Jon_C_memo_15

A lot of what scientists do is to linguistically distinguish between different kinds/types (in the anthropological sense) of things, putting them into categories, teasing out the nuances between them and configuring them into a cohesive system of knowing. I see this mode of thinking in my research on several levels -- informing and contorting each of my categories of interest. Perhaps this is easy to see when people distinguish between races, using biologically-rich descriptions to delineate between their physical "features," and ascribing the social to them. However, it is a little bit harder to notice this same thing happening within my other focus: disciplinary formation. When scientists are trying to make a niche for themselves, they are forced to distinguish themselves from other disciplines, they need to do a unique kind of research, with unique methods, but they still borrow much from other disciplines and the broader cultural contexts in which they inhabit. Thus there is both a similarity and dissimilarity between their new discipline and the old one(s) from where they developed. If I look at my data through a lens of "distinguishing kinds/types," I should see a similarity between disciplinary formation, and the discourse of race.
 * Core Categories**
 * 1 - "Race"**

If I look at disciplinary formation through a lens of "nature vs nurture," I can see how disciplines are formed based on their distinctions of what the role of both of these are in research. For example, a high-energy physicist would most likely say that "it is all nature" when discussing their research, attributing all of their discoveries to an almost-exact reading of nature, with very little influence of culture. However, a biologist, who lives in a muckier epistemological zone, might see that both nature and culture make equal contributions to their research. What my research will examine is the formation of this divide within epigeneticists, whose conceptions of nature and culture are already shifting from their scientific predecessors. Within the treatment of race, this divide is much more obvious. Most conceptions of race include both a natural and a cultural component, but on the far end of racist biological determinists, culture is inscribed totally within nature. The development of new "nature through nurture" science in epigenetics, racist arguments for biological determinism are bolstered, and I hope that my data shows some resistance to this by epigeneticists who are acutely aware of the implications of their research.
 * 2 - "Nature vs Nurture" (or "Nature vs Culture")**