Genealogy vs. Family History

Schelly Talalay Dardashti blogged recently about a debate sparked by an article in the Lebanon Daily News. James M. Beidler's "philosophical question about whether we should call ourselves genealogists or family historians" elicited responses from adoptees to whom the distinction really does make a difference.

Mary Eleanor Urso of Florham Park, N.J., wrote that her birth record is in Louisiana — “a state that will never open birth records to adoptees.”

“I have been restricted to the genealogy of my adoptive parents,” Urso wrote. “When I get to my generation, I put ‘adopted’ by my name and by the name of my three adopted siblings and my parents’ branch of the family tree stops there. ‘Family history’ and genealogy are not and will never be one and the same. It’s as simple as that.” [Link]

As a genealogist, family historian, former philosophy major, and uncle of seven adopted nieces (three of whose adoptions were finalized on Monday), I suppose I'm qualified to comment on this.

The genealogy of "genealogy" leads to a Greek word that may be translated as "race," "family," or perhaps (depending on context) as something else. If I were translating a passage from Aristotle, the exact meaning would matter. In determining how the word "genealogy" is currently used, and even in prescribing how it should be used, Aristotle's opinion matters far less. The fact that the English word "pencil" shares its root with the Latin word for "little penis" shouldn't keep us from pulling one out at the Family History Center.

Genealogy and family history are commonly distinguished in two ways (some have suggested a professional/amateur distinction, which I don't find persuasive):

1. Genealogy is concerned with genetic ancestry, while family history may include non-genetic relationships (adoptive parents, step-parents, etc.)
2. Genealogy is concerned with names, dates, and places, while family history is concerned also with biographical details that "flesh out" the lives of its subjects

I tend to think of genealogy as a field that embraces family history (all family historians are genealogists, but not all genealogists are family historians), since it would be difficult to record a family's history without reference to names, dates, and genetic relationships. Then again, it would be difficult to engage in genealogy without also engaging in family history. The biographical details sought out by the family historian are often the clues necessary to establishing lineage. In practice, the second of these distinctions may be less important than some suppose, and the common conflation of "genealogy" and "family history" may be, in many cases, justified.

It is the first of the distinctions that provoked the most passionate responses to Beidler's article. Though adoptees are most directly affected, anyone who discovers a "non-paternity event" in his family's past faces the decision whether to follow the genes or to follow the surnames—or to follow both. The answer depends not on disputed definitions but on one's answer to a second, larger question: What's the point of genealogy and family history research?

I won't attempt to answer that question, but I will say this: The choices and experiences of one's ancestors can have a great influence on one's life. This is true whether one is genetically indebted to these ancestors or not. I was dismayed to read this comment from an adoptee:

"I am not interested in researching a family to whom I am not related by blood — it’s not my ancestry. I find it interesting hearing stories of my adoptive parents’ relatives and ancestors, but it’s really the same as listening to my neighbors or co-workers talk about their families’ past."

I will spend the rest of my days making sure my nieces never share that sentiment.