Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:23:10.268Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Evocative Nature of Kin Terminology in Political Rhetoric

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 May 2016

Catherine A. Salmon
Catherine A. Salmon*
Affiliation:
McMaster University, Canada
Get access

Abstract

Kin terms such as “brothers,” “sisters,” and “motherland” are frequently used in both political and patriotic speech. Johnson (1986, 1987) has argued that this use of kin terms in patriotic or rhetorical speech can be predicted on the basis of evolutionary psychology. He has suggested that the human inclination toward nepotistic behavior can be called forth by the successful manipulation of kin terminology. In this study, two hypotheses were examined concerning the evocativeness of kin terminology in political speech and the influence of birth order on the effectiveness of such terminology. The first hypothesis was that kin terms would be more effective than more distant relationship terms (like “friend”) in evoking a positive response. Kin terms elevated agreement with the views expressed in the speech that the subjects heard. The second hypothesis, that middleborns would be less likely to respond to such kin term usage than first or lastborns, was based on previous work on birth order and family relations (Salmon and Daly, in press). And in fact, middleborns were less likely to be influenced by the use of kin terms than first or lastborns in this study.

Type
Articles
Information
Politics and the Life Sciences , Volume 17 , Issue 1 , March 1998 , pp. 51 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Politics and the Life Sciences 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alexander, R.D. (1979). Darwinism and Human Affairs. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Chagnon, N.A. (1981). “Terminological Kinship, Genealogical Relatedness and Village Fissioning among the Yanomamo Indians.” In Alexander, R.D. and Tinkle, D.W. (eds.), Natural Selection and Social Behavior. New York: Chiron Press.Google Scholar
Clutton-Brock, T.H. (1984). “Reproductive Effort and Terminal Investment in Iteroparous Animals.” American Naturalist 123:212–29.Google Scholar
Cronin, H. (1991). The Ant and the Peacock. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M.I. (1978). Sex, Evolution, and Behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.Google Scholar
Daly, M. and Wilson, M.I. (1984). “A Sociobiological Analysis of Human Infanticide.” In Hausfater, G. and Hrdy, S.B. (eds.), Infanticide: Comparative and Evolutionary Perspectives. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Essock-Vitale, S. and McGuire, M.T. (1985). “Women's Lives Viewed from an Evolutionary Perspective: II. Patterns of Helping.” Ethology and Sociobiology 6:155–73.Google Scholar
Hogan, D.P. and Eggbeen, D.J. (1995). “Sources of Emergency Help and Routine Assistance in Old Age.” Social Forces 73:917–36.Google Scholar
Holmes, W.G. and Sherman, P.W. (1982). “The Ontogeny of Kin Recognition in Two Species of Ground Squirrels.” American Zoologist 22:491–517.Google Scholar
Holper, J.J. (1996). “Kin Term Usage in The Federalist: Evolutionary Foundations of Publius's Rhetoric.” Politics and the Life Sciences 15:265–72.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.R. (1986). “Kin Selection, Socialization, and Patriotism: An Integrating Theory.” Politics and the Life Sciences 4:127–54.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.R. (1987). “In the Name of the Fatherland: An Analysis of Kin Term Usage in Patriotic Speech and Literature.” International Political Science Review 8:165–74.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.R., Ratwik, S.H., and Sawyer, T.J. (1985). “The Evocative Significance of Kin Terms in Patriotic Speech: An Experimental Study Based upon a Theory Linking Kin Selection and Patriotism.” A paper presented at the World Congress of the International Political Science Association (July 15-20), Paris.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.R., Ratwick, S.H., and Sawyer, T.J. (1987). “The Evocative Significance of Kin Terms in Patriotic Speech.” In Reynolds, V., Falger, V., and Vine, I. (eds.), The Sociobiology of Ethnocentrism: Evolutionary Dimensions of Xenophobia, Discrimination, Racism and Nationalism. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Johnson, G.R. (1989). “The Role of Kin Recognition Mechanisms in Patriotic Socialization: Further Reflections.” Politics and the Life Sciences 8:62–69.Google Scholar
Kennedy, G.E. (1989). “Middleborns' Perceptions of Family Relationships.” Psychological Reports 64:755–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kidwell, J.S. (1981). “Number of Siblings, Sibling Spacing, Sex, and Birth Order: Their Effects on Perceived Parent-Adolescent Relationships.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 43:315–332.Google Scholar
Kidwell, J.S. (1982). “The Neglected Birth Order: Middleborns.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 44:225–35.Google Scholar
Salmon, C. and Daly, M. (1996). “On the Importance of Kin Relations to Canadian Women and Men.” Ethology and Sociobiology 17:289–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salmon, C. and Daly, M.(in press). “Birth Order and Familial Sentiment: Middleborns Are Different.” Evolution and Human Behavior.Google Scholar
Stack, C.B. (1974). All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1995). “Birth Order and Evolutionary Psychology: A Meta-Analytic Overview.” Psychological Inquiry 6:75–80.Google Scholar
Sulloway, F.J. (1996). Born to Rebel: Radical Thinking in Science and Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Turner, M. (1987). Death Is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van den Berghe, P. (1985). “Comment on G.L. Goodell's ‘Paternalism, Patronage and Potlatch.’” Current Anthropology 26:262–63.Google Scholar