Yesterday, I read NYT's piece on swapped identical twins The Mixed Up Brothers of Bogota. It was a compelling and fascinating read, as the comments on the article attest, and there are so many aspects to consider but I keep coming back to why?
What makes something compelling?
Yes, this article has the dream telenovela-ness to it. The story of identical twins who are switched at birth, in this case creating two sets of fraternal twins, is so good that even Shakespeare embraced it as a plot device in Comedy of Errors. Who doesn't love a good mistaken identity story?
But there is something more. Susan Dominus spends a fair amount of the article talking about the science of twins, or the research related to twins. She brings up ideas of nature and nurture along with current thinking around epigenetics. That ability to connect this personal story to larger ideas of science becomes critical in building an understanding of why this story matters. What are the larger implications, which is the fundamental "so what?" question we often draw on. She does this artfully in the organizational structure of the piece. She starts with discovery, encounter, revelation then moves to science. Then back to the narrative of consequences of those revelations and more narrative. It's a similar structure to what Atul Gawande does in his writing, one that I find appealing. A little bit of narrative makes the informational writing go down.
For me, also, this story is so riveting because there are implications about where the root of our personal successes may lie. As a country built on the post-Enlightenment ideals of rugged individualism, we believe that personal success is related to our own individual resilience and work ethic (which is the same idea that makes it so hard to understand what privilege is). We might believe that there is a genetic component, but we rarely acknowledge the environmental.
Here, then, is a story about four men who are encountering the direct effect of fate, as a Classicist may say, in their lives. Would William be different if he had been raised with his "true" mother (and let's let that sit there for a while, that difficulty in understanding what "true" parenthood and family are) in the city as opposed to the crushing grind of poverty in the country. Doors closed because of his environment while for Carlos they opened.
I can't begin to understand the emotions that this news must have brought. What happens when you are faced with the fact that you've been screwed by "fate"? Does it explain things or make you feel rage or both?
To me, that wondering, the sense of what this all means is precisely what makes for a compelling read.I prefer work that brings up questions, about our place in the world or how things work and what implications might be for further thinking. This article definitely brings all of those wonderings to the fore.
I am now thinking about how I might pair this up with other pieces in order to teach. Obviously the Comedy of Errors connection is ripe. But what else might I use? I wonder if it would be good for something on family? And if so what? I definitely will think about teaching it this year.
