Until the 1960s, Jewish and Israeli researchers used the concept of race in their work devoted to Jewish populations. Even today, tests DNA support the repatriation of populations – and colonization in the territories. Nadia Abu-El Haj’s latest work returns, sometimes without nuance, to the long duration of this genetic genealogy.
Nadia Abu-El Haj’s latest work is part of a growing series of works by researchers from several disciplines in the human and social sciences (history, sociology, anthropology) but joining in their anthropological approach, which analyze from one point from an epistemological and sociological point of view the research carried out over the past fifteen years on the human genome. While his previous book, Facts on the Ground: Archaeological Practice and Territorial Self-Fashioning in Israeli Society (University of Chicago Press, 2001), explored the links between science, archaeology, national identity and the production of historical knowledge in Israeli society, Nadia Abu-El Haj seems to extend the reflection by examining this time the relationships between another science, genetics or rather genetic genealogy ; identity not only national, but collective and individual ; and the production of historical knowledge on its “ bio-social identity » and its “ biogeographic ancestry » thanks to the human genome decoded like a historical archive. Its subject of study is centered on the numerous genetic research carried out on Jewish communities and on individuals seeking to (re)find Jewish origins, which confirms the author’s desire to continue the reflection on Jewish identity begun in his pioneering book. However, the author justifies her choice in a more pragmatic way, stating that “ studies on the origins of the Jewish people are a particularly fruitful angle for asking more general questions about the current phylogenetic turn » (p. 5) in the field of scientific research as in social practices. Detailing the economic and political circumstances which led Jewish communities to take an interest in these scientific projects earlier than others, she does not seem to give any particular weight to the fact that this community has been particularly defined for nearly two thousand years. by genealogical ancestry more than any other criterion, linguistic, cultural or ethnic.
The work begins with a long introduction that explains the origins and historical context of the emergence of the discipline called genetic anthropology or “ genetic history » (genetic history), in other words the use of genetics to describe the formation of human populations. Nadia Abu El-Haj adopts, like many social researchers before her, a critical stance on the epistemological foundations of this discipline and raises the socio-political and ethical problems that it raises. She then applies this critical method to the particular case of the study of Jewish populations, emblematic according to her of the problems of genealogical science.
Three historical moments in the questioning of the origin of the Jewish people
In the first three chapters of the book, the author traces the genealogy of contemporary genetic anthropology practices to examine how the epistemological and socio-political paradigms may have changed since the birth of “ race science » at the end of XIXe century until current research onDNA populations. It thus shows that at the time of questions about a possible racial determinism of populations which dominated scientific production from the end of the XIXe century, there were also Jewish scientists who favored the use of biology to essentialize Jewishness. According to the author, it was not only a question of providing a response to the racial anti-Semitism that was developing in scientific and social discourse but also of providing positive content with obvious political implications – campaigning for better assimilation of Jews to European populations for some, giving legitimization “ scientist » to the Zionist cause for others.
The author goes further by showing that the race paradigm had not been completely abandoned in the 1950s and 1960s through the scientific practices of population genetics – notably through the study of blood groups – after in the aftermath of the Second World War the “ race science » was totally discredited by its eugenic and Nazi misappropriation. Here again, Israeli researchers, drawing on the unique material of a population coming from the four corners of the world to populate the new Jewish State, aimed to affirm a unity “ national » behind obvious phenotypic differences.
Finally, in current practices which aim to demonstrate the existence of a “ people » distinct Jewish by studying paternal ancestry (markers present on the Y chromosome transmitted from father to son) or maternal ancestry (markers present in theDNA mitochondrial of cells transmitted from mother to daughter), the desire to distinguish oneself socio-politically as well as epistemologically from the discourse and practices linked to race is the most obvious – but remains, according to the author, always problematic.
Ending race ? On the liberal concept of “ choice » to be yourself…
Indeed, contemporary genetic studies attempt to distinguish themselves from racialist discourse and practices by first insisting on the existence and importance of diversity within a given population which would emerge following the internalization of norms. socio-cultural. The markers specific to Jewish populations could therefore be explained by the choice made, over several generations, of endogamous marriages or the perpetuation of cultural practices – this is how, for example, the presence of the haplogroup common to the Cohens is explained by the world, supposed according to Jewish tradition to descend from the same ancestor, the priest Aaron, brother of Moses. The concept of choice is therefore central to distinguishing the genetic history of racial thought: choice of ancestors who remained faithful to their faith and their traditions, of which we could now read the genetic translation in theDNA of their descendants in the manner of a historical archive – at least this is the way in which the scientific discourse deciphered by Nadia Abu El-Haj is formulated. But also the choice of those who undertake the scientific approach of this research which presents itself as politically and socially neutral. For its supporters, most often scientists who began by studying themselves (their own ancestry), it is not a question of carrying out this research for medical purposes – possibly looking for a predisposition of certain populations to certain diseases. – or differentialists – the scientific discourse insists on the fact that the markers studied are located in regions “ non-coding » of theDNAwhich would therefore have no phenotypic repercussions. The author shows on the contrary that this new scientist, immersed in a context of bio-medical science and claimed identity politics, presents himself both as a researcher “ objective » and at the same time interested in his ethno-religious origins.
Modern genetic science: its ethical and political consequences
However, this new science does not keep the promises of its speech. Its implications on the ethical and political levels remain, as does a certain kinship with the historical-biologizing discourse born with Darwin a century and a half earlier.
The ethical issue is raised by the commercial dimension of this science, which flourishes through private agencies specializing in genetic testing to find the ethnic origins of its clients (chapter 4). If in France this type of practice is currently prohibited, these American companies are flourishing on the internet and anyone can easily circumvent the law and submit their genetic material to these tests for a few hundred dollars. Here, personal choice is reflected not only by the decision to carry out or not this test and to explore its biological origins but also by the freedom to interpret results which are most often very vague. Thus, we can favor identifying with our African, Asian, Jewish or Viking origins, as these companies promise, both to celebrate the multiculturalism of our being and to find a trace of an ancestral lineage, a biological identity to which we decided to identify yourself. Therefore, the author wonders, is it still a real choice of identity when scientific discourse affirms that its authentic being resides entirely in its markers? DNA ?
Political questions are just as present in the contemporary applications of these genetic history practices despite the rhetorical precautions of their masters. The author analyzes (chapter 5) the political repercussions of genetic studies relating to supposed “ lost tribes » of Judaism, respectively in India, with the Bnei Menashe and in South Africa with the Lemba. By a mechanism of circular logic between the discovery, the clue and the proof, it is because these communities showed traces of cultural practices that could be related to Judaism that genetic tests were carried out on them, tests in reality not conclusive but interpreted according to the political and ideological imperatives of the communities interested in these tribes. In this case, an American Jewish organization, Kulanu, defends the Jewishness of the Lemba in the name of liberal, anti-racist and diasporic multiculturalism. However, the author notes the contradiction of this organization which supports the installation in Israel of these “ lost tribes “, thus playing into the hands of Israeli nationalist activists pleading the cause, in the name of the threats weighing on the Jewish State, of a necessary demographic population of Jewish settlements in the West Bank – the preferred destination of these populations when they emigrate to Israel because of of the less expensive nature of the installation of these families in these disputed territories. Finally, according to this logic, conversion to Judaism (in fact, these populations are encouraged to return to more “ orthodox » of the Jewish religion) begins to be seen as legitimate only because it ratifies a reality “ biological », thus bringing back the specter of race…
Nadia Abu El-Haj therefore offers fundamental critical insight into contemporary scientific practices which tend to forge new epistemologies and new ways of thinking about the individual. If she is not the first to take this critical look – and for a non-specialist in the discipline, it is sometimes difficult to follow her and to disentangle what is her own analysis from the commentary on studies that preceded her. – its originality lies in its desire to inscribe these contemporary practices over the long term in order to establish the ruptures and continuities of this archeology of genetic knowledge, which systematically takes up the Foucauldian concepts transposed here to genetics. The historian will, however, remain a little skeptical at times because the historical account sometimes lacks nuance, particularly when the question of the role played by anti-Semitism in the emergence of a “ Jewish science of race “. In the same way, as is often the case in the case of essays inscribed in the intellectual tradition of cultural studiesthe aspect of the reception of these scientific discourses is rather left aside, the author rather quickly assuming a fairly unanimously positive reception of this new genetic genealogy by the Jewish communities concerned and more generally by the general public. The work, however, remains an essential reference for those interested in the history and philosophy of science as well as contemporary questions about identity politics or the links between biology and history.