Eugenics & New Genetics

Eugenics & New Genetics 

Having read the article Eugenics and the New Genetics in Britain by Anne Kerr, Sarah  Cunningham-Burley and Amanda Amos, I came to discover a completely different point  on the subject of genetics than the one I previously had instilled in me. Over the past few  years I've heard quite a bit about the new genetics movement and I recently learned  about the eugenics of the 20th century (thanks in part to a political science class I took)  and its detriments to society. I've been fixated with the idea that new genetics could  possibly be a positive one that could have great benefits for society, but as I read this  article I deciphered the language used by the group of scientist and clinicians and, like the  writers, I discovered parallels to the propagandistic language used the scientists and  clinicians of the new genetics movement and the old eugenics movement advocates. As I  was reading I agreed with many of the points presented by the scientists and clinicians  that champion the new genetics movement but noticed the stark difference they wanted  to make clear between eugenics and new genetics. The writers of the article posed really  thought provoking comparisons in the rhetoric used by eugenics scientists and the new  genetics scientist. Intrinsically, I compared the two differing arguments and came to the  conclusion that they are similar in some ways, but at the end of the day, societal  pressures do play a role in determining whether one chooses to abort or alter a fetus. The  new genetics scientists made the argument that eugenics was part of totalitarian  governments, but as the writers point out, it also occurred in the U.S.  and continues in a  mutated form The disdain that society places on the ill and disabled, in addition to the  financial struggles faced by many, makes individual choice a bit clouded and blurred and  the techniques used in counseling lean toward pressuring patients and that puts in on par  with the forced eugenics movement. As disability activists argue, it's the same old thing  but aimed at the disabled and those with behavioral and genetic diseases. I agree with  the writers that the arguments posed by the scientists in favor of new genetics are very  well positioned and their rhetoric serves as a vehicle to distance new genetics from  eugenics. However, I also agree that it is, in essence, much of the same rhetoric that was  used during the eugenics movement but with different wording and emphasis, so I think  that greater and more sophisticated research must be conducted in order to prevent any  possible abuse with the new genetics movement.

Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish, Panopticism

Michel Foucault, Discipline & Punish, Panopticism 

The reading, "Panopticism" from Discipline and Punish by Michel Foucault, is a captivating  one because it explores the historical parallels with prisons of today. I found the  beginning of the piece to be really interesting because I was not aware of the tremendous  impact and severity of the plague and how it controlled life with extreme precision. The  fact that Foucault correlated the imprisonment of people during the plague to the inception  and running of prisons kept my attention firmly in place because it shows just how brutal  prisons really are. Foucault mentions dungeons and their purposes and goes on to explain  the mechanics behind Bentham's Panopticon and it was truly startling to know that it not  only employed a method used in dungeons but also made it impossible for the prisoner to  be hidden or have any sort of interaction. This system makes it possible for prisoners to  be watched at all times while being enclosed and unable to escape, it creates a sort of zoo  where the prisoner is being watched like an animal, but differs in that they have no  means of interaction. In parallel with Orwell's "1984", Foucault's piece speaks of the  detrimental aspects of imprisonment both during the plague and in modern prisons. As in  "1984", Foucault explains the notion of a prisoner being watched over at all times, being  under surveillance by 'big brother' and its effects on prisoners or those being under  surveillance at all times. I found this piece to be a bit disturbing because it gave very  grave details surrounding the treatment of people during the plague and compared that  same treatment to the way that prisoners in a prison system are treated. This piece  offered insight to me because I was not aware of just how deprived prisoners really are  when they are in solitude, stripped of their rights, and constantly being monitored. I  believe Foucault did an excellent job in comparing and providing a historical context to  prison systems that have emerged since the time of the plague.

The Politics Of Utopia

The Politics of Utopia  The Frederic Jameson excerpt, "The Politics Of Utopia", is one which illustrates very valid  points and also served as a wake up call for me personally. Jameson defines utopia as  something that isn't tangible and that means different things for different people. I happen  to agree with that because utopia can be quite different from one person to another. For  example, one person might think of utopia as a physical location where their deepest  desires are met with ease, while another person might think of utopia as an inner,  emotional state of nirvana. Jameson also makes great use of comparison and contrast  throughout the excerpt to showcase the great contradictions within the idea of utopia and  society in general throughout history. I found it very  that Jameson included a wide array  of sources and examples that have occurred throughout history in order to illustrate his  points such as the ongoing clash taking place between social classes and their differing  and coinciding outlooks on utopia. I really enjoyed reading the dissection of quotes from  great thinkers such as Freud and Marx in order to show the complex nature of the idea of  utopia. One of the important points that Jameson attempted to make was that utopia is an  ever evolving concept that has changes, as society has, throughout history. As Jameson  states, utopia is in parallel with the idea of human nature, an idea that is not 'natural' as  many are led to believe, but one that is man made and shifts with time. Utopia can be  seen under a similar light because it is an idea that has plagued humans forever and one  that, like others have stated, seems unattainable due to its complexity and its ambiguity  amongst different people and societies. Another important aspect of the excerpt is the  argument that is made about the contradiction between utopians seeking to sever ties  with politics but also being dependent upon politics at the same time. As Jameson states,  any substantial revolutions have been on the brink of occurring but end up not occurring  due to our inherit dependence on politics. When a looming revolution is in the horizon we  tend to focus on very specific issues and that diminishing the overall need for a revolution  and that leads to a cycle of conformity and dependence on a system that we sought to  abolish. I think that Jameson makes excellent points and vividly illustrates our innate  tendency to be walking and breathing contradictions, both in our thoughts and in our  actions. The idea of utopia is a perfect example of our inner contradictions and of our  individuality because, as Jameson states, we all have a different (but sometimes united)  vision of a utopian state and it changes within ourselves and within the larger society as  well. Overall, I think the excerpt from the Jameson book was excellent and it made great  use of comparisons and contrasts to drive the point home.