No abstract

No abstract

The arrival of DNA paternity testing in the 1980s was met with great enthusiasm in the Brazilian courts. Yet, over the past two decades, Brazilian legal doctrine and jurisprudence have increasingly rejected DNA proof as the sine qua non for paternity cases. Instead, DNA paternity testing has generated mountains of litigation, as biological proof has been challenged by the argument that paternity is primarily “socio-affective”. Leading family law specialists describe this new conception of paternity as an outcome of the “revolutionary” provisions of the 1988 Constitution, which recognizes the “pluralism” of family forms in modern society and guarantees equal family rights for all children. Without denying the significance of the constitution’s dignitary framework, we show that new legal understandings of paternity represent less a paradigm shift than a continuation of longstanding historical tensions between biological and socio-cultural understandings of family and identity. In this article, we explore the development of biological and eventually genetic typing in Brazil, both of which had ties to the fields of criminology and race science. Our review suggests that techniques of biological identification, no matter how sophisticated or precise, were ineffective means for establishing identity, whether of individual personhood, as in the case of paternity, or national make-up. Instead, they became incorporated as supplemental methods into complex legal, social, and cultural decision-making around families.

Over the past decade, state agencies throughout Brazil have launched initiatives that aim to defend children's rights to their father's name. These initiatives take the form of discrete programs in different states, all of which seek to identify children who lack a paternal last name-an estimated 10-25 percent of all Brazilian children 1 -in hopes of finding their fathers and encouraging or

Vulnerability is a standard criterion used by state and non-governmental organizations to identify groups of people in need of protection or support. Over the past two decades, however, this notoriously ill-defined and potentially stigmatizing term has been subjected to scrutiny by researchers, service providers, and theorists across multiple disciplines. This study examines the relevance of vulnerability to the ways international feminist activists who were interviewed between 2003 and 2019 for the Global Feminisms Project (GFP) described their struggles for women's rights in various settings over the past 50 years. Citing examples from nine countries, we show that these activists rarely used the term vulnerable, and never to classify groups of people. Instead, they frequently explained how particular groups were subjected to precarious conditions, and how they resisted subjugation, within multiple layers of gendered social relations and political structures. Many activists connected their locally-grounded work to global historical processes, emphasizing particularly the impact of neo-liberalism. Although using different vocabularies, these analyses resonate with work by bioethicists and feminist/queer theorists who reject the use of vulnerability as a classificatory term but embrace it as a tool for analyzing subjugation, building solidarity, and challenging neo-liberal conceptions of individual autonomy.