Chapters 3 and 4 of the
Wagner peel away the apolitical and objective exterior to the DNA technology
used in Srebrenica and expose a series of moments in the identification process
where subjective human collection and analysis of “data” or use of discretion are
embedded into the allegedly ‘blind’ scientific process. Wagner writes, “It is precisely the subjective
nature of human knowledge that has made this application of DNA technology both
innovative and successful.” The missing victims of the 1995 Genocide take
different forms in the different “tracks” of absence for the different parties
involved in restoring their identity. Although all the parties willingly work together
and their collaboration is necessary for the identification process, their
differentiated roles and motivations in piecing together the victims’ identity can
create points of friction. It made me think about division of labor and how it
is touted as a paragon of efficiency without considering the long term
consequences of the ensuing alienation.
In Srebrenica, the process
of identification involved both individuating and collectivizing the victims’
identities for sometimes corresponding collective and individual goals. It is
tempting to focus on the ways in which the identification efforts provided
solace to the surviving family members, but that was only a part of the reason
why the international community mobilized such massive resources for the multi-decade
project. In President Clinton’s speech announcing the United States’ starting
contribution of $2 million to the identification efforts, he doesn’t mention
the Bosniak population by name. This is just one example of a trend of
depoliticizing an immensely political humanitarian effort through strategic
choices when designing the “institution” of identification. Although there were
several efficiency-orientated reasons to “blind” the samples through barcodes, the
parties involved in the identification efforts weren’t ignorant of way this
abstracted process mollified potentially angry Bosnian Serbs and facilitated
the cooperation of people who might otherwise be indicted by the identification
of thousands of brutally murdered bodies.
Even though the introduction
of the DNA technology was what exponentially increased the efficiency and
success of identification, the family members’ response to identifying matches
wasn’t simply rooted in the “fact” of the match. The antemortem data
complicated all layers of the identification project. The addition of tangible
identifying elements like scraps of clothing was often times key for a certain
kind of emotional acceptance of the loss of the identified. The parties
involved took extensive measures to demystify the science behind the DNA technology,
but the obtaining of signatures signing off on an identification required a
kind of un-scientific concession on the part of the survivors. Wagner was
surprised to learn that even the “no-nonsense director” of the Women of
Srebrenica had gone to a reading by a fortune teller to learn about the fate of
her loved ones while still giving blood and participating in the scientific DNA
process. The survivors “traveled a long road of varied truth claims” and
official, emotional, and rational acceptance required or at least were more
easily induced by different kinds of “proof.” The scientific method and
scientific accomplishments are generally lauded for their basis in empiricism and
their rejection of faith-driven conclusions, but for all but the scientists
themselves, accepting the science requires a leap of faith. From this
perspective, we can understand the relationship between the services of a fortune
teller and a visit from ICMP and shed assumptions about their inherent
incompatibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment