Paul Brodwin - Genetics, Identity and Anthropology of Essentialisms

8/13/2019 Paul Brodwin - Genetics, Identity and Anthropology of Essentialisms

1/9

Genetics, Identity, and the Anthropology of EssentialismAuthor(s): Paul BrodwinReviewed work(s):Source: Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 75, No. 2 (Spring, 2002), pp. 323-330Published by: The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic ResearchStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3318263.

Accessed: 23/10/2012 08:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The George Washington University Institute for Ethnographic Researchis collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access toAnthropological Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=iferhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3318263?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3318263?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ifer


2/9

SOCIALTHOUGHTAND COMMENTARYGenetics Identity n d t hnthropology ssentialism

By Paul BrodwinUniversity of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

For everal decades, anthropologyhas participated n the general decon-structionof "identity" s a stable object of scholarlyinquiry.The notionthat individualscrafttheir identitythroughsocial performances,and hencethat their identity s not a fixedessence, fundamentallydrivescurrentresearchintogenderand sexuality.Thenotionthat collective dentityemergesout of po-liticalstruggleand compromiseunderliescontemporarystudies of race,eth-nicityand nationalism.Theanti-essentialistmood of today'santhropology itswith widercurrents n philosophy(e.g., critiquesof the autonomous, self-sus-tainingsubjectwithinWesternmetaphysics)as well as feminism and culturalstudies(e.g.,examinationof the unconsciousaspectsof identity ormationandthe politicalresistanceenabled bymultipleand hybrid dentities) see HallandDuGay1996, McRobbie 994).

Outsidethe academy,however,and to the dismayof anthropologistswhofancythemselves as the culturalavant-garde,essentialist identitiesgrowevermore powerfuland seductive.New genetic knowledge,for example,adds thecachet of objectivescience to the notionthat one's identityis an inborn,natu-ral,and unalterablequality.Rapidadvancesin sequencingand analyzingthehuman genome have strengthened essentialist thinking about identity in

323


3/9

GENETICS,DENTITY,AND THE ANTHROPOLOGYOF ESSENTIALISM

American ocietyand elsewhere,and anthropologistscan help elucidatewhatis at stake.Emerginggenetic knowledgethus has the potentialto transformcontem-porarynotionsof social coherenceand groupidentity.I am the co-principaln-vestigator of an interdisciplinary group pursuing this topic, funded by amulti-year rantfrom the NationalHumanGenome Research nstitute hroughitsprogramon Ethical,Legaland SocialImplicationsELSI).urresearch eam,comprisingleading bioethicists,geneticists,and ethnic studies specialists, isbuildinga commonvocabulary ndconceptual rameworkor the effectsof cur-rent-day eneticson notionsof individual nd collective dentity,and hence thefundamentalbasisforsocialconnection.

Why sthis a compellingquestionforanthropology?Asgenetictechnologiesmoveout of research aboratories nd intopublic ife,therearise enormousde-batesabout their properuse and interpretationsee Brodwin2000).Theram-ifyingdebates aboutgenetictechnologies(whichappearincourtcases,internetsites,articlesand books)aredrivenby largerquestionsabout inclusionand di-versity n American ociety,as RaynaRapp 1999)and KajaFinkler2000)havedemonstrated for genetic testing and predictivediagnosis. Not surprisingly,contemporarydebates over claims of identity(who Iam, fundamentally)andof social connection(whoIbelongwith,fundamentally)haveveryhighstakes.Moreover,he meaningof the "fundamental,"n that lastsentence, changesinthe presenceof genetic evidence.

Forexample,tracingyourancestry-via a patternof particularlleles,or mu-tations on the Y chromosomeor in mitochondrialDNA-has become not justa laboratory echnique, but a politicalact. Who in our society requeststhissortof DNAanalysis,and who provides t?Oncepeople learnthe results,whocontrolswhatthose resultsmean? It is no longer ust geneticistsand populationbiologists,butalso politicalactivists, ndividualsclaiminginclusionin a partic-ularethnic, racial,or nationalgroup,and those who must decide to acceptorrejecttheir claims. To interpretthe resultsof researchwith genetic markersmeans not just judgingwhetherthe laboratoryused the rightpopulation-spe-cificallele or had a largeenough samplesize. Italso involves udging he worthof genetic knowledgeagainstother kinds of claimsto authentic identityandgroupmembership(oralhistory,writtendocumentation,culturalpractices, n-nerconvictions).What s at stake ingenetically-based laimsof identityorright-ful belongingis not justgood or bad science. What s at stake is also personalesteem and self-worth,groupcohesion,access to resources,andthe redressingof historical njustice.324


4/9

PAUL BRODWIN

Itturns out that settingthe recordstraightabout who is relatedto whom iscontested rightfrom the start,and for good reason.Addinggenetic evidencedoes not make things any easier; it might even make things harder.In anycase, itaddsan entirelynewset of experts o the debates(not justthe archivist,historian, he professorof ethnicstudiesoranthropology,but also the bioethi-cistand geneticist).Atthe end of my essay,Iwillraisesome questionsabouttheplaceof expertauthority n this arena. But let me beginwith some axiomsforthinkingabout identityclaimsin the wakeof contemporarygenetics.

The techniques I mentioned above-use of genetic markers,especiallyYchromosome and mitochondrialDNAmutations-generate knowledgeof an-cestry,the links between people in the presentand their biologicalforbears.Theyannounce a long-term generationalconnection. But people alwaysuseknowledge of ancestry to illuminate social connections in the present.Knowledgeof ancestryratifiesor even createsa socialconnection in the pres-ent. Forexample,geneticistsin Englandhave used Y-chromosomemarkers odemonstrate hat at leastone of the clansof Lemba,a tribeinSouthAfrica ndZimbabwe,maybe descendedfromSemiticpeoples.Lemba nterpretedhe ge-netic findingas confirming heir oral tradition of Jewishdescent. Italso con-firmedtheir conviction hattheyareJews,whichtheyalreadybelievedbecauseof such practicesas keepingone day of the week holy,circumcisingnewbornmales, and not eating pork.However,what does it mean to say that this evi-dence "confirms"he Jewish dentityof Lemba?Afterall,Jewsthemselveshavetheirown complexand historicallyootedrules orjudgingmembership whichgovernthe efficacyof conversion,specifythe matrilineal nheritanceof Jewishidentity,etc.). Geneticevidence will probablynot fit perfectly nto these long-standingand canonically-basedrules of ethnic inclusion and exclusion.

For he Lemba, indingout thattheywere"geneticallyewish"aloadedterm)confirmedheiroral radition, ut it did not leadto mass mmigrationo Israel nddemandforcitizenship apers.Butwhatif ithad? Rememberhat Israel ffers he"right f return"o allJews.) t'san importanthoughtexperiment, nd it illustratesmy majorpoint.Toclaima certain ocial dentity lways mpliescertainrights ndobligations.Tospecifywhatcountsas legitimatebelongingwillaffect howpeoplerespectsuch rightsor enforce these obligations.Forexample,specifyingwhatcounts as a mother-child elationship ina worldof sophisticated urrogacyech-nologieswherechildrencan have two or even three mothers)s prior o decidingwhat mothersand childrenowe to eachother.Specifyingwho countsas a citizenprecedesconventionaludgmentsof whata nationand itscitizensowe each oth-er and whatsortof moralclaimthey have on eachother.

325


5/9

GENETICS,DENTITY,AND THEANTHROPOLOGYOF ESSENTIALISM

Wemustthereforeask, how does new genetic knowledge changethe wayspeople claim connection to each other and to largercollectivities?How,inturn, does this processchange the resultingwebs of obligationand responsi-bility:personal,legal, moral,and financial?Knowledgeof genetic connectionaltershow we imagineour"significantame": hose peoplewho aresignificantlylike me, connected to me, and hence the same as me in some categoricalsense. Geneticknowledgehas the powerto changethe groupwith whom weshare a "deep,horizontal omradeship"Anderson 991).Thechangescouldun-fold in two ways: (1)such knowledge may undermine receivedwisdom aboutfamily,ethnic, and racialidentityor (2) it may shore up conventional under-standings of identity.Of course, knowledge itself doesn't change anything.Particularpeople use such knowledgeeither to undermine or buttress con-ventionalunderstandings.Evenmore,they use the knowledgeas historicalac-tors,awareof theirgroup'sunique tragediesand longed-for uture,and also aspoliticalactorsseekingout compromiseand short-termgains.

Thepossibilityof tracinggenetic links betweenAfrican-Americansnd pop-ulationsin Westand CentralAfrica lluminatessimilarissues,and it also pavesthe wayformyfinalpointaboutthe ambiguitiesof professionalexpertise.Isitpossibleto use DNAmarkerso trace a genealogical inkbetween individuals rfamilies in the USA nd ethnicor tribal communitiesin Africa? sit feasibletodo so (interms of time and money,accessto individuals n Africancountrieswillingto donate theirgenetic material,etc.) Howshouldgeneticevidence beintegratedwith oral historyand archivalevidence (manifestsof slave ships,plantationrecords,contemporarychronicles,etc.)?Theturnto geneticsobvi-ouslydemands carefulmethodological hinking.

Butit also raisesoverarchingand quite sensitivepoliticaland ethicalques-tions.Tobeginwith,we should interrogate he very waywe discussthis use ofgenetic technologies.Who s posingthe questions,and beforewhat audience?At what point, in the long historyof Americanracism,haveAmericansbegunto raise these questionsabout genetic and culturalconnections?How do thequestions arise from popularself-consciousnessabout multi-culturalism?Weshould also recognize he emotionalstakesinthe discussion.Cultureoss,as ex-periencedin the MiddlePassage, s somethingto be mourned. To referto thisuse of population geneticsas the "restoration f African-Americanenealogy"or a "vitalstep in helping ... heal the historicalwounds of slavery" in thewordsof supportersof suchtests quoted in the nationalmedia) alreadyraisesexpectationsand sets in motion a powerfulnarrativeof lossand redemption.Againwe mustask, how does the addition of genetic evidence changethe326


6/9

PAULBRODWIN

waypeople figure heirmembership n a certaingroup?Thinkof the experienceof Jewswho visit the WesternWall n Jerusalem.ManyAmericanJewswho vis-it it reportan unexpected experience:theircollectivehistoryhas suddenlybe-come material,rendered angibleand visible.Visitingt,seeing it,and touchingit createsthe sense that theirgroup'smythhasjust been authorizedas non-fic-tion. A mere notion or sharedrecollectionof the past has become certifiedasobjectivehistory. This s a crucialchange,since notionsof objectivehistory yp-ically unction as charters orpoliticalmobilization nthe present.)Establishinggeneticconnectionsis thus enormouslycompellingfor peoplewho mourn thepassage from homeland to diaspora,and whose collective identity involvesthe sense of unjustdislocationand culture-loss.

However,here are also potentialdangers o this use of geneticevidence.Inthe case of African-Americanncestry projects,it may providea competingbasisforethnic identification e.g.,Yoruba,Fulani,Wolof)which can undercutthe sense of shared interests(and hence unity)among African-Americanom-munitiesin the USA.Givingpeople an alternativebasisof ethnic identificationmay well run into the same opposition as the used of "mixed race"as aAmericancensuscategory,and for the same reasons.Moreover,what new col-lective identityterms should people use?Would it make sense to use ethnicterms (suchas Yoruba)?Wouldn'tregionalterms (e.g., the Casamanceregion,the Nigerdelta)be more appropriate,giventhe scientificframeworksof pop-ulationgenetics?Whatabout terms such as Senegaleseor Malianwhich refersimultaneously o a geographic regionand a politicalentity (albeitone creat-ed in part by Europeancolonialism).Ingeneral, such questionsdemonstratehow genetic evidence can de-stabilizelong-standingpatternsof communitymembership.Additionally, enetic knowledge mightalso provoke"ethnogen-esis"or the emergenceof novel ethnicformations.

MitochondrialDNAand Y-chromosome racingconcernsgenealogicalde-scent in exclusively he female or male line, respectively.Butpreciselybecauseof the nature of New Worldslavery, many people have complex mixed ge-nealogies,createdbysexualexploitationand the deliberatemixingof enslavedAfricansduring he MiddlePassageand on Americanor Caribbeanplantations.Basingan account of one's"cultural ast"on geneticevidencemaythussubsti-tute a fictivelypuregenealogyfora morehistorically ccurate,butmixed,one.Weneed to ask, therefore,what peoplewish to accomplish hroughthe use ofgenetictracingof African ncestries.Arguably, eoplehereareturning o geneticevidenceinorder o stabilizea particular istorical onsciousness:he convictionof connectednessto a certainculturalgroupovervast distanceand centuries-

327


7/9

GENETICS,DENTITY,AND THEANTHROPOLOGYOF ESSENTIALISM

long separation.Suchevidencebecomescompelling or two reasons.First,tac-quiresthe generalcachetof scienceas the ultimateguarantorof truth.Butsec-ond, people regardgenes as "morestable over time than more putativelyaccidentalaspectsof identity" suchas nationality, itizenship,religion,etc.).

Tobe blunt:are people beingseduced bythe promiseof a pure,butfictivegenealogy?Consider he following example. Ychromosomes are passed onlythroughthe male line,and an individualhas 16 male ancestorsinthe 5thpre-cedinggeneration.Ifyou had 1 Europeanancestorin that generation,and therestof yourmale (andfemale)ancestorswereAfrican,han you would be 1/32European,but phenotypicallyblack,and of courseculturallyblackin the USA.But if that Europeanman happened to be your father's father's father's fa-ther'sfather,then Y-chromosomeypingwould place your ancestryentirely nEurope forexample, in some Scottishvillage). Finding hat you are genetical-lydescendedfrom a Scottishhighlanderwillcertainlyde-stabilizeyourethnicidentity Such knowledge rupturesthe backward-lookingnarrative hat youhad hoped to confirm.Do the experts n relevant ields(biologicaland culturalanthropologists, e-neticists, ethicists, etc.) have a professional responsibility o ensure that theusers of African-Americanenetic genealogies don't make mistakes-that is,that they don't succumbto a population-basedgeneticessentialism?To beginwith,no responsible eneticistwouldsaythatthereexistsa singlegenefora com-plex behavioral rait,let alone the marker or an ethnic-racial roup.Agene issimplya long stringof basenucleotides,andthe passage romnucleotide o pro-tein to anatomicalstructure o behavior o collectivebehavior o self-conscious,historically-emergent otion of ethnic distinction is very long indeed. So,thescholarly andleft-liberal) ppositionto "geneticessentialism" s not reallya re-actionto contemporarygenetics,but rather o its reception.Theessentializingoccursat the level of popularreconstructionsf geneticscience,andprofessionalanti-essentialist nterventions hould be directed here as well.

What sthe placeof expertknowledge ofthe geneticist, he philosopher,heanthropologist) in the scenario about Y-chromosomaltracing and African-American enealogies(orsimilargenetic identityprojects)?s it to replacea mis-understandingof geneticswitha true understanding?s it to warn the "users"of geneticknowledgenotto makemistakes? s it to become"culturebroker" e-tween layand scientificviews?Ifso, should we carryout the brokerage n on-lyone direction(makesure the layviews conformto the scientificviews?)Whynot the otherwayaround?What f the misunderstanding f genetics, in a par-ticularcase,actuallyhas politically dvantageous andprogressive)ffects(such328


8/9

PAUL BRODWIN

as increasedpride in one's heritage)?Shouldexpertvoices stillattemptto de-molishgeneticessentialism?One alternativeuse of expertknowledge sto sup-port what one scholarcalls strategicessentialism. Fromthis standpoint,theratification, iageneticknowledge,of one's collectivememory("mygroup's to-ry/memory ust become scientifichistory; ts 'fiction' ust became non-fiction")should not be corrected.Redemptivememorycarries tsownjustification;t hasstrategicuses givencertainoppressivepoliticalrealities.Therefore, he re-pos-session of a dis-possessed pastshould not be blockedbyan otherwisesalutarywarningagainstgenetic essentialism(cf.Williams nd Chrisman 994: 11).Such questions about expert authority-expert for whom, and to whosebenefit?-must be asked anew for each case: Lemba dentityas Jews,African-American ncestryprojects, ndthe use (or non-use)of geneticevidence for var-ious identityclaimsamong NativeAmericans. nthe contests overrecognition,expertauthoritiesdo not stand outside orabove the fray.Theiropinionsaffectwho controlsrecognitionand how claimsof connection are evaluated. Inthelongrun,they also affecthow resourcesget allocated and how people imaginetheir"deepcomradeship"nd authenticselves.Enteringhis fielddemands hu-milityas well as attentionto who is participating and not participating)n thedebate and among the circle of experts.

Nonetheless,certainquestionsdo cryout foranthropological xpertise.Whydoes geneticevidenceproveso compelling nsome cases(e.g.,among diasporicJewsand certainvoices in the African-Americanommunity)and not in others(notablyNativeAmericans)?Why s it easily accepted bysome groups,but thetargetof extremesuspicionin others?Theavailabilityof genetictracingsurelyaltersthe playing ieldof identityclaims,but it does so differentlyneach case,and anthropologistscan help pinpoint the historicaland politicalfactors atwork.Currentdebates over geneticallybased identityclaims thus challengethe reflexiveanti-essentialismof contemporaryanthropology.Yettheyalso re-animatethe historicmissionof ourdiscipline:o conceptualizedifference n pre-cise waysand withfullawarenessof the politicalstakes of expertknowldege.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTSResearch has been funded by a grant from the National Human Genome Research Institute,Programn Ethical, egal, ndSocial mplicationsELSI):Ethnicity,ace,Citizenship:dentityAfterhe HumanGenomeProject"GrantNo.5R01-02196. hankso CarlElliottPI),LaurieZoloth(co-PI),MarkThomas,FrancoiseBayliss, nd othergrantparticipants. leasedirectcomments o the author[[email protected]].

329


9/9

GENETICS, DENTITY,AND THE ANTHROPOLOGYOF ESSENTIALISM

REFERENCESAnderson,Benedict.1991.ImaginedCommunities:eflectionsnd theOriginsndSpread fNationalism. London: Verso Press.Brodwin, Paul (ed). 2000. Biotechnology and Culture:Bodies, Anxieties,Ethics.Bloomington,IN: Indiana University PressFinkler,Kaja 000.Experiencinghe NewGenetics:amily ndKinshipn theMedical rontier.

Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.Hall, Stuart and Paul du Gay (eds.) 1996. Questions of Cultural Identity. London: SagePublications.McRobbie,Angela. 1994. Postmodernismand Popular Culture.London: Routledge.Rapp,Rayna.1999. TestingWomen,TestingheFetus:TheSocial mpact f AmniocentesisnAmerica. New York:Routledge Press.Williams, Patrickand LauraChrisman. 1994. Colonial Discourseand Post-ColonialTheory:AReader. New York:Columbia University Press.

330

Paul Brodwin - Genetics, Identity and Anthropology of Essentialisms

Documents

Transcript of Paul Brodwin - Genetics, Identity and Anthropology of Essentialisms