Paper short abstract:

This paper focuses on how biohackers are compared (be it to gentleman amateurs, terrorists, the punk movement, Steve Jobs, and the Homebrew Computer Club). It will problematize the kinds of effects such comparisons afford.

Paper long abstract:

This paper focuses on how, and to what, biohackers are compared. This is a challenging question, for as we will see in this paper, biohackers are compared to rather unlikely bedfellows such as gentleman amateurs, terrorists, the punk movement, Steve Jobs, and the Homebrew Computer Club. Not only are plentiful comparisons being made, but they are also drawn between different cultures and times, and between different — sometimes opposing —values and ethics. Why are such comparisons mobilised and why are such unlikely figures put side-by-side? What kinds of effects do such comparisons afford? How should we analyse these comparisons?

These comparisons produce several outcomes. They render a new and unfamiliar identity more familiar, and thereby do 'identity-work'. They do so by offering spatial, cultural, and temporal genealogies and frames of reference. In addition, such heterogeneous comparisons provide a variety of interpretational registers which are sometimes related, but are often also dualistic and oppositional. This, then, renders the figure of biohackers as particularly intriguing, ambiguous, controversial, and discussable. As a contribution to the STS literature, I will argue that comparisons need to be empirically traced and embraced by scholars. If the actors studied provide comparison (even seemingly anachronistic and unlikely ones), scholars should closely follow such practices of comparison themselves. They can and should follow what these comparisons do and provoke, without a priori assessing their appropriateness.