Who are you? What are you? These sound like existential questions philosophers have been trying to address since the moment of self-actualization. Yet, we are asked them whenever applying for new jobs or programs. Every ten years, the constitution mandates that we face these daunting metaphysical questions.
However, it is not the questions themselves that are intriguing. The established answers people must choose from taken in junction with the questions asked produces consequences (unintended or not).
- Which age group are you in? Under 19, 20-29, 30-39, 40-49, 50-59, 60+
- What is your gender? Male or Female
- What is your race? Caucasian, Hispanic, Black, Asian, Other
- Which social class do you place yourself and your household in? Poor, middle class, or upper class
In his chapter in Science in the 20th Century by John Krige and Dominique Pestref, Theodore M. Porter described how census and social data created and reinforced labels and identity. Along this same line, Michael Foucault discussed how analysis (like the census) is a form of political power that has normalization powers. People are forced to identify themselves with one of the provided groups (and choose only one!). Such distinctions implies there are relevant social/economical/political differences between the groups. Then there is the ambiguous “other” category. When a person does not identify themselves with on of the chosen labels, they are forced to identify themselves as ‘different’ and not worth a label.
This idea of identity and social labels being created and reinforced by science intrigued me. As an identical twin, I spent years with many internal existential debates trying to figure out who I am as an individual separate from another who shares 99.99% of my DNA.--Yes, my dad bought a test to learn how identical we were. (This company produced and marketed these tests now has my DNA frozen somewhere for some unknown future research.) Would this search have been quicker if I just looked at government surveys and my genome? Take a DNA test to figure out who you are physiology then take a government survey to figure out who are socially...done.
Why propels us to do this? Taking a historical prospective, Daniel Kevles provided a timeline of heredity and genetics research in regards to eugenics and genetic manipulation. Taking momentum in 20th century, this ‘science’—discussion on whether this was a proper science occurs outside the scope of this blog—was used to explain how those outside the promoted norm came to be scientifically. Science was then used to justify pushing the “outsiders” further away from the norm if not eliminating this group.
Thus, is it actual fear or just a lack of understanding that leads us to do this? How big a role does prejudice play? In our capitalistic world, where does money matters come into play? Trying to come up with a universal answer is just as fruitless as trying to procure a universal reason why people created and joined the Tea Party movement. Each individual has their own logic and reasonings based on their own history and education.
Nonetheless, Keyles does describe how eugenic scientists tried to move away from perceived and actual prejudice focusing instead on specific aspects of heredity and genes. The human genome project ignited fears of potential use of science to promote bigotry. These fears never came to be.
Yet, we must ask ourselves if we facing a new wave of potential abuses with the growth of DNA testing. If so, the masses have not noticed or are choosing to agree or stay silent. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) signed in May 2008 and went into effect a year later bans the discrimination by health insurers and employers on the bases of DNA. I myself do not feel protected enough by this act. This acts is built to be reactive: punish those who have already committed the act. Proactive policy is needed, but in a legal and government system built to be reactive, this will require the masses to do what they were supposed to do after the Human Genome Project: education themselves, unite their voices, and push for action.
Hi “Molifi” (Emily) –
ReplyDeleteI like your blog because I too have pondered the meaning of identity and self-actualization; two very important and interesting questions. According to Goldstein and Maslow, only 2% will ever achieve self-actualization in a lifetime, and only then after fulfilling a “hierarchy of needs”. I assume your point is should we achieve at least some degree of self-determination (aka self-actualization), we would attain the ability to create our own identity and perhaps also an inherent faculty to think for ourselves. Then we would have little need to “identify” with a particular group, rather we would merely be individuals. Just think of how many problems this might solve, by having the freedom of self-identity? Class, gender, race... none of that would really matter!—(hypothetically)
Of course being associated with a particular identity group can have its advantages. I recall a paper by Bowker & Star, which addresses classification of people, where they point out that a individual not belonging to a group is powerless. There point is taken when considering the political power of interests groups and the inevitable tendency of people to form up and segregate themselves into camps of “us” vs. “them”.
I have often wondered how issues of identity relate to a researchers’ ability to be an honest scholar. According to Goldstein, the characteristics of self-actualization include independence, autonomy, and a tendency to resist outside pressures. My guess is that without achieving some degree of independence and self-actualization, a scholar might find themselves beholding to those in which they identify. “Beholding”, meaning obliged to think and believe similar to some “identity group”, regardless of any higher Truth.
As for the influence of genetics vs. those who would define our lives for us, I believe it is summed up in this way. "The Matrix cannot tell you who you are." (Trinity)
I enjoyed your post—very thoughtful and relevant!
Btw; I just recalled that we are supposed to respond to people in some kind of order—oh well, sorry too late.