SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Genetic ancestry tests are a multi-billion dollar industry. In exchange for a sample of genetic material, one receives charts and figures mapping them onto popular concepts of race. The problem with this approach is that although there are minor genetic differences that allow geneticists to trace population migrations, these differences don't support the idea that one can sort races on genetic differences alone. Social scientists have argued that given how race definitions have changed over time and place, that race classifications are more a social construct defined more in terms of geographic proximity and cultural norms than they are based on genetics. At the other end of the spectrum is the concept of genetic essentialism. This views the concept of race as being exclusively defined in terms of genetic makeup and how these differences imbue different races with different inherent abilities or liabilities. Genetic essentialist views promote the concept of genetic exclusivity and reinforces racial stereotypes, underpinning negative policies such as eugenics and apartheid.
The problem with genetic ancestry testing, apart from the privacy issues that we typically see stories about here, is the inconsistency of analysis and popular misconceptions of what the results mean. With tens of millions of people taking these tests every year, an open question has been what effect these results have on people's concepts of race. Some have argued that they are likely to reinforce a genetic essentialist view of race because the results are broken down into distinct groups and people interpret the results as being objective and authoritative. Others have argued the opposite in that people have a more social construct idea of race when the results do not confirm their experience ("All my life I thought I was German, but I found out I'm actually Italian!").
Researchers from the University of British Columbia attempted to answer this question with a paper published in the open access journal Plos One. They conducted a randomized controlled trial where they assembled a group of people who were willing to take a genetic ancestry test and provided half of them with a test. The group was then evaluated to gauge the extent that they supported genetic essentialism ideas. In addition, at the outset the group was also quizzed on their general knowledge of genetics. What the researchers found was that, on average, getting these test results did not change one's views on genetic essentialism; however, when considering a person's overall level of genetics understanding, they found that genetic essentialism ideas were strengthened in people who had lower knowledge of genetics after they received their ancestry test results. "Taking a test thus has a polarizing effect, magnifying differences in essentialist beliefs even further between those with weaker and stronger understandings of the science behind them."
Roth WD, Yaylacı Ş, Jaffe K, Richardson L. (2020) Do genetic ancestry tests increase racial essentialism? Findings from a randomized controlled trial. PLoS ONE 15(1): e0227399. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227399
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Monday February 10 2020, @03:48PM (1 child)
A large part of the difficulty here is that there are many different components of identity that are popularly conflated into stereotypes. That leads to statements all over the world that go something like: "Chinese are like this..." or "Men never ask for directions..." or "Latinos are hot-blooded..." and so on. It's the basic premise that one aspect of your identity, your race or nationality or religion or somesuch, determines everything else.
Then we layer on recent fads in academia of post-modernism and identitarianism, wherein first academics search for edge cases to subvert entire categories or terms and then others turn around and reify categories and terms and imbue them with power in an inverted scheme, such that those who were previously disadvantaged now must be given all control. The result is confused, contested, and highly manipulated.
Meanwhile, science has added an interested dimension through DNA testing that has revealed a lot of interesting discoveries about human migration and ancestry. (As a trained social scientist myself it's exciting to gain new information about the human past when there is no other archeological or written history that can tell us what happened.) But folks from the first group who conflate difference levels of identity have simply absorbed the new science into their whirlwind of determinism.
So I wouldn't say that genetic ancestry tests influence our concept of race, but rather our concept of race that influences the meaning of genetic ancestry. More generally, it's not productive to impose one-directional causality on any aspect of the matrix of identity formation. It's not productive to confer relative valences to any one component of who we are over the others, such that what religion you are overrides what country you're from, or that the color of your eyes overrides your sexual orientation. It's especially not productive because even if we could assign an accurate template of components and their relative weights to a given person, it very likely would not stay true forever because individuals do change over time; a teenager who revels in his nationality might come to primarily identify as his sexuality in his twenties, and as a believer in a religion in his old age.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by hellcat on Tuesday February 11 2020, @04:29PM
I want to give you more mod points but you're already maxed out.
Great post.