Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:20:51.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Social bodies and social justice

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2019

Sam Lewis  and
Michael Thomson
Sam Lewis
Affiliation:
The Liberty Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
Michael Thomson*
Affiliation:
The Liberty Building, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK Faculty of Laws, University of Technology Sydney, Broadway, NSW, Australia
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: m.a.thomson@leeds.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper identifies and engages with the social bodies emerging by virtue of the social turn in the life sciences and recent embodied approaches to social justice. Across these diverse domains, bodies are being narrated as shaped by and dependent on their environments. To explore this potentially important and productive convergence, we bring Martha Fineman's vulnerability theory into conversation with neuroscience and environmental epigenetics. We foreground significant intersecting concerns and argue that vulnerability theory – and other embodied models of social justice – is strengthened by taking embodiment seriously, including attending to the social turn in the life sciences. This can enhance the potential traction of these progressive theories. These in turn provide an alternative theoretical framework to the neoliberal lens through which neuroscience and epigenetics have hitherto been translated into policy and practice. We nevertheless acknowledge the potential limitations and dangers of the current biopolitical landscape.

Keywords

socio-legal studiesneuroscienceepigeneticsvulnerability theorychild and family policy
Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Law in Context , Volume 15 , Special Issue 3: The Many Faces of ‘Style’ in Law and Legal Scholarship , September 2019 , pp. 344 - 361
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, G (2011a) Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Allen, G (2011b) Early Intervention: The Next Steps – An Independent Report to Her Majesty's Government. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
Allen, G and Duncan-Smith, I (2008) Early Intervention: Good Parents, Great Kids, Better Citizens. London: The Centre for Social Justice/The Smith Institute.Google Scholar
Bate, A and Foster, D (2017) Sure Start (England), House of Commons Library Briefing Paper No. 7257. London: House of Commons.Google Scholar
Beasley, C and Bacchi, C (2007) Envisaging a new politics for an ethical future: beyond trust, care and generosity – towards an ethic of social flesh. Feminist Theory 8, 279–298.Google Scholar
Beck, S and Niewöhner, J (2006) Somatographic investigations across levels of complexity. BioSocieties 1, 219–227.Google Scholar
Berlant, L (2011) Cruel Optimism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Broer, T and Pickersgill, M (2015) (Low) expectations, legitimization, and the contingent uses of scientific knowledge: engagements with neuroscience in Scottish social policy and services. Engaging Science, Technology, and Society 1, 47–66.Google Scholar
Bruer, JT (1999) The Myth of the First Three Years. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Bruer, JT (2011) Revisiting ‘The Myth of the First Three Years’, Briefing Paper to a conference at the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies, University of Kent, UK, 13–14 September 2011.Google Scholar
Butler, J (2005) Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence. London and New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Cameron, D (2016) Prime Minister's Speech on Life Chances. London: Prime Minister's Office.Google Scholar
Catley, P and Claydon, L (2015) The use of neuroscientific evidence in the courtroom by those accused of criminal offenses in England and Wales. Journal of Law and the Biosciences 2, 510–549.Google Scholar
Clarke, K (2006) Childhood, parenting and early intervention: a critical examination of the Sure Start national programme. Critical Social Policy 26, 699–721.Google Scholar
Clinton, H (1997) Remarks by the First Lady, in Remarks by the President and First Lady, White House Conference on Early Childhood Development and Learning, The White House, Washington. Available at https://clintonwhitehouse3.archives.gov/WH/New/ECDC/Remarks.html (accessed 18 February 2019).Google Scholar
Cohen, O et al. (2016) When is an adolescent an adult? Assessing cognitive control in emotional and nonemotional contexts. Psychological Science 27, 549–562.Google Scholar
Dietz, C (2018) Governing legal embodiment: on the limits of self-declaration. Feminist Legal Studies 26, 185–204.Google Scholar
Dolinoy, DC and Jirtle, RL (2008) Environmental epigenomics. Human Health and Disease Environmental and Molecular Mutagenesis 49, 4–8.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B, Kate, M and White, S (2014a) A marriage made in hell: early intervention meets child protection. British Journal of Social Work 44, 1735–1749.Google Scholar
Featherstone, B, White, S and Morris, K (2014b) Re-imaging Child Protection: Towards Humane Social Work with Families. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2008) The vulnerable subject: anchoring equality in the human condition. Yale Journal of Law and Feminism 20, 1.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2010) The vulnerable subject and the responsive state. Emory Law Journal 60, 251–275.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2012) ‘Elderly’ as vulnerable: rethinking the nature of individual and societal responsibility. Elder Law Review 17, 26.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2013) Equality, autonomy, and the vulnerable subject in law and politics. In Fineman, M and Grear, A (eds), Vulnerability: Reflections on a New Ethical Foundation for Law and Politics. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2014) Vulnerability, resilience, and LGBT youth. Temple Political & Civil Rights Law Review 23, 307.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2015) Vulnerability and the institution of marriage: the evolution of plural parentage: afterward. Emory Law Journal 64, 2088.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2017a) Introduction. In Fineman, M, Andersson, U and Mattsson, T (eds), Privatization, Vulnerability and Social Responsibility: A Comparative Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Fineman, M (2017b) Vulnerability and inevitable inequality. Oslo Law Review 4, 133–149.Google Scholar
Fitzgerald, D, Rose, N and Singh, I (2014) Urban life and mental health: revisiting politics society and biology. Discover Society 5, Available at http://discoversociety.org/category/issue-5/page/2/ (accessed 12 March 2019).Google Scholar
Foucault, M (1990) The History of Sexuality, Vol. 1: An Introduction. New York: Vintage.Google Scholar
Fox, M and Thomson, M (2017) Bodily integrity, embodiment, and the regulation of parental choice. Journal of Law and Society 44, 501–531.Google Scholar
Frederick, A (2017) Risky mothers and the Normalcy Project: women with disabilities negotiate scientific motherhood. Gender and Society 31, 74–95.Google Scholar
Fujimura, J (1987) Constructing ‘do-able’ problems in cancer research: articulating alignment. Social Studies of Science 17, 257–293.Google Scholar
Garlick, S (2014) The biopolitics of masturbation: masculinity, complexity, and security. Body & Society 20, 44–67.Google Scholar
Gillies, V, Edwards, R and Horsley, N (2016) Brave new brains. Sociology, Family and the Politics of Knowledge 64, 219–237.Google Scholar
Gillies, V, Edwards, R and Horsley, N (2017) Challenging the Politics of Early Intervention: Who's ‘Saving’ Children and Why? Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Goldblatt, B and Rai, SM (2017) Recognizing the full costs of care? Compensation for families in South Africa Silicosis class action. Social & Legal Studies 27, 671–694.Google Scholar
Gould, E et al. (1999) Neurogenesis in adulthood: a possible role in learning. Trends in Cognitive Science 3, 186–192.Google Scholar
Gustafson, KS (2011) Cheating Welfare: Public Assistance and the Criminalization of Poverty. New York: New York University.Google Scholar
Hair, NL, Hanson, JL, Wolfe, BL and Pollak, SD (2015) Association of Child Poverty, Brain Development, and Academic Achievement. JAMA Pediatrics 169, 822–829.Google Scholar
Haraway, D (2004) The Haraway Reader. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Karpin, I (2016) Regulatory responses to the gendering of transgenerational harm. Australian Feminist Studies 31, 139–153.Google Scholar
Karpin, I (2018) Vulnerability and the intergenerational transmission of psychosocial harm. Emory Law Journal 67, 1115–1134.Google Scholar
Keller, EF (2012) Genes, genomes, and genomics. Biological Theory 6, 132–140.Google Scholar
Keller, EF (2014) From gene action to reactive genomes. Journal of Physiology 592, 2423–2429.Google Scholar
Kucharski, R, Maleszka, J, Foret, S and Maleszka, R (2008) Nutritional control of reproductive status in honey bees via DNA methylation. Science 319, 1827–1830.Google Scholar
Latour, B (1987) Science in Action: How to Follow Scientists and Engineers Through Society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lock, M and Nguyen, VK (2010) An Anthropology of Biomedicine. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Loi, M, Del Savio, L and Stupka, E (2013) Social epigenetics and equality of opportunity. Public Health Ethics 6, 142–153.Google Scholar
Lowe, P (2016) Reproductive Health and Maternal Sacrifice. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lowe, P, Lee, E and Macvarish, J (2015) Growing better brains? Pregnancy and neuroscience discourses in English social and welfare policies. Health, Risk and Society 17, 15–29.Google Scholar
Lowenstein, DH and Parent, JP (1999) Brain, heal thyself. Science 283, 1126–1127.Google Scholar
Macvarish, J (2016) Neuroparenting: The Expert Invasion of Family Life. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Macvarish, J, Lee, E and Lowe, P (2014) The ‘First Three Years’ movement and the infant brain: a review of critiques. Sociology Compass 8, 792–804.Google Scholar
Marmott, M (2005) The Status Syndrome. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar
McGowan, PO et al. (2009) Epigenetic regulation of the glucocorticoid receptor in human brain associates with childhood abuse. Nature: Neuroscience 12, 342–348.Google Scholar
Meaney, M (2001) Maternal care, gene expression, and the transmission of individual differences in stress reactivity across generations. Annual Review of Neuroscience 24, 1161–1192.Google Scholar
Meloni, M (2014) How biology became social, and what it means for social theory. The Sociological Review 62, 593–614.Google Scholar
Meloni, M (2015) Epigenetics for the social sciences: justice, embodiment, and inheritance in the postgenomic age. New Genetics and Society 34, 125–151.Google Scholar
Morse, SJ (2006) Brain Overclaim Syndrome: a diagnostic note. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 3, 397–412.Google Scholar
Murphy, A (2011) Corporeal vulnerability and the new humanisms. Hypatia 26, 575–590.Google Scholar
Niewöhner, J (2011) Epigenetics: embedded bodies and the molecularisation of biography and milieu. BioSocieties 6, 279–298.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M (2011) Creating Capabilities. Harvard: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
O'Connell, K (2016) Unequal brains: disability discrimination laws and children with challenging behaviour. Medical Law Review 24, 76–98.Google Scholar
Oliver, M (1981) A new model in the social work role in relation to disability. In Campling, J (ed.), The Handicapped Person: A New Perspective for Social Workers. London: RADAR.Google Scholar
Oliver, M (1983) Social Work and Disabled People. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Oliver, M (2013) The social model of disability: thirty years on. Disability and Society 28, 1024.Google Scholar
Ortega, F (2009) The cerebral subject and the challenge of neurodiversity. Biosocieties 4, 425–445.Google Scholar
Painter, R et al. (2008) Transgenerational effects of prenatal exposure to the Dutch famine on neonatal adiposity and health in later life. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 115, 1243–1249.Google Scholar
Papadopoulos, D (2011) The imaginary of plasticity: neural embodiment, epigenetics and ectommorphs. Sociological Review 59, 433.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, M (2014) Neuroscience, epigenetics and the intergenerational transmission of social life: exploring expectations and engagements. Families, Relationships and Societies 3, 481–484.Google Scholar
Pickersgill, M et al. (2013) Mapping the new molecular landscape: social dimensions of epigenetics. New Genetics and Society 32, 429–447.Google Scholar
Richardson, S (2015) Maternal bodies in the postgenomic order: gender and the explanatory landscape of epigenetics. In Richards, S and Stevens, H (eds), Postgenomics: Perspectives on Biology after the Genome. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, C (2002) ‘A matter of embodied sex’: Sex hormones and the history of bodies. Feminist Theory 3, 7–26.Google Scholar
Roberts, R (2010) The social immorality of health in the gene age: race disability and inequality. In Metzl, J and Kirkland, A (eds), Against Health. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
Romani, M, Pistillo, MP and Banelli, B (2015) Environmental epigenetics: crossroad between public health, lifestyle, and cancer prevention. BioMed Research International doi:587983.Google Scholar
Rose, H and Rose, S (2016) Can Neuroscience Change Our Minds? Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N and Abi-Rached, J (2013) Neuro: The New Brain Sciences and the Management of the Mind. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Rose, N and Abi-Rached, J (2014) Governing through the brain: neuropolitics, neuroscience and subjectivity. Cambridge Anthropology 32, 3–23.Google Scholar
Rose, S (2005) ‘Psychocivilised’ or a band of neurochemical slaves. Times Higher Education [online]. Available at https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/psychocivilised-or-a-band-of-neurochemical-slaves/194363.article (accessed 7 April 2018).Google Scholar
Royal Society (2010) Brain Waves Module 4: Neurosciences and the Law. London: The Royal Society.Google Scholar
Science and Technology Committee (2018) Oral evidence: evidence-based early-years intervention, House of Commons C 506, 20 February. Available at http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/science-and-technology-committee/evidencebased-early-years-intervention/oral/79001.html (accessed 30 August 2018).Google Scholar
Sen, A (1980) Equality of what? In McMurrin, S (ed.), Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, G et al. (2018) Stop Start: Survival, Decline or Closure? Children's Centres in England, 2018. London: The Sutton Trust.Google Scholar
Vidal, F (2009) Brainhood, anthropological figure of modernity. History of the Human Sciences 22, 5.Google Scholar
Walsh, C (2011) Youth justice and neuroscience: a dual-use dilemma. British Journal of Criminology 51, 21–39.Google Scholar
Wastell, D and White, S (2012) Blinded by neuroscience: social policy, the family and the infant brain. Family, Relationships and Societies 1, 397–414.Google Scholar
Wastell, D and White, S (2017) Blinded by Science: The Social Implications of Epigenetics and Neuroscience. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Weaver, ICG et al. (2004) Epigenetic programming by maternal behavior. Nature Neuroscience 7, 847–854.Google Scholar
Wilkinson, R and Pickett, K (2011) The Spirit Level: Why Equality Is Better for Everyone. London: Penguin.Google Scholar