Defining Otherkin

For those of you who don't know, I'm exploring a cultural subgroup right now that call themselves otherkin. Right now they are debating what otherkin should be defined as. One person defined it as "Otherkin are people who believe themselves to be something other than a human being on a spiritual, psychological, energetic and some even on a biological level, and choose to identify with that non-human fragment of themselves to the point where they count it as a permanent and ingrained part of their personal mythology and/or identity." ~ Miniar/Freetha 


Here was my response. Otherkin is an interesting term.


When I hear kin, my mind thinks of kinship – the historic way in which social groups defined belonging. You belonged with your family because of some shared origin – biological, cultural, or historical. Kinship is usually talked about in terms of things like marriage and who it’s okay to sleep with (jokes about the taboo of sleeping with your cousin). But it can be thought of in terms of the Adam and Eve story which give humans a different origin from animals, giving humans souls (no souls for animals!) and dominion over animals. Kinship can be based on philosophies, like those of Kant and Descartes, which argue that humans belong to a superior and different category of “being” than animals because they have language and rationality. These cultural qualities supposedly cannot be found in animals; therefore, humans are distinct (and superior) to animals. Descartes went as far as to say that animals are machines, and their cries of pain are the same thing as the noise a clock makes when its gears aren’t in alignment.

How we define kinship-boundaries has almost always led to a difference in how the excluded group is treated. When the conquistadors would sleep with the Amerindians, the mixed-blood children were considered defective, just as the Amerindians were, because of the shared blood. And the human-animal division has long allowed the use of animals as machines to do work or to justify animal suffering for human gain. Just as the narratives of racial origin justified the slavery and exploitation of people.

I think if we make otherkin a quality that defines a person’s identity we will run into problems. Whether it’s a choice to be otherkin or not? What “others” count as otherkin (e.g. do machinekin count)? How authentic is someone being when they say they are otherkin? These concerns would be especially important if otherkin ever push for rights specific rights down the road.

But if instead of a quality, we make it about being open to other ways of defining and thinking about kinship, we get rid of those issues.Otherkin don’t talk about souls in the same way Christianity (and most other Western religions) do. Their souls were previously animal,astral being, or another creatures’ souls. People who identify as otherkin feel an affinity and belonging with other creatures that traditional human-only kinship didn’t account for or allow.

I guess what I’m saying is… I understand not wanting it to be a static belief system like a religion because those become exclusionary really quickly. But I’d be wary of talking about it like a quality that defines a person’s identity, too. Identity qualities lead to exclusion just as easily. Perhaps it is a critique of old forms of kinship and openness to accept those who it leaves out.

I don’t know that I have a good definition here. But these seem important to keep in mind. Especially if “going public” is ever going to be an issue that tries to fight discrimination or prejudice. Are you fighting for who you are at your core? To which I wonder, can we ever know that because it always seems to change for me day to day. Or are you fighting against a way of thinking that excludes people? Making space and accepting what fills it…