Does Blood Run Thicker Than Values?

What the story from the Soviet Union can teach us today

The story started in the Soviet Union in 1932. Joseph Stalin is leading the communist party.

One day, in Gerosimovka Village, a man called Trofim Morozov is sentenced for ten years in a labor camp and eventually executed. Trofim was denounced for black marketeering, “forging documents and selling them to the bandits and enemies of the Soviet State” as the sentence read.

The person who informed on Trofim was Pavlik Morozov, his 13-year-old son. According to the story, Pavlik was a model citizen, a patriot who chose the state over his own family. For Pavlik, the state and its values ran thicker than blood.

When heard about Pavlik’s story, was Stalin proud of a young, righteous citizen? Historian Vejas Liulevicius reports the contrary. Stalin’s words would roughly translate to:

“What a little pig, to have done such a thing to his own family.”

The story of Pavlik ends the same year. Officially the boy was murdered by his grandparents and cousin, who didn’t approve of the family betrayal. However, historians still debate about circumstances of his death.

The case of Pavlik is an extreme exception from humans’ innate preference for relatives — kin selection. Stalin’s reaction probably aligns well with how most of us would react to such behavior. But what if we consider a less severe case?

To what extent, differences in our world view influence our relationships with family members?

What would you do if you discovered that your parents or grandparents are racist? What if you do not tolerate racism? How does it make you feel?

In the last weeks, I have seen people on social media practically shunning their grandparents based on their political views. The comments sections quickly turned into a debate. Some people argued that you don’t have to live close to someone you despise because you share genes. Others stated that family bonds should motivate to love someone despite the differences.

In his book, Robert Sapolsky, a professor of biology and neurology at Stanford University, “Behave” provides explanations about what might be a root cause of debates such as one mentioned above.

“Human social interactions are profoundly organized around kin selection with the rare exception of a Pavlik Morozov, blood is thicker than water” — writes prof. Sapolsky.

What makes us different from other species is the way we recognize our kin. Unlike, for instance, rodents, we don’t use pheromones. We determine who is our relative by thinking about it. “We do kin recognition cognitively.” What does it change?

Our cognition can be manipulated into feeling more or less related to someone. When a particular group of people is regularly pictured with a positive bias and fits into one’s definition of ‘Us’, we will empathize and advocate for that group. That will be our kin. If, on the other hand, the propaganda all around enforces a negative picture of that group, distancing ‘Them’ and characterizes as animals or pathogens, humans will tend to develop hatred and lose the feeling of kinship. Sharp divisions between ‘Us’ and ‘Them’ have generated a vast amount of pain in history.

Are they ‘Us’ or are they ‘Them’?

Before you try to answer this question, think about what makes you ask it first. Try to think about individuals, try to recall the barbaric, historical consequences of discrimination. Think carefully. Is there really ‘Them’?