ABSTRACT
Various studies in medical anthropology (for example, Lock and Nguyen, 2010) have illustrated that biomedical diagnoses do not pertain to the realm of nature but to culture and politics, arguing that biomedical knowledge is a flexible tool that may be used to support or refute specific world views and practices. In particular, biomedical technologies have been considered as a particular way of crafting nature. As Strathern (1992) has famously argued, since nature has been assisted by technology, it can no longer constitute a prior ontological status to culture. Similarly, others (Haraway, 1997; Rose, 2001) have showed how culture and nature are increasingly densely intertwined and how difficult is to distinguish the natural from the artificial. Within this landscape, Rabinow (1992) has proposed the concept of biosociality to refer to the collective identities emerging from biomedical categories. In the concept of biosociality, culture has primacy over nature as it provides the model for nature in a biotechnological age.
