ABSTRACT
Genomics has enormous potential for changing the way in which biomedical scientific research is conducted. By simply arraying an RNA sample of a cancer patient on a microarray chip and comparing it with that of normal patients, one can potentially diagnose and administer treatment on the basis of determining which genes are expressed. Genes implicated in genetic disorders can be localised by virtue of information garnered from the Human Genome Project and used expressly for the purposes of gene therapy. Functional genomics studies facilitate the methods used to assign function to particular genes and further advance efforts to characterise genes. In short, a revolution has occurred in research vis-a`-vis the emergence of genomics. While most of the technology of genomics occurs in the laboratory, its
effects have far-reaching implications for society, not only in the arena of medicine. In this chapter, I explore how social identity and cultural discourse are ultimately affected by the technological advancements of genomics. The teleology of genomics would be defined by the characterisation of everyone by their genetic make-up. This definition would translate into new social formations based on the genetic composition of a person. A new preconception of the subject would emerge and one’s subjectivity would rely on scientific parameters rather than metaphysical attributes. Philosophy, once the origin of wisdom of the individual and his/her relation to society, would be replaced by molecular science, now the progenitor of a new designation of self. Concomitantly, an intellectual displacement of the human sciences would occur in terms of the insight it offers into the representation of the self. I would like to address how this process occurs. While I am not arguing that an extreme science-fiction scenario such as that depicted in the postmodern film Gattaca would occur, nevertheless the site of subjectivity would shift from the whole self to the gene. Michel Foucault radically revised the concept of subjectivity; through his
analysis of texts of ancient Greece and Rome, he argued for subjectivity as truth about oneself and elaborated on the art of ethics as self-mastery visa`-vis the subject’s position in the world. For Foucault the process of subjectivisation was not just a manifestation of individual introspection
but of discovering self by its production through practices. The question of self and identity is not just a question of a human individual’s attempt to discover who one is, but of external forces which make the self and are folded in the becoming of a human being. These external forces are integrated to build a self. It is this delineation of the process of subjectivity concerning the Fou-
cauldian method that forms my starting point on the sociological and cultural role that genomics plays in the organisation of social formations and the elements of discourse in contemporary culture. Under the same scope, the innovation of genomics moves from exemplifying scientific advancement to becoming a social object and is thereby transformed into an external force that shapes the way we view ourselves and our role in society. (In fact a colour booklet describing the science behind the Human Genome Project and endorsed by the Department of Energy, called To Know Ourselves, makes explicit reference to the role of subjectivity in genomics.) In addition to changing radically the biological perspective from which
we view gene function and disease, advances in genomics have made possible a new way of defining our subjectivity and identity through the lenses of genes, gene function and proteins. Technology derived from the Human Genome Project, and the scientific techniques that have benefited from it, have made possible the advanced mapping of genes on chromosomes, the characterisation of chromosomal changes in disease, and gene expression patterns during development and differentiation. These technical apparatuses have allowed for novel definitions of subjectivity based on the ability of these technologies to target variation and individuality. These technologies have been used to determine individual patterns in gene expressions between individuals. In other words, human uniqueness may be tantamount to genetic uniqueness, and the capacity to represent genetic uniqueness is further aided by genomics. To highlight and discuss these technologies in the context of what Paul Rabinow terms biosociality – that is, the collective effect that genomics has on social organisation and function – is to arrive at a new understanding of subjectivity approached from the perspective of molecular science (Rabinow 1996). Advances in determining the genetic distinctions between disease and
non-disease, between differences in drug responses and between good and bad prognosis, will ultimately affect the type of social formations and social forums that society engages in, and, simultaneously, an individual’s preconception of himself or herself. Paradoxically, while these technologies emphasise the individual’s uniqueness through genetic criteria, they illustrate, through their initial utilisation in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of disease to their ultimate realisation in the categorisation of individuals, the process of subjectivisation, i.e. the transformation from personhood to subject, the move from uniqueness and distinctiveness of the individual to the subordination to the data of the patient. They exemplify the Foucauldian forces of exteriority at work in a ‘society of genomics’.
