4.3 Article

Genetic Racialization: Ancestry Tests and the Reification of Race

Journal

SOCIAL PROBLEMS
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/socpro/spad056

Keywords

ancestry; ethnicity; genetic testing; race; social media

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article analyzes over 400 videos uploaded by consumers of DNA ancestry testing kits to uncover the implications of these services on social understandings of race and ethnicity. It finds that consumers engage in genetic racialization, emphasizing the importance of science, biologizing race and ethnicity, and omitting histories of colonialism and conquest.
While there has been a significant increase in the availability of DNA testing to identify one's ancestry, we know little about the implications of these services for everyday social meanings of race and ethnicity. Scholarship about ancestry testing generally focuses on the significance of DNA testing for individual consumers who lack access to genealogical history, often due to systemic racism and inequality. Drawing on an analysis of over 400 videos uploaded by people who have utilized DNA testing kits to uncover their ancestry, this article focuses on how ancestry testing is mediated in the public sphere and its implications for social understandings of race and ethnicity. We find that consumers of DNA-based ancestry testing engage in what we term genetic racialization, in which they emphasize the primacy of science to uncover their ancestral connections, and, by extension, biologize notions of race and ethnicity and omit histories of colonialism and conquest in the social construction of race. The vocabulary of blood provides a key framework from which individuals interpret their ancestry results and implicitly draw on colonial frameworks of blood quantum and purity to define what it means to belong to particular racial and ethnic groups.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available