of life and death over the infant. Indeed, infanticide has probably always played a significant adaptive role in hominid and human history as it has in most other mammalian and primate species.
Human infants at highest risk of infanticide include those that appear defective at birth, those of young as opposed to older mothers, those of unwed or otherwise paternally unsupported mothers, those that are younger rather than older in the sibling hierarchy, and those reared by step-parents or other substitute parents (Daly & Wilson, 1988). Kinship and mother love is nature's way of binding the mother to the dependent infant, and helping assure that the mother will behave "altruistically" toward her offspring rather than violently.
THE MOTHER-INFANT KINSHIP IS THE MOST POWERFUL OF ALL KINSHIPS, WHEREAS THE INFANT'S KINSHIP WITH THE MOTHER IS NONEXISTENT AT THE OUTSET. It may be 6 months or so before the infant can reliably distinguish the mother from others (e. g., differential smiling and crying). The infant attaches to the mother but experiences no kinship, whereas the mother both attaches and experiences kinship. Thus, kinship between mother and infant is highly imbalanced, with the mother assuming all of the obligations and receiving few benefits in turn, whereas the infant receives virtually all of the benefits of the relationship but incurs none of the costs
(Bailey, 1999).
THE COMPLEXITIES OF KINSHIP
Little Leo shown is a product of his Korean mother and his Caucasian-American father who both share
biological kinship with him. The father's parents (grandparents) are also biological kin since they meet
the defining criteria of genetic relationship and classification of Leo "as kin."
However, the maternal grandparents can only share psychological kinship with him due to absence of
genetic linkage. Given that the defining quality of kinships is premised on the amount of love given and
received, psychological kinship is often equal to and may supercede biological kinship.
The kinship dynamics of given families may be quite complex. This photo includes my nephew
Brian (biological kin), and my psychological kin niece Marti and grand niece Natalie and grand
nephew Julian. These children were born by a process embryo donation whereby frozen embryos
are contributed by donors and inplanted in the host mother who carries the fetus or fetuses to term.
This a difficult and expensive process, but, when successful, the rewards are great for childless couples.
Brian and Marti are not genetically related to Natalie and Julian, so the parent-child and child-parent
relationships are that of psychological kinship. In this instance, however, they developed a friendly and
open relationship with the donor couple who have met and interacted with the children. This represents
a relatively rare instance where the donor couple qualify as biological kin in terms of both genetic linkage
and opportunity for classification.
The kinship scenario here is much like that of traditional adoption- there is no genetic linkage
involved between the adoptive parents and their biological relatives and the adoptees. However, in this
particular case the adoptees themselves are biological kin with each other, viz, sister and brother.
COSTS AND BENEFITS OF KINSHIP
Like most aspects of human social behavior, KINSHIP REVOLVES AROUND EXCHANGE PROCESSES AND RECIPROCITY. Once a person is classified "as kin", he or she enters into a WEB OF OBLIGATION AND ENTITLEMENT that remains in effect for the duration of the kinship (Bailey, 1999; Bailey & Wood, 1998). However, cost:benefit dynamics in a given kinship may vary widely over developmental time, as with the mother who assumes all of the obligations and little or no proximal benefits relative to her infant, but who may derive extensive benefits in the form of care and support from the kids in her old age. Kinship prerogatives are powerful in their own right, but in modern societies natural obligations and entitlements are also often augmented by legal mandates in such areas as child care, marriage, divorce, intestacy, and so on.
The obligation\benefit dynamics of particular kinships are very complex- especially over extended time periods- and they resonate with developmental stages, gender, personality, ethnicity, cultural background, social status, education, and a host of other variables. Perhaps the most important distinction, however, is whether a given kinship is BALANCED or IMBALANCED in its cost:benefit configuration at a given time (Bailey, 1999).
A balanced configuration is one where the interactants "give" and "receive" in a manner considered mutually equitable, whereas an imbalanced one involves excess "giving" on one person's part and excess "receiving" for the other. Although giving and receiving are complex processes, we believe that cost:benefits balances and imbalances are discernable to the careful observer such as the social psychologist or psychotherapist.
We theorize that kinships that are both STRONG AND BALANCED are the most personally satisfying, fulfilling, and conducive to good physical and psychological health (Bailey, 1999). A "strong" kinship is one that is high in positive emotionality, provision of behavioral/material resources, and cognitive commitment to the other (e. g., firm and reliable classification). By contrast, when kinships are balanced but "weak" in emotionality, helpful actions, and/or commitment, then health benefits will be weak or absent.
Strong kinships characterize close, committed biological and psychological kin (as between parents and children or between marital partners), whereas weak ones characterize, for example, distant cousins or old college friends who are classified as-kin and as-family, but they do not play significant roles in one's daily life.
Imbalanced kin relations are the most interesting and problematic theoretically and clinically. An imbalanced relationship occurs when one interactant is strongly committed to the kinship and the other is not; nevertheless, the kinship persists due to the efforts and sacrifice of the more committed party. Said another way, one interactant is committed, giving, and yields to the various explicit and implicit obligations imposed, whereas the other simply exploits the benefits with minimal effort or cost. One interactant may also "cheat" by appearing to be a "balanced giver," when he or she is really a "manipulative taker."
Imbalanced kinships may be very important to the giving party's psychological economy, but they tend to produce internal conflict and disharmony. Moreover, SUCH IMBALANCES ARE LIKELY TO PLACE THE GIVER AT RISK FOR BOTH PHYSICAL DISEASE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS (see Bailey, 1999; Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Anxiety, depression, psychophysiological disorders, and various other "inhibition disorders" (Bailey, 1997) are likely for the giver who may stagger under the weight of his or her “unequal” kinship obligations and demands. The receiving party in the imbalanced dyad may suffer little or no conflict, and he or she may actually enjoy better physical and psychological health than would be the case if the giver's resources were not available.
Clinically, the therapist should be especially sensitive to the stresses and conflicts suffered by the giving party in strong but unbalanced kinship relationships. This all goes to show that the COSTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF RELATIONSHIPS ARE FAR MORE CENTRAL TO KINSHIP than are the various emotional, behavioral, and cognitive BENEFITS. Anyone will readily accept benefits that do not carry costs, but the person who stands by you and gives his or her all when you give little or nothing in return virtually defines kinship. In kinship, it truly is more blessed to give than to receive.
As with all human social relations, the various kinship obligations and entitlements have emotional, behavioral, and cognitive components. For example, kinship obligations involve the direction of positive feelings ("warmth"), altruistic actions (including material support), and loving thoughts and attributions toward the object. Likewise, entitlements or benefits involve the receipt of these same qualities.
Any given kinship relationship may be characterized by the manner in which the interactants provide and receive tangible and intangible benefits. Thus, benefits are the resources that are exchanged in the kinship, and obligations reflect the various presses to provide benefits in some mutually acceptable manner. Obligations may sometimes provide "benefits" for especially nurturing people, but they more typically play the role of "costs" in the kinship scenario.
KINSHIP CLASSIFICATION
Classification is the defining element of true kinship. No amount of emotion or giving can define kinship if the classification aspect is absent. A person may be cold, distant, and ungiving, but if he or she truly classifies the other as kin, kinship exists. Classification is the only necessary condition for the establishment of kinship. Kinship is thus a cognitive DECISION to include another individual in the family array.
As the following theoretical continuum shows, there are only two forms of actual or “true” kinship: BIOLOGICAL KINSHIP refers to “genetic relationship plus classification as kin” and psychological kinship refers to “classification as kin in the absence of genetic relationship.” All other real or imagined relationships fall into the non-kin categories KIN-LIKE, RECIPROCAL, OR HOSTILE interaction.
A KINSHIP CONTINUUM
Kinship Relations Non-kin Relations
BIOLOGICAL KIN->PSYCHOLOGICAL KIN | KIN-LIKE RELATIONS->RECIPROCITY->HOSTILITY
Biological kinship and psychological kinship are "real" kin relations, but
considerable empirical research is needed to determine how biological and
psychological kin differ in their patterning of benefits/obligations and the
emotive, behavioral, and cognitive components. Biological and psychological
kinship interactions probably accounted for most within-group hominid and
early human social behavior in ancestral evolutionary environments, and
only later were extensions of kin-like behavior and development of reciprocal
economic strategies needed to cope with increasing exposure to strangers and
out-group individuals (Bailey & Wood, 1993).
Kin-like relations are warm and pleasurable, but classification "as kin" is not
involved and there is no implication of permanence, benefits, or obligations
(see Bailey, 1999; Bailey & Wood, 1998). Friendly interaction between a
salesperson and customer, a brief romantic affair, helper-helpee interactions
in disasters, or a pleasant round of golf with strangers exemplify kin-like
relations. Such relations are "nice" and the persons who characteristically
engage in them are "nice".
In modern multi-racial and multi-ethnic industrial countries where the nuclear family consists of two parents and offspring at best (van den Berghe, 1979), interactions between persons of widely differing backgounds are increasingly common. In the United States, where population diversity is unmatched and most Americans are employed in some aspect of human services, generalizing “nice” kin-like behaviors to brief acquaintances is a valued skill.
Reciprocal exchange relations typically occur between
acquaintances/strangers and are materially based, but
interactants may choose to employ kin-like behavior in
effecting their business ends. The ends, however, remain
the driving forces of the interactional process. As pointed
out by sociobiologists (Trivers, 1971; van den Berghe,1980),
unrelated individuals also help each other in the context of
quid pro quo relations or reciprocal altruism.
Such relations, however, draw less from naturally rewarding, kin-mediating structures in the brain (MacLean, 1986) than from a more general desire to acquire material or social resources. Pleasant interaction with kin is inherently enjoyable and "sweet", to use Barash's term (1979), whereas reciprocity between nonkin is rules-governed and maintained by induction of guilt, social ostracism, and other forms of punishment for cheaters or freeloaders (McGuire, et al, 1992).
At the extreme non-kin pole, relations are between antagonistic outsiders who may tolerate each other for exchange purposes, or they may engage in internecine hostilities including murder, warfare, or genocide. Hostility, aggression, and violence toward strangers and historically antagonistic familiars have a long evolutionary history (Bailey, 1987; Diamond, 1992) that may go back to the common primate ancestor for humans and other primates (Wrangham, 1987).
The Kinship Model and Mismatch Theory (Bailey, 1995; 1999) are complementary. Mismatch Theory argues that human beings evolved in fairly isolated bands of 25-50 closely related individuals (biological kin and a few psychological kin) existing in some variation of the hunting and gathering pattern of social organization. Social interaction with "outsiders" was infrequent and the "stranger" was typically hated or feared. Today, we encounter far more strangers in one day than our ancestors did in a life time. How we modern humans deal with the mismatch "stranger problem" is crucial to our personal happiness, health, and social success (Ahern & Bailey, 1997).
KINSHIP, PATHOLOGY, AND HEALTH
Evidence from multiple sources in evolutionary psychology, health psychology, psychiatry, and medicine support the proposition that warm and satisfying social relations have wide-ranging physical and psychological health benefits. A review of the supporting literature is beyond the scope of this paper, but the reader may consult Bailey, 1999; Bailey, Wood, & Nava, 1992; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Bowlby, 1988.
Hedonically-toned kinship relations tend to be reasonably balanced and strong; that is, each person's obligations and benefits are pretty much in line with the other, and kinship is expressed in all channels (emotive, behavioral, and cognitive). The emotive component is probably most important in determining how satisfying a given kinship may be, but giving behavior and awareness that you are considered family and kin are satisfying as well at the cognitive level.
Weak and/or highly imbalanced relations tend to be unsatisfying, and psychological kinship theory postulates that kinship deprivations, conflicts, and imbalances are at the heart of both physical and psychological pathology (Bailey, 1999). Loneliness, alienation, ostracism, and rejection are most damaging to health, but imbalanced kinship relations (as with burdened mothers or Alzheimer's caregivers) put persons at health risk as well. Recognizing these kinship anomalies and devising methods to deal with them goes to the heart of professional helping and kinship psychotherapy.
KINSHIP THERAPY
The KINSHIP MODEL OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TREATMENT (Bailey, 1988, 1999; Bailey, Wood, & Nava, 1992; Bailey & Wood, 1998) postulates that hurting persons are inclined to employ natural kinship strategies in seeking social support from others, including support seeking toward both nonprofessional and professional helpers. That is, when we are under stress we gravitate toward potential support persons and often treat them “as kin” irrespective of actual blood relationship. It appears adaptive and conducive to survival to "manufacture kin" in this way (Ahern & Bailey, 1997).
Early on Bailey (1988) distinguished two basic forms of kinship classification that play major roles in therapy process: biological kinship pertaining to blood kin, and psychological kinship which refers to "as if family" relationships among genetically unrelated individuals. Of course, clients who are genetically unrelated to the therapist can never be biological kin, but they could, in theory, enjoy some form of psychological kinship with the therapist. Indeed, clients under severe stress often “want” deep and intimate “kinship” relations with the therapist, and it is natural for them to do so (Bailey, Wood, & Nava, 1992).
Seeking help from kin and tribe when under stress appears built into the hardware and software of the human brain. I believe that this natural tendency to manufacture kin readily transfers to and spills over into the process of therapy. However, there are many ethical and practical problems in developing kinships with patients, and Wood (1997) recommends that the client-therapist relationship stay more within the kin-like zone of interaction rather than actual kinship. Kin-like relations involve warmth, liking, and affection, but in the absence of kinship classification with its panoply of formalized obligations and entitlements.
The general goal of kinship therapy (Bailey, 1997, 1999) is to conceptualize a particular case in terms of patterns biosocial goal-seeking, kinship deprivations, disruptions, and balances/imbalances, and then to design interventions that aid the client in meeting and/or reconciling species and cultural demands in a manner that optimizes personal happiness and adjustment (Bailey, 1997). Specifically, evolutionary kinship therapy emphasizes any and all means of encouraging healthy expressions of natural sociality whether in the therapy encounter itself or in the broader contexts of family and community. Empirical evidence is unequivocal that such expressions are conducive to positive physical and mental health, and overall quality of life (Bailey, 1999).
Numerous assumptions and hypotheses regarding professional helping, counseling, and psychotherapy may be derived from the kinship model and kinship psychology:
1. Given our evolutionary history (Bailey, 1987), we humans are naturally inclined to extend kinship beyond its biological boundaries to include significant others as if they were kin (psychological kinship).
2. Such psychological kinships often extend beyond genetically unrelated friends and marital partners, and may include anyone (even beloved pets) that are perceived as "family."
3. The tendency to form psychological kinships is greatly augmented by STRESS, particularly SURVIVAL STRESS (Bailey 1987, 1988).
4. Since physically ill or emotionally disturbed persons are often under severe "survival stress", the nonprofessional or professional agents helping them are likely candidates for incorporation into their kinship system.
5. Nonprofessional helpers tend to rely primarily on "natural helping strategies" and they often form psychological kinships with their helpees very easily and effectively.
6. Professional helpers (e. g., psychiatrists, physicians, clinical psychologists) tend to rely more on technical skill and stylized rules of interaction in treatment (rather than upon natural helping strategies), and therefore are less inclined toward forming psychological kinships with their clients.
7. Many clients, especially those under severe stress, “want” a psychological kinship with their helping agent, whether or not the agent encourages such kinship (Bailey, Wood, & Nava, 1992).
8. The desired psychological kinship with the helping agent is not a transference in the Freudian sense, but represents a real need for intimacy with a "loved one." It is more a phylogenetic transference where a hurting member of species Homo sapiens reaches out to another member for support and provision of resources (see Bailey, 1999).
9. There is a tendency for professional helping agents to underestimate his/her client's desire for “kinship” in the treatment relationship.
10. Even though a client may “want” a true psychological kinship with the therapist, it is generally prudent to stay within the kin-like zone of interaction in the client-therapist relationship (Bailey & Wood, 1998; Wood, 1997).
11. Much psychopathology emanates from real/perceived imbalances, deprivations and conflicts in the kinship areas of life (Bailey & Wood, 1998). The primary goal of Kinship Therapy is to help the client maintain healthy kinship relations within his/her social support system (Bailey, 1999).
Kinship References
Ahern, S., & Bailey, K. G. (1997). Families-by-choice: Finding family in a world of strangers. Minneapolis, MN: Fairview Press.
Bailey, K. G. (1987). Human paleopsychology: Applications to aggression and pathological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Bailey, K. G. (1988). Psychological kinship: Implications for the helping professions. Psychotherapy, 25, 132-142.
Bailey, K. G. (1994). Our kind-their kind: Response to Gardner's we-they distinction. ASCAP Newsletter, 7, 5-7.
Bailey, K. G. (1997). Evolutionary kinship therapy: Merging integrative psychotherapy with the new kinship psychology. Presidential address at the annual ASCAP meeting in Tucson, AZ.
Bailey, K. G. (1999). Evolution, kinship, and psychotherapy: Promoting Psychological Health Through Human Relationships. In P. Gilbert & K. G. Bailey (Eds.), Genes on the couch: Explorations of evolutionary psychotherapy. Hove: Psychology Press (Guilford).
Bailey, K. G., & Wood, H.E. (1993). Basic principles of psychological kinship theory. ASCAP Newsletter, 6(Nov), 7-10.
Bailey, K. G., & Wood, H. E. (1998). Evolutionary kinship therapy: Basic principles and treatment implications. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 71, 509-524..
Bailey, K. G., Wood, H. E., & Nava, G. R. (1992). What do clients want? Role of psychological kinship in professional helping. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 2, 125-147.
Bailey, K.G. & Wood, H. E. (1993). Psychological kinship theory: Social behavior and clinical practice. Presented Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting, Binghampton, New York.
Bailey, R. C., & Czuchry, M. (1994). Psychological kinship fulfillment and dating attraction. Social Behavior and Personality, in press.
Beverly, W. (1997). Psychological kinship: A construct for operationalization of relationships in eco-systems. Unpublished manuscript, VCU Social Work department.
Gilbert, P., & Bailey, K. G. (Eds.). (1999). Genes on the couch: Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy. Hove: Psychology Press.
Lewis, D. (1995). Psychological kinship and the self-concept: Differential expressions in African American and White women. Unpublished manuscript, VCU, Richmond.
Lewis, D. (1998). Kinship, self-concept, and self-identity: Roles in racial identity, spirituality, and psychopathology in African-American and Caucasian-American Women. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Nava, G. R., & Bailey, K. G. (1991). Measuring psychological kinship: Interrelationships in a population of psychiatric nurses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, VCU, Richmond.
Patti, A. M. (1994). Psychological kinship, social support, and stress: Interrelationships in a population of psychiatric nurses. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Wood, H. E. (1995). The construct of psychological kinship: Roles of familial love, classification, and support. Unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond.
Wood, H. E. (1997). Staying in the therapy zone: Kinship and the art of therapeutic process. Paper presented at annual ASCAP meeting, Tucson, AZ.
Woods, J. L. (1997). An evolutionary approach to bulimia nervosa. Unpublished Master's thesis, Virginia Commonwealth University.
Additional References
Aschenbrenner, J. (1973). Extended families among Black Americans. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 4, 257-258.
Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for personal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1985). Child abuse and other risks of not living with both parents. Ethology and Sociobiology, 6, 197-210.
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. (1988). Homocide. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Daly, M., Salmon, C., & Wilson, M. (1997). Kinship; the conceptual hole in psychological studies Of social cognition and close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & D. A. Kendrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology, pp. 265-296. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Fox, R. (1972). Alliance and constraint: Sexual selection and the evolution of human kinship systems. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man. Chicago: Aldine.
Fox, R. (1975). Primate kin and human kinship. In R. Fox (Ed.), Biosocial anthropology (pp. 9-36). New Hove: Psychology Press.York: Wiley.
Fox, R. (1979). Kinship categories as natural categories. In N. A. Chagnon & W. Irons (Eds.), Evolutionary biology and human social behavior: An anthropological perspective. North Scituate, MA: Duxbury.
Freeman D: Kinship, attachment behavior and the primary bond. In J. Goody (Ed), Character of kinship. London: Cambridge U Press, 1974.
Giallombardo, R. (1966). Society of women: A study of a women's prison. New York: Wiley.
Gilbert, P. (1999). Social mentalities: Internal 'social' conflicts and the role of inner warmth and compassion in cognitive therapy. In P.
Gilbert and K. G. Bailey (Eds.), Genes on the couch: Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy. Hove: Psychology Press.
Glantz, K., & Pearce, J. K. (1989). Exiles from Eden; Psychotherapy from an evolutionary perspective. New York: W. W. Norton & Company
.
Henderson, S. (1982). The significance of social relationships in the etiology of neurosis. In C. Parks & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.). (1982). The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 205-231). New York: Basic Books.
Hepper, P. G. (1991). Recognizing kin: Ontogeny and classification. In P. G. Hepper (Ed.), Kin recognition (pp. 259-288). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hill, R. (1972). Stengths of black families. New York: National Urban League.
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. Science, 241, 540-544.
Howard, J. (1978). Families. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Kennedy, S., Kiecolt-Glaser, J. K., & Glaser, R. (1990). Social support, stress, and the immune system. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 129-149). New York: Wiley.
Kraemer, G. W. (1992). A psychobiological theory of attachment. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 15, 493-541.
McGuire, M. T., & Troisi, A. (1998). Darwinian psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mellen, S. L. W. (1981). The evolution of love. San Francisco: Freeman.
Nava, G. R. (1994). Actual and perceived social support, love, liking, and family love as predictors of perceived obligation/entitlement and depression. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University
Sarason, S. B. (1985). Caring and compassion in clinical practice. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Schofield, W. (1964). The purchase of friendship. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Shaffer, C. R., & Anunsen, K. (1993). Creating community anywhere: Finding support in a fragmented world. New York: Putnam.
Sperling, M. B. & Berman, W. H. (Eds.), Attachment in adults: Clinical and developmental perspectives. New York: Guilford.
Troisi, A., & McGuire, M. T. (1999). Psychotherapy in the context of Darwinian psychiatry. In P. Gilbert & K. G. Bailey (Eds.), Genes on the couch: Exploration in evolutionary psycxhotherapy. Hove: Psychology Press.
van den Berghe, P. L. (1979). Human family systems: An evolutionary view. New York: Elsevier.
van den Berghe, P. L. (1980). The human family: A sociobiological look. In J. S. Lockhard (Ed.), The evolution of human social behavior (pp. 67-85). New York: Elsevier.
de Waal, F. M. B. (1982). Chimpamzee politics. London: Jonathan Cape
PALEOPSYCHOLOGY OF KINSHIP
PALEOPSYCHOLOGY OF KINSHIP
Kinship and the Psychotherapy Relationship
Kinship and the Psychotherapy Relationship
EVOLUTIONARY KINSHIP THERAPY
With Illustrative Case Studies
Note: this essay is excerpted from Bailey, K. G. (2000). Evolution, kinship, and psychotherapy: Promoting psychological health through human relationships. In P. Gilbert and Bailey, K. G. (eds.), Genes on the couch: Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy. Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
The central role of togetherness and natural sociality in human ancestry has led to the evolution of a brain that is more social than technological. Paul Gilbert (2000) argues that various evolved social mentalities like strategies for care eliciting/seeking, care giving/providing, mate selection, alliance formation, and ranking behavior are the foundation stones for the self-concept, social role-taking behavior, and a host of other basic functions.
Unfortunately, there are no special evolved social mentalities for being either a therapist or client in psychotherapy, and we must therefore adapt ones that previously evolved for other purposes. Not surprisingly, the evolved social brains of the client and therapist find it difficult to distinguish between ancestral ways of relating and the specific demands of psychotherapy; for example, the client’s desire for intimacy or kinship with the therapist may reflect ancient evolved patterns of kinship (Bailey, Wood, & Nava, 1992) and the therapist’s feelings and countertransference issues may reflect ancient patterns as well.
The interplay of both the client’s and therapist’s evolved human natures raise numerous ethical and moral issues, especially when often unconsciously motivated wishes and needs of both are activated in treatment. It is self-serving fantasy for the therapist to see himself or herself as sublimely altruistic, objective, and impersonal in therapy process, whereas the client is merely a weak, needy, self-serving, and irrational entity. Both interactants bring their issues into therapy, but the therapist is morally and professionally obligated to keep personal issues under tight control.
Bailey (1988) introduced the idea of a kinship double standard in therapy where one set of rules and moral imperatives come into play for the therapist and his or her close relatives, and another for the client. For example, a hardcore evolutionary approach implies that the therapist and client are each on inherently selfish and separate fitness tracks, but this dilemma is greatly mitigated when we think of the client in at least kin-like terms (Bailey & Wood, 1998). In the kin-like mode, the warmth component is activated for both client and therapist, and both see each other “as-family” in a metaphorical way- a status significantly less than true kin but much more than a reciprocal business arrangement between acquaintances (Wood, 1997).
General Principles
First, the therapeutic relationship or alliance is central to virtually all forms of psychotherapy and is especially central to kinship therapy. Glantz and Pearce (1989) say the client-therapist relationship as a kind of a two-person band, and Bailey & Wood (1998) argue, “The practice of psychotherapy involves a deep and profound interaction between two members of species Homo sapiens, where one provides a listening ear, empathic understanding, reassurance and advice for living for the other” (p. 515).
Depending on the depth and type of therapy, therapist-client relations may be little more than rapport (emotional warmth) in the context of stylized professionalism; or deeper still, warm, kin-like relations short of kinship; or at the deepest end, actual psychological kinships, as between myself and the borderline client Jennie discussed below. Warm, empathic, kin-like relations seem preferable for most therapeutic encounters (Wood, 1997), which serves to avoid superficiality on the one hand, and the many potential problems of actual kinship on the other.
However, the therapist must often confront the fact that many clients want a deeper relationship with him or her than is either professionally appropriate or feasible (Bailey, et al, 1992). Throughout human evolution, help and support were provided by close family members, medicine men and tribal elders, and others within the extended family and tribal network, so it is no surprise that clients often want to classify us as-family in some way.
Once a good working kin-like bond develops between client and therapist, then therapy can focus on ways of helping clients effectively pursue biosocial goals, and adaptive role-taking, and improved patterns of health and wellness. As Bailey and Wood (1998) suggested, effective psychotherapy helps the client become a better functioning member of species Homo sapiens (where ancient need systems and biosocial goals are adequately satisfied), but he or she must learn ways to meet unique challenges of today’s world as well. Kinship therapy emphasizes warm, constructive, and adaptive family relations (biological kinship), satisfying and adaptive friendships (psychological kinship), and warm, kin-like approaches with acquaintances and strangers, but issues of conflict, competition, and self-protection are also addressed as needed.
Evolutionary kinship therapy focuses on facilitating biosocial goals within the domain of kinship, with special focus on processes of assessment, classification/de-classification, cost/benefit imbalance and resolution. It also addresses relations with non-kin in the domains of education, work, and other contexts. All of this is done with compassion, deep empathy (McGuire & Troisi, 1998), and sensitivity to the deeply human concerns of our clients.
Finally, evolutionary kinship therapy draws from traditional psychodynamic, behavioral, cognitive, and psychotherapy integration models in case conceptualization, treatment planning, and implementing interventions. However, preference is for evolutionary models and disciplines including:
- Evolutionary psychology (e. g., Barkow, Cosmides & Tooby, 1992)
- Evolutionary psychopathology (Crawford, 1995)
- Human paleopsychology (Bailey, 1987)
- Evolutionary psychiatry (Stevens & Price, 1996)
- Darwinian psychiatry (McGuire & Troisi, 1998)
- Evolutionary kinship psychology (Daly, Salmon, & Wilson, 1997)
Evolutionary models enrichen and extend traditional approaches and provide new insights in approaching the four basic dimensions of psychotherapy: a. the species dimension, b. the relationship dimension, c. the conceptual-procedural dimension, and d. the moral dimension (Bailey & Wood, 1998).
Case Illustrations
Mattie: testing phase and sudden re-classification
In the 1960s I worked briefly as a staff psychologist in a federal prison for women. My first hint of “kinship” in psychotherapy came during a six-week pre-release course of therapy with a 25-year-old African-American inmate named Mattie. She was a large, angry, and intimidating woman who resented authority and greeted me in the first session with the question- “OK, where are you hiding the damn tape recorder…I know you are up to something.”
Interpersonally, we were both low on emotional warmth but high on kinship and cost:benefit assessment of the other, and she appeared to roughly classify me as a hostile “stranger.” In turn, my implicit classification of her was that of “intimidating client.” Certainly, there was not the slightest indication of kinship anywhere in sight. After several sessions, I developed a genuine liking for Mattie after learning that her anger emanated from incidences of egregious white racism in her native state of Louisiana; moreover, I was touched by her love and generosity toward her children and other family members back home. In fact, she made three dollars a day working in the prison laundry, and sent virtually all of it home to her family.
As my feelings of warmth increased toward Mattie, processes of assessment decreased as I more reliably re-classified her into the kin-like category of “really nice person underneath it all.” However, for more than four weeks Mattie remained cool and distant toward me and would be abusive on occasion. I suspected the process of testing in therapy whereby the client carefully assesses the therapist’s reaction to his or her pathogenic beliefs or pathological behavior. There is a relational version of this as well, where the client will ignore, reject, or provoke the therapist in order to test the limits of the relationship. If the therapist remains thoroughly committed to the relationship under such fire, there is a good chance that a sudden, positive re-classification of the therapist will occur where he or she is now “family” or at least a nice person.
This is exactly what happened in the fifth week with Mattie when she just simply walked in one day and declared, “You are OK.” From that moment on our relations were relaxed and enjoyable, but even more remarkable was her general improvement in attitude and behavior in the institution. Her “kinship” with me had spread outward to others.
There is a logic to human relationships where a single new relationship or a changed older one can reverberate throughout the individual’s psychic system and change the entire internal system of meanings about the self, the self-in-relation-to-others, and even attributions about the goodness or badness of life in general. In retrospect, I think that once I was “OK” to Mattie she said something more-or-less like this to herself: “if this young white guy can truly like me after I have treated him so badly, then maybe there is hope for someone like me in the larger world out there.” In any case, Mattie did change positively in the short-run, but lack of follow-up data precludes any conclusions about long-term effects.
John: Brief crisis intervention in a kin-like context
John was a 35-year-old African-American man who was brought to the Psychology Clinic by his mother following suicidal threats and threats of "hurting" his recently divorced ex-wife. These threats were serious given that John is 6 ft. 7 inches tall, weighs 245 pounds, and is mildly retarded and mildly brain-damaged. John was extremely distressed over the wife's abandonment and "felt he would never find another wife."
The wife was a drug addict who had been married 4 times before, and apparently married John on a lark. The mother tried to reassure John that he was lucky to get rid of that "floozy," but he remained heart broken and potentially violent. The case was assigned to 40-year-old female social worker who was completing her training in our Clinic. She was seemed overwhelmed in the first session and called me at home for advice. John was grievously depressed, inconsolable, and fearful of what he might do to himself or to the ex-wife. His mother attended the session, but she was unable to get John under control. I asked to speak to John on the phone, and was surprised at his readiness to open up. A subsequent session was arranged that included John, his mother, the therapist, and myself as co-therapist.
In the session, it was clear that John needed a deeply relational approach to help him through the crisis. Despite differences in race, education, and SES, the session developed a kin-like tenor quickly, and both John and the mother expressed appreciation for our sincere concern (we both genuinely liked him and the mother). In kinship terms, there was warm emotion, a minimum of assessment of other, and a mutual attribution of familiness during the session.
Moreover, John and the mother seeme positively affected by the apparent “kinship” between therapist and supervisor who came across "as family." Moreover, all four of us shared similar religious backgrounds and use of religious metaphor aided communication. The session went extremely well, and both John and the mother left feeling optimistic and hopeful. At sessions end, it was clear that the mother wanted to hug both therapist and supervisor. Moreover, I made a special effort to put my arm around John's shoulder and to give him a hearty handshake.
In a second and final co-therapy session, primary focus was on case assessment and kinship intervention. Assessment focused on two primary issues: a.the devastating loss of psychological kinship with the ex-wife, and b. the availability other compensating kinship supports in John's life. We concluded that the loss of the wife was a given, and John was probably correct in concerns about future marriage prospects.
On the other hand, many other compensating social supports were available in the home (mother and other family), at work (janitor) where John was loved by co-workers, and in the local community. It was difficult for John to confront his great loss, but due to the warm and trusting therapy atmosphere (greatly facilitated by the mother), we were able to do so thoroughly yet nondefensively.
In supervision, we conceptualized the case in terms of kinship loss, severely imbalanced kinship (one loved, the other did not), and non-kin relations at work and in community, but in therapy our approach was very simple and straightforward. Supportive treatment for John's psychological kinship loss and reinforcement of his solid work ethic were helpful. Further, he learned to more effectively recognize and exploit his excellent existing kinship and non-kin resources. His behavior stabilized very quickly after two co-therapy sessions and he continued for a brief time with the student therapist for support and advice-giving.
Jennie: Long-Term Psychological Kinship
Many years ago, a clinical psychologist referred a young woman to me- Jennie- who had just been released from Riverside Psychiatric Hospital in Hampton, Virginia. She was a challenge from the first day. She was abusive, argumentative, appeared to be high on drugs or alcohol, and expressed complete disdain for the counseling process. Nevertheless, at hour's end, she agreed to come back next week, "just for the hell of it."
Jennie had a long history of substance abuse, antisocial behavior, suicide attempts, and minor brushes with the law. She came from the backwoods of Alabama and her mother had cast her off to relatives as an infant, which initiated a childhood of physical and sexual abuse. Eventually, she was passed on to kindly biological kin- an aunt and uncle. They cared for her needs, but were extremely rigid, demanding, and affectionless in their parenting approach. When she was in her teens, Jennie ran away and was later informally adopted as “psychological kin”: by a loving, but mentally ill older lady, Wanda. Despite being ill from cancer and suffering from manic-depressive psychosis, Wanda continues to be Jennie's “true mother” (or closest psychological kin) today.
Early in treatment, Jennie was administered a full battery of psychological tests including a paper and pencil measure of intelligence, the MMPI, Draw-A-Person Test, Thematic Apperception Test, and the Rorschach Inkblot test. Findings indicated superior intelligence (IQ 123), extreme depression, anger, distrust, and internal turmoil on the MMPI, feelings of alienation, deep longing for love and acceptance on the TAT, and extreme impulsivity and psychological impoverishment on the Rorschach. When her pattern of addiction and suicidality was considered, the data suggested borderline personality of moderate severity.
Aside from Wanda and myself, there were no significant others in Jennie’s life, and the client-therapist relationship was pivotal in the early stages of treatment. Wanda lived in another city and had her own problems, and Jennie grabbed on to me as a lifeline. However, her ambivalence was extreme, and each session was loud, boisterous, and painful for both of us as she released her rage and frustration on the only object available.
In kinship terms, warm”kin-like” emotionality was low and assessment processes were high for both of us as we struggled to find something to base a relationship on. Kinship classification was equally unclear- she seemed to see me as a potential kinship object and enemy at the same time, and I felt a deep personal and professional obligation toward her but little else. Intuitively, I felt her provocations were a kind of “test” of whether I truly cared (as with Mattie above), but there was no theory to draw from at the time. Moreover, it seemed crucial that I be resolute and not give up on her- to do so would be catastrophic. Thus, in this pre-bonding stage, the goal was to hold firm and try to win her trust.
In the fourth month of treatment, Jennie became angered at my probing questions, and she ran from the room screaming epithets at me and did not return until some twenty minutes later. She appeared very sheepish and subdued and looked at me intensely, apparently trying to assess my reaction to her outbburst. I felt that this was the moment where the relationship would stand or fall. I firmly stated that there was nothing she could do to get me to give up on her, so she might as well just knock it off. Surprisingly, she seemed very pleased with that and promised to be back next week. In retrospect, I can now see that this was the very deep “kinship” affirmation that she had sought all along from others and myself.
Throughout treatment I had noticed that Jennie had spent most of her life trying- without success- to somehow reconstitute her lost family. Now, following our critical incident, it was clear that she had incorporated me into her small family of two (she and her psychological kin “mother”). As with Mattie, this new client-therapist bond was effected with dramatic suddenness and it seemed to similarly reflect a general cognitive restructuring and revised view of life and others.
Jennie began to dress more attractively, made a few new friends, and found employment; moreover, at post-therapy assessment her elevated MMPI scores had dropped significantly and the other personality measures indicated noteworthy improvement. Unfortunately, she was still borderline personality clinically, and she has never completely overcome her alcoholism and occasional bouts of depression. However, therapy was successful in bringing her depression under control, in providing her with a new and more positive set of internal meanings, and – most importantly- constraining her downward spiral of self-destructive behavior.
As luck would have it, Jennie was accepted into the military shortly after cessation of formal therapy, and she eventually became a helicopter mechanics in the U. S. Army. She served eight years with distinction and eventually achieved the rank of sergeant. Sadly, following a failed marriage she lapsed back into alcoholism and borderline behavior, and was forced to accept a medical discharge from the Army. She continues to keep in touch with me and my family, and she will occasionally call or come by my home for a visit. She continues to classify not only me but my wife and daughter “as family”, and we see her as something more than a previous therapy client.
This is the only true psychological kinship I have ever developed with a client, and I have been willing to accept the obligations and occasional inconveniences that go with it. For obvious reasons, therapy relations typically do not go beyond the kin-like level, but in Jennie’s case the psychological kinship seemed to have positive effects that outweighed the risks and obligations.
CONCLUDING COMMENT
The need to belong is a fundamental human drive that emanates from the mammalian, primate, and hominid/human ancestry of modern human beings. Secure infant-mother attachment, secure and satisfying family relations, and secure membership in band and tribe are associated with positive physical and psychological health, personal happiness and a sense of subjective well-being, and general life satisfaction.
Conversely, real or threatened loss of affection, love, and group membership are extremely aversive subjectively, and disruptions and deprivations in togetherness are associated with a remarkably wide range of negative physical and psychological consequences. Clearly, abandonment, rejection, loneliness, and isolation are not normal conditions for members of species Homo sapiens, and people are highly motivated to avoid breaks in togetherness among those classified as "our kind."
When such breaks cannot be avoided and re-integration of relations is impossible or problematic, the individual is likely to experience some combination of the following ill effects- increased levels of stress with associated immuno-incompetence, a sense of hopelessness and depression, anger and frustration, lowered self-esteem and self-efficacy, and deep-seated feelings of unhappiness and life dissatisfaction.
The fields of behavioral medicine, health psychology, psychiatry, clinical psychology, and psychotherapy have dwelt on these matters for some time, but a comprehensive theoretical model has been slow to emerge. Following Daly, Salmon, and Wilson's (1997) call to arms for a comprehensive kinship psychology, I suggest that an evolutionary kinship psychology is needed to make sense of the power and universality of natural togetherness, and the central role that it plays in both good and poor health and in the heights happiness and the depths of despair.
Kinship is the central and unifying construct in human relationships, and the evolved needs for belongingness, love, and attachment are most clearly expressed in systems of social organization based on kinship. As a working principle, I suggest that kinships that are stable, strong and balanced in mutual giving are the most personally satisfying, fulfilling, and conducive to positive physical and psychological health in human beings, and it follows that kinships that are weak and/or imbalanced in obligations/giving will be associated with either lesser health benefits, no benefits, or negative health consequences.
The general goal of evolutionary kinship therapy is to conceptualize a particular case in terms of patterns biosocial goal-seeking and kinship deprivations, disruptions, and balances/imbalances. The next step is to design interventions that aid the client in meeting and/or reconciling species and cultural demands in a manner that optimizes personal happiness and adjustment (Bailey, 1997a). Specifically, evolutionary kinship therapy emphasizes any and all means of encouraging healthy expressions of natural sociality and kinship whether in the therapy encounter itself or in the broader contexts of family and community. Empirical evidence is unequivocal that such expressions are conducive to positive physical and mental health, and overall quality of life.
References
Ahern, S., & Bailey, K. G. (1997). Families-by-choice: Finding families in a world of strangers. Minneapolis, MN: Fairview Press.
Bailey, K. G. (1987). Human paleopsychology: Applications to aggression and pathological processes. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.
Bailey, K. G. (1988). Psychological kinship: Implications for the helping professions. Psychotherapy, 25, 132-142.
Bailey, K. G. (1994). Our kind-their kind: Response to Gardner's we-they distinction. ASCAP Newsletter, 7, 5-8.
Bailey, K. G. (1995). Mismatch theory and psychopathology. Paper presented at the Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting, June, Santa Barbara, CA.
Bailey, K. G. (1997a). Series on mismatch theory and the fourfold model. ASCAP Newsletter, February, March, April, and December issues.
Bailey, K. G. (1997b). Evolutionary kinship therapy: Merging integrative psychotherapy with the new kinship psychology. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the ASCAP Society, Tucson, AZ.
Bailey, K.G. & Wood, H. E. (1993). Psychological kinship theory: Social behavior and clinical practice. Presented Human Behavior and Evolution Society meeting, Binghampton, New York.
Bailey, K. G., & Wood, H. E. (1998). Evolutionary kinship therapy: Basic principles and treatment applications. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 71, 509-523..
Bailey, K. G., Wood, H. E., & Nava, G. R. (1992). What do clients want? Role of psychological kinship in professional helping. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 2, 125-147.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992) (Eds.), The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology and the generation of culture (pp. 163-228). New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497-529.
Crawford, C., & Krebs, D. (Eds.). (1998). Handbook of evolutionary psychology: Ideas, issues, and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Daly, M., Salmon, C., & Wilson, M. (1997). Kinship: The conceptual hole in psychological studies of social cognition and close relationships. In J. A. Simpson & D. T. Kendrick (Eds.), Evolutionary social psychology (pp. 265-296). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilbert, P. (2000). Social mentalities: Internal “social” conflict and the role of inner warmth and compassion in cognitive therapy. In Gilbert, P. & Bailey, K. G. Eds.), Genes on the couch: Explorations in evolutionary psychotherapy (pp. 118-150). Philadelphia: Taylor and Francis.
Glantz, K., & Pearce, J. K. (1989). Exiles from Eden. New York: Norton.
McGuire, M., & Troisi, A. (1998). Darwinian psychiatry. New York: Oxford University Press.
coalitions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1151-1164.
Stevens, A. & Price, J. (19960. Evolutionary psychiatry: A new beginning. London: Routledge.
Wood, H. E. (1997). Staying in the therapy zone: Kinship and the art of therapeutic process. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the SACAP society, Tucson, Arizona.
Wood, H. E. (1998). Psychological kinship, well-being, and the stress of chronic caregiving to dementia patients. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Commonwealth University.
This is my Korean niece Miki by adoption enjoying the strongest form of biological kinship with her beautiful mixed race baby "Little Leo."
This is Miki's adoptive mother
Barbara enjoying a nap and psychological kinship with her grandchild Little Leo.
Leo's biological parents in Korea will become biological kin if and only when they are recognized and classified at some later time.
My wife Patricia and I have been married since 1962 and have enjoyed many wonderful years of strong, balanced, and sastisfying psychological kinship.
We classified each
other years earlier and knew we were destined to be together for life.
Here is a family portrait of Patricia, our only child Kendra, and myself from some 30 years ago.
While mom and dad enjoy psychological kinship with each other, Kendra enjoys strong and balanced biological kinship with both parents and they with her.
Here is Patricia with her mother who lived to 100 years and 5 months. Although their biological kinship was strong and balanced, strains are always introduced and obligations magnified when parents need special care in their final years.
Also, the elderly parent's assessments of
"balance" are greatly magnified during this often stressful time. "Am I getting the care I deserve, etc."
Siblings offering care are also very sensitive to "balance" in caregiving
responsibilities..
Here is Patricia with my mother who lived to 1 day short of 100 years. She required intense care her last few years and my brother Roger lived closest and took the lion's share of caregiving responsibility.
Patricia as daughter-in-law and strong psychological kin also contributed to the caregiving responsibilies.
One can have biological kinship with
a deceased person you know of and choose to classify as kin. Personal
contact is not required.
Here is the marker for my paternal
grandfather who died in 1936 two
years before I was born.
Here I am with banjo enjoying great kin-like relations with
bluegrass bandmates in 1959. It
was a wonderful time of friendship and camaraderie.
Here is Patricia enjoying both kin-like and
reciprocal relations with her conference-
winning high school golf team.
She and the team were emotionally
close but also shared a common "mission"
of sorts.
Part I- Theory
Part I- Theory
Part II- Practice
Part II- Practice