The Local, the ‘Indigenous’ and the Limits of Rethinking Peacebuilding

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. This is the accepted manuscript version of an article which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1080/17502977.2021.1882755Recent critical perspectives on peacebuilding have sought to shed light on experiences so far marginalized by mainstream approaches. In particular, critics have pushed peacebuilding towards radically different ways of thinking about governance, conflict and peace, by engaging with narratives, experiences and knowledge coming from societies perceived as not invested in modernity or liberalism, such as Indigenous communities. Whilst this may force theory to confront questions of human-centrism, colonial erasure, and structural violence, turning to Indigeneity without questioning the impact of liberal peace ‘thinking', might further elicit marginalization and appropriation, and simply ‘save’ liberal peacebuilding through the back door.Peer reviewe

Genomic research, publics and experts in Latin America: Nation, race and body

The articles in this issue highlight contributions that studies of Latin America can make to wider debates about the effects of genomic science on public ideas about race and nation. We argue that current ideas about the power of genomics to transfigure and transform existing ways of thinking about human diversity are often overstated. If a range of social contexts are examined, the effects are uneven. Our data show that genomic knowledge can unsettle and reinforce ideas of nation and race; it can be both banal and highly politicized. In this introduction, we outline concepts of genetic knowledge in society; theories of genetics, nation and race; approaches to public understandings of science; and the Latin American contexts of transnational ideas of nation and race

Regional differences in awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing for disease risk and ancestry

Little is known about the lay public’s awareness and attitudes concerning genetic testing and what factors influence their perspectives. The existing literature focuses mainly on ethnic and socioeconomic differences; however, here we focus on how awareness and attitudes regarding genetic testing differ by geographical regions in the US. We compared awareness and attitudes concerning genetic testing for disease risk and ancestry among 452 adults (41% Black and 67% female) in four major US cities, Norman, OK; Cincinnati, OH; Harlem, NY; and Washington, DC; prior to their participation in genetic ancestry testing. The OK participants reported more detail about their personal ancestries (p = 0.02) and valued ancestry testing over disease testing more than all other sites (p < 0.01). The NY participants were more likely than other sites to seek genetic testing for disease (p = 0.01) and to see benefit in finding out more about one’s ancestry (p = 0.02), while the DC participants reported reading and hearing more about genetic testing for African ancestry than all other sites (p < 0.01). These site differences were not better accounted for by sex, age, education, self-reported ethnicity, religion, or previous experience with genetic testing/counseling. Regional differences in awareness and attitudes transcend traditional demographic predictors, such as ethnicity, age and education. Local sociocultural factors, more than ethnicity and socioeconomic status, may influence the public’s awareness and belief systems, particularly with respect to genetics