Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:24:40.813Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Biosocial Relations of Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 March 2009

Gísli Pálsson
Gísli Pálsson
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology, University of Iceland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Nowadays, life itself is one of the most active zones of capitalist production. Not only has biology been upgraded to Big Science, biological material and information are increasingly the subject of engineering, banking, reproduction, and exchange. The description and broad implications of the refiguring of life itself and its intrusion into economics and politics represent some of the most important issues on the academic agenda at the beginning of the twenty-first century (Pálsson 2007). Foucault's works on biopolitics (see, for instance, Foucault 1994) have obviously contributed critical insights with respect to the current refashioning of the human body, illuminating the political and governmental dimensions of these developments (Inda 2005; Rose 2006; Gottweis and Peterson 2008; Nowotny and Testa 2009; Lock and Nguyen 2009). Recently, a series of scholars have revisited the early writings of Marx, sometimes in combination with Foucauldian perspectives, in their attempt to make sense of the political economy of modern biotechnology, including the fragmenting of body parts and the labor process involved. One of the emerging themes in current discussions relates to the conception and role of labor in the reproduction of bodies and body parts. While Marx may not be an obvious source of innovative perspectives on the modern production of human biovalue, a somewhat unique industry that had not arrived in his time, his early works offer useful insights into contemporary developments.

Type
Research Article
Information
Comparative Studies in Society and History , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2009 , pp. 288 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Society for the Comparative Study of Society and History 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adkins, Lisa. 2005. The New Economy, Property and Personhood. Theory, Culture & Society 22, 1: 111–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Almeling, Rene. 2007. Selling Genes, Selling Gender: Egg Agencies, Sperm Banks, and the Medical Market in Genetic Material. American Sociological Review 72: 319–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. Introduction: Commodities and the Politics of Value. In, Appadurai, A., ed., The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Perspective. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 3–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arendt, Hannah. 1958. The Human Condition. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bamford, Sandra. 2007. Biology Unmoored: Melanesian Reflections on Life and Biotechnology. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bennett, John W. 1976. The Ecological Transition: Cultural Ecology and Human Adaptation. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
The Biosocial Society. 2007. http://www.biosocsoc.org/. Accessed 28 Aug.Google Scholar
Bird-David, Nurit. 2008. Feeding Nayaka Children and English Readers: A Bifocal Ethnography of Parental Feeding in “The Giving Environment.” Anthropological Quarterly (Summer): 523–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloch, Maurice. 1983. Marxism and Anthropology: The History of a Relationship. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Brightman, Robert. 1993. Grateful Prey: Rock Cree Human-Animal Relationships. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Canetti, Elias. 1984. The Numbered. A play. Stewart, Carol, trans. London: Marion Boyars.Google Scholar
Crichton, Michael. 2006. Next. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Davis, David Brion. 2001. In the Image of God: Religion, Moral Values, and Our Heritage of Slavery. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
deCODEme. 2008. http://www.decodeme.com/. Accessed 18 July.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. 1994. Specters of Marx: The State of the Debt, the Work of Mourning, and the New International. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dickenson, Donna. 2007. Property in the Body: Feminist Perspectives. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durkheim, Émile. 1971 [1912]. The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
Dyson, Freeman. 2007. Our Biotech Future. New York Review of Books, 19 July: 4–8.Google Scholar
Fisher, Melissa S. and Downey, Greg, eds. 2006. Frontiers of Capital: Ethnographic Reflections on the New Economy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1994. The Birth of Biopolitics. In, Paul Rabinow, ed., Foucault: Ethics, Subjectivity and Truth. Vol. 1. New York: The New Press, 73–79.Google Scholar
Franklin, Sarah. 2003. Re-Thinking Nature-Culture: Anthropology and the New Genetics. Anthropological Theory 3, 1: 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibbon, Sahra and Novas, Carlos. 2007. Introduction. In Gibbon, S. and Novas, C., eds., Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biosociality. London: Routledge, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottweis, Herbert and Peterson, Alan, eds. 2008. Biobanks: Governance in Comparative Perspective. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gottweis, Herbert and Triendl, Robert. 2006. South Korean Policy Failure and the Hwang Debacle. Nature Biotechnology 24, 2: 141–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hacking, Ian. 2006. Genetics, Biosocial Groups and the Future of Identity. Daedalus (Fall): 81–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haraway, Donna J. 2008. When Species Meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
Heath, Debora, Rapp, Rayna, and Taussig, Karen-Sue. 2004. Genetic Citizenship. In Nugent, David and Vincent, Joan, eds., A Companion to the Anthropology of Politics. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell Pub, 152–67.Google Scholar
Hoeyer, Klaus and Koch, Lene. 2006. The Ethics of Functional Genomics: Same, Same, but Different? Trends in Biotechnology 24, 9: 387–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inda, Jonathan Xavier, ed. 2005. Anthropologies of Modernity: Foucault, Governmentality, and Life Politics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ingold, Tim. 2001. From Complementarity to Obviation: On Dissolving the Boundaries between Social and Biological Anthropology, Archaeology, and Psychology. In, Oyama, Susan,Griffith, Paul E., and Gray, Russell D., eds., Cycles of Contingency: Developmental Systems and Evolution. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 255–79.Google Scholar
Journal of Biosocial Science. 2007. https://www.cambridge.org/journals/journal_catalogue.asp?mnemonic=JBS. Accessed 28 Aug.Google Scholar
Ketabgian, Tamara. 1997. The Human Prosthesis: Workers and Machines in the Victorian Industrial Scene. Critical Matrix 11: 5–32.Google Scholar
Knorr-Cetina, Karin. 1999. Epistemic Cultures: How the Sciences Make Knowledge. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landecker, Hannah. 2007. Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lefevere, André and Bassnett, Susan. 1990. Introduction: Proust's Grandmother and the Thousand and One Nights: The “Cultural” Turn in Translation Studies. In, Bassnett, S. and Lefevere, A., eds., Translation, History and Culture. London: Pinter Publishers, 1–13.Google Scholar
Lenler, Jens. 2007. Velkommen til, lille sensation. Politiken, 29 Aug: 4.Google Scholar
Lévi-Strauss, Claude and Eribon, Didier. 1991. Conversations with Claude Lévi-Strauss. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lock, Margaret. 2007. Human Body Parts as Therapeutic Tools: Contradictory Discourses and Transformed Subjectivities. In, Lock, M. and Farquhar, Judith, eds., Beyond the Body Proper: Reading the Anthropology of Material Life. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 224–31.Google Scholar
Lock, Margaret and Nguyen, Vinh-Kim. 2009. Vital Technologies: An Anthropology of Biomedicine. London and New York: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1959 [1884]. Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1884. In Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels: Collected Works, Vol. 3. Moscow: Progress Publishers.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl. 1976 [1867]. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, vol. 1, Fowkes, Ben, trans. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich. 1970 [1845]. The German Ideology. Edited with an introduction byArthur, C. J.. New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. 1973 [1934]. Techniques of the Body. Economy and Society 2: 70–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mauss, Marcel. 1979 [1906]. Seasonal Variations of the Eskimo: A Study in Social Morphology. In collaboration with Beuchat, Henri. Fox, J. A., trans. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Michaels, Meredith W. 1999. Fetal Galaxies: Some Questions about What We See. In, Morgan, Lynn M. and Michaels, M. W., eds., Fetal Subjects, Feminist Positions. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moseley, Walter. 2002. Futureland. New York: Aspect.Google Scholar
Neumann-Held, Eva M. and Rehmann-Sutter, Christoph. 2006. Introduction. In Neumann-Held, E. M. and Rehmann-Sutter, C., eds., Genes in Development: Re-Reading the Molecular Paradigm. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nowotny, Helga and Testa, Giuseppe. 2009. Die gläsernen Gene: Gesellschaftliche Optionen im molekularen Zeitalter. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.Google Scholar
Pálsson, Gísli. 2007. Anthropology and the New Genetics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pálsson, Gísli. 2008. Genomic Anthropology: Coming in from the Cold? Current Anthropology 49, 4: 545–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pálsson, Gísli. 2009. Celestial Bodies: Lucy in the Sky. In, Codignola, Luca and Schrogl, Kai-Uwe, eds., in collaboration with A. Lukaszyk and N. Peter, Humans in Outer Space: Interdisciplinary Odysses. New York: Springer, 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papagaroufali, Eleni. 1996. Xenotransplantation and Transgenesis: Im-moral Stories about Human-Animal Relations in the West. In, Descola, Philippe and Pálsson, Gísli, eds., Nature and Society: Anthropological Perspectives. London: Routledge, 240–55.Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul. 1996. Essays on the Anthropology of Reason. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul. 2007. Afterword: Concept Work. In, Gibbon, Sahra and Novas, Carlos, eds., Genetics and the Social Sciences: Making Biosociality. London: Routledge, 188–92.Google Scholar
Rabinow, Paul. 2008. Marking Time: On the Anthropology of the Contemporary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rheinberger, Hans-Jörg. 2000 [1995/1996]. Beyond Nature and Culture: Modes of Reasoning in the Age of Molecular Biology and Medicine. In, Lock, MargaretYoung, Allan, and Cambrosio, Alberto, eds., Living and Working with the New Medical Technologies: Intersections of Inquiry. New York: Cambridge University Press, 19–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, D. F. 1970. Review of Journal of Biosocial Science, Vol. I, 1. Man (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute) 5, 1: 133–34.Google Scholar
Rose, Nikolas. 2006. The Politics of Life Itself: Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First Century. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Russell, Edmund. 2004. The Garden in the Machine: Toward an Evolutionary History of Technology. In, Schrepfer, Susan R. and Scranton, Philip, eds., Industrializing Organisms: Introducing Evolutionary History. New York: Routledge, 1–16.Google Scholar
Scheper-Hughes, Nancy. 2000. The Global Traffic in Human Organs. Current Anthropology 41, 2: 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, Alfred. 1973. The Concept of Nature in Marx. London: NLB.Google Scholar
Schneider, Ingrid. 2003. Gesellschaftliche Umgangsweisen mit Keimzellen: Regulation zwischen Gabe, Verkauf und Unveräußerlichkeit. In, Graumann, Sigrid and Schneider, I., eds., Verkörperte Technik—Entkörperte Frau: Biopolitik und Geschlecht. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Campus, 41–65.Google Scholar
Sharp, Lesley A. 2000. The Commodification of the Body and Its Parts. Annual Review of Anthropology 29: 287–328.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squier, Susan. 2004. Liminal Lives: Imagining the Human at the Frontiers of Biomedicine. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Spiegel, Marjorie. 1988. The Dreaded Comparison: Human and Animal Slavery. London: Heretic Books.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1980. No Nature, No Culture: The Hagen Case. In, MacCormack, Carol and Strathern, M., eds., Nature, Culture and Gender. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 174–222.Google Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 1996. Cutting the Network. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 2, 3: 517–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strathern, Marilyn. 2005. Kinship, Law and the Unexpected: Relatives Are Always a Surprise. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunder Rajan, Kaushik. 2006. Biocapital: The Constitution of Postgenomic Life. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Tapper, Richard. 1988. Animality, Humanity, Morality, Society. In, Ingold, Tim, ed., What Is an Animal? London: Unwin Hyman, 47–62.Google Scholar
Thacker, Eugene. 2005. The Global Genome: Biotechnology, Politics, and Culture. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Thompson, Charis. 2005. Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Viveiros de Castro, Eduardo. 1998. Cosmological Deixis and Amerindian Perspectivism. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 4: 469–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waldby, Catherine and Mitchell, Robert. 2006. Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Wexler, Alice. 1995. Mapping Fate: A Memoir of Family, Risk, and Genetic Research. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
23andMe. 2008. https://www.23andme.com/. Accessed 18 July.Google Scholar