All
 
|
 
 


The Meanings of Biosociality: from Risk Groups to “Genetic Nocebo”
 
PIIS023620070007666-9-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070007666-9
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Sergei Y. Shevchenko 
Occupation: Researcher at the Department of Humanitarian Expertise and Bioethics
Affiliation: RAS Institute of Philosophy
Address: 12/1 Goncharnaya Str., Moscow 109240, Russian Federation
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 30 Issue №6
Pages27-41
Abstract

The meanings of the term «biosociality» are investigated in perspective of their optics offered to consider the socio-humanitarian effects of biotechnology development. In philosophical, sociological and anthropological literature, the term «biosociality» was originally used in the Fucoldian tradition of criticizing the relationship between power and knowledge. In this framework the development of biosociality is mainly understood as the emergence of discursive fields that indicate the boundaries of new social groups. At the beginning of the 2000s, a change in aspect takes place: researchers of biosociality are more interested in social (sociotechnical) practices and their ontologies. Within the framework of this ontological turn, meanings of the term begin to gravitate towards the Deleuzian criticism of modern forms of biopower, addressed to components of the human body, not to the whole individual. 

Probably this methodological evolution may be associated with a change in the forms of socio-humanitarian effects of biotechnology over the past 25 years. We propose to perceive the distinction between the four forms of biosociality not as a classification of social phenomena, but as a set of theoretical constructs that can put in order the discussion about the social impact of emerging biotechnologies. Biosociality-1 is the defining of boundaries of social groups through fixing the genetic characteristics of their members – in this meaning term was first used by Paul Rabinow. Within the framework of biosociality-2 groups are no longer formed due to biological knowledge, but genetic differences make them fundamentally dissimilar. Biosociality-3 is associated with the unidirectional factors of heredity and the environment that strengthens the perception of genetic risks and predispositions. Biosociality-4 is described through the phenomenon of «genetic nocebo» - the restriction of the individual's capabilities and the transformation of his/her bodily experience. Studying the last of the given forms, minimizing the social risks associated with it, requires the participation of a humanities expert in the development of biotechnologies and practices of their application. This approach is basically in case of genetic counseling.

Keywordsbiosociality, genetics, essentialism, ontological turn, Foucault, Deleuze, Rabinow, post-ELSI, humanitarian expertise
Received12.12.2019
Publication date12.12.2019
Number of characters27708
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1245

Readers community rating: votes 0 

1. Deleuze G. Post scriptum k obshchestvam kontrolya [Postscript on the societies of control]. Gilles Deleuze. Peregovory [Negotiations]. Saint Petersburg: Nauka, 2004.
2. Tishchenko P.D., Yudin B.G. Sotsiogumanitarnoye soprovozhdeniye innovatsionnykh biotekhnologicheskikh proyektov [Socio-humanitarian support of innovative biotechnological projects]. Bioetika i biotekhnologii: predely uluchsheniya cheloveka: sbornik nauchykh statey k 70-letiyu P.D. Tishchenko [Bioethics and biotechnology: the limits of human improvement: collection of scientific articles to the 70th anniversary of P.D. Tishchenko]. Moscow: Moscow University for the Humanities, 2017. P. 209–237.
3. Foucault M. Rozhdeniye biopolitiki [The Birth of Biopolitics]. Moscow: Nauka, 2010.  P. 31.
4. Shevchenko V.S. Konflikt modeley inakovosti v aktorno-setevoy teorii Dzhona Lo [The Conflict of Alterity Models in John Law’s Actor-Network Theory]. Sotsiologiya vlasti [Sociology of Power]. 2019. N 31 (2). P. 45–67.
5. Balmer A.S., Calvert J., Marris C. et al. Taking Roles in Interdisciplinary Collaborations: Reflections on working in Post-ELSI Spaces. Science and Technology Studies.  2015. N 3. P. 3–25.
6. Chiapperino L. Epigenetics: ethics, politics, biosociality. British Medical Bulletin. Vol. 128, N 1. 2018. P. 49–60.
7. Gibbon S., Novas C. Biosocialities, Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biologies and Identities. Routledge, 2007. P. 1.
8. Hardt M., Negri A. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000. P. 191.
9. Heine S.J., Cheung B.Y., Schmalor A. Making Sense of Genetics: The Problem of Essentialism. Supplement: Looking for the Psychosocial Impacts of Genomic Information. 2019. Vol. 49, N 3. P. 19–26. (P. 21–22; P. 24–25.)
10. Hollands G. J, French D. P, Griffin S.J. et al.  The impact of communicating genetic risks of disease on risk-reducing health behaviour: systematic review with meta-analysis. British Medical Journal. 2016. Vol. 352. P.1–11.
11. Lee R.C. The Exquisite Corpse of Asian America: Biopolitics, Biosociality, and Posthuman Ecologies. N.Y.: NYU Press, 2014. 336 p.
12. Nussbaum M. Creating Capabilities. The Human Development Approach. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. 2011.
13. Rabinow P. Making PCR: A Story of Biotechnology. Chicago; London:  University of Chicago Press, 1996.
14. Rabinow P., Bennett G. Designing Human Practices: An Experiment with Synthetic Biology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2012. P. 125.
15. Saldanha A. Reontologising Race: The Machinic Geography of Phenotype. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. N 24 (1). 2006. P. 9–24.
16. Sismondo S. Ontological turns, turnoffs and roundabouts. Social Studies of Science. Vol. 45. N 3. 2015. P. 441–448.
17. Tengland P.A. Health and capabilities: a conceptual clarification. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy. 2019. P. 1–9. URL: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-019-09902-w#citeas  (date of access: 01.08.2019).
18. The Palgrave Handbook of Biology and Society / Maurizio M., Cromby J., Fitzgerald D. et al. 1st ed. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018. P. 5.
19. Turnwald B.P., Goyer J.P., Boles D.Z. et al. Learning one’s genetic risk changes physiology independent of actual genetic risk. Nature Human Behaviour. 2019. N 3. P. 48–56.
20. Williams R.W. Politics and Self in the Age of Digital Re(pro) Ducibility. Fast Capitalism. 2005. URL: http://www.uta.edu/huma/agger/fastcapitalism/1_1/williams.html  (date of access: 01.08.2019).

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up