Advertisement

‘Pop-Genes’: The Symbolic Effects of the Release of ‘Genes’ into Ordinary Speech

  • Barbara Duden
  • Silja Samerski

Abstract

Within the last two decades the word ‘gene’ has migrated from science into ordinary conversation. Gene-talk has spread epidemically in political and professional arguments and ethical debates, but references to ‘genes’ have also entered personal deliberations. ‘Genes’ have now reshaped not only political, social, or medical concepts, but the very perception of the self. The intrusion of the term into common parlance and particularly the drastic encroachment of ‘genes’ into personal deliberation prompted our research project on ‘genes’ in ordinary prose: ‘genes’ have now even come to impose themselves as the ultimate answer to such primordial questions as, ‘Where do I come from? Who am I? What is my future?’ In the shadow of human genetics the first person singular or the personal pronoun, the ‘I’ of the speaker, is subtly, profoundly, and probably irreversibly affected because ‘genes’ in ordinary speech have the capacity to blend incompatible spheres of meaning. Outside the walls of laboratory science and DNA mapping the word has acquired an extraordinary alchemistic power: it refers to the most concrete, personal, and intimate – the soma of the speaker – but simultaneously also invokes statistical probabilities and aggregate risk profiles of populations. The alchemistic potency of the term makes it well-suited for exercising a crucial symbolic social function: references to ‘my genes’ and ‘your genes’ implant population statistics, probability calculations, and the demand for risk management in the corporeal makeup of the person using these terms or the person identified as a gene carrier. ‘The gene’ in ordinary prose imparts bodily substance to the nature of personhood in an era of dependence on professional guidance and the denigration of common sense perception and self-perception.

Keywords

Pop gene risk management genetic counseling public understanding of genetics 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beurton, P. J., Rheinberger, H.-J., & Falk, R. (Eds.) (2000). The concept of the gene in development and evolution. Historical and epistemological perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. et al. (1993). La misère du monde. Paris: Seuil.Google Scholar
  3. Castel, R. (1991). From dangerousness to risk. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect (pp. 281–298). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  4. Duden, B. (2002). Meine Gene und ich. In Die Gene im Kopf - der Fötus im Bauch (pp. 253–264). Hannover: Offizin.Google Scholar
  5. Edwards, J. (2002). Taking ‘public understanding’ seriously. New Genetics and Society, 21(3), 315–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ewald, F. (1993). Der Vorsorgestaat (p. 196). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
  7. Greco, M. (1993). Psychosomatic subjects and the ‘duty to be well’: Personal agency within medical rationality. Economy and Society, 22, 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Samerski, S. (2002). Die verrechnete Hoffnung. Von der selbstbestimmten Entscheidung durch genetische Beratung. Münster: Westfälisches Dampfboot.Google Scholar
  9. Samerski, S. (2006). The unleashing of genetic terminology. How genetic counselling mobilizes for risk management. New Genetics and Society, 25, 197–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Samerski, S. (2007). The ‘decision trap’: How genetic counseling transforms pregnant women into managers of fetal risk profiles. In P. O’Malley & K. Hannah-Moffat (Eds.), Gendered risks (pp. 55–74). London: Routledge Cavendish.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.BremenGermany
  2. 2.BremenGermany

Personalised recommendations