Skip to main content

The Actant Doesn’t Speak: Configuring a Law for Research on Humans

  • Chapter
  • 185 Accesses

Part of the book series: Palgrave Macmillan Socio-Legal Studies ((PSLS))

Abstract

The author of these lines was neither a physicist, nor an alchemist nor even a charlatan. Xiao Yu, a Chinese artist who has gained much attention in Western countries precisely as a consequence of his startling artistic positions, wrote this description of his work. Xiao Yu became the object of a major controversy in Switzerland when a suit referring specifically to his installation was brought against the Kunstmuseum (the museum of fine arts) in Bern. The installation, Ruan, was displayed in the museum on the occasion of an exhibit of Chinese contemporary art (entitled Mahjong) in 2005. For this work, the artist had sewn the head of a human foetus onto a pigeon carcass and, thus, created a chimera (see Figure 1). Journalist Adrien De Riedmatten took offence when he visited the exhibit, and subsequently brought criminal charges against the museum based on the portrayal of violence, cruelty to animals and ‘for disturbing the peace of the dead’.

I combine the chickens, ducks, rabbits and mice according to my own rules in order to evoke the conditioned reflex in my audience about the absurdity of human rules and the perplexity, which paralyzes our thinking. This is why some viewers associate my stitched-together mice with the rules of marriage or military, my assembled animal groups with social classes … The appearance of emotional symptoms drives people to thinking, but is in itself not deadly. (Kunstmuseum Bern, 2005b)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Amtliches Bulletin (2009) Die Wortprotokolle von Nationalrat und Ständerat. Herbstsession 2009. Ständerat, autumn session, 7th meeting ( Herbstsession 2009, Siebente Sitzung), available at www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/s/4811/309186/d_s_4811_309186_309237.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Binder, G and R Weisberg (2000) Literary Criticisms of Law ( Princeton: Princeton University Press )

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ewick, P and S Silbey (1995) ‘Subversive Stories and Hegemonic Tales: Toward a Sociology of Narrative’ 29(2) Law and Society Review 197–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jannidis, F (2004) Figur und Person. Beitrag zu einer historischen Narratologie ( Berlin: De Gruyter )

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T (1983) ‘Boundary-work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists’ 48 (December) American Sociological Review 781–95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gottweis, H (2008) ‘Participation and the New Governance of Life’ (3) Biosocieties 265–86

    Google Scholar 

  • Kley, A (2003), ‘Die Wissenschaftsfreiheit (Art. 20 BV)’ in P Mauron (ed.), Schweizerische juristische Kartothek: fortlaufend ergänzte Kartothek der eidgenössischen und kantonalen Recht’s- und Wirtschafts-, Sozial- und Steuerpraxis nach dem neuesten Stand der Gesetzgebung und der Rechtsprechung ( Geneva: Schweizerische Juristiche Kartothek ), pp. 1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunstmuseum Bern (2005a) ‘Pressemitteilung’ in Einladung zur Podiumsdiskussion im Kunstmuseum Bern, 16 August 2005

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunstmuseum Bern (2005b) ‘Podiumsdiskussion 22.8.2008: Die Grenzen des Darstellbaren’ in Transkription der Diskussion

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B (1987) Science in Action. How to Follow Scientists and Engineers through Society ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press )

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B (1999) Pandora’s Hope. Essays on the Reality of Science Studies ( Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press )

    Google Scholar 

  • Macklin, R (2003) ‘Dignity is a Useless Concept’ 327 British Medical Journal 14–19, 18 December 2003, available at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/ PMC300789/ (last accessed 27 April 2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M (1994) ‘The Triumph of the Pre-embryo: Interpretations of the Human Embryo in Parliamentary Debate over Embryo Research’ 24(4) (November) Social Studies of Science 611–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M (1997) The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction ( Cambridge: Cambridge University Press )

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nationalrat (2009) summer session, 14th meeting ( Sommersession 2009, Vierzehnte Sitzung), available at www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/n/4809/303880/d_n_4809_303880_303934.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Nationalrat (2011) spring session, 9th meeting ( Frühjahrssession 2011, Neunte Sitzung ) www.parlament.ch/ab/frameset/d/n/4817/348384/d_n_4817_348384_348580.htm

    Google Scholar 

  • Ong, A and S J Collier (2005) Global Assemblages. Technology, Politics, and Ethics as Anthropological Problems ( Malden/Oxford/Victoria: Blackwell Publishing )

    Google Scholar 

  • Parry, B (2004) ‘The New Human Tissue Bill Categorizations and their Implications’ Genomics, Society and Policy 74–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Reubi, D (2010) ‘Blood Donors, Development and Modernization: Configurations of Biological Sociality and Citizenship in Post-colonial Singapore’ 14(5) Citizenship Studies 473–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santosuosso, A, V Sellaroli and E Fabio (2007) ‘What Constitutional Protection for Freedom of Scientific Research?’ 33(6) Journal for Medical Ethics 342–4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwander, V (2002) Grundrecht der Wissenschaftsfreiheit im Spannungsfeld rechtlicher und gesellschaftlicher Entwicklung ( Bern: Paul Haupt Verlag )

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften (SAMW) (2005) ‘Medienmitteilung. “Biobanken”: SAMW setzt Leitplanken’, available at www.samw.ch/de/Medien/Medienmitteilungen/2005.html (accessed 27 April 2012)

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweizerische Akademie der Medizinischen Wissenschaften (SAMW) (2006) ‘Biobanken: Gewinnung, Aufbewahrung und Nutzung von menschlichem biologischem Material. Medizinisch-ethische Richtlinien und Empfehlungen’, vom Senat der SAMW genehmigt am 23 May 2006, pp. 1–20

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprumont, D and G Roduit (2008) ‘Le corps médical face à droit: l’attitude de la Fédération des médecins suisses et de l’Académie suisse des sciences médicales’ Revue générale de droit médical. Pouvoir, santé et societé (hors série) 401–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Weibel, E (2005) ‘Grenzen des Ausstellbaren. Darf Kunst etwas, was Wissenschaft nicht darf?’, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 25 October 2005, Nr. 249, 44f

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2012 Priska Gisler

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Gisler, P. (2012). The Actant Doesn’t Speak: Configuring a Law for Research on Humans. In: Gisler, P., Borella, S.S., Wiedmer, C. (eds) Intersections of Law and Culture. Palgrave Macmillan Socio-Legal Studies. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-137-28500-3_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics