重塑种族:DNA和医疗保健的政治

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 CULTURAL STUDIES
A. Fausto-Sterling
{"title":"重塑种族:DNA和医疗保健的政治","authors":"A. Fausto-Sterling","doi":"10.1215/10407391-15-3-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Something is happening to race. Historically, in discussions of race and science, science has either been on the side of the devil or of God.1 But science is a socially contingent knowledge-seeking activity. It can serve the interests of the State, for better or for worse; more commonly, it serves several social masters and produces mixed messages. After World War II, liberal ideologists, primarily through the unesco statement on race, rejected the typology of fi xed racial categories in favor of the abstraction “universal man.” Donna Haraway documents this brilliantly in a number of works. To back up the new ideology, liberals called on the social sciences and especially the biological sciences for documentation. As Haraway puts it, for phylogenies and types, new accounts of race substituted “gene fl ow, migration, isolation, mutation, and selection [as] the privileged scientifi c objects of knowledge” (Primate 202). By making modern biology the mainstay of this new narrative of universal man, liberal policy makers hoped to banish racism and racial categories from our social systems. But this modernist moment, despite a fl urry of efforts to beef it up in the 1990s, is in big trouble. As they focused on the institutional constructs of race, scholars emphasized that race is “I Am a Racially Profi ling Doctor” —Satel 56","PeriodicalId":46313,"journal":{"name":"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2004-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"45","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Refashioning Race: DNA and the Politics of Health Care\",\"authors\":\"A. Fausto-Sterling\",\"doi\":\"10.1215/10407391-15-3-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Something is happening to race. Historically, in discussions of race and science, science has either been on the side of the devil or of God.1 But science is a socially contingent knowledge-seeking activity. It can serve the interests of the State, for better or for worse; more commonly, it serves several social masters and produces mixed messages. After World War II, liberal ideologists, primarily through the unesco statement on race, rejected the typology of fi xed racial categories in favor of the abstraction “universal man.” Donna Haraway documents this brilliantly in a number of works. To back up the new ideology, liberals called on the social sciences and especially the biological sciences for documentation. As Haraway puts it, for phylogenies and types, new accounts of race substituted “gene fl ow, migration, isolation, mutation, and selection [as] the privileged scientifi c objects of knowledge” (Primate 202). By making modern biology the mainstay of this new narrative of universal man, liberal policy makers hoped to banish racism and racial categories from our social systems. But this modernist moment, despite a fl urry of efforts to beef it up in the 1990s, is in big trouble. As they focused on the institutional constructs of race, scholars emphasized that race is “I Am a Racially Profi ling Doctor” —Satel 56\",\"PeriodicalId\":46313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2004-10-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"45\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-15-3-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CULTURAL STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Differences-A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1215/10407391-15-3-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CULTURAL STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 45

摘要

种族正在发生变化。历史上,在种族和科学的讨论中,科学要么站在魔鬼一边,要么站在上帝一边。但科学是一种社会偶然的寻求知识的活动。它可以为国家利益服务,不管是好是坏;更常见的是,它服务于几个社交主,并产生混淆的信息。第二次世界大战后,自由主义意识形态主要通过联合国教科文组织关于种族的声明,拒绝了固定种族类别的类型学,支持抽象的“普遍人”。唐娜·哈拉威(Donna Haraway)在许多作品中出色地记录了这一点。为了支持新的意识形态,自由主义者呼吁社会科学,尤其是生物科学的文献。正如Haraway所说,对于系统发育和类型,新的种族解释取代了“基因流动、迁移、隔离、突变和选择[作为]知识的特权科学对象”(灵长类动物202)。自由主义政策制定者希望,通过将现代生物学作为这种普遍人新叙事的支柱,将种族主义和种族分类从我们的社会体系中驱逐出去。但是这个现代主义的时刻,尽管在20世纪90年代做了大量的努力来加强它,却陷入了大麻烦。当他们关注种族的制度结构时,学者们强调种族是“我是一个种族歧视医生”(satel 56)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Refashioning Race: DNA and the Politics of Health Care
Something is happening to race. Historically, in discussions of race and science, science has either been on the side of the devil or of God.1 But science is a socially contingent knowledge-seeking activity. It can serve the interests of the State, for better or for worse; more commonly, it serves several social masters and produces mixed messages. After World War II, liberal ideologists, primarily through the unesco statement on race, rejected the typology of fi xed racial categories in favor of the abstraction “universal man.” Donna Haraway documents this brilliantly in a number of works. To back up the new ideology, liberals called on the social sciences and especially the biological sciences for documentation. As Haraway puts it, for phylogenies and types, new accounts of race substituted “gene fl ow, migration, isolation, mutation, and selection [as] the privileged scientifi c objects of knowledge” (Primate 202). By making modern biology the mainstay of this new narrative of universal man, liberal policy makers hoped to banish racism and racial categories from our social systems. But this modernist moment, despite a fl urry of efforts to beef it up in the 1990s, is in big trouble. As they focused on the institutional constructs of race, scholars emphasized that race is “I Am a Racially Profi ling Doctor” —Satel 56
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5
期刊介绍: differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies first appeared in 1989 at the moment of a critical encounter—a head-on collision, one might say—of theories of difference (primarily Continental) and the politics of diversity (primarily American). In the ensuing years, the journal has established a critical forum where the problematic of differences is explored in texts ranging from the literary and the visual to the political and social. differences highlights theoretical debates across the disciplines that address the ways concepts and categories of difference—notably but not exclusively gender—operate within culture.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信