The Rebel Fish cont.

As I spend the day setting up my new aquarium, I cannot help but ponder Lulu Miller's book 'Why Fish Don't Exist'. Am I delusional for thinking that what I have in my aquarium isn't really there? No. Her argument is not that 'fish' aren't real. Her argument is that the category 'fish' does not exist due to the massive diversity of biological features amongst fish. For instance, what we classify as a fish is a vertebrate that lives in water its entire life. Most fish have scales, fins and use gills to absorb oxygen from the water around them. However, not all aquatic species that appear intuitively to be fish are fish. For instance, whales, dolphins and porpoises are mammals.

While the science tells us one thing, our intuition tells us another. Our intuition tells us fish are fish. That when you see a fish you know it is a fish and that is all there is to it. One could justifiably argue from intuition that to dismiss fish as a category is simply pedanticism which does nothing to assist us in ordering or understanding our relations to 'fish'. For instance, imagine working as a fisherman and trying to explain what you just caught. Someone asks you 'what have you been doing all day' and you respond 'catching object 1, 2 and 3. What sort of response do you think you would get from the person asking? They haven't been given anything descriptive. Just a label that could be applied to anything. Talk about frustrating! Not surprisingly, the general population has not absorbed the fact that 'fish' do not exist as a category into their vocabulary.  

So why does it matter? What value is there in accepting that the category fish does not exist as a scientific fact? Through her investigation of David Star Jordan, Lulu Miller discovers a history within the scientific community that sought to understand the natural order of the world and who set about classifying and naming all its components (creatures, minerals etc) and placing them into a hierarchical order. One of the great failures of this system was that it ultimately put humans at the top and overlooked many of the evolutionary relationships between different species.

Lulu Miller points out that when Charles Darwin wrote the origin of species he challenged this hierarchical thinking. He demonstrated a way to order the world according to the evolutionary relationships between different species. However, while this approach led to the realization that 'fish' as a self-contained category of species do not exist, it was not without its own issues. Mostly, the issues were political. 

The taxonomic hierarchy which put humans at the top would see all the creatures below as a moral lesson for humanity as to what could happen to them should they follow their baser instincts. When Darwin's theories started to take hold the moral order of nature was thrown out and replaced with chaos and evolution of species based on the survival of the fittest. This change in thinking came about while David Starr Jordan was busy classifying the various species of fish in the sea. He willingly abandoned his prior teaching in the natural moral order of nature and adopted the Darwinian approach. However, in doing so he never quite made it to the realization that fish do not exist in such a system.

Instead, after classifying a 5th of all the 'fish' we know of today, David Starr Jordan took his classification skills and applied them to the human species. Declaring some to be 'unfit' for the production of progeny. He campaigned for a eugenics program that would sterilize those deemed to be 'unfit' for human society. His ideas gained much support. People feared that society would degenerate into imbeciles if sterilization of the 'unfit' did not take place. However, such thinking fails to take into account that survival of the fittest also requires genetic diversity. 

How does this relate to fish not existing? The classification of 'unfit' likewise does not exist as a scientific fact. By playing god, eugenics thwarts the evolutionary process by limiting the gene pool and therefore the ability for species to survive in the countless environmental situations they find themselves in. What the fish reminds us of is the value of diversity and the individual. That each individual, regardless of their characteristics, matters. That you and me and them or they matter. That we are not 'unfit' to breed. That we have a right to life. 

In this sense, the fish is a symbol of rebellion against those who would tell you that you are not worth anything. That you are insignificant. That you don't matter! What Lulu Miller uncovered, was that within the relationships between those that survived incarceration and forced sterilization for being deemed 'unfit', was love, joy, and life. These categorically 'unfit' people were having significant relationships with one another. Brightening each others day as they came to terms with the fact that their dreams of having children of their own had been forcibly taken away by those who thought they knew better. The fish reminds us to be humble. That not everything fits neatly into our systems of classification and that hierarchical thinking is doomed to turn against us. In short, you matter!

 

The Rebel Fish

Can we ever escape what we are and what we are destined to become? That's the question that is making itself known to me as I explore the very existence of fish. It is a question that finds relevance across the spheres of political and non-political human existence. For it makes its way through discussions of gender, class, race, truth and being. And as I explore even deeper into the significance of the fish, I find meaning in the idea of fish as rebel. Yes, you read that correctly! This humble and vulnerable creature has far more going on than can be seen on the surface. It's very existence challenges the human act of naming, of classification and in doing so challenges the sense of order that arises as a result of this. The fish as a rebel reveals a hierarchical thinking that has been used to dis-empower and subjugate those who don't fit neatly into a privileged category. Yes, this simple yet delicately complex creature is one of natures greatest rebels. Yet it is without voice. Indeed, who will let it speak? I hear you: just exactly how is it that a fish is natures greatest rebel? Well, for that knowledge you will have to wait. 

Our Ethics Application

As we progressed further along our path, we where required to make an ethics application, in order to access our individual genome information. The possibility that the university might refuse us permission to witness ourselves in the mirror of our genetic information was both offensive and frightening. The thought that companies could gain access to our genetic information with more ease than we could for our own personal research rang with a certain hypocrisy. Exactly what was the problem with us accessing this information about ourselves?: The threat that we might discover something about ourselves that we where not mentally equipped to handle. This threat was overcome by our assertion that we would undertake specialized genetic counselling should such an event occur. 

The other issue we had to address was who was to be titled the Chief Investigator for the project? The problem being that we were both falling into archetypal categories. David was the 'White Man' and I was the 'Indigenous Woman'. This was problematic as there is a history of 'white men' taking all the credit for research, while their indigenous and/or female workforce go without acknowledgement. We resolved this potential conflict through acknowledging that this dynamic exists, and mutually coming to an agreement that David would be titled the chief investigator within this collaboration. Partially, because I already had my Masters in Biological Arts and wanted to give David the opportunity to expand his profile into new territory. And partially, because the scientific aspect of the project would be largely managed by David in line with his qualifications in genetic science. 

However, for all this one question lay unanswered: who owns our genetic information at the completion of this project? The project was financially supported by SymbioticA, and made possible through the facilities at UWA. Does this give them a right to access and/or profit from our deeply personal information? If you have the answers please let us know. 

The Begining

 

 

PROJECT: Sequence the genome of Helah Milroy and David Whyatt to compare against the genome of the Zebrafish, in order to determine who is more 'fishy'. 

BACKGROUND: It all began with a discussion on the ins and outs of interpersonal relationships and the traumas that shape them. As we dug deeper into ourselves (and each other), the shadowy figures of the Mermaid and the Orphan began to emerge, connected by an invisible thread: a deep sense of being somehow unlovable and without voice. 

As our discussions proceeded, so too did our understanding of the interaction between human and non-human worlds, both tangibly and metaphorically. In particular, the relationship between humans and fish. Did you know that in WA you cannot legally speaking be cruel to a fish?  They are not a protected species under the Animal Welfare Act (2002). It was this revelation that got us thinking about the traumas affecting our interpersonal relationships. 

It raised many questions: was our seeming monstrosity, our un-lovableness, the effect of our being the subjects of cruelty? Or were we so unlovable that we could be said to have caused this cruelty against us? Exactly what gave people the right to treat us this way - like fish? And exactly how fishy were we? There was only one way to find out: DNA.