Feminist Perspectives on Motherhood and Reproduction

Author(s): Gerda Neyer and Laura Bernardi

Source: Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung, Vol. 36, No. 2 (136), Fertility in
the History of the 20th Century: Trends, Theories, Policies, Discourses / Fertilität in der
Geschichte des 20. Jahrhunderts: Trends, Theorien, Politik, Diskurse (2011), pp. 162-176
Published by: GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences, Center for Historical Social
Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41151279
Accessed: 23-01-2016 02:44 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

GESIS - Leibniz-Institute for the Social Sciences, Center for Historical Social Research is collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Historical Social Research / Historische Sozialforschung.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Feminist on
Perspectives
Motherhood
andReproduction

*
GerdaNeyer& Laura Bernardi
Abstract:»Feministische Perspektiven zu Mutterschaft und Reproduktion«.
Motherhood and reproduction have been at thecore of thefeministdiscourse
aboutwomen'srightsever since its onset.For the firstand secondfeminist
movements, the rightto abortionand the public recognition of motherhood
havebeenmainissuesin thediscourseon reproduction. Sincethelasttwodec-
ades of the20thcentury, thepotentialsof assistedreproductivetechnologies
(ART) haveopenedup newvenuesoffeminist discourse.
In thispaperwe sketchthe main feministlines of argumentation regarding
motherhood andreproduction sincethe1970s,andwe identify specificshiftsin
theirrecurrentissues.We arguethatan essentialcontribution of feminism to
theunderstanding of motherhood as a structuringcategoryhas been its insis-
tenceon thedistinction betweenbiologicaland social motherhood. Feminist
discourseshowshow ART has further decomposedbiologicalmotherhood and
has alteredthe meaningof motherhood and reproduction.Feministanalysis
maintains thatdespitetherhetoricof choicesurrounding ART, thesetechnolo-
gies havenotincreasedwomen'sreproductive freedom.The decomposition of
biologicalmotherhood, the medical,legal, and commercial development of re-
production,and thechangein thesocial perception of motherhood have rather
establishednewformsofcontroloverfemalereproduction.
Keywords:reproduction, motherhood, feminism, ART (or assistedreproduc-
tiontechnologies),feminism, feministdiscourse.

1. Introduction
Reproduction and motherhood have been at the core of the feministand
women's movements eversincetheiremergence. And from thestart,
reproduc-
tionandmotherhood havebeenhighly contestedissues- bothwithinthefemi-
nistmovements andbeyond.Yet,overthepast30 years,AssistedReproductive
Technology (ART) hasfundamentally alteredthewaysofreproduction andthe
perceptionof it,as ART has gainedin importancenotonly forindividual
pro-
butalsoforpopulation
creation, development. ARThasopenedup thepossibil-
ityofchildbearing to groupsofwomenandmenwhodidnothavethisoption
*
Addressall communications to: GerdaNeyer,StockholmUniversity, Dept. of Sociology,
Demography Unit,10691,Stockholm, Sweden;e-mail:gerda.neyer@sociology.su.se.
LauraBernardi, Universitéde Lausanne,Facultédes sciencessocialeset politiques,Institut
des sciencessociales,BâtimentVidy353, 1015Lausanne,Switzerland;
e-mail:Laura.Bernardi@unil.ch.

HistoricalSocial Research,Vol. 36 - 2011 - No. 2, 162-176

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
before, suchas sub-fecund andinfertile women,to womenandmenwithother
healthproblems, to gays,lesbians,and transsexuals, and to womenbeyond
menopause.Since thelate 1970s,about3.75 millionbabieswerebornafter
ART treatment worldwide (ESHRE 2010).Despitethefactthatthesuccessrate
of ART (thatis therateof livebirthsaftertreatment) lies at onlyabout30%
(Center for Disease Control and Preventions2010), is assumedthatmore
it
thanhalfof theestimated 9% of infertilewomen(aged 20-44)willseekART
treatment. This will amountto about40.5 millionwomenundergoing ART
treatment worldwide (Boivinet al. 2007). WithART accounting forcurrently
betweenabout1% and 4% of thebirthratesin Europeancountries (ESHRE
2010; Sobotkaet al. 2008),someresearchers regardART as a viablemethod
within a population policymixthataimstoincreasefertility (Grantetal. 2006).
Theeffects ofART on fertility trends havealreadybeenvisibleforsometime:
Multiple births haveincreased duetothepractice oftransferring morethanone
embryoto theuterus(Hoem and Strandberg 2004) and childbearing at ages
above45 and in particular above50 has beenrising(Billariet al 2007). The
changesbrought aboutby ART at theindividual and thesocietallevelhave
fuellednewdiscoursesand controversies overmotherhood, childbearing, and
reproduction, and over the implications of ART for women and for gender
relationships ontheprivate, societal,andgloballevel.1
In thispaperwe present themainlinesofargument andthemainviewpoints
appearing in Post-WorldWarII feminist discourseon motherhood andrepro-
duction. Ourintention is to depictessentialchangesin theperception andrea-
soningbrought aboutbythedevelopment ofART. Withitsfocuson theconse-
quencesof ART forprocreation, forwomen's(and men's) lives acrossthe
world,on theperception and socialrepresentation of motherhood, parenthood
andreproduction, thefeminist discourse - morethanotherdiscourses - reflect
thesocialandgendertransformations duetoART. Thediscourse thuspointsto
implications ofART whichreachfarbeyonditseffects on individual childbear-
ing behavior and population The
development. plethora of contributions to the
feminist literature on thistopicand thebroadspectrum of approaches, argu-
ments, andperspectives makeit impossible to givea completeaccountof the
development, content, and features of thefeminist discourseon reproduction
andmotherhood in therangeof one paper.Noris itpossibleto detailthedis-
coursesaboutthevariousprocessesandtechniques ofART. Ourreadingofthe
feminist literature sincethe 1970shas convincedus thatdespiteadvancesin
ART andin feminist reflections aboutthem,it is justifiedto present thelatter
without reference to thespecificARTs,albeitthiscomesat thecostof a (re-
grettable) loss ofdemonstrating theforesightandsophistication ofthefeminist
perceptions of ART and itsdevelopment. We restrict ourselvesto presenting
1 Thereis muchless discourseaboutthe of ART formen and masculinity.
implications In
thispaper,we willnotreviewtheliterature
on suchissuessystematically.

163

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
someofthemainarguments. In ourpresentation we do notdistinguish explic-
itlybetweenthepositionsof thevariousstrandsof feminism (althoughwe
occasionallyrefertothem)nordo we strictly followthehistorical development
of thefeminist discourse.We have abstainedfromorganizing thefeminist
positionsalongthe"classical"linesof liberal,radical,andMarxistfeminism,
of "second-wave" and "third-wave" feminism, or of anyothertypesof femi-
nisms, because such a classificationwould requirethatwe also pointoutthe
differencesbetween andcommonalities within eachoftheselinesas well.Such
a complexanalysiswouldgo farbeyondthescopeofthispaper.Moreover, it
wouldrequirethatwe puttheemphasison differences withinfeminist dis-
coursesrather thanon perceptions andargumentations whichweremaintained
or alteredthrough ART. Yet, focusingon centralcategories of thefeminist
discourseratherthanondifferences between typesoffeminism alsobearssome
risk,notleasttheriskof brushing overfundamental differences amongfemi-
nismandofignoring someessential lines.In addition,thecategories whichwe
study(motherhood andreproduction) areso closelyinterlinked thatseparating
themoftenbecomesdifficult andmayseemartificial. Furthermore, as we will
showlater, feminist theorieshave insistedin separatingmotherhood andrepro-
ductionin orderto overcometheconflation betweenthem.ART has induced
furtherconceptual divisionsin motherhood andhas enlargedthegap between
reproduction and motherhood, something which manyfeminists view rather
critically.
Separating motherhood and reproductionfor thepurposeof recon-
structingthefeminist discourseabout them may thus lead us to overlookhow
mucha development brought aboutbyART has alreadypermeated ourthink-
ingabouttheseissues.

2. Motherhood
FeministConcept
as a Contested
2.1 Motherhood
Motherhood has beenone oftheissueswhichhavesplitfeminist movements.
Mostwomenbecomemothers, andmanyfeministshaveregarded motherhood
elementamongwomenandhavebasedtheirclaimsto rights
as a uniting for
womenon it.2On theotherhand,theissueofmotherhood has also beenoneof
theanchorpointsfordenying womenrights andfordiscriminating
andequality
fromthisobservation,
againstthem.Starting themainstreamfeminist discourse
up to themid-1980stooka criticalapproachto motherhoodandregarded the
ofmotherhood
rejection forovercoming
as a pre-requisite women'ssubordina-

2 For historicalstudieson motherhood as a meansof claimsto rights,see Bock and Thane

(1991), Koven and Michel(1993). For a recentexampleof "mother-centered" claims,see
Müttermanifest movement.
(Erleret al. 1987).The lattersplittheGermanfeminist

164

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
tionand forgainingequality.This positionwas advocatedby de Beauvoir
alreadyinherseminalbooktheSecondSex.She statedthat"[i]twas fraudulent
to maintain thatthrough maternity womanbecomesconcretely man'sequal"
(de Beauvoir 1953, 525). She considered motherhood as the mainfeature
whichcausedwomentobe seenas "others" andtotiethemto immanence. She
feltthatwomenaremadeto see motherhood as theessenceoftheirlifeandthe
fulfillmentoftheirdestiny (de Beauvoir1953,484ff.).In herview,thedecision
to becomea motheris therefore neverperformed "in completeliberty", not
eventhrough ART (de Beauvoir1953,696). She saw motherhood as enforced
maternity (de Beauvoir1953,724). Changinglaws and institutions, or even
changing thewholesocialcontext, wouldnotsuffice to changetheconditions
andtheconsequences ofmotherhood forwomen.The latter requires overcom-
ing immanence and "otherness" through transcendence (de Beauvoir1953,
717; 725),whichinessenceimpliesthatwomencanonlyfreethemselves from
theirconfines byforegoing motherhood. Although de Beauvoir' s approachand
positionsreceivedmuchcriticism fromfeminists, particularly forbeinga-
historicand for essentializing "woman", feminists critical of motherhood
sharedherperception of maternity as a meansto maintain women'sinferior
socialandeconomicstatusas "objects"andtodenythemtheright todetermine
theirposition.As CarolePateman(1988 and 1989) has pointedout,thede-
valuationof motherhood (and women)was a consequenceof thepatriarchal
construction of sexualdifference. Through thefraternal (social) contract men
becameequalas members of society.Womenwererelegated to "nature", with
childbearingandmotherhood forming thecoreofwomen'snature. Undersuch
conditions,therelationship betweenwomenandmenis determined bya sexual
contract(mostvisiblyin theinstitution of thepatriarchal marriage contract)
whichsurrenders women'sbodiesandoffspring tomenandtosociety.
A largebodyof feminist researchdemonstrated thatthislinkagebetween
motherhood andnaturewas historically, socially,legally,politically, andphi-
losophicallyconstructed (Bock and Duden 1977; Badinter1981; Okin 1979;
Fineman1995;BockandThane1991).Feminists refuted thecommonassump-
tionofmotherhood as something innateto women.Theyshowedthattheasso-
ciationof maternity withwoman's"nature"conflatesbiologicaland social
motherhood, anddeniesthatmotherhood is work.Whenmotherhood is framed
as "nature",socialmotherhood (thatis thecareworkdonebymothers andthe
rearingof children)appearsas women's"natural"responsibility and at the
sametimeas performed outof "natural" love. Mother'sworkis "Arbeitaus
Liebe,Liebe als Arbeit"(Bock and Duden 1977).3Feminists arguedthatthe
conflation
ofbiologicalandsocialmotherhood, theassociation ofbothforms of
motherhood withnature, andtheidealization ofmothers' workas lovemeantto
3 Bock and Duden
(1977) formulatedthisin relationto women'sdomesticwork,butit can
easilybe transferred
to theperception
ofmotherhood.

165

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
create,maintain, and legitimize women'ssubordination. Theyinsistedon the
distinctionbetweenbiologicalandsocialmotherhood. Onlysucha distinction
canhelprevealhowthesocialperceptions ofmotherhood areconstructed so as
to allowtheexploitation of womenas bearersof children and as rearersof
children.
Theradical,Marxist, andcolonialfeminist discourselinkedmotherhood to
social,economic, and racial that to
structures, is, patriarchy, capitalism,and
colonialism (von Werlhof, Bennholdt-Thomsen and Mies 1983; Mies 1986).
Thesewereconceivedas interlinked systems ofproduction. The commonper-
of
ception production excluded biological and social motherhood andsawthem
as partof thesphereof reproduction. By contrast, feminists insisted thatbio-
logicaland socialmotherhood werespecificformsof production whichcom-
plemented and maintained themodesof capitalist, patriarchal, and colonial
production andthehierarchical powerstructures inherent in them.The relega-
tionof womenand of motherhood to theostensibly unproductive sphereof
reproduction gavemencontrol overwomen'slives,their(biologicalandsocial)
reproduction, theirchildren andtheirwork,andallowedthemtoexploitwomen
fortheirprivate, economic,demographic, political,nationalistic or otherpur-
and
poses(Ginsburg Rapp1995; Rothman 1994; Yuval-Davis 1997).
It was arguedthatunderall thesecircumstances, becoming mothers implies
with
complying systems which deny women the right to self-determined moth-
erhoodand whichexploittheirmaternity, whilerefraining frommotherhood
andmotherly workbecomesa meansofresistance againstthesesystems.
Linkingmaternity tothegender, racial,social,andeconomicstructures also
challenged theassumption of a universal conceptand experience of mother-
hood,and it calledattention to thespecialdiscrimination and exploitation of
mothers whichwerenottermed"truemothers", particular in singlemothers,
stepmothers, mothers of color,and mothers of a different ethnicor national
background (Rothman1994,Yuval-Davis1997; Fieldes 1992; Ladd-Taylor
andUmansky1998).Studiesshowedthatlegalandwelfaresystems notonly
deniedthesemothers the"normalcy" of(married, white, national) mothers, but
also facilitatedtheirexploitation by andforthebenefit of othermothers (see,
forexample,Pawlowski2001). Thiscontributed to thedebateaboutto what
extentdifferences amongwomen- in ourcase: differences betweenchildless
womenand mothers, and differences among different groupsof mothers -
supported in
genderinequality society and in the world.4

4 For blamedchildlesswomenand theirpoliticsforthefact

example:The Müttermanifest
thatmothers'interests werenotsufficiently the
recognizedin Germany.Whilecriticizing
ostensiblyessentialist
standpoint oftheGermanfeminist movement(whichwas regardedas
representingonlytheinterests of childlesswomen),theauthorsof theMüttermanifestes-
motherhood
sentialized (Erleret al. 1987).

166

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Sincethemid-1980s, feminist theorieswhichstressdifferences and reject
standpoint feminism anditsassumption ofa universal categoryof"woman",of
defining womenin relation to men,andof conceptualizing themas oppressed
by and victims of patriarchy, have shifted thefeminist discourseawayfrom
regarding motherhood as an ordering principleof societies.In rejectingthe
notionofa fixedcategory of"woman",postmodern andpoststructuralistfemi-
nistapproaches also rejectthat"mother" is a fixedcategory.Beinga mother is
rather seenas partofa woman'sidentity, to
equal many otheridentities
which
a womanmightacquire.It neither impliesbeingthe"other", the"secondsex"
(inrelationtomenortonon-mothers) nordoesitimplysubordination perse. It
ratheropensup thepossibility foragency,fora greatdiversity of(self-defined)
"motherhoods" andfora positiveidentification withmaternity. Theemotional,
intellectualand oftenspiritual rewardsof motherhood are stressedand the
desireforcaringandmothering is seenas a strengthwhichwomenshouldtry
to re-legitimize in theirliferatherthandenyit (de Marneffe 2004). Post-
structuralfeminists no longerrebuff motherhood in orderto overcomepower
structures,buttheyseekformeansto overcomepowerstructures in orderto
allowmotherhood.5
Thisreasoning was notnewamongfeminists. The claimthatwomenspeak
"in a differentvoice"(Gilligan1992) andthatmotherhood andwomen'scare
ethics(Ruddick1989;Tronto1994) area sourceofpowerhadbeenproposed
bymaternal feminists earlier.6
Whiletherhetoric ofethicsofcareessentialized
mothers andmaternal care(eventhoughcarewas oftenassumedto be gender
neutral,see,e.g.Tronto1994),postmodern assumptions ofmotherhood putthe
emphasis on diversity- andthusbroadened theperceptions ofmotherhoods7 to
includenewforms ofmotherhoods whichweremadeavailablethrough ART.

2.2 Motherhood
as a ConceptFractured
ThroughART
Sincetheearly1980s,an increasingbodyoffeministliterature
on motherhood
hasreflected
on thepotentialsandtheconstraints
ofART for"liberated"
wom-
anhood.However,in feminist analysesof ART, motherhood
is almostexclu-
sivelyreducedto biologicalmotherhood.8 thewaysof feminist
Consequently,
5 The aim to
changesystemsin orderto facilitateparenthood and to reachequalityis also
pursuedby the largebody of feminist literatureon welfarestate,citizenship, and social
rights."Care" is a centralcategoryin thisliterature,butit is notbiologizedin theway the
feministliteratureon "maternalthinking" and "ethicsofcare"does.
6 Fora historicaloverviewofmaternalist feminism, see KovenandMichel1993.
7 We use the pluralterm"motherhoods"
deliberately in orderto capturethe diversityof
motherhood, butalso to coverthepostmodern andpoststructuralistrejectionofone uniform
typeandperception ofmotherhood.
8 The same
appliesto thegeneral,non-feminist literatureon ART. But since feminism has
insistedon makingsocial motherhood visible,the absence of social motherhood in the
feministliteratureon ART is noteworthy.

167

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
reflections on ART and of feminist reflections on "socialmotherhood" have
parted."Social motherhood" and theeconomic,social,and politicalcircum-
stancesof mothers as carershave almostcompletely disappeared fromthe
feminist literature on ART. As Rowland(1992) andStanworth (1987a) noted,
reproductive technologies contributed to the"deconstruction of motherhood".
Mothers becomedecomposed into"ovarianmothers" (thosewhoprovidethe
eggs),"uterine mothers" (thosewhocarryoutthepregnancy and givebirth),
and"socialmothers" (those who raise the child)(Stanworth 1987a,16). This
fracturing of motherhood corresponds to what many feminists regardas the
ultimate goal of ART: to "disembody" women (Duden 1991; Rowland 1992)
and to obliterate theirintegrity and sovereignty (see contributions in Arditti,
Klein,andMinden1984,andinStanworth 1987b),tomakebiologicalmother-
hoodredundant (Corea 1985),andto placethereproduction ofhumanbeings
andofhumanity inthehandsofmedicine andtechnology (Corea1985;Arditti,
Klein,andMinden1984;Rowland1992;Ginsburg andRapp1995;Wichterich
1994).
Feminists maintain thatthisdecomposition ofmotherhood devaluesmother-
hoodandwomen,andcreatesnew and unprecedented cleavagesandexploita-
tivehierarchies among women (Corea et al. 1987;Arditti, Klein,andMinden
1984; Rothman and
1994;Ginsburg Rapp 1995; Wichterich 1994).Theyem-
phasize that there is no equalitybetween women who donate eggsor whobe-
comesurrogate mothers andthosewhobecomemothers through theirservices.
Egg donors and surrogate mothers areoften in need of money (Rothman 1994),
butthepayments theyreceivearefarfromanyadequatere-imbursement forthe
interference intotheirbodyor foran entirepregnancy. Some feminists even
maintain thattherelationship betweenbuyersof surrogate motherhood and/or
ofotherwomen'seggsresembles prostitution, becausea woman'sbodyorpart
of herbodyare tradedformoney(Corea 1985,Pateman1989). Theywarn
againsttheglobalmarket, whichhas developedintheART business.Likethe
trafficking in women for prostitutionor formarriage markets, theworldwide
in
traffickingeggs and surrogatemotherhoods strengthens economicand
the
racialexploitation of (poor)womenforthebenefitof other(mostlywhite,
married, well-off) womenandmen(Rothman 1994;Klein2008;Yavena2009).
Suchhierarchies ofmothers arenotproduced bytheART market alone,but
theyare reinforced by thelegal regulations concerning ART. Current legal
practicegivesegg donorsand surrogate mothers no rightto theiroffsprings.
Throughcontractual agreements theysurrender partsof theirbodiesor the
controlovertheirpregnant body to therequesting party.According tofeminists
thispracticemarksa return of theideologyof patriarchy (Rowland1987),in
thatin majorlegal cases of surrogate motherhood and in-vitro-fertilization,
men'sclaimsto their"seed"havebeengivenpriority overwomen'sclaimsto
be mothers (Rothman 1994).In addition, feminists see a further devaluation of
mothers through theshifts inthelegalrelationship the
between embryo and the

168

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
mother,brought aboutbyART.Theembryo andbestowedwith
is personalized
therightsof a legalentity,
whilethematernal bodyis reducedto a nurturing
machine,to a vesselwhichmerely containstheembryo andthefetus(Franklin
1995; Hartouni 2007). The contractualand legal practicessurrounding
ART
constitute
a newformof"sexualcontract", whichwe can call a "procreational
contract".
It constructs and legalizesfractured motherhoods by determining
who is thebiologicalmother, who is thesocial mother,9and who - despite
contributingpartsor processesof herbodyto thelifeof thechild- is nota
mother,butmerely thedonorofa product, be ittheeggorthewomb,whichis
ownedbythosewhoarefavored bytheprocreational contract.

3. Reproduction:
FromtheStruggle
forRightstothe
Naturalization
ofTechnological
Reproduction
Whilethemeaningof motherhood forwomenhas been contentious within
feminism,as we haveshownabove,reproductive have
politics been a bonding
issueacrossthevarioustypesoffeminism. The struggle forreproductive rights
andreproductive freedom,forcontrol overtheirownreproduction andagainst
the expropriationof theirbody,has bridgeddifferences amongwomen's
movements andfeministdiscourses.Feminists haveregarded women'sacquisi-
tionof controlovertheirown reproduction notonlyas a necessarystepto
individual
freedom andautonomy, butalso as a fundamentalcondition toover-
comepatriarchal controland to improvethesituation of womenas a group
(Petchesky 1995;Gordon1976).The struggle foraccessto freeandsafeabor-
tionandforthepossibility to decidetheirnumber of childrenwithout outside
interference
has formedthecoreoffeminist reproductive for
politics centuries.
The emergence of ART has addednewdimensions to thisstruggle.Firestone
(1970,193) welcomedART as a meansto freewomenandhumanity fromthe
"tyrannyof biology".She saw it as themissionof thefeminist movement to
demandthedevelopment of ART in orderto "providean alternative to the
oppressionof thebiologicalfamily", whichhas forever oppressed(fertile and
womenwithitsrequestthattheyreproduce
infertile) (Firestone1970,202 and
200). Mostsubsequentfeminist accountshavetakena different stancetowards
ART and voicedmorenuancedandcriticalpositions. Withthefoundation of
FINRRAGE(FeministInternational Networkof Resistanceto Reproductive
and GeneticEngineering) in 1984/85,partof thefeminist movement turned
againsttheproposalby Firestone and madeit itsmissionto forma feminist

9 It is to notethatifthecontracting
important person(s)are men,forexample,a gay couple,
the"social mother"can be male.This is a specificdimensionaddedto therelationship
be-
tweenmotherhood andfatherhood.

169

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
resistance againstART withtheultimate aimto stopit(Klein2008,157).10 For
(liberalandpostmodern) feminists, thisresistance againstART createsa new
"faultline"amongwomen(Sandelowski 1990).Liberalandpostmodern femi-
nistsmaintain thatART provides thepossibility toovercome biologicallimita-
tionsto conceiveandto reproduce. It offers theopportunity ofmotherhood to
previously infertilewomenand itenlargeswomen'schoicesof voluntary and
"willed"motherhood, thatis,tohaveas manychildren as theywantatthetime
whentheywouldliketo havethem.Whilemostfeminists concedethatART
may indeed help(some) women to become mothers, manynevertheless ques-
tionthepromisewhichART supposedly holdsforwomen'sindividual and
collectivefreedom. Theyargue that ART has changed practice the
the and
of
meaning reproduction, in particular that of reproductive choiceand repro-
ductive freedom (Franklin andMcNeill1988;Franklin 1995).
Feminist's viewon reproductive choicehasbeencloselylinkedtotheirper-
ceptionof control overtheirownreproduction andof theirbodyas theirown
property (Petchesky 1995)."MeinBauchgehörtmir","l'uteroè mioe me Io
gestiscoio"(Mybellyis mine;theuterusis mineandI manageitmyself) were
theslogans with which the feminist movement of the 1970s demanded the right
to abortion andto thecontrol overtheirownbodyandreproduction. The con-
ceptofchoice,whichis so central toliberalfeminist thinking,insinuates equal-
the
ityamong options, autonomyfull to choose and unrestrictedindividual
agency.Notonlyarewomenstillfarfromhavingreachedthis,butmanyfemi-
nistsarguethatART has seriously curbedwomen'schoicesto self-determined
motherhood, despiteitsardent proclamation ofenlarging women'sprocreative
choices.The availability of ART mayimposea new pressure on womento
becomemothers (Hartouni 1997),inparticular insocietiesinwhichwomenare
(still) expectedto reproduce(Vayena2009; Inhorn2002; Inhornand Bi-
renbaum-Corneli 2008). The ostensibly universal accessto ART mayweaken
women'sstruggle against social sanctions of In addition,
infertility. research
andgovernmental attention may be directed towards furthering ART instead of
eliminating the most common causes of infertility(Ryan 2009). Limited re-
sourcesforhealthprovision forall womenmaythusbe channeled to ART for
some.
The promiseof ART thateverywomancan becomea mother restores the
assumption thateverywomanwantsto become mother, a irrespective of her
health, herage,herlife-course (Hartouni 1997).Thisreinstates theassumption
of a universal maternal desireas partof women'snature.It mayresultin a
"normative" inwhichwomenfindthemselves
situation, questioned atanystage
intheirlifeiftheyabstainfrommotherhood. Despitethefactthat,forexample,

10FINRRAGE was foundedin 1984 underthenameof FINNRET (FeministInter-

originally
nationalNetworkon theNew Reproductive Technologies)butchangedits name in 1985
(Klein2008, 157).

170

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
thetechnology of "freezing eggs"forfuture use is farfrommakingit a safe
technology, itis advertised as allowingwomento safeguard themselves against
potentialfuture and to keeptheirattraction
infertility as prospective mothers
formen(Martin2010). ART is stylizedas supporting the"empowerment" of
women11 byallowing them to overcome natureand plan theirlives at their
own
pace and will,whilein essenceit subjectsthemto conform to reproductive
requestsover theirentirelife-time (Martin 2010).
The availability ofART,especiallyprenatal diagnostics,has also increased
thepressure on womento producethe"perfect baby", of the desiredsex or
quality.Feminists pointoutthatwhileultrasound andprenatal diagnostics may
be to thebenefit of somewomen,theyhavenowbecomean inevitable proce-
dureforall women.12 Choice has turnedintoa eugenicobligationwhich
womencannotforegowithout beingtermedirresponsible towardsthemselves
andtowardssociety(Hubbard1984;Saxton1984).Thishas reducedwomen's
confidence in theirown bodyand curtailedtheirautonomy withregardto
childbearing (Rowland1992; Duden 1991).
ART, the wide-spreaduse of ultrasound and geneticscreening, and the
medicalmonitoring ofprocreation fromconception to delivery haveincreased
medicalcontroloverwomen'sbodiesandhaveaddednewdimensions to the
longongoingmedicalization of reproduction. The possibility to decideabout
one's own reproductive processis oftenlimitedby theselectionof options
whichmedicalauthorities offerto women(Rowland1992; Holm 2009). As
Donchin(2009) pointsout,thisasymmetrical relationshipis disguisedby the
policyof informed consent, whichassumesthatwomenhavefullinformation
andunrestricted conditions toarriveatan autonomous decision,whileinreality
autonomy is narrowed to theoptionslaid beforewomen.Franklin (1995) ar-
guesthatART "de-naturalizes" reproduction and "naturalizes" ART simulta-
neously.Itreducesinfertility andnatural conception tothesamelevelofinsuf-
ficiency.Infertile women's nature is insufficient
because of theirlimitation to
conceive;naturalconception is insufficient
becauseit cannotguarantee the
aspiredoutcome, whichis thebirthofa (fit)child.In bothcases,natureneeds
"thehelpinghand"of medicaland technicalassistanceto overcomeitsdefi-
ciency.This does notonlylegitimize ART, butit "naturalizes" it (Franklin
1995,334). The importance of thisshiftin theperception of naturelies pre-

11Martincites an advertisement for"egg freezing",in whichthe "empowerment" through

overcoming thebiologicalclock is symbolizedby a woman'shandwhichholds an enor-
mousclock overherpelvicarea (Martin2010, 539). In ourview,thisad is also a cynical
twiston thesymbolof thefeminist movement of the 1970s,whenwomenunderlined their
claimto liberalizeabortionbyholdinglargesignswiththe"women'ssymbol"(oftenwitha
fistin it)overtheirpelvicareas.
12Ultrasound is now standard in manycountries,
procedure andmayevenbe requiredin order
to drawmaternity benefits.

171

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
ciselyin thatit depictswomenandtheirreproductive
functions
as inferior
to
technology andsubjects themtoit.

4. Conclusion
Although mostof all children in theworldare stillbornwithout theuse of
ART, ART is spreading rapidly. Some techniques,such as ultrasound and
amniocentesis, have become standard in
procedures prenatal care in many
countries, financed and oftenrequired by publichealthcare.Likewise,many
publichealthcare systems recognizeinfertilityas "illness"and subsidizeits
treatment, although mostlyonly for selectedgroups ofwomenandmen(mar-
ried,young,and healthy).While acknowledging the benefitwhichsome
women(andmen)havefromthisdevelopment, feminist analyseshavetriedto
assesstheimpactwhichART hason thesocialandeconomicsituation andthe
culturaland legal recognition of all women.Mostfeminists viewART with
criticismorat leastambivalently. Theypointtothefactualchangesinconcep-
tion,pregnancy, and birth which ART has generated and to theshiftsin the
cultural,legal, and medical of
perception women,reproduction, and mother-
hood.Reviewing theconditions ofbothfertileandinfertile women,theydoubt
thatART contributes toempowering womenandtogranting themmorecontrol
overtheirbody,reproduction, andmotherhood. Many warn againsttheconse-
quences of the ART-induced dissociation between reproduction and mother-
hood,and aboutthesplitof thematernal bodyintodifferent "deliverers"of
products andservices. Theymaintain thatthesedevelopments havenotreduced
society'spoweroverwomen,buthaveinducednewand globalpowerstruc-
turesat thegender, thesocial,andtheeconomiclevel.Thefeminist answersto
thesetrends demonstrate thechallenge which thedevelopment of ART andits
consequences poses to the feminist and
struggle the feminist discourse. Many
feminists call forstopstoorrestrictions ofART anditscommercialization, and
forthere-allocation of fundsfromART to reproductive and healthservices
whichbenefit all women.Theyarguefora stronger integration ofART issues
in thediscourseabouthumanrights, fora moreequal inclusionof feminist
advocatesinART debates, andfora general ofART tosubjectits
politicization
development andapplication tomoredemocratic procedures (Klein2008;Ryan
2009).Thedevelopment ofART has posedunsettling questions to manyfemi-
and
nistprinciples approaches. As we have mentioned, feminists have long
insistedon theseparation of biologicaland socialmotherhood, and havere-
jectedassociations betweenmotherhood and"nature". Themedicalpractice of
ART andsubsequently thelegalsystems havedrawnnewboundaries andinsti-
tutedpreviously unknownpowerimbalancesbetweendifferent biological
motherhoods, betweentheembryo andthemother, andbetweendifferent bio-
logicalmothers and a father. The factthatone does not know the long-term
consequences forwomentreatedby ART and fortheirchildren has further

172

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
aggravated cleavagesbetweensocial motherhood and the variousformsof
biologicalmotherhood (Klein2008). Feministsfindthemselves in a situation
wheretheymuststriveto bindthesocialback to thebiological,to re-define
"nature"in a waythatgraspsall formsof fractured motherhood and to make
claimson suchre-definitionswithout supporting of
perceptions reproduction
andmotherhood whichtheyhavefought againstforso long.

References
Arditti,Rita,RenateDuelli Klein,and ShelleyMinden,ed. 1984. Test-tube women:
Whatfuture formotherhood? London:PandoraPress.
Badinter,Elisabeth.1981. Motherlove: mythand reality.Motherhoodin modern
history.New York:Macmillan.
Billari,FrancescoC, Hans-Peter Köhler,GunnarAndersson, andHans Lundström.
2007. "Approaching the limit:Long-term trendsin late and verylate fertility."
Ponulatinn and Dp.vplnnmp.nt
Rpvípw11 Π V 149-1 70
Bock, Gisela, and BarbaraDuden. 1977. Arbeitaus Liebe - Liebe als Arbeit.In
Frauen und Wissenschaft. Beiträgezur BerlinerSommeruniversität für Frauen
Juli1976,ed. GruppeBerlinerDozentinnen, 118-199.Berlin:Courage.
Bock,Gisela,and Pat Thane,ed. 1991.Maternity and genderpolicies: Womenand
theriseoftheEuropeanwelfarestates,1880s-1950s.London:Routledge.
Boivin,Jacky, LauraBunting, JohnA. Collins,and KarlG. Nygren.2007. "Interna-
tionalestimatesof infertility prevalenceand treatment-seeking:potentialneed
and demandforinfertility medicalcare." Human Reproduction 22 (6): 1506-
1512.
CenterforDisease Controland Prevention. 2010. AssistedReproductive Technol-
ogy.<http://www.cdc.gov/ART>.
Corea,Gena. 1985. Themothermachine:Reproductive technologies
fromartificial
insemination toartificialwombs.New York:Harper& Row.
Corea,Gena,RenateDuelli Klein,JalnaHanmar,HelenB. Holmes,BettyHoskins,
Madhu Kishwar,JaniceRaymond,RobynRowland,and RobertaSteinbacher.
1987. Man-madewomen:How new reproductive technologiesaffectwomen.
Bloomimton.IndianaUnivers itvPress.
de Beauvoir,Simone.1953. Thesecondsex. New York:AlfredA. Knopf.
de Marneffe, Daphne.2004. Maternaldesire:On children,love,and theinnerlife.
New York:Little,BrownandCompany.
Donchin,Anne. 1986. "The futureof mothering: Reproductivetechnologyand
feministtheory." Hypatia1 (2): 121-138.
Donchin,Anne. 2009. "Towarda gender-sensitive assistedreproduction policy."
Bioethics23(1): 28-38.
Donchin,Anne. 1989. "The growingfeministdebateover the new reproductive
technologies." Hypatia4 (3): 136-149.
Duden, Barbara.1991. Der Frauenleibals öffentlicher Ort: VomMißbrauchdes
BegriffsLeben.Hamburg:Luchterhand.
Erler,Gisela et al. 1987.Müttermanifest.LebenmitKindern- Mütterwerdenlaut:
<http://www.gisela-erler.de/textl6.htm>.
ESHRE. ART factssheet.June2010. <http://www.eshre.com>.

173

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Fildes,Valerie,Lara Marks,and HilaryMarland,ed. 1992. Womenand children
first:International maternaland infant welfare1870-1945.London:Routledge.
Fineman,MarthaAlbertson, andIsabelKarpin,eds. 1995.Mothersin law: Feminist
theoryand thelegal regulationof motherhood. New York.ColumbiaUniversity
Press.
Firestone,Shulamith.1970. The Dialectic of Sex: The Case for FeministRevolu-
tion.New York:BantamBooks.
Franklin, Sarah,and MaureenMcNeill. 1988. Reproductive futures:Recentlitera-
tureand currents feministdebateson reproductivetechnologies." FeministStud-
ies 14 (3): 545-560.
Franklin, Sarah. 1995. Postmodern A culturalaccountof assistedre-
procreation:
production. In Conceivingthenewworldorder.Theglobalpoliticsof reproduc-
tion,ed. Ginsburg, Faye D. and RaynaRapp, 323-345.Berkeley:University of
California Press.
Gilligan,Carol. 1982. In a different voice.Psychologicaltheoryand women'sde-
velopment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UniversityPress.
Ginsburg, Faye D. andRaynaRapp,eds. 1995. Conceivinga newworldorder:The
globalpoliticsofreproduction. Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia Press.
Glenn,EvelynNakano,GraceChang,andLindaRennieForcey,eds. 1994.Mother-
ing:Ideology,experience, and agency.New York:Routledge.
Gordon,Linda. 1990. Woman'sBody,Woman'sRight:TheHistoryofBirthControl
inAmerica.New York:Grossman.
Grant,Jonathan, StijnHoorens,FredericoGallo,andJonathan Cave. 2006. "Should
ART be partof a populationpolicymix?A preliminary assessmentof thedemo-
graphicandeconomicimpactofassistedreproductive technologies." Preparedfor
theAnnualMeetingof theEuropeanSocietyof HumanReproduction and Em-
bryology, held 18-21 June, 2006 in Prague.Rand Europe: <http://www.rand.-
ore/pubs/documented_briefings/DB507.html>.
Gregg,Robin. 1995. Pregnancyin a high-tech age: Paradoxes of choice. New
York:New YorkUniversity Press.
Hartouni,Valerie. 1997. Culturalconceptions:On reproductive technologies and
theremaking oflife.Minneapolis:University ofMinnesotaPress.
Hoem,JanM., and MargitStrandberg. 2004. "Childbearing patterns forSwedish
mothersof twins, 1961-1999." DemographicResearch 11 (15): 421-454.
<http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol 11/15/11-15 .pdf>.
Holm,S0ren.2009. The medicalization ot reproduction- a 30 yearretrospective, in
Reprogen-ethics and thefutureof gender,ed. Frida Simonstein, 29-36. Dord-
recht:Springer Verlag.
Hubbard,Ruth.1984. Personalcourageis notenough:Some hazardsof childbear-
ing in the 1980s. In Test-tube women.Whatfutureof motherhood? ', ed. Arditti,
Rita, Renate Duelli Klein,and ShelleyMinden, 331-355. London: Pandora Press.
Inhorn,Mareia С, and Daphna Birenbaum-Carmeh. 2008. Assistedreproductive
technologies andculturechange."AnnualReviewofAnthropology 37: 177-196.
Inhorn,Mareia.2002. Global miertility and me globalization ot newreproductive
technologies: fromEgypt."Social Scienceand Medicine56: 1837-
illustrations
1851.
Klein,Renate.2008. "Fromtest-tube womento bodieswithoutwomen."Women's
StudiesInternational Forum31:1 57-175.

174

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Koven,Seth,and Sonya Michel,eds. 1993. Mothersof a new world:Maternalist
politicsand theoriginsofwelfarestates.New York:Routledge.
Ladd-Taylor,Molly,and Lauri Umansky,eds. 1998. Bad mothers:Thepoliticsof
blamein20th-century America.New York:New YorkUniversity Press.
Mamo, Laura. 2007. Queeringreproduction: Achievingpregnancyin the age of
technoscience. Durham:Duke University Press.
Martin,LaurenJade.2010. "Anticipating infertility:
Egg freezing,
geneticpreserva-
tion,andrisk."Gender& Society24: 526-545.
Mies, Maria. 1986. Patriarchyand accumulationon a worldscale. Womenin the
international divisionoflabour.London:Zed Books.
Okin,Susan Möller.1979. Womenin Western politicalthought.Princeton: Prince-
tonUniversity Press.
Pateman,Carole. 1988. Thesexualcontract.Stanford: Stanford UniversityPress.
Pateman,Carole. 1989. The disorderof women:Democracy,feminism, and politi-
cal theory.Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press.
Pawlowsky,Verena.2001. Mutterledig- VaterStaat: Das Gebär-undFindelhaus
in Wien1784-1910.Innsbruck: Studien-Verlag.
Petchesky, RosalindPollack. 1995. The bodyas property: A feminist re-vision.In
Conceivingthenew worldorder.The global politicsof reproduction, ed. Gins-
burg,Faye D. and Rayna Rapp, 387-406. Berkeley:Universityof California
Press.
Rothman,BarbaraKatz. 1994. Beyondmothersand fathers: Ideologyin a patriar-
chal society.In Mothering: Ideology,experience, and agency,ed. EvelynNakano
Glenn,Grace Chang,and Linda RennieForcey,139-157.New York-London:
Routledge.
Rowland,Robyn.1987."Technologyand Motherhood:Reproductive Choice Re-
considered." Signs:JournalofWomenin Cultureand Society12 (3): 512-528.
Rowland,Robyn.1992. Livinglaboratories:Womenand reproductive technology.
London:LimeTree.
Ruddick,Sara. 1989. Maternalthinking: Towarda politicsofpeace. Boston:Bea-
con Press.
Ryan,Maura A. 2009. "The introduction of assistedreproductive technologiesin
the"developingworld":A testcase forevolvingmethodologies in feminist bio-
ethics."Signs:JournalofWomenin Cultureand Society34 (4): 805-825.
Sandelowski,Margarete.1990a. "FaultLines: Infertility andImperiledSisterhood."
FeministStudies16 (1): 33-51.
Saxton,Marsha. 1984. Born and unborn.The implicationsof reproductive tech-
nologiesforwomenwithdisabilities".In Test-tube women.Whatfutureofmoth-
erhood?,ed. Arditti, Rita,RenateDuelli Klein, and ShelleyMinden,298-312.
London:PandoraPress.
Simonstein, Frida,ed. 2009. Reprogen-ethics and thefutureof gender.Springer:
Dordrecht.
Sobotka,Tomáš,MartinΑ. Hansen,Tina Kold Jensen,AnnetteT0nnesPedersen,
WolfgangLutz,and Niels ErikSkakkerbaek. 2008. "The contribution of assisted
reproduction to completedfertility:
An analysisof Danishdata."Populationand
Development Review34 (1): 79-101.

175

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stanworth,Michelle.1987a. Reproductive technologiesand thedeconstructionof
motherhood. In Reproductive technologies:Gender,motherhood and medicine,
ed. MichelleStanworth, 10-35.Cambridge: PolityPress.
Stanworth, Michelle,ed. 1987b.Reproductive technologies:Gender,motherhood
and medicine.Cambridge: PolityPress.
Tronto,JoanC. 1994.Moral boundaries:A politicalargument foran ethicofcare.
New York:Routledge.
Vayena,Effy.2009. Assistedreproduction The debateat a
in developingcountries:
turning point.In Reprogen-ethicsand thefutureofgender,ed. FridaSimonstein,
65-77.Dordrecht: Verlag.
Springer
vonWerlhof, Claudia,VeronikaBennholdt-Thomsen, andMariaMies. 1983.Frau-
en,die letzteKolonie.Reinbek:Rowohlt.
Wichterich, Christa,ed. 1994. Menschennach Maß: Bevölkerungspolitik in Nord
undSüd. Göttingen: LamuvVerlag.
Yuval-Davis,Nira.1997.Gender& Nation.London:Sage.

176

This content downloaded from 131.111.164.128 on Sat, 23 Jan 2016 02:44:47 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions