Continuing to review James Clark’s review of Stephen Wolfe’s book, “The Case For Nationalism.” Clark now takes up the issue of Ethnicity and King, quoting from Dr. Stephen Wolfe;
“What role, then, does kin play in Wolfe’s account of ethnicity? He writes that “blood relations refers to natural relations that originate several generations back, often emphasizing ancestry known in story and myth among one’s kin” (138, italics original). Wolfe goes on to affirm that “blood relations matter for your ethnicity,” but at the same time he states that “the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity.” The reason blood relations matter to one’s ethnicity is that one’s “ethnic ties of affection” are a direct result of the fact that “one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place” (139).
Bret responds,
So, per Wolfe, ethnicity refers to blood relations which emphasizes ancestry and this maters for one’s ethnicity except when it doesn’t, and apparently the ties of blood only indirectly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Clear as mud. Note also here that “blood relations matter to one’s ethnicity.” This stands in contradiction to earlier comments of Wolfe where Wolfe clearly seeks to make the case that ethnicity should be read phenomenologically and not genetically or patrilineally. Which is it Stephen?
Now, James Clark makes a unwarranted leap writing;
There is an important detail in this statement: one’s kin conducted life with other kin. “Other kin” refers not to a subset of “one’s kin,” but to a second, completely unrelated kin group. In other words, ethnogenesis can be the product of multiple separate kin groups who cultivate shared life and experience together, hence Wolfe’s observation on the power of “intermarriage over time in creating bonds of affection” (139). This is also why Wolfe approvingly cites Johann Herder’s definition of volk (the German word for “people” or “ethnicity”) as a “family writ large”:
Bret responds,
One can dwell in one racially homogenous people and still speak of “other kin.” Clark asserts that “other kin” does not refer to a subset of “one’s kin” and that instead we are talking about a “completely unrelated kin group.” This could be true. It also could be true that “other kin” refers to those distinct ethnic groups belonging to the same race. Take for example the nation of Israel. To the tribe of Gad, the tribe of Dan could well have been “other kin,” and not a completely unrelated kin group. As this may well be true, I obviously disagree with Clark that generally speaking, “ethnogenesis can be the product of multiple separate kin groups who cultivate shared life and experience together.” That view taken to its logical conclusion is the foundation upon which multiculturalism could be built.
In terms of Wolfe’s “intermarriage over time creating bonds of affection,” we would note that intermarriage here could simply mean intermarriage as between the tribe of Zebulon and the tribe of Judah. If that observation was found to be accurate then Herder’s definition of volk could easily still stand.
James Clark quoting Wolfe;
This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land—to this nation in this place—and so they bind you to that people and place, creating a common volksgeist. (139, italics original)
Bret responds,
Here, we once again find Dr. Wolfe trying to take situations that would be exceptions and treat them as if they would be the norm. Extended families that are not blood related may indeed belong to one nation but it will not be so as a norm. It is possible, for example, for Ndebele people to generationally belong to China and the Han people but clearly that would belong to some kind of exception category and would not exist as a rule. Again, should this principle be given its head the consequence would be multiculturalism or propositional nationhood.
James Clark marches on;
To reiterate, the significance of kin for ethnicity on Wolfe’s account is that one’s ancestral roots tie a person to a given place, not that the person’s kin group is solely definitive of the ethnicity associated with that place. If Wolfe believed that ethnicity is by definition confined to a single kin group, it would make no sense for him to speak of “one’s kin” living with “the extended families of others,” for everyone would be part of one big extended family. Nowhere is Wolfe’s actual approach to ethnicity and kin more clear than when he says the following:
If some set of goods are made possible only in conditions of similarity, then a similar, multi-kin people—i.e., an ethnic group—must be a self-conscious in-group. (145)
Bret responds,
Once Again a multi-kin people (Wolfe’s innovative definition of “ethnic”) can exist just as a few drops of Lemonade in a gallon of Orange Juice can exist with nobody the wiser that the liquid in that gallon is Orange Juice. However, once a few drops become half the gallon then we are no longer talking about Orange Juice but something completely different. Yes, by way of exception, Ndebele in China over time might be able to be considered part of the Han people but if fifty percent of the Han people are replaced by Ndebele then the Nation is no longer Chinese.
James Clark writes,
“Based on the definition of kinism established above, the idea of “multi-kin kinism” is self-contradictory. A kinist society would be composed of one extended family. Therefore, a “multi-kin people,” i.e., a people composed of more than one kin group, cannot be kinist in nature. To drive the point home, “One loves a particular people in a particular place, because his family did so too, and through his connection with his family and their activity with others, he has a home-land and a people” (162‒63, italics original). For actual kinists it would be nonsensical to talk of one’s “family and their activity with others” because in a kinist society there would be no “others”—everyone would be part of the same family. This can be seen in self-identifed kinist Davis Carlton’s assertion that “nations are defined and rooted in common heredity” and “common ancestry, language, culture, religion, and social customs.” Contrast this affirmation of common heredity and common ancestry as foundational to nationhood with Wolfe’s express insistence that an ethnicity or nation is not a “family writ large” in the literal sense that “everyone is a cousin by blood,” and the gap between Wolfe and kinism should be apparent. In light of all this, it is unsurprising that actual kinists have expressed disappointment with Wolfe’s book. For example, Jan Adriaan Schlebusch declared on Twitter that Wolfe is not one of them, a fact adverted to by Alastair Roberts in a tweet that, as of this writing, is still publicly available.”
Bret responds,
We have already dealt with this misnomer by Clark above. See the comments about “The One and the Many,” as well as the illustration of Israel with twelve tribes. Clark (and Wolfe?) are just in error here when they suggest there could be no “other” in a Kinist nation. As a Kinist I would have no problem whatsoever with talking about my “family and their activity with others,” just as Southerners during the War of Northern Aggression had no problem of fighting with their “other” white Cajun countrymen hailing from Louisiana and New Orleans.
Secondly, we would note that while it may be the case that Wolfe is not Kinist (which I’ve been saying for forever) it is certainly the case that, in CRT language, Wolfe is Kinist-adjacent — what I have earlier phrased as “crypto-Kinist.” Pragmatically speaking, Wolfe’s views, worked out over time would yield 90% plus of that for which the Kinists argue.
James Clark moves to his conclusion:
Since the text of Wolfe’s book expressly rules out kinism, the only other basis for attributing kinist views to Wolfe is to maintain that he is lying when he articulates his account of ethnicity and kin, or to argue that he has friends who have espoused kinism, which suggests that he shares those views as well.
Bret responds,
I don’t think Wolfe is lying. I do believe that Wolfe is trying to slice matters so thin that it is easy for people to accuse him of being Kinist. I don’t fault people for thinking Wolfe is a Kinist. I mean, it is hard to discern us Kinists from our Kinist-adjacent brethren.
James Clark writes,
In conclusion, the rationale for attributing kinist views to Wolfe springs either from people who have not read his book closely (or at all) and seen that it excludes kinism by its own logic, or from speculations about private thoughts and intentions that can never be verified or falsified. In virtue of these speculations’ unfalsifiable nature, some people will never cease to entertain and promote them, but I hope others will be interested to learn that Wolfe’s own book is completely at odds with the kinism he allegedly harbors.
Bret responds,
“Completely at odds” is a magnificent overstatement on the part of Clark. I would prefer to say at odds in measurable and not unimportant ways. In point of fact, I find Wolfe so confused on this point I’m not sure he understands why people are accusing him of everything from being a member of the Klan to plotting to abandon his Kin. The reason that people are all over the map is because Wolfe is sending mixed messages on the subject of Kinism. He is like the girl at the prom who can’t decide whether she wants her date to “come hither,” or “just leave me alone.”
If you just keep in mind that a good deal is resolved by understanding that Wolfe is adjacent-Kinist, you will have a good handle on this matter.