Paper short abstract:

In a comparative study of Austria, Finland, and Germany, we analyse the use of DNA testing for family reunification and show, that this practise emphasises biological notions of family and ancestry, causes mistrust against asylum seekers and new uncertainty with regards to the meaning of family.

Paper long abstract:

In 1991, Abby Lippman coined the term 'geneticisation' to designate the tendency that social structures and practices are more and more shaped by the explanatory models and rationalities of the new genetics. While the term has been used by many social scientists to analyse the social impact of genetics, the debate so far has predominantly focused on the medical sphere. It is our objective to extend the discussion by focusing on the emergence, institutionalisation and practice of DNA testing in the context of immigration. Today, many countries around the world have begun to use DNA testing to establish biological relatedness in family reunification cases. Family reunification refers to the right of family members living abroad to join relatives who hold long-term residence permits in a given country. In a comparative study of Austria, Finland, and Germany, we will investigate how DNA technology is used to 'verify' family relations and its impact on the concept of family.

We will argue that DNA testing for family reunification subscribes to a 'genetic inheritance ideology' (Finkler): Only biological relatives are eligible for family reunification - which excludes others, whose relation cannot be verified by DNA testing. Although applied to increase trust in foreigners' claims, the use of DNA testing comes along with a new level of mistrust and uncertainty with regard to the notion of parenthood and family. The argument is based on interviews with representatives of NGOs and immigration authorities, lawyers specialising immigration law, geneticists and those applying for family reunification.