Genetics, Mass Media and Identity

A Case Study of the Genetic Research on the Lemba

Tudor Parfitt, Yulia Egorova

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• ISBN:
  9781134189106
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Scienze biologiche
• Subtopic: Genetica e genomica

This is the first book to explore the effect of genetic research on the Lemba Judaising community of Southern Africa and the phenomenon of Israelite identity.

The science of genetics as relayed by the media is perceived by laymen as being irreproachably objective 'hard science': its disinterested 'scientific' findings appear immensely impressive and may therefore act as a powerful catalyst for change. In this case, an oral tradition cherished by many of the Lemba that they are of Jewish origin appears to be supported by recent DNA testing, which has deeply affected the narrative and religious identity of the group and the way the tribe is perceived in the Western world.

International in appeal, this topical text brings together cutting-edge research on the social, cultural and ethical implications of genetics and the study of Judaising movements across the world. This book will be of interest to researchers and students of Jewish history, genetic anthropology, race and ethnicity studies, and religious and cultural studies.

1 Introduction

How much can our genes tell us about where we are from and what we basically are? Can they tell us anything about our religion and our culture? According to some outstandingly well-placed observers the message of our genes is pretty reductive. James Watson, for instance, observes ‘The double helix is an elegant structure, but its message is downright prosaic: life is simply a matter of chemistry’ (Watson 2004: xx). Indeed a striking achievement of modernism is the overall success of the natural sciences in explaining a whole swathe of human conditions, not least the condition posited by the enlightenment that all men are equal, that our shared and common humanity can be reduced to an ultimate chemical basis. At the same time it may be perceived that the rapid development of genetic science is in many ways anti-modernist: many of the supposed differences in peoples, nations and sexes appear to find some sort of corroboration in the differences found in both group and individual genetic make-up. This book looks at the effects of genetic tests which had as their aim the solution to the mystery of the origin of two small communities – the Lemba of southern Africa and the Bene Israel of western India – both of whom have an uncertain and ambiguous historical tradition.

It will be shown that perceptions of genetic research very substantially bolster and modify issues of group self-identity and in addition provide ammunition both for conservative forces in the preservation of their prejudices and for liberal groups who seek the elimination of differences among peoples. Paul Brodwin and Carl Elliott have maintained in a recent article that ‘tracing genetic identity can lead to resolution of uncertainty but can cause more problems than it solves’ (Elliott and Brodwin 2002). Perhaps this is true but probably it is too early to say. In fact, for the moment, little research has been devoted to determine the impact of genetic testing on individual and group identity and it is this gap in knowledge that this present book is endeavouring to address. Certainly over the last few years a number of famous test cases linking genetics and identity have emerged and these have been widely discussed although their impact upon the populations and individuals concerned have not been subjected to close scrutiny. The case of the Lemba tribe of southern Africa is one of the most frequently cited. In this case, an oral tradition cherished by many of the tribe that they are of Jewish origin appears to be supported by genetic research. This has had an impact on the way the tribe is viewed and on the way they perceive themselves. There are a number of other well-known cases. One of these and perhaps the most celebrated is that of the corroboration of the claims of some African Americans to be direct descendants of the US President Thomas Jefferson and his slave mistress Sally Hemings (Foster et al. 1998; Davis 2002). This may have had some impact upon the identity of the families concerned and perhaps upon the identity of other African Americans in the United States. Another well-known case emerged in June 2002 with the announcement of the results of genetic testing on a ‘mixed ancestry’ group of mysterious origin in eastern Tennessee and Virginia known as the Melungeons (Price 1951; Reed 1997; Balloch 2002). As Carl Elliott puts it: ‘many Tennesseans grew up thinking that Melungeons were moonshiners and counterfeiters, that they had six fingers on each hand, and that when they emerged from the hills and hollows, it was to capture misbehaving children.’ Melungeons were variously said to be descendants of runaway slaves, gypsies, a lost tribe of Israel, ancient Carthaginians or American Indians. Another theory maintained that they were the descendants of Raleigh’s Lost Colony which had intermarried with a tribe of Croatan Indians. The genetic testing, broadly speaking, confirmed the Melungeons’ own oral tradition which is that they were of Portuguese origin (actually the genetic markers suggested that the ancestry of the group studied consisted of 5 per cent native American, 5 per cent African and 90 per cent ‘Eurasian’ – a vague group that includes the populations of India, the Middle East and Europe) (Elliott 2003: 18). It may be that the results will have had some impact upon identity issues within the group.

These attempts to prove origins or seek out information from the past concerning issues of descent are not in themselves unique: there is a long history of the use of various methodologies from genealogical research to measuring cranium size to prove that an individual belongs to a given group. The so-called ‘one drop’ rule in the American south in which anyone suspected of having even a drop of ‘black blood’ was rendered illegible for an array of legal advantages, led to appropriate measures being taken to prove whiteness. In more recent times great efforts have been made in the United States and Canada by native Americans to prove their membership of a given tribe (often great financial benefit may be derived from tribal membership). In both cases a provable genetic identity could impact on political and ethnic identity.

A question posed by Elliott and Brodwin is whether the possession of certain genetic markers in any way makes you any more English, or Sioux, or Jeffersonian? (Elliott and Brodwin 2002: 1469). This question it seems to us is not entirely the question which should be posed. Indeed there are two questions which are not, strictly speaking, linked. One is that the current methodologies for genetically determining the origin of groups are based on a minuscule sample of overall biological inheritance. The other is the extent to which lay readings of such genetic research affect issues of identity. This too is an issue which this book will be dealing with in some detail. As Hauskeller observed, recent research has demonstrated that the complexity of human genomes is such that even in those cases when they are identical in sequence, they may not always be identical in effect (e.g. as studies on twins have shown, inherited diseases may become expressed in one twin but not in another) (Hauskeller 2004: 296). Hence her conclusion is that society should ‘give up the idea that molecular biology can deliver the material foundation for concepts of what being human is and what it should be’ (Hauskeller 2004: 297). As Brodwin and Elliott point out, the technology currently being used in population genetics is based on the fact that from one generation to the next neither Y chromosomes (found in men) nor mitochondrial DNA (found in men and women) tell us anything about an individual’s ancestry except for the single line going back from son to father to paternal grandfather and so on or from son or daughter to mother to maternal grandmother and so on. Thus if one went back just four generations, analysis of the Y chromosome would reveal material belonging to only one of a male’s sixteen direct ancestors, that is, his great great grandfather. In other words current techniques actually tell you very little about your relationship with the vast majority of your ancestors and if this is the case, why should a DNA test have any impact at all on your identity? In response to this Brodwin and Elliott remark:

[I]dentities have hung on far more slender genetic threads than this. Just as it once took only a single genetic line to disqualify a person from being counted as white in the American south, today it takes only a single genetic line to connect a person to the British Royal Family, to get him or her a German passport, or to qualify him or her as a member of the Jewish Cohanim.

(Elliott and Brodwin 2002: 1470)

Two years ago, after a bitter monetary dispute, the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma passed a resolution that will effectively expel most black Seminoles, or Seminole Freedmen. The Freedmen are the descendants of former slaves who fought alongside the Seminoles in the Seminole Wars and who have been officially recognised as members of the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma since 1866. The new constitution says that to be a part of the tribe, a person must show that he or she has one-eighth Seminole blood (Glaberson 2001; Johnston 2003). In other words the fact of being able to establish a particular genetic line, if you will, can have specific legal or political results. As we shall see, the knowledge of a specific connection even where it has no immediate, objective benefit can still have a considerable effect.

A particular difficulty which we shall be discussing is the question of who decides who is a member of a group. In the case of the Lemba, is it they who decide on the basis of their reading of the genetic results that they are Jewish – or is it only the Jewish rabbinate who can decide? In the case of native Americans, who is best able to read and interpret genetic results? As Brodwin and Elliott point out ‘the US federal government has one set of rules, enshrined in law, and individual native American tribes have others. Genetics (or “blood quantum”) has one role in one set of rules and another quite different role in others’ (Elliott and Brodwin 2002: 1470).

A further difficulty is deciding the relative weight given to genetic evidence over other sorts of evidence, from oral history to conventional genealogy. No doubt tests that prove something a given group wants to have proved will be more eagerly accepted and therefore have more impact than negative results, as we shall be arguing. In the case of Thomas Jefferson’s descendants there was a general consensus that the DNA evidence was overwhelmingly likely to confirm the claims of the descendants of Eston Hemings while it failed to support the claims of the descendants of Thomas Woodson, another of Sally Hemings’ children who is supposed to be Jefferson’s illegitimate son. But should genetics be taken as the final and decisive arbiter of such cases? As Dena Davis remarks:

the Jefferson–Hemings saga teaches us that even when DNA evidence is completely certain and immune to controversy, all it can tell us is the facts. How those facts are shaped, how the story is told, is out of the hands of scientists and may ultimately prove to be the more important question.

(Davis 2002: 207)

In other words, the way the results are presented, let us say by the media, and the way these presentations are converted into group narratives play a supreme role in the way genetics actually impacts on issues of group identity. In our current work we see that the presentation of genetic data by the media was crucial in the formation of group narratives among the Lemba and the Bene Israel who celebrated the results in somewhat different ways.

The means by which an understanding of genetics feeds into conceptions of other people’s ‘essentiality’ places the project in the theoretical area of constructions of ‘otherness’ which has been developed in cultural and social studies (e.g. Hall, Saussure, Derrida, Bakhtin, Foucault, Saïd, Mary Douglas etc.). The idea that ‘otherness’ is not linked to biology appears impossible for most people. However the contemporary discourse around population genetics concentrates on inter-group difference and this is particularly so in the case of Jewish populations. This is ironic and even galling given that the main thrust of the genomic revolution has been to show that all human groups are virtually indistinguishable.

Some of the theoretical implications of this project have to do with notions of Jewish physicality, which have been brilliantly analysed by sociologist Sander Gilman (Gilman 1986, 1991). One issue is the persistent notion that Jews are actually black which has relevance for the discourses surrounding some target groups. This discussion will be rooted in an awareness of the long tradition of anthropological discussion of kinship, fictive kinship and related topics (Holy 1996; Stone 1997; Carsten 2000; Stone 2001). The impact of genetics upon laymen’s understanding of ‘racial’ and ethnic differences and the development of contemporary notions of Jewish identity are linked by a certain tension within Judaism and within Jewish society. On the one hand, Jews proclaim that Judaism has nothing to do with genetic descent; on the other it clearly does, as the rabbinic definition of a Jew is someone born of a Jewish mother, who in turn is Jewish because she was born of a Jewish mother. It is also possible to convert to Judaism but this in practice, at least historically, rarely happened (at different times conversion to Judaism from Christianity and Islam was punishable by death). This being the case, is Judaism as a religion particularly vulnerable to pressures emanating from genetic discourses? It may very well be that Zionism, a modern, essentially secular doctrine, has inherited some of the vulnerability within Judaism which has been exploited by its detractors in, for instance, the United Nations resolution equating Zionism with Racism (the famous 1975 ‘ZR’ resolution).

From early mediaeval times the Jews have attempted to define their identity and peoplehood both in an abstract, more or less theological way, and also to determine their outer limits. Who belonged to this people? Where did they live? How different were remote groups of this people? What were their histories? The writings of Eldad ha-Dani,¹ the ninth century Jewish traveller and romancer, the twelfth century traveller Benjamin of Tudelah² and many others held a fascination for Jews in mediaeval and later times largely because of the glimpses they gave or purported to give of the life of marginal members of the Jewish people in remote parts of the world. Groups that claimed Jewish status through conversion, such as the Khazars (Koestler 1976) in the ninth century or the Himyarites³ five centuries earlier, fared badly in early Jewish historiography: they were almost totally ignored. But equally remote groups with an imagined bloodline to the Jewish people were of great interest.

The outer edge, if you like, of this imagined blood-community always included the Lost Tribes of Israel shimmering faintly over the horizon of the known world whose ongoing reality was taken to be axiomatic by the majority of Jews until fairly recent times. Whether different groups throughout the world – for instance the North and South American Indians – formed a part of this people or not was a heated debate among both Christians and Jews from the beginning of colonial intervention in the Americas. Similarly, the periodic sightings of representatives of the Lost Tribes in various other parts of the world caused great, even messianic excitement as the conventional geography of the Jewish people was challenged or asserted. Over the last century or so the further away a given group of exotic claimants to membership of the Jewish people were, the greater the interest other Jews had in them. Currently, one of the most studied Jewish groups is the minuscule handful in Kaifeng in China about whom a colossal amount has been written as two recent bibliographies indicate. The two recent and substantial bibliographies on the Falashas of Ethiopia, mostly containing works written by Jews, similarly denote a fierce interest by Jews in the Jewish periphery which may be perceived as the frontier of the Jewish people – that is the ultimate line that divides them from others.⁴

The two groups under discussion here form part of this periphery. In the case of the Bene Israel (meaning Children of Israel) of western India whose origins have always been something of a mystery,⁵ they were marginally present in the consciousness of the Jewish people from about the first half of the nineteenth century to about 1948, and for the last fifty years, since the migration of the majority of the community to Israel, they have been somewhat more central. In the case of the Lemba they have been marginally present for perhaps five years and for a tiny number of Ashkenazi Jews, living in what was the Transvaal, who had come across members of the Lemba tribe and heard the claims advanced by them and on their behalf, they were present almost as a joke for much of this century.

Jewish scholarly efforts to define the peoplehood of the Jews including the periphery date back some centuries. Recent efforts in the same direction have included a substantial number of genetic studies dealing with the origin of various Jewish and would-be Jewish groups (see Chapter 3). One issue which links the Lemba and the Bene Israel is the way in which the study of genetics has been perceived by Jews and others as supplying appropriate tools to explain their past in the ongoing attempt to include or reject peripheral groups in the family of Israel. A further area of similarity which links these two case studies is the fairly intense media discussion which accompanied the release of the genetic studies. In both cases the media reporting of the research has impacted substantially on the community in question. The construction of the essential differences (‘othering’) of peoples and groups through media presentation of genetic data has a powerful impact. Media studies have contributed to our understanding of ethnic perceptions (Dijk 1993: 242) and the relaying of genetic information in the media may be seen in this context. In ‘Imagined Genetic Communities’ the anthropologist Bob Simpson (2000: 3) made a contribution to our understanding of ‘genetic essentialism’ and a part of this project will be to scrutinise media reports in the light of this and other work in the social sciences.⁶

The book treats the media images and reinterpretation of the DNA tests in question as being quite independent of the research and its findings. We support Jose van Dijck’s conclusion that ‘[i]deological tenets have always shaped the cultural forms and (narrative) conventions by means of which we make sense of new developments in science and technology’ (Dijck 1998: 4); however, we do not entirely agree with her suggestion that ‘there has never been a distinct separation between science and its images’ (Dijck 1998: 196). It is not within the scope of this book or within the competence of the authors to engage in detail with the ‘pure science’ of the tests in question. Recent decades have witnessed the growth of scholarship grounded in the perspectives of anthropology, sociology, cultural and critical theory and the history of science demonstrating the culturally mediated nature of both science in general and of genetics and molecular biology in particular (see Harding 1992; Spanier 1995; Haraway 1997; Keller 2000; Harding 2003 to name just a few). This book uses such concepts in its analysis of the way the research questions on the Lemba and Bene Israel genetic studies were formulated and the way their results were disseminated; however, it will not be trying to contest their findings on the ‘scientific’ level. Rather it will concentrate on the fact that the carrying out of the tests and the various media reports of the tests produced certain effects on the people researched which was somewhat independent of the ‘science’.

In the course of this project we conducted interviews, distributed questionnaires, analysed the mass media representations of the genetic tests in question and participated in community events. The interviews were conducted during our trips to South Africa, Zimbabwe and India. In South Africa and Zimbabwe we had a number of key informants whom Tudor Parfitt visited several times over the past fifteen years. During our trip to India in 2002 we attended two community events devoted to the genetic research involving about 100 Bene Israel in the first case and 50 in the second. The first event had a two-hour question-and-answer session with the participants, which enabled them to express their views of the tests and their results.

We also distributed and got back 94 filled in questionnaires from the Bene Israel and 100 from the Lemba. Each questionnaire contained about 100 questions on a variety of issues regarding the respondents’ view of the genetic tests conducted in their community and about their ethnic, cultural and religious affiliation (see Chapters 6 and 8). The respondents were invited to write their answers and return them to us. Practically all the questions were open-ended which allowed our informants to express their views in their own words. In processing the results of the questionnaires we treated them as narratives and applied to them a qualitative approach. Though our analysis contains some basic quantitative elements (we try to give rough estimations of the ‘majority’ and the ‘minority’ views on certain issues), this is not a statistical study.

The same methodological tools were used in working with the interviews and mass media reports. As far as the mass media materials are concerned they have been collected since 1998 in case of the Lemba tests and represent a variety of clippings from Western, South African and Israeli press, popular and semi-academic publications, TV documentaries and numerous websites. The tests conducted on the Bene Israel have been mediated in the Indian press and we have attempted to collect all the articles available. The following is a brief outline of the structure of the book.

The second chapter deals with the wider issues raised in the study of the social, ethical and cultural implications of genetics, which will later appear in our discussion of the tests on the Lemba and the Bene Israel. We will demonstrate that the topic of genetics has attracted the attention of scholars coming from a variety of humanities and social science disciplines and will outline the main themes in their discussion of the general effect of genetics on the concept of being human and the nurture/nature debate. It may be suggested that the leading voice in this discussion is that of philosophers and social theorists who have dealt with the ethical implications of biotechnology and medical practices arising out of genetic research. Needless to say this type of engagement with the topic is extremely relevant to the subject of our study, which looks mainly at the implications of DNA testing for target communities rather than the ‘pure science’ behind the tests. The second part of this chapter deals specifically with research in population genetics. Again, we examine the main issues regarding the implications of this research – some of them population-based testing shares with genetic studies in general and others are specific only to this type of research. It will be demonstrated that i...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Acknowledgements
• 1 Introduction
• 2 Between Art and Science
• 3 Jews and Genetics
• 4 Are Jews Black?
• 5 The Lemba
• 6 The Lemba Tests
• 7 The Bene Israel
• 8 Genetic Research on the Bene Israel
• 9 Conclusion
• Notes
• Bibliography