Post by Admin on Apr 18, 2021 3:29:33 GMT
Analysis
In our interviews, we can discern two key signifiers—DNA and Viking—which in turn attract a number of other signs that form significative clusters. DNA attracts clusters with signs relating to corporeality (blood, hair, race, ethnic percentage), scientific evidence (confirmation, objectivity, truth), and lineage (ancestry, descent, family, haplogroup). Viking attracts clusters with signs denoting physical appearance (strong, tall, blond, bearded), geography-defined identity (Scandinavian, European, Northern, Northman), enterprise (war, conquering, exploring, trading), social character (warrior, berserker, survivor, entrepreneur), and personality traits (violent, fierce, capable, independent).
When our interviewees reflect on their experiences, the convergence of the key signifiers DNA and Viking generates a new discourse on geneticized Viking identity in which “Viking DNA” figures as a nodal point. The most striking feature of this discourse is that it combines “scientific” signs which relate to genetic analysis, evidence and corporeal material with signs relating to the Viking figure as articulated in historical narratives, politics and popular culture. As a consequence, the new discourse of geneticized identity facilitates an understanding of features that were once formulated for political, commercial or entertainment purposes, in popular culture or nationalistic propaganda—such as whiteness, violence, fierceness, innovativeness and entrepreneurship—as essentially connected with body fabric, and as qualities that are possible to trace, and scientifically prove the existence of, in the genomes of contemporary individuals. In this way, socio-historically constructed ideas about Vikings are naturalized as the innate qualities of individuals who possess certain genetic markers.
A close reading of the interviews transcripts reveals that the new discourse of geneticized Viking identity is characterized by points of consensus as well as disagreement. If some signs are fixed in the sense that all or most interviewees agree on their meaning, others are floating and subjects to diverging interpretations. Beginning with the latter, it is clear that the sign of “ethnic percentage” in relation to DNA and corporeality is contested. If some interviewees construct a steadfast identity out of the data provided by the ethnicity charts, others reject the charts as nonsensical scams. The same can be said about the sign “Viking” in relation to activities, social characteristics and personality traits. Here, there is a notable disagreement among the interviewees. Some tend towards signs denoting war and violence, while others speak of strength and survival, and yet others relate the Viking to signs of exploration, trade or entrepreneurship. In the interviews, the Viking figure is clearly constructed in accordance with the individual experiences, aspirations and emotions of our interviewees. The “market extremist” sees the Viking as an entrepreneur, and the “adventurer” perceives the Viking as an explorer. For interviewees with long-time experiences of violence and physical abuse, Vikings are warriors. These diverging—and sometimes contradictory—articulations show how the figure of the Viking is characterized by a semantic elasticity which allows it to be appropriated in order to explain and rationalize the lives of each individual. 6
When it comes to the fixed signs in the discourse of geneticized Viking identity, our interviews demonstrate a near complete consensus on the question of whiteness. The Viking, the interviewees agree, is characterized by physical traits such as being “blond,” “redheaded,” “bearded,” “tall” and having “light-fair hair and skin.” More generally, Viking identity is associated with being “Nordic,” “Norse-Gael,” “Swedish” or a “Northman.” Notwithstanding one interviewee’s suggestion that Vikings could be “blond, red-headed and even dark,” there are strong discursive articulations between the figure of the Viking and signs related to whiteness. While it is important to stress that such articulations do not per se make our interviewees’ racists or proponents of white supremacy, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the idea of having a genetic connection to Vikings could be understood as an indirect claim to what Ahmed (2007) calls “whiteness as an orientation,” and, consequently, to the prerogatives attached to the socio-historical hegemony of this orientation.
We also note a strong consensus on the epistemic meaning of DNA. In our interviews, DNA is described as an “objective” or “true” source of knowledge which “doesn’t lie.” Genetic genealogy is portrayed as having extraordinary epistemological possibilities, and all interviewees share strong hopes and expectations on DNA as an instrument for establishing Viking lineages. While some see GAT results as a way of confirming pre-existing childhood stories or family research theories about Viking ancestry, others take the DNA itself as a proxy for “being Viking” or “having Viking blood.” The latter position is expressed with particular clarity by one interviewee who explain that her GAT has revealed “who I am”—a statement in which her genetic composition is effectively equated with her existential being.
When it comes to the concrete ways in which GATs are used in the construction of Viking identities, our interviews reveal three distinct methods. First, some of the interviewees use “matches” to establish ancestral lineages and prove relatedness to Vikings. In these cases, the GAT becomes a complement to the methods of traditional genealogical research. While genetic technologies might confirm existing theories, it is not DNA as such that lays the foundation for the Viking identity, although it adds an important sense of truth to the identity claim.
Second, and perhaps most interestingly, several of our interviewees—all men—refer to haplogroups as the main indicator of Viking ancestry. By “belonging to” or “being” a haplogroup associated with Vikings, these men become Viking ancestors themselves. While haplogroups say little about genetic relatedness on an individual level—merely that individuals with the same group share one ancestor among the thousands who have left traces in a person’s genome (Brubaker 2018, 82)—they have here been rendered as socio-historical collectives with which GAT customers can identify. Here, we witness how a technical term used to denote a section of an individual’s Y- or mtDNA is transformed into a group of people to which individuals claim to belong (see also Hakenbeck 2019, 521; Panofsky and Donovan 2019, 670). A geneticized collective identity is created out of something which has never before been a social or historical unit.
Third, the interviews show how Viking identities are constructed through the ethnicity charts in the GATs. While these charts only reflect an individual’s genomic composition in relation to other customers of the same DTC company, several of our interviewees interpret them as factual representations of historical ancestries. When signs such as “91.5% Scandinavian” or “65% Swedish” are taken to be proofs of a de facto historical Viking ancestry, the ethnicity charts become instruments for the creation of geneticized identity. It should be safe to say that this phenomenon has been bolstered by DTC companies which actively market the ethnicity charts as a way of uncovering their customers’ “ancestry throughout human history” (DNAtestingchoice.com 2020).
In our interviews, we can discern two key signifiers—DNA and Viking—which in turn attract a number of other signs that form significative clusters. DNA attracts clusters with signs relating to corporeality (blood, hair, race, ethnic percentage), scientific evidence (confirmation, objectivity, truth), and lineage (ancestry, descent, family, haplogroup). Viking attracts clusters with signs denoting physical appearance (strong, tall, blond, bearded), geography-defined identity (Scandinavian, European, Northern, Northman), enterprise (war, conquering, exploring, trading), social character (warrior, berserker, survivor, entrepreneur), and personality traits (violent, fierce, capable, independent).
When our interviewees reflect on their experiences, the convergence of the key signifiers DNA and Viking generates a new discourse on geneticized Viking identity in which “Viking DNA” figures as a nodal point. The most striking feature of this discourse is that it combines “scientific” signs which relate to genetic analysis, evidence and corporeal material with signs relating to the Viking figure as articulated in historical narratives, politics and popular culture. As a consequence, the new discourse of geneticized identity facilitates an understanding of features that were once formulated for political, commercial or entertainment purposes, in popular culture or nationalistic propaganda—such as whiteness, violence, fierceness, innovativeness and entrepreneurship—as essentially connected with body fabric, and as qualities that are possible to trace, and scientifically prove the existence of, in the genomes of contemporary individuals. In this way, socio-historically constructed ideas about Vikings are naturalized as the innate qualities of individuals who possess certain genetic markers.
A close reading of the interviews transcripts reveals that the new discourse of geneticized Viking identity is characterized by points of consensus as well as disagreement. If some signs are fixed in the sense that all or most interviewees agree on their meaning, others are floating and subjects to diverging interpretations. Beginning with the latter, it is clear that the sign of “ethnic percentage” in relation to DNA and corporeality is contested. If some interviewees construct a steadfast identity out of the data provided by the ethnicity charts, others reject the charts as nonsensical scams. The same can be said about the sign “Viking” in relation to activities, social characteristics and personality traits. Here, there is a notable disagreement among the interviewees. Some tend towards signs denoting war and violence, while others speak of strength and survival, and yet others relate the Viking to signs of exploration, trade or entrepreneurship. In the interviews, the Viking figure is clearly constructed in accordance with the individual experiences, aspirations and emotions of our interviewees. The “market extremist” sees the Viking as an entrepreneur, and the “adventurer” perceives the Viking as an explorer. For interviewees with long-time experiences of violence and physical abuse, Vikings are warriors. These diverging—and sometimes contradictory—articulations show how the figure of the Viking is characterized by a semantic elasticity which allows it to be appropriated in order to explain and rationalize the lives of each individual. 6
When it comes to the fixed signs in the discourse of geneticized Viking identity, our interviews demonstrate a near complete consensus on the question of whiteness. The Viking, the interviewees agree, is characterized by physical traits such as being “blond,” “redheaded,” “bearded,” “tall” and having “light-fair hair and skin.” More generally, Viking identity is associated with being “Nordic,” “Norse-Gael,” “Swedish” or a “Northman.” Notwithstanding one interviewee’s suggestion that Vikings could be “blond, red-headed and even dark,” there are strong discursive articulations between the figure of the Viking and signs related to whiteness. While it is important to stress that such articulations do not per se make our interviewees’ racists or proponents of white supremacy, it should nevertheless be pointed out that the idea of having a genetic connection to Vikings could be understood as an indirect claim to what Ahmed (2007) calls “whiteness as an orientation,” and, consequently, to the prerogatives attached to the socio-historical hegemony of this orientation.
We also note a strong consensus on the epistemic meaning of DNA. In our interviews, DNA is described as an “objective” or “true” source of knowledge which “doesn’t lie.” Genetic genealogy is portrayed as having extraordinary epistemological possibilities, and all interviewees share strong hopes and expectations on DNA as an instrument for establishing Viking lineages. While some see GAT results as a way of confirming pre-existing childhood stories or family research theories about Viking ancestry, others take the DNA itself as a proxy for “being Viking” or “having Viking blood.” The latter position is expressed with particular clarity by one interviewee who explain that her GAT has revealed “who I am”—a statement in which her genetic composition is effectively equated with her existential being.
When it comes to the concrete ways in which GATs are used in the construction of Viking identities, our interviews reveal three distinct methods. First, some of the interviewees use “matches” to establish ancestral lineages and prove relatedness to Vikings. In these cases, the GAT becomes a complement to the methods of traditional genealogical research. While genetic technologies might confirm existing theories, it is not DNA as such that lays the foundation for the Viking identity, although it adds an important sense of truth to the identity claim.
Second, and perhaps most interestingly, several of our interviewees—all men—refer to haplogroups as the main indicator of Viking ancestry. By “belonging to” or “being” a haplogroup associated with Vikings, these men become Viking ancestors themselves. While haplogroups say little about genetic relatedness on an individual level—merely that individuals with the same group share one ancestor among the thousands who have left traces in a person’s genome (Brubaker 2018, 82)—they have here been rendered as socio-historical collectives with which GAT customers can identify. Here, we witness how a technical term used to denote a section of an individual’s Y- or mtDNA is transformed into a group of people to which individuals claim to belong (see also Hakenbeck 2019, 521; Panofsky and Donovan 2019, 670). A geneticized collective identity is created out of something which has never before been a social or historical unit.
Third, the interviews show how Viking identities are constructed through the ethnicity charts in the GATs. While these charts only reflect an individual’s genomic composition in relation to other customers of the same DTC company, several of our interviewees interpret them as factual representations of historical ancestries. When signs such as “91.5% Scandinavian” or “65% Swedish” are taken to be proofs of a de facto historical Viking ancestry, the ethnicity charts become instruments for the creation of geneticized identity. It should be safe to say that this phenomenon has been bolstered by DTC companies which actively market the ethnicity charts as a way of uncovering their customers’ “ancestry throughout human history” (DNAtestingchoice.com 2020).