Publications – Laboratory: Anthropology of Environment

Milena D. Bister, Ulrike Felt, Michael Strassnig und Ursula Wagner

Zeit und Partizipation im transdisziplinären Forschungsprozess Book Section

In: Elisabeth Reitinger (Ed.): Transdisziplinäre Praxis: Forschen im Sozial- und Gesundheitswesen, pp. 35–46, Carl-Auer, Heidelberg, 2008.

Veronika Lipphardt, Jörg Niewöhner

Producing difference in an age of biosociality: Biohistorical narratives, standardisation and resistance as translations Journal Article

In: Science, Technology & Innovation Studies, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 45–65, 2007.

Abstract | Links

@article{LipphardtNiewohner2007,

title = {Producing difference in an age of biosociality: Biohistorical narratives, standardisation and resistance as translations},

author = {Veronika Lipphardt and Jörg Niewöhner},

doi = {10.17877/DE290R-979},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-01-01},

journal = {Science, Technology & Innovation Studies},

volume = {3},

number = {1},

pages = {45--65},

abstract = {This paper brings together thinking from the history of science, science and technology studies and social/cultural anthropology to better understand how human diversity is handled in everyday practices in science and beyond. Our aim is to take the social and historical contingency of practice as a starting point and to focus on the patterning of practice, which arises from the constraints of socio-material alignments and leads to the co-production of diversity. 

Under the headings of race and ethnicity, sorting practices with regards to human diversity have been at the centre of anthropological thinking and critique since the age of Enlightenment. Constructivist critique has insisted on understanding "race" as a social construct and warned of reifying differences of a socio-cultural making. This critique has so far not been particularly fruitful in dealing with human biological difference as produced in different everyday practices in science and beyond. 

Recently, molecular genetics have reinvigorated the interest to stratify human populations into subpopulations to improve drug development and targeting, to ascertain vulnerabilities and plasticity, to adjust nutritional intake or therapeutic strategies or to trace ethnic ancestries. We suggest that the shortcomings of constructivist critique in the face of these latest developments are due to its focus on theoretical concepts and self-descriptions rather than the practices and their implicit logics within and outside science proper. By employing Hacking's concepts of 'making up people' and 'looping', Rabinow's 'biosociality', as well as Callon's concept of 'translation', we hope to show the interactive dynamics of classification and response which take place at the interface between different knowledge practices. We trace translations through the life sciences into clinical practice and beyond into different social constellations, involving medical practice, made-up people and social bodies in order to show how human diversity is produced in practice. We put an emphasis on the different roles that biohistorical narratives, standardised packages and forms of resistance and appropriation play within these constellations.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

Close

This paper brings together thinking from the history of science, science and technology studies and social/cultural anthropology to better understand how human diversity is handled in everyday practices in science and beyond. Our aim is to take the social and historical contingency of practice as a starting point and to focus on the patterning of practice, which arises from the constraints of socio-material alignments and leads to the co-production of diversity.
Under the headings of race and ethnicity, sorting practices with regards to human diversity have been at the centre of anthropological thinking and critique since the age of Enlightenment. Constructivist critique has insisted on understanding "race" as a social construct and warned of reifying differences of a socio-cultural making. This critique has so far not been particularly fruitful in dealing with human biological difference as produced in different everyday practices in science and beyond.
Recently, molecular genetics have reinvigorated the interest to stratify human populations into subpopulations to improve drug development and targeting, to ascertain vulnerabilities and plasticity, to adjust nutritional intake or therapeutic strategies or to trace ethnic ancestries. We suggest that the shortcomings of constructivist critique in the face of these latest developments are due to its focus on theoretical concepts and self-descriptions rather than the practices and their implicit logics within and outside science proper. By employing Hacking's concepts of 'making up people' and 'looping', Rabinow's 'biosociality', as well as Callon's concept of 'translation', we hope to show the interactive dynamics of classification and response which take place at the interface between different knowledge practices. We trace translations through the life sciences into clinical practice and beyond into different social constellations, involving medical practice, made-up people and social bodies in order to show how human diversity is produced in practice. We put an emphasis on the different roles that biohistorical narratives, standardised packages and forms of resistance and appropriation play within these constellations.

Close

Stefan Beck, Nevim Cil, Sabine Hess, Maren Klotz, Michi Knecht (Ed.)

Verwandtschaft machen: Reproduktionsmedizin und Adoption in Deutschland und der Türkei Collection

LIT Verlag, Berlin, 2007.

Abstract | Links

@collection{BeckCilHess2007,

title = {Verwandtschaft machen: Reproduktionsmedizin und Adoption in Deutschland und der Türkei},

editor = {Stefan Beck and Nevim Cil and Sabine Hess and Maren Klotz and Michi Knecht},

url = {http://lit-verlag.de/isbn/3-8258-0422-0 

http://d-nb.info/984909788},

year  = {2007},

date = {2007-01-01},

publisher = {LIT Verlag},

address = {Berlin},

series = {Berliner Blätter},

abstract = {Wer sich aus ethnologischer Perspektive mit Verwandtschaft beschäftigt, fragt nach den Grundlagen gesellschaftlichen Zusammenhaltes, nach der Art und Beschaffenheit des "sozialen Kitts". Im Mittelpunkt dieses Bandes stehen Formen von Verwandtschaft, die durch Adoption oder durch die Nutzung assistierender Reproduktionstechnologien herbeigeführt werden. Diese Verwandtschaftsformen werden als „Aktiva“ verstanden: als Ergebnis von Handlungen. Die Fragestellung lautet nicht „Wie ist oder wie wird man verwandt?“, sondern „Wie macht man Verwandte und Verwandtschaft?“ Ethnographisch erforscht und beschrieben werden Routinen, die unterschiedliche Akteure im Umfeld von Berliner Kinderwunschpraxen und Istanbuler Tüp bebek Kliniken entwickeln, präzedenzlose Entscheidungen, die in Beratungsstellen für Regenbogenfamilien oder in Selbsthilfeorganisationen ungewollt Kinderloser getroffen werden, Akte des Austausches und der Kommunikation, durch die transnationale Netzwerke und Spielräume entstehen. Wissen um Gesetze und Genetik sowie Nicht-Wissen, beispielsweise um die Identität anonymer Spender, spielt bei diesen Projekten des Verwandtschaft-Machens eine konstitutive Rolle, aber auch materielle Infrastrukturen und transnationale Mobilität. Verwandtschaftsverhältnisse, die auf Adoption beruhen oder durch Technologien ermöglicht werden, stehen jedoch keineswegs in einem Gegensatz zu „normaler“ oder „natürlicher“ Verwandtschaft. Sie verdeutlichen lediglich in besonderer Art und Weise den Herstellungscharakter, welcher der sozialen Form „Verwandtschaft“ immer innewohnt.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {collection}

}

Close

Maren Klotz

Doing Kinship in British Parliament: Selfish Parents -- Disruptive Children? Book Section

In: Stefan Beck, Nevim Cil, Sabine Hess, Maren Klotz, Michi Knecht (Ed.): Verwandtschaft machen: Reproduktionsmedizin und Adoption in Deutschland und der Türkei, pp. 80–91, LIT Verlag, Berlin, 2007.

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2001

2000

1997