科學本質主義的復甦？基因科技、種族／族群與人群分類

The Revival of Scientific Essentialism? Genetic Technology, Race/Ethnicity, and Human Classification

蔡友月(Yu-Yueh Tsai)

《台灣社會學》 23期 (2012/06) Pp. 155-194

https://doi.org/10.6676/TS.2012.23.155

摘要

晚近生物醫學涉入人類起源、種族／族群分類與認同政治的現象，是一個新興而值得研究的議題。面對越來越多生物醫學家提出「科學證據」、宣稱族群間的生物差異時，本文強調社會學家不應只停留在強調族群的社會建構性質，而無視於分子生物醫學基因科技的新挑戰。本文的目的，在於綜合既有的研究文獻，分析、批判這個新興現象的主要性質與趨向、知識前提與操作邏輯等，希望有助於我們理解新一波科學研究與知識進展潛在的社會衝擊，並展示社會學面對基因科技的挑戰可能的貢獻與反省。本文首先釐清這個新興科學研究與知識進展帶來的兩個變化：種族／族群概念混淆，以及基因化、生物科技對國族建構的作用，並指出晚近的生物醫學強化了人群分類的本質化，潛藏的科學本質主義可能帶來不良的社會後果。接著本文從科學知識社會學的分析角度，從主觀認同與客觀身分、統計平均值與絕對類別、種族／族群內的變異與種族／族群間的變異、單一基因與複雜的社會因素、人群分類的生物標準與社會文化慣行五方面的各自區分，分析生物醫學關於種族／族群概念的操作邏輯、知識基礎，以及方法論與認識論上的限制與盲點。文章結論指出，科學難以完全隔絕政治、社會及文化的作用，生物醫學的種族／族群研究，凸顯出當代族群問題與認同政治的複雜性，社會學分析批判與科學社群交流對話的意義即在於形成不同典範的相互競爭與批評的「交叉檢查系統」，有助於加強我們對於種族／族群概念的認識論警覺，以避免將社會人群差異的本質化、集體認同基因化。

關鍵字

種族 ； 族群 ； 基因 ； 認同政治 ； 本質主義

並列摘要

Biomedicine's involvement in issues of human origins, racial/ethnic classification, and identity politics is new and worth studying. Focusing on increasing biomedical claims about racial/ethnic biological difference based on ＂scientific evidences,＂ this article emphasizes that sociologists must not limit themselves to dwelling on the social constructedness of race/ethnicity and turn their back on the new challenge that the genetic technology of biomedicine poses. With a view to explore the social impact that the new scientific trend brings and to demonstrate how sociology can contribute to understanding this trend, the article draws on existing research literature to analyze and critique the main characteristics of the growing phenomena, as well as the knowledge presumptions and logic of practice involved in them. First, the article examines two major changes the new scientific trend has brought about: the conceptual confusion about race and ethnicity and the effects of biotechnology on the construction of national identity. It also investigates the potential negative social consequences of scientific essentialism underlying the human classification buttressed by biomedicine. Second, from the vantage point of the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK), the article exposes the knowledge presumptions, logic of practice, and epistemological and methodological limits or fallacies latent in biomedical conceptions of race and ethnicity in terms of five aspects: subjective identity vs. objective classification, statistical mean vs. absolute categorization, intra-racial/ethnic variation vs. inter-racial/ethnic variation, a single genetic attribute vs. complex social factors, and biological criteria vs. socio-cultural conventions. In conclusion, the article contends that science is not free from political, social, and cultural influences, as attested by the biomedical involvement in the contemporary identity politics of race/ ethnicity. The article also highlights the importance of a ＂system of crosschecks＂ proposed by Pierre Bourdieu, which can be made possible by the dialogue between sociologists and biomedical scientists, for avoiding essentializing differences among social groups and geneticizing collective identity.

並列關鍵字

race ； ethnicity ； genetics ； identity politics ； essentialism

參考文獻

牛惠之、雷文玫(2003)。生物科技發展脈絡下之胚胎議題─一個法規範穩定思維的觀點。律師雜誌。285，30-46。

瞿海源編、王振寰編(1999)。社會學與台灣社會。台北:巨流。

劉宏恩(2005)。基因資料庫研究中的公眾信賴、商業介入與利益共享。台北大學法學論叢。57，367-393。

Abraham, Carolyn (2005) The New Science of Race. Globe and Mail, June 18

Adelman, Larry(2004).Race and Gene Studies: What Difference Makes a Difference? Race-The Power of an Illusion.California:California Newsreel.