Getting Bigger: Children's Bodies, Genes and Environments
Getting Bigger: Children's Bodies, Genes and Environments
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1467-954x.2010.01912.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-05
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
K. Throsby;C. Roberts
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. Throsby;C. Roberts
任何关于遗传学的讨论都不可避免地与关于自然的论述联系在一起--这是一个充满道德色彩的概念，具有沉重的规范意义。“自然地”做一些事情（怀孕，分娩，减肥）就是按照应该做的方式去做。“自然”，然后，很容易与“正常”省略;它是，正如Evelyn Keller（2008：119）阐明的那样，“既是一个事实，也是一个价值”。但是，所谓“自然”也可以理解为在没有干预或环境影响的情况下发生的事情，促进了“自然”与其头韵对立面“养育”的配对--弗朗西斯高尔顿将其描述为“生长发生的环境”（高尔顿，引自凯勒，2008年：122）。遗传学为探索先天与后天之间的关系提供了一个主要的场所;事实上，凯勒将遗传学描述为“先天与后天之争的中心话语”。（Keller，2008：121），先天/后天形成了一个基本的划分，通常被概念化为“一个适当的起点”。（凯勒，2008年：122）的病因调查到一系列的身体状况的问题。凯勒认为，遗传学与自然的持久等式支撑了这一“起点”，掩盖了一个更根本的问题，即“什么是超越自然或自然之外的”（凯勒，2008：117-24）。也就是说，那些被认为不是自然的东西可以被分配给“非自然”的东西，（即“在自然之外或超越自然，物理的，内部的或自发形成的”（Keller，2008：122-2））或“非自然的”（即“不符合自然本身，但规范（或期望）的具体性质”（Keller，2008：123））。我们认为，这种与“非自然”的联系为思考规范或道德背景开辟了一个空间，在这种背景下，自然和养育（遗传学和环境）之间的界限被划分出来，并随后开发了材料（通常是临床）干预措施。凯勒对自然培育方程中“培育”所包含的内容的质疑，标志着试图描述疾病因果关系中基因和环境的核心特征--
Any discussion of genetics is inevitably bound up in discourses of nature – a morally laden concept which is heavy with normative meaning. To do something ‘naturally’ (conception, childbirth, weight loss) is to do it the way it should be done. ‘Natural’, then, elides easily with ‘normal’; it is, as Evelyn Keller (2008: 119) articulates, ‘both a fact and a value’. But what is deemed ‘natural’ can also be understood as something that happens without intervention or environmental infl uence, facilitating the pairing of ‘nature’ with its alliterative opposite, ‘nurture’ – what Francis Galton described as ‘the environment amid which the growth takes place’ (Galton, cited in Keller, 2008: 122). Genetics has provided a primary site for exploring the relationship between nature and nurture; indeed, Keller describes genetics as ‘the central discourse of the nature-nurture controversy’ (Keller, 2008: 121), with nature/nurture forming a fundamental division that is commonly conceptualized as ‘an appropriate starting point’ (Keller, 2008: 122) for aetiological investigations into a range of problematized bodily conditions. Keller argues that the enduring equation of genetics with nature that underpins this ‘starting point’ obscures a much more fundamental question about ‘what is beyond or outside of nature’ (Keller, 2008: 117–24). That is, that which is deemed not natural can be allocated either to the ‘non-natural’ (ie ‘outside or beyond nature, the physical, the internal or the spontaneously formed’ (Keller, 2008: 122–2)) or to the ‘unnatural’ (that which ‘fails to conform not simply to nature per se, but the norms (or expectations) of specifi c natures’ (Keller, 2008: 123)). This connection to the ‘unnatural’, we argue, opens up a space for thinking about the normative or moral context within which demarcations between nature and nurture (genetics and environments) are drawn, and ensuing material (often clinical) interventions developed. Keller’s interrogation of what is included within ‘nurture’ in the naturenurture equation signals a core feature of attempts to delineate genes and environments in disease causation – the expansiveness of the category of