Смыслы биосоциальности: от групп риска к «генетическому ноцебо»

Abstract

The meanings of the term «biosociality» are investigated in perspective of their optics offered to consider the socio-humanitarian effects of biotechnology development. In philosophical, sociological and anthropological literature, the term «biosociality» was originally used in the Fucoldian tradition of criticizing the relationship between power and knowledge. In this framework the development of biosociality is mainly understood as the emergence of discursive fields that indicate the boundaries of new social groups. At the beginning of the 2000s, a change in aspect takes place: researchers of biosociality are more interested in social (sociotechnical) practices and their ontologies. Within the framework of this ontological turn, meanings of the term begin to gravitate towards the Deleuzian criticism of modern forms of biopower, addressed to components of the human body, not to the whole individual. Probably this methodological evolution may be associated with a change in the forms of socio-humanitarian effects of biotechnology over the past 25 years. We propose to perceive the distinction between the four forms of biosociality not as a classification of social phenomena, but as a set of theoretical constructs that can put in order the discussion about the social impact of emerging biotechnologies. Biosociality-1 is the defining of boundaries of social groups through fixing the genetic characteristics of their members – in this meaning term was first used by Paul Rabinow. Within the framework of biosociality-2 groups are no longer formed due to biological knowledge, but genetic differences make them fundamentally dissimilar. Biosociality-3 is associated with the unidirectional factors of heredity and the environment that strengthens the perception of genetic risks and predispositions. Biosociality-4 is described through the phenomenon of «genetic nocebo» - the restriction of the individual's capabilities and the transformation of his/her bodily experience. Studying the last of the given forms, minimizing the social risks associated with it, requires the participation of a humanities expert in the development of biotechnologies and practices of their application. This approach is basically in case of genetic counseling.