On Nov 23, 2007, at 2:16 PM, Miles Jackson wrote:
> Explaining sociostructural factors in terms of individual qualities is
> essentially American. The rich are rich and the poor are poor because
> of their individual traits.
But redemption and self-improvement are part of the whole package. My chuck-out shelf is full of books like that. Obviously this shit has big appeal though.
I was just reading some op-ed rant by Watson that wants to use genetic testing to filter loons out of the workforce:
<http://comment.independent.co.uk/commentators/article3075642.ece>
> One in three people looking for a job in temporary employment
> bureaux in Los Angeles is a psychopath or a sociopath. Is this a
> consequence of their environment or their genetic components? DNA
> sequencing should give us the answer. The thought that some people
> are innately wicked disturbs me. But science is not here to make us
> feel good. It is to answer questions in the service of knowledge
> and greater understanding.
You could imagine "innately wicked" coming out some desiccated New England parson, but still, Christianity is about redemption too. As Zizek says, that's its contribution to radical thought - that we're not destined by our place in the great chain of being. It's one thing to talk about a gene that codes the production of a protein, but to think there's a gene that makes us innately wicked is crazy scary. This genetic determinism wants to convert an influence into a fate.
Doug