Abstract:Although kinship studies have traditionally focused on 'solidarity' and 'mutuality', dis-alignment, exclusion, and difference are equally crucial foci for analysis. In this introduction, we explore articulations of mutuality and difference through the lens of materiality, particularly the matter of politics and value and the semiotics of material life. We suggest that non-mutuality and exclusion are especially apparent in contexts where kinship intersects with the consolidation of economic and human capital. We then draw attention to the ways in which material signs are productive forces of relatedness in day-to-day interactions between humans, non-humans, and other material things. By examining the gaps and fissures within kinship through the lens of material practice, the contributors to this special section uncover new opportunities for critical engagement with theories of difference, semiotics, and value.Keywords: difference, exclusion, kinship, materiality, mutuality, relatedness, semiotics, value We begin our inquiries into kinship with a question and a provocation. While kinship relationships are often explored through a focus on 'mutuality', what do we gain empirically, theoretically, and politically by exploring the non-mutuality that we argue is also inherent within kinship? We contribute to the vibrant conversation in anthropology that has refocused attention on the shared substances of relatedness, 1 which has productively focused analysis on everyday practices, embodiment, and material objects. Our question also emerges out of our commitment to understanding the figurations of race, gender, class, and nation that place difference at the heart of relational belonging. Our interest in this matter is both conceptual and political. By thematizing dis-alignment, exclusion, 2 | Kathryn E. Goldfarb and Caroline E. Schuster and non-mutuality in kinship, we seek an alternative grounds for comparative study in anthropology that does not presume mutuality and that incorporates otherness as a necessary focus in order to understand relational belonging. We endeavor to comprehend the deeply intimate ways that exclusion and difference are propagated.This guest-edited special section emphasizes materiality as a starting point for anthropological analyses of relatedness. First, we suggest that attention to materiality is an important angle from which to examine the ways in which the field of 'new kinship studies' has approached relatedness in the years following David Schneider's (1984) A Critique of the Study of Kinship. Schneider famously argued that anthropologists were merely imposing a Eurocentric priority on biogenetic blood ties on their analyses of all kinship relationships. In response, anthropologists have turned to explorations of non-biologically rooted relatedness, focusing on how kinship emerges over time through caregiving relationships