Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2001 by The Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research. All rights reserved ooii-3204/20oi/4202-ooo3$3.oo
Tbe past several decades bave seen an explosion of researcb in genetics and on genetic inberitance.^ Tbe new
genetics is part of contemporary biomedicine and promises great advances in alleviating disease and prolonging
buman life, leading us into tbe medicine of tbe future.
Tbe present perspective on genetic inberitance is a feature of tbe past four decades, altbougb tbe bereditarian
concept of disease appeared in tbe mid-i9tb century (Rosenberg 1976, Straban i984[i9O2]), wben tbe Darwinian
revolution of tbe i9tb century and tbe Mendelian principles introduced in tbe early 20tb gave rise to tbe discovery of tbe genetic assortment of individual traits
transmitted from generation to generation. Tbe notion
of genetic inberitance as we know it today came into
existence in tbe mid-2otb century witb tbe blossoming
of molecular biology. As genetic inberitance increasingly
becomes the prevailing causal explanation of affliction
and of buman bebavior in general, it is appropriate to
ask bow sucb explanations influence people's understandings of family and kin and bow tbey reflect and at
tbe same time conflict witb broader social processes.
To address tbese issues, I will briefly describe antbropological debates about tbe meaning of kinsbip from
cross-cultural and bistorical perspectives and tben examine current conceptualizations of family and kinsbip.
I will go on to discuss wbat I call tbe medicalization of
family and kinsbip, pointing out tbat tbis pbenomenon
impacts individuals differently, depending on tbeir experience, and illustrating tbis witb narratives of bealtby
individuals witb a family bistory of breast cancer and
bealtby adoptees wbo bave searcbed for tbeir birtb parents. I will conclude witb a discussion of tbe theoretical
and practical implications of tbe medicalization of family and kin. On tbe assumption tbat medical concepts
open a window to tbe understanding of a society's culture, I will suggest tbat contemporary conceptualizations
of bereditary transmission build on American cultural
conceptions of kinsbip and tbat tbe medicalization of
kinsbip reflects and promotes a traditional notion of family and kinsbip relations tbat is counter to tbe cbanging
patterns of tbe late 2otb century and tbe new millennium.
I. I thank the four informants whose narratives enrich our understanding of the phenomena discussed in this paper for freely giving
me their time and receiving me with patience. I owe a special debt
to Cecile Skrzynia of the Division of Hematology and Oncology of
the School of Medicine at the University of North Carolina, Chapel
Hill, for introducing me to Eve and Maya (pseudonyms). I thank
Robin Miller for introducing me to the adoptees and Lynn Giddens
for assisting me in meeting Kristen and Eric (pseudonyms) and sharing with me the wealth of her experience as an advocate for adoptees. The entire project was supported by a fellowship from the
Institute of Arts and Humanities, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, and by grants from the University of North Carolina
Research Council and from the University of North Carolina Graduate School. I especially thank Rick Ezell for giving the manuscript
a close reading and for his invaluable demand for clarity.
2. The mass media are saturated with reports of this work. Television series such as Turning Point and Dateline feature issues
related to genetic inheritance. National Public Radio's Eresh Air,
Morning Edition, and Talk of the Nation Science Eriday have presented recent developments in genetic inheritance, as have the ffew
York Times (Jones 2000) and a multitude of other publications and
programs. All Things Considered on National Public Radio has
discussed the usefulness of mastectomies to save lives for women
"who've seen their mothers or sisters die an early death from breast
cancer." While some reports question the new emphasis on genetic
inheritance, including Siebert (1995), Begley (1996,1997), TheEconomist (1996), Marty (1996), and Turning Point (February 12, 1996),
the majority of these reports are enthusiastic about the achievements of the new genetics (Blakeslee 1997; Carey and Flynn 1997;
Elmer-Dewitt 1994; Freundlich 1997; Grady 1994; Jaroff 1989,1994,
1996; Seligman 1994; Wade 1997; Glausiusz 1995a, b, i996;Higgins
1997; Brownlee and Silberner 1991; Brownlee et al. 1994; Nash
1997; Sack 1997].
2.35
who would carry the developing fetus to term. With this example
Yoxen shows that it is possible for a baby to have three fathers and
three mothers.
Although men have not escaped the grip of medicalization, as with, for example, impotence and male pattern baldness (Tiefer 1994), it is women whose bodily
processes have been most subject to medicalization.
Notwithstanding the fact that connections with others Menstruation, menopause, childbearing, and reproducthan kin define the modern or postmodern individual, tion have all been brought under medical scrutiny (Gurparadoxically, we also hear a wistful lament in American evich 1995; Johnson 1987; Kaufer and Gilbert 1986; Kohsociety for the loss of kinship and family ties, and the ler-Riessman 1983,- Martin 1987; Markens 1996;
ideology of kinship and family bonds continues to carry Ritenbaugh 1982; but cf. Bransen 1992). Women are
a powerful symbolic load. While politicians mourn the treated medically for even slight discomfort during mendecline of "family values," the business world, arguably struation, especially when such discomfort is labeled
the most dominant domain in modern life, has appro- Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS). Menopause and, of
priated kinship, if only symbolically, in its incessant ref- course, childbearing require close medical supervision
erence to companies as families. Investment vehicles (Davis-Floyd 1996, Johnson 1987, Kohler-Riessman 1983,
Martin 1987, Ritenbaugh 1982). Aesthetic sensibilities,
(such as mutual funds) designate groups of similar funds too, have been medicalized, the emphasis on a thin body
as "families" of funds. We may still invoke kinship re- and a youthful appearance often requiring cosmetic surlations when in need, as in the song from the Depression, gery (Gilman 1999, Rodin 1992, Ritenbaugh 1982, Sul"Brother, Can You Spare a Dime?" Unions refer to their livan 1993). New technologies have extended the medorganizations as "brotherhoods," and some religious ical gaze to the fetus, making it visible, and with this
groups identify their members as siblings. Biomedicine, visualization through sonography even the unborn is
yet another major institution in modern life (Foucault treated as a patient (Haraway 1997, Neustadter 1992, Pet1975, Freidson 1970), has also turned its gaze on family chesky 1987, Rapp 1999). Lastly, as Witzig (1996) points
and kinship, defining them in traditional ways based on out, race is medicalized when an association is made
blood or genetic ties, contrary to contemporary changes. between such groupings and specific diseases (see also
Wailoo 1996).
7. Not all scholars agree that family and kinship relations have
Medicalization, translating sets of problems into medbecome diluted in contemporary times (see, e.g.. Shorter 1975 and
Segalen 1986). Segalen, examining European data, suggests that ical terms, changes people's perspectives on reality, on
family and kin ties may be more powerful than before. She sees their being, and on how they experience the world (Enthe family as "powerful, a refuge and the special focus for our feel- glehardt 1986). When seen as medical problems, behaving" (p. 21 and argues that relationships within the nuclear family iors are usually characterized as circumstances that deand among close kin have intensified. From Segalen's perspective, viate from physiological or psychological norms
the crisis rests with society and not with the family. Finch and
Mason (1993) also regard family and kin relations as continuing to regarding proper levels of functioning, freedom from
be based on genealogical ties, perhaps reflecting somewhat different pain, and achievement of expected human form. For expatterns in Europe and America.
ample, discussing the medicalization of homosexuality
nical diagnostic procedures, to take sucb a bistory (McAuliffe 1978, 1979). Tbus, to resist tbe medicalization of
family and kinsbip one would bave to reject biomedical
treatment.
Tbe medicalization of family and kinsbip reverberates
in tbe mass media. A program presented on CNN's Your
Money on February 15, 1997, instructed viewers to track
down tbeir family bistories to acquire "useful bereditary
information." Tbe Chattanooga Times (December 12,
1996) reports tbat people are searcbing vigorously for
family trees to learn "tbeir ancestors' causes of deatb to
clue tbem in on genetic diseases." Fincb (1996:92) reports in Health tbat "tracing your roots to learn your
family's bealtb bistory may be tbe single most important
tbing you ever do to bolster your well-being" and instructs tbe reader on bow to go about doing a family tree.
Daus (1999) sbows bow "tracing your family medical
bistory can save your life" (see also Adato 199s). Some
articles focus on adoptees seeking access to tbeir genetic
bistory (Park 1997, Cool 1994) and advocate open adoptions and open medical records. A beadline in tbe August
IS, 1996, Wall Street fournal calls attention to "One
Family's Searcb for a Faulty Gene," and anotber on tbe
same page announces tbat "Doctors Recommend Every
Family Make Its Own Medical Tree" (see Nelkin 1992).
Family magazines suggest tbat individuals work out genograms and family bealtb pedigrees as a way of predicting
tbe future of tbeir cbildren. Some Motber's Day cards
remind tbe motber tbat "it's all in our genes" (Siebert
1995)References to people's predisposition to inberited disease are made frequently on talk sbows and in tbe print
media. Siebert (1995:74) writes, "Genes are suddenly
tbougbt to be responsible for everytbing from poverty to
privilege, from misdemeanors to murder. I seem to recall
watcbing television one nigbt and seeing a man up on
bomicide cbarges offer as a defense tbe presence of a
'criminal gene,' wbicb be claimed ran in bis family." He
reports tbat tbe Institute of Medicine's Committee on
Assessing Genetic Risks "recently concluded tbat 'multiplex genetic testing based upon a single blood or tissue
sample' will become standard medical practice early in
the next century. Clearly, tbe day is not far off wben a
doctor's visit will yield personal genetic report cards,
indicating wbicb disorders we may be destined for and
bow to tailor our lives accordingly" (p. 52).
Tbe notion of tbe medicalization of family and kinsbip
would tend to predict sucb current pbenomena as tbe
recent law enacted in Oregon tbat requires open adoption, meaning tbat adoptees can learn tbe names of tbeir
birtb parents and gain access to tbeir medical records
witbout tbe need to resort to tbe courts.'^ Not coincidentally, too, tbe searcb movement among adoptees
came into bloom in tbe 1960s, around tbe same time
13. The Oregon Adoptee Rights Initiative, passed by a vote of the
people of Oregon on November 3,1998, restores the right of adopted
adults (age 21 and older| to request and receive a copy of their
original birth certificates with no amendments, no restrictions, and
no exceptions (see http://www.barysoftware.com/orelegl.htm).
tbat our collective consciousness concerning genetic inberitance came to tbe fore and notions about diseases as
genetically programmed began to take root in biomedicine. Moreover, tbe current intense interest in genealogies (see, e.g., Hornblower 1999, Mitcbell 1999) is arguably connected witb tbe necessity to provide tbe
family trees tbat are "tbe basic tecbnique of tbe clinical
geneticists" (Ricbards 1996).
endometriosis, and her doctor wished to perform a hys- all these disorders from her hirth mother, and she had
terectomy, hut the company would not authorize the become a perpetual patient.
procedure. She maintained that had she had a medical
She lamented that she had not learned sooner that she
history she would have received the procedure imme- originated from a family with lupus, because it would
diately,'' Furthermore, she ohserved that it was very im- have explained her circulatory problems, such as her cold
portant to have a family medical history so that she fingers and toes, especially in wintertime. Had she
would know what she was passing on to her children. known that this condition was part of her family heriShe said, "You don't know what I could have given them tage, she said, she would have heen assured sooner that
that would hurt them,"
she was not crazy,- the doctors had not taken her sympKristen had contacted the agency that had handled her toms seriously until she was able to show that others in
adoption to advise them of her Raynaud's condition and her family had suffered from the disorder. The medical
to request her medical history. The staff memher who history not only recounted for Kristen her family history
found her file said, "Well, do you know that your ma- but also, significantly, affirmed her sanity. She had also
ternal grandmother died of lupus?" Kristen continued, discovered that she had a half-sister with cerebral palsy,
"And I was like, what? whoa, wait a minute, you're sit- and she wished that she had known that before sbe had
ting on this information, you never told me, I got very children. She observed, "I would have at least been tested
upset, "When she told her doctor that she was adopted when I was pregnant. It wouldn't have changed anything,
and that her maternal grandmother had suffered from hut I would have been prepared emotionally,"
lupus, the doctor "got real quiet, and said, 'You need to
Kristen's biomedical understanding of genetic inherifind your family. You need to he getting physical docu- tance required her to be on an annual recall schedule of
ments ahout your family history,'" The doctor also told medical visits and to take certain medications. More imher that there is a strong maternal genetic link hetween portant, her medical history linked her with those who
Raynaud's disease and lupus, "All on the same hranch shared her genetic heritage rather than with those who
of diseases," said Kristen, "After I found out I was like had raised and educated her. Her emphasis on medical
a demon, I was not only dealing with my children's history anchored her identity in her patienthood and also
health, my curiosity, but I was dealing with my health," tied her to a world of relatives in the past. For Kristen,
She was on a one-year recall visit schedule for hlood tests as for the other adoptees, kinship meant biological confor lupus hecause of the information she had gathered nectionvalidated by the medical history that firmly
ahout her genetic hackground.
estahlished her continuity with the past and preHaving found her hirth mother, Kristen had learned sentwith her birth mother and her family. The medical
that her maternal grandfather had died of a heart attack history, by recapitulating genetic inheritance, turned
when he was 34 years old. She commented.
into a kinship history and a mental map of the past.
When I found my birth mother, she's opened her en- Importantly, too, having her biological family's medical
history affirmed her sanity for Kristen, Only when she
tire life to me, her medical records, my grandcould demonstrate a genetic history did her doctors take
mother's medical records, my great-grandmother,
her
symptoms seriously and acknowledge that her ills
who's 93 and still alive, had gotten her doctor to get
were
not "in her head,"'*
up stuff for me. And my great-aunt Lois has done
Eric was 51 years old, married with two children, a
the same. And the whole family is riddled with arcollege graduate, and employed in a managerial posithritis, my grandmother died of lupus, my mother
tion,"" He had begun the search for his birth mother eight
has connective-tissue muscle disorder, and so I was
months prior to our meeting, shortly after the death of
able to call my doctor back and say, "This is what
hoth his adoptive parents, to whom he had felt very close,
I've got in my hackground," And the doctor started
laughing, saying, "God, no wonder you're gonna test I found Eric's narrative especially poignant because,
sadly for him, the woman he was certain was his hirth
positive for lupus, you're always gonna test positive
mother had not responded to his several letters of introfor lupus,"
duction. He wanted to meet her primarily because he
wished to obtain his medical history so that he might
The doctor, a rheumatologist, told Kristen that with her
hackground and genetic makeup, "You're asking for a lot 16, It is especially^ common for women to he told that their sympof problems," The doctor told her that she would become toms are "in their heads" if their condition cannot he assessed
afflicted with arthritis later on and that the Raynaud's hiomedically (see Finkler 1994),
disease would get worse, Kristen continued, "I was 17, The ratio of women to men seeking their hirth parents is 9:1
(head of the search support group, personal communication). The
started on medication for that, I was also told, 'You will reasons
for the disparity are not clear. The head of the support group
have to watch yourself, because of the genetic back- attrihutes it to the fact that women are "more sensitive to hirth
ground there,'" She was convinced that she had inherited and pregnancy issues than men" and "men's lesser ahilities to con15, According to the head of an adoption search chapter, if an adoptee lacks a medical history the doctor will often refuse to order
various procedures hecause the insurance companies claim a lack
of documentation to justify them.
here and ahroad (Hoedemaekers and ten Have 1999) recognize that predisposition does not necessarily lead to
disease." The concept of the inheritance of a predisposition extends the medicalization of family and kinship
to encompass almost everyone, converting most people
into potential perpetual patients. People's realities will
encompass a future that is incessantly punctuated hy
worry. Indeed, the medicalization of family and kinship
alters people's perceptions from "if I get hreast or colon
cancer" to "when I get hreast or colon cancer" or any
one of the many diseases helieved to he inherited.
Moreover, the medicalization of family and kinship
creates a new dynamic within the family. Some have
suggested that it may lead to guilt for parents and resentment for their offspring (Serhan 1989, Richards
1996). Healthy memhers of a family or kin group may
resent heing told that they are potentially at high risk
for developing a disease (Green, Murton, and Statham
1993)- Lynch, Lynch, and Lynch (1979:223) found that
"family memhers manifest anxiety, fatalism, denial and
even accusation directed toward the spouse, parents, or
other family memhers who have 'caused the disease among us.'" But Wexler (1979:207), discussing
Huntington's disease,^" ohserves that "remarkahly few
interviewees expressed conscious anger toward the parent who had given them this legacy. Compassion and
grief were hy far the most common feelings. It was considered in particularly had taste to harhor hostility toward a parent who was already hroken and ill." Wexler
(1992) was surprised, as was I (Finkler 2000a), that people
failed to express anger with their families for having
passed down a lethal disease.
Most important, with the medicalization of kinship
the individual is no longer the sole patient. We read that
"genetic counselors are heginning to ask questions such
as 'who is the patientthe individual? The familythe
spouse, the sister, the hrother, or the child?'" (Nelkin
r992:i8o). In contrast to the hroader societal process, in
which individualism and freedom of choice are emphasized, the medicalization of kinship creates a tension
hetween individualism and choice and an orientation to
family and kin. As I noted earlier, individualism insists
on an autonomous person, standing outside any one socially defined unit and selecting his/her life course,
whereas kinship relationships hased on genetic inheritance call for connectedness and circumscription of
choice. If Edwards and Strathern (2000) are right, forgetfulness plays an important role in delineating kin heyond
the nuclear family. But the medicalization of family and
kinship unites people wittingly or perhaps unwittingly
and jolts their memories. Whereas in modern society
individuals may choose their kin on the hasis of affective
ties, paradoxically, the new genetics prescrihes one's kin
19. See, e.g., the work of Lisheth Sachs in Sweden (1995, 1996) and
Adelsward and Saehs's (1996) work on the ways in which hiomedicine's assignment of numerical values to risk creates in people a
state of being neither healthy nor diseased.
ao. Huntington's disease is caused by a single dominant gene, and
the odds are 50-50 that the individual will inherit the disease,
which becomes manifest at 35-40.
ilies with a history of cancer, the concept of genetic inheritance at once created fear of the future and provided
some meaning for their fears and potential suffering,
sometimes even moving them to action to avoid becoming ill. These women tended to believe that, knowing
their predisposition to inheritance of a disorder, they
could do something, if only by avoiding identified risk
factors, to prevent the "inevitable."^^ For the adoptees,
in contrast, the medicalization of family and kin produced fragmentation, internal conflict, and turmoil, creating special dilemmas that do not affect individuals who
have been raised by blood kin. Adoptees were impelled
to search for their birth parents by the very consciousness of genetic inheritance and in large part by the need
for a family medical history, and they came to question
the fiction of living as if they were related by blood to
their adoptive families. The power of the medicalization
of family and kinship, pitted against their experience of
love and solidarity within their adoptive families, had
led them to search for their birth parents, placing them
in profound contradiction. Most of the adoptees I studied
had difficulty reconciling the belief in genetic inheritance with their experience of being a member of an
adopted family, frequently a loving one, with whom they
lacked blood ties and whom they did not resemble physically. What is more, it is significant, if also puzzling,
that the adoptees who had found their birth parents had
taken on new personas, created a past with new ancestors, and become transformed by their newly formed
relationships.
Curiously, in contrast to patients or potential patients,
who sometimes found answers to basic existential questions associated with their affliction, the adoptees tended
not to discover answers for their issues of abandonment
and rejectionthe question "Why was I given away?"
that may have been the deepest reason for searching for
their biological families. Their cultural comprehension
of kinship in biological terms did, however, allow them
to attempt to deal with these issues by reestablishing
contact with their birth parents and creating histories,
if only medical ones. By becoming reunited with their
birth families, the fragmented adoptees, torn hetween
cultural ideologies and lived experience, became, in the
words of many, "whole," arguably masking the fragmentation people may feel more generally in contemporary capitalist society. But at the same time they confronted new issues and confiict that tore them apart.
Bartholet (1993:166) argues that in American society "biological origins are central to our destiny" and that "it
is only genetically linked parents who are truly entitled
to possess their children and to whom children truly
belong" (p. 167). Along with others (e.g., Andersen 1993)
25. of course, the medicalization of family and kinship may also
reassure healthy people that they come from healthy stock. People
may take pride in the fact that their ancestors gave them positive
features such as hlue eyes or lanky bodies. Although these may he
offset hy unfavorable characteristics such as heavy thighs or other
deprecated physical attributes, these attributes do not draw the
individual into the medical domain in the same way as conceptualizations of genetic inheritance of disease.
she observes that the assumption of the search movement is that "adoptees must forever suffer the loss of
their birth parents and the related loss of genetic continuity with the past" and that they are prone to 'genealogical bewilderment' as they struggle to live a life
cut off from their genetic origins" (p. 172). In short, in
this literature adoptees are in pursuit of a genetic inheritance that is taken to be equivalent to their true
family, their "significant same." According to Bartholet,
adoptees suffer when they are cut off from their biological links and generational continuity is destroyed. She
observes that "sperm donors, their offspring, and birth
mothers in surrogacy arrangements increasingly voice
complaints of the pain they suffer from being cut off from
genetic forebears or descendants" (pp. 227-28),^* although she rightly claims that parenting cannot be
equated with procreation. She wisely observes that a
sense of immortality comes not from passing on one's
genes but from the parental relationship and how it
shapes the child. She concludes, "All adoptions require
parents to transcend the conditioning that defines parenthood in terms of procreation and genetic connection"
(p.
^^
by a sense of sameness that may be grounded in friendship or sharing of affect and interest rather than in genes.
With the belief in genetic inheritance and the medicalization of kinship, interaction with family and kin may
no longer be required for people to recognize relatedness
and connection.
In the past, people's existence was embedded in family
and kinship relations. A human being was defined as a
social person, inheriting from family status, power,
goods, blood, and honor. Normally, families bequeathed
to their offspring everything that was positive and negative in human existence. At present, family and kinship
relations may be defined more by the inheritance of disorders and pain than by the inheritance of status and
social attributes. People's kinship is sustained by the
DNA that mediates memory of their ancestors by the
relentless transmission from generation to generation of
its encoded material. DNA, as our proxy, records and
remembers our ancestors better than our fragile memories do. It establishes continuity with the dead, a continuity of particles that lack the moral responsibilities
associated with relatedness.
Memories are usually embedded in sounds, smells, affect, and tales of past ancestors and kinship ties. But we
recall our ancestors not for these characteristics or for
their achievements, for their beliefs, for the numerous
dimensions of their being, for their quirks, but for their
physicality.^' Although through DNA we establish continuity with the dead, it is a continuity comprised of
hollow particles that may lack any of the affect that is
normally associated with memories. Even if people wish
to forget their antecedents and reinvent themselves, the
physician will remind them of their "true" biological
ancestors. The family medical history is part of the person's identity and memory. Within the biomedical domain, the medical history and biological antecedents determine personhood, and knowing one's genetic ties is
sometimes raised to a spiritual state, a transcendent experience (Finkler loooa).^'^
Yet, phenomenologically there is a distinction between experiencing oneself as a member of a "significant
same" group that feels a sense of solidarity and relatedness associated with shared experiences from the beginning of life and experiencing oneself as a member of
a family, or group, that shares DNA molecules. Once
adoptees find their birth mothers and medical histories,
they tend to create new fictions for themselves by establishing presumably loving relationships with those
people. And while they may, as most of the people I
interviewed reported, find a new "wholeness," experi3r. However, in the 19th century certain diseases were considered
prestigious; tuberculosis, for example, served as a metaphor for an
artistic personality (see Sontag 1978). Hemophilia may have been
a mark of nobility, and obesity was a mark of wealth. Sickle-cell
anemia is an indicator of race associated with African-American
descent (see Wailoo 1996].
32. In a lecture entitled "Genetics and Faith," Francis Collins
(i999i>), head of the Human Genome Project, has advanced the
notion that there is no conflict between religion and genetics and
that uncovering the genome is a "religious experience."
entially it masks a sense of fragmentation as they continue to exist between two worlds: one rooted in the
fiction of "as if by blood" and the other in shared experience and affective ties.
The notion of shared experience suggests being in the
world and interacting with others, whereas being part of
the same DNA circle requires no social interaction. Bauman (1992:42) points out what Merleau-Ponty knew, that
the only way we can comprehend ourselves and know
that we are alive is by being with others and being anchored in a moral order. Levinas observes that humans
are beings with meaning and that meaning comes out of
our responsibility for others; "being reduced to the 'is'
without the 'ought' equals solitude" (quoted by Bauman
1992:42). As I have argued elsewhere (Finkler 1994), to
be human is to be a moral being, to insist on the "ought"
and the "should" against all odds, and the sense of responsibility to others that arises out of the "ought" is
initially experienced in one's "significant same" group.
To sense that one is part of a family chiefly because one
shares the same genes, requiring no social participation
or sense of responsibility to those who are related except
to provide blood samples for testing purposes, removes
the moral context of family relations and being in the
world. Relations between family and kin, however defined, are governed by a special morality arising out of
the recognition of commonality (Finch and Mason 1993,
Freeman 1968, Witherspoon 1975), whereas relations established on the basis of the new genetics lack moral
imperatives.
Paradoxically, genes are both amoral and moral. On
the one hand, people do not hold their ancestors responsible for transmitting "faulty" genes. On the other hand,
the medicalization of family and kinship gives meaning
to the randomness inherent in geneticsto the "luck of
the draw"^by supplying a reason for suffering and thus
making it more bearable. Belief in genetic inheritance
carries a moral load in that it may even bring people
back to the religious notion of original sin and the sins
of the fathers, embodying the notion of predestination
(see Finkler 2000a). Ironically, the contemporary solitary,
independent, and autonomous individual becomes
united with genetic family and kin by sharing asocial
and amoral DNA. Bauman (1992:198) correctly observes
that "the sociality of the postmodern community does
not require sociability. Its togetherness does not require
interaction. Its unity does not require integration." Thus,
the individual can enjoy traditional kinship and family
relations without moral obligation, responsibility, or sociability. At the same time, medicalization expands the
recognition of family and kin and gives them new importance for the individual that they may have lacked
before. Paradoxically, molecular biology and the genetic
model of family and kinship bridge the essentialism of
modern science with postmodern ideologies and experience. It could even be said that the ideology of genetic
inheritance promises contemporary humans immortality within the flux of the postmodern world. The individual exists in a transient world but is fastened biolog-
Comments
JANET DOLGIN
SARAH FRANKLIN
HUGH GUSTERSON
case of the grip that biogenetic models have on the (Anglo-European) grasp of specific social relations, thoughtprovoking in that the material it presents exemplifies
practices that seem specifically North American and
thus invite cross-cultural comparison.
Finkler posits that the medicalization of kin and family relationships at once concurs with an American
model of biogenetic kinship and serves to link people
who might otherwise have no wish (or need) to be connected, thus defying an ideology of individual free
choice. Leaving aside the problematic notion of "American," Finkler's empirical findingthat people hold contradictory values and draw on them variouslymirrors
social realties more generally. Indeed, the contrary would
be exceptional. Of greater interest are the ways in which
such contradictory values are articulated and practiced.
Research among the involuntarily childless in Norway
and their practices of assisted conception (be it through
new reproductive technologies or by transnational adoption) indicates that people hold both cultural and biological models and shift between them according to context. Although this tension between indigenous models
of nature and nurture runs through much of Norwegian
society, there is no doubt that biogenetic models are gaining ground. This is, for instance, reflected in laws pertaining to the rights of adopted children to know their
biological origins and the renewed debates on artiflcial
donor insemination, where there is a movement to repeal
the current law of donor anonymity. In both cases the
arguments are grounded in notions of knowing one's
identity, and identity is unproblematically assumed to
be the same as biogenetic origins. However, laws based
on such "knowledge" do not deter people from adopting
children from abroad. Local ideas of identity are more
complex; origins and belonging are not necessarily perceived as the same thing.
Issues of identity are also immanent in Finkler's discussion of medical histories. Finkler states that "the family medical history is part of the person's identity and
meinory." It is through the need to establish medical
histories that people begin their quest for unknown kin.
This need, moreover, is irrespective of whether one is ill
or not; it is the possibility of becoming ill that is a driving
force. Medical histories, if they can be established, give
one a semblance of control over the future by unraveling
particular facts about the past. Thus they are more than
just a record of individual health cycles; they are a mnemonic device structuring individual perceptions of significant relationships. DNA is the key that unlocks
memory, inscribing ancestry into (or onto) related bodies
in the present and future. DNA is not only a matter of
time; viewed as a fact (devoid of morality), it contradicts
the values people attach to it.
Medical histories surface as documents certifying who
MARIT MELHUUS
one is. Yet, the necessity of possessing one seems to rest
Department of Social Anthropology, University of
on the demands of health insurance companies, and thus
Oslo. P.B. ro9i Blindern, 0317 Oslo, Norway
the family medical history is a type of identity document
[marit.melhuus@sai.uio.no]. 29 xi 00
that not only has personal valuein the sense of giving
Finkler's article is both disturbing and thought-provok- a person a sense of being^but may in fact be crucial in
ingdisturbing in that it presents yet another empirical obtaining medical treatment. In Western democratic-
reproductive technology industry. Women willing to undergo difficult and often dehumanizing procedures spend
more than $1 billion annually on infertility services. The
discourse on reproduction is pervaded by images of
banks, deposits, property, products, and possessions. Articles in family magazines have such titles as "Babies to
Order" and "Shopping for Mr. Good Genes." Sperm donor profiles read like personal ads, providing detailed information ahout the donor's favorite colors, ability to
carry a tune, and serious hobbies. Donor eggs from
women with carefully specified education and talents are
advertised on the Internet for as much as $50,000whatever the traffic will bear. Eggs and sperm are consumer
products evaluated according to their genetic worth, and,
like other commodities, they have been subject to theft.
They are part of the commodification of kin.
Commercial enterprises have proliferated to service
the family in the age of genetics. Genetic testing is big
business, and companies are identifying not only criminals but also kin. Highway billboards and New York
City taxicabs carry advertisements: "Call 1-800-DNAType." Unregulated firms provide identity tests by mail.
Dads use their services to avoid child support and moms
to claim their right to child support through paternity
identification. Meanwhile children become "property"
on the hasis of biological criteria, and their ongoing family relationships may he disrupted.
As biological ties assume growing importance, new
business enterprises form. Search firms are in the business of finding biological parents for adoptees seeking
"roots." An international registry affiliated with 450
DOROTHY NELKIN
groups worldwide is available for people looking for relDepartment of Sociology, New York University, New
ativesif, of course, they can pay. Genealogy is also a
York, N.Y. 10003, U.S.A. [dorothy.nelkin@nyu.edu].
growing business, and companies have proliferated to
31 X 00
help people trace their genetic origins so as to avoid "genealogical bewilderment." And disinterment services
Why are genetic explanations so powerful? As Susan Lin- are available for people who want to document, through
dee and I observed in The DNA Mystique (1995), they DNA tests, their genetic connections with a dead relaare particularly appealing in a society reacting with anx- tiveoften to validate inheritance claims.
iety to the ambiguities of "new families." The family
Family anxieties about inherited disease also have
seems to be besieged, threatened by feminism, divorce, commercial implications. Assumptions about the origay rights, the ability of children to sue their parents, gins of disease or behavioral conditions imply preferred
the complex arrangements enabled by new reproduc- treatments. If a condition is defined in social terms, one
tive technologies, and other social changes. Families looks to changes in the family or social environment for
grounded in emotional ties appear to be chronically un- solutions. If a condition is helieved to follow from gestable, fragile, and insecure. Genetics, in contrast, seem netic endowment, the preferred treatment is drugs or
to ground family relationships in a stable and well-de- medication. Genetic explanations have contributed to
fined unitthe geneproviding the individual with in- the sale of psycho-stimulants, antipsychotic agents, antidisputable roots that are more reliable than the depressants, antianxiety agents, and sedatives. The pharephemeral ties of love, friendship, or shared values. Fur- maceutical industry has much to gain from medicalizing
thermore, as Finkler notes, we readily accept this med- the family.
icalization of kinship "hecause it mimics conceptualiMeanwhile, the family defined hy genetic predisposizations of the biogenetic foundation of kinship." In tion may face economic problems. If a woman is "preeffect, medicalization reinforces traditional family disposed" to a genetic disease, her children and siblings
values.
may also be at risk, and they all may be subject to emI would like to add a further reason for the influence ployment or insurance discrimination. Defining the famof genetic explanations. They suit our commercial cul- ily in terms of genetic predisposition may also encourage
ture. They have not only medicalized but commodified family decisions based on a commercial calculus. An odd
kinship. Let me provide some examples. Belief in genetic example was the mother who knew that she was a carrier
determinism has led to the remarkable expansion of the of the Huntington's gene and that her two daughters had
witb botb in relation to our more culturally created notions and interpretations of medical facts. Social scientists ougbt to be able to discuss etiology and causality
witb a more open mind and relate tbeir researcb based
on fieldwork to biomedical knowledge. Tbis kind of
problematization is among tbe most fruitful aspects of
Finkler's earlier researcb in Mexico. Even thougb sbe is
dealing witb mainstream Americans here, tbe problem
is tbe same.
One last comment is on tbe notion of personal/emotional and molecular memory in Finkler's article. In my
own researcb in clinical situations of presymptomatic
diagnosis, it is obvious tbat memory is related to tbe
importance of remembering. If you are depending on tbe
medical bistory for information about your own risk or
tbat of your children, your memory may be sbarper tban
it is witb regard to distant kin tbat you ougbt to inform
about tbe family's risk. Here tbere is also a difference
between tbose wbo bave a diagnosis based on genealogical mapping and tbose whose diagnosis comes from a
genetic test. But tbe main argument bere is tbat a person's memory is tbe only "material" there is on wbicb
to base a presymptomatic risk diagnosis, and DNA can
only confirm from tbe tests tbat bave been taken
wbetber people carry tbe same mutation on a gene. Tbe
power in genetic researcb is witb the informant, tbe person wbo exposes bis or ber family and kin by mentioning
them as potential carriers of a predisposition. Finkler's
statement tbat DNA remembers wbat bas long been forgotten is of course valid only wben you can cbeck
wbetber people are trying to invent ancestors. Family
members wbo are not visualized by tbe memories of
tbeir kin do not exist even for the memory of DNA.
Reply
KAJA FINKLER
pelling term, although I agree with Gusterson that "medicalization" is a more general and "geneticization" a
more specific term for the phenomenon at hand.
Melhuus too takes the notion of the medicalization of
family and kinship in a new direction, especially in likening the family medical history to an identity document that has the power to include and to exclude. I
consider Melhuus's notion that identity documents are
issued by the state and family medical histories are "insidious gatekeepers" highly original. Indeed, one already
hears predictions that soon we will carry on our bodies
chips encoding our DNA that can be used for multiple
purposes in the public and private domains.
I am indebted to Sachs for noting that my analysis is
applicable to Nordic Europe as well. Along with Melhuus, I hope that studies will be done cross-culturally
to address the extent to which the medicalization of family and kinship takes place in different Western and nonWestern settings. I too was surprised by my findings
about adoptees. Although it would be incorrect to reduce
the reasons for their searches to purely medical ones, all
the adoptees I interviewed but one identified the need
for a family medical record as one major reason for
searching for their biological families.
Sachs notes and Melhuus too has found that people
may have their doubts about the ideology of genetic inheritance. This is clear from narratives of women with
breast cancer (Finkler 2000^2). It is fascinating, however,
that while people contemplate alternative explanations
for their affliction, including exposure to environmental
toxins, most reject them in favor of genetic inheritance
because the ideology of genetic inheritance has become
naturalized.
Sachs calls attention to an important distinction between the ways in which people become conscious of
the ideology of genetic inheritancewhether through
the taking of a medical history or through DNA testing.
However, this distinction fails to account for healthy
adoptees' determination to find their birth mothers, inasmuch as they have not been exposed to genetic counseling. The adoptees have, however, been exposed to biomedicine, to the media, and to the Zeitgeist. Arguably,
there are cultural differences between Europe and the
United States that may also influence the ways in which
people become conscious of beliefs about genetic inheritance. Nelkin and Lindee (1995) show that in the United
States we are constantly bombarded by reports on genetic
inheritance in the print and visual media. Judging by
Melhuus's observations, what Hornblower (1999) has described as "roots mania" has not yet reached Norway.
Aside from the mass media and genetic counseling,
however, another dimension to the medicalization of
family and kinship that influences people's perceptions
of genetic inheritance is the pervasive scientific ethos
that insists on evidence for any claim. A familial medical
history supplies such evidence. People may discount alternative explanations, such as the possibility that the
entire family was exposed to similar toxins that might
have produced the disease or, as in Maya's case, that her
family was bewitched. Moreover, as many adoptees have
pointed out and as we have seen in Kristen's case, physicians depend on a family's medical history to make the
diagnosis that the disease is familial (Richards 1996).
Even so, Sachs's concern about the ways in which people
learn about the belief in genetic inheritance should alert
future investigators of medicalization to address this
question.
Finally, Sachs's point about DNA as memory seems
to suggest that humans beings have a choice about what
they remember. Of course, as Freud recognized long ago,
memory of any kind is selective. However, the medicalization of family and kinship requires people to remember; it makes memory of kin important.
Richards incorrectly asserts that I attribute medicalization to the new genetics. In fact, I recognize that medicalization is not new, and nowhere do I suggest that the
Human Genome Project is responsible for it. The HGP
assumes that identifying the genes will open the door to
the understanding of disease. For example, according to
the web site of the National Human Genome Research
Institute, "Our genes orchestrate the development of a
single-celled egg into a fully formed adult. Genes influence not only what we look like but also what diseases
we may eventually get." The HGP also promises to usher
in an era of "molecular medicine, with precise new approaches to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of
disease" (www.0rnl.gov/hgmis/faq/faqs1.html4/20). Furthermore, Francis GoUins (1999), director of the National
Human Genome Research Institute, has hailed the project as the "book of life" that will be opened by the year
2002 and will explain, cure, and predict nearly all human
diseases.
Richards points out that the family medical history
was adopted by biomedicine in the 19th century, at a
time when there was also great concern about inherited
diseases, albeit understood more in Lamarckian than in
Mendelian and Weismannian terms. His remark supports my point that the taking of medical histories is
linked with hereditarian views. His report that knowing
that a disease is familial often relieves the patient of
responsibility for it is a point that emerges from many
narratives (Finkler 20000). We can sense Kristen's relief
that she is sane on learning that Raynaud's disease is
rooted in her heredity. As has Richards, I have found that
knowing that a disease is inherited also gave informants
a sense of control. What is more, I have found that for
some the notion of surviving a familial history of affliction is evidence of the strength of the family rather than
its weakness.
Richards is correct that the new paternity testing for
child support will raise new issues, adding yet another
dimension to the medicalization of family and kinship.
As Daniels (1997) demonstrates, the father's genetic contribution to his offspring's health state is invisible, disease in the child usually being attributed to the gestational mother. With the medicalization of family and
kinship the father's role in his offspring's health will
become more visible and he will need to accept responsibility in many new ways.
Richards may have overlooked my n. 7, in which I cite
References Cited
ADATO, ALLISON. 1995. Living in legacy. Life i8(4):6o.
ADELSWARD, V., AND L. SACHS. 1996. The meaning of 6.8:
Statement: Professional disclosure of familial genetic information. American JouTnal of Human Genetics 62:474. [JD]
ANDERSEN, ROBERT. 1993. Second choice: Growing up
family
respon-
GiLMAN, SANDER L. 1999. Making the body beautiful. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
GLAusiusz, j o s i E . 1995a. A gene for breast cancer. Discover,
January, pp. 99-100.
. 1995b. Anastasia, nyet. Discover, January p. 99.
. 1996. The genes of 1995. Discover, January, pp. 32-33.
GOOD, BYRON. 1991^. Medicine, rationality, and experience:
An anthropological perspective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [LS]
GOTTLIEB, B. 1993. The family in the Western world from the
Black Death to the industrial age. New York: Oxford University Press.
GRADY, DENiSE. 1994. The new way to predict your future
health. Redbook 183:32.
GRANNER, DARYL. 1988. "Nucleic acid structure and function," in Harper's biochemistry 22nd edition, pp. 366-82. Norwalk. Conn.: Appleton and Lange.
GREEN, J., F. MURTON, AND H. STATHAM. I993. Psycho-
social issues raised by a familial ovarian cancer register, fournal of Medical Genetics 30:575-79.
GUREViGH, M. 1995. Rethinking the label: Who benefits from
the PMS construct? Women and Health 23:67-98.
HAHN, ROBERT, AND ARTHUR KLEINMAN. I983. Biomedi-
cal practice and anthropological theory: Frameworks and directions. Annual Review of Anthropology 12:305-33.
HAIMES, ERIGA. 1988. "Secrecy": What Can artificial reproduction learn from adoption? International Journal of Law and the
Family 2:46-61. [MR]
HALPERN, s. 1985. Medicalization through specialization. Society for the Study of Social Problems Association Paper
85S16990.
HAMER, DEAN, AND PETER GOPELAND. I996. The SCienCe
of desire: The search for the gay gene and the biology of behavior. New York: Touchstone Books, [HG]
HANSEN, B. 1992. "American physicians''discovery'of homosexuals, 1880-1900: A new diagnosis in a changing society," in
Framing disease. Edited by C. Rosenberg and J. Golden, pp.
104-13. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
HARAWAY, DONNA, J. 1991. Simians. cyborgs, and women.
New York: Routledge.
. 1997. Modest_witness&second_millennium. New York:
Routledge.
HESS, DAVID. 1997. Science studies. New York: New York
University Press.
HiGGiNS, EAN. 1997. Study links men's bad behaviour to
what's in their genes. The Australian, June 14, p. 12.
HOEDEMAEKERS, ROGEER, AND HENK TEN HAVE. I999.