#theorizing literature across cultures: contemporary debates | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

biomedgrid · 5 years

Text

Biomed Grid| The Impact of Feminism in the Branch of Women’s Studies: The Study of the Development of Sex according to the Theories of Gender

Abstract

In the branch of gender studies, the impact of feminism was noticeable. From the history of feminist movements, we can see that the feminist activists were adamant to establish women’s rights same as men both at home and their work place. The history of gender has comparatively short story and its emergence became happened during the 1960s and the evolution got activated through second wave feminism. Gender inequality came to regard from both the personal relationships and in social positioning such as economically and politically, second wave feminism actually did introduce about how the issues of gender inequality got eliminated from academic disciplines, therefore they did pay the attention about how women’s roles and identity were neglected and this thing occurred prior to the 1970s. The social sciences did ignore this issue of gender in general and sociology did it in a larger way.

In pre 1970s gender blind sociology only did highlight women as wives and mothers within their families but at that time this kind of differences or inequalities between men and women were not seen or recognized as sociological awareness and problems to be noted. The differences and inequalities actually happened in 1970s and especially by women sociologists, therefore they felt the urgency or need to identify and took the initiatives to examine those problems. In English literature, women’s worthiness got ignored and prohibited, therefore they were searching for their authority to get the general law of great works of literature. The hegemony of a canon of great works of literature which particularly excluded women writers altogether and had nothing to say about the material and social conditions that prohibited the emergence of ‘great women in this arena’. To analyses in which arena women’s worthiness of study in their own right arrived and to search the clear success for feminist politics, scholars went beyond the normal boundaries of their home disciplines. Here I would like to mention [2] that moved effortlessly from literary criticism to a critique of Freud and Marx. Her perspectives later became the business of literary studies very much.

Do in 1960s and early 1970s sheer number of women have in the fields of humanities in comparison to other academic fields made it an era that was fully developed for feminist critique and also the existence of women was developed and the result of the gendered logic of the work place. In the late 1960s in US and from the mid to late 1970s in the UK that women’s studies begun to develop as a specialized area of academic interest, also it was rapidly spreading elsewhere around the globe. In UK British women’s studies was emerged in MA program in Kent (1980), then York and Warwick. In those places and era women’s studies was included as a discrete area of study. In US (1969) such courses like women’s studies begun to be taught quite spontaneously natural or careless way without substantial prior organization in many US colleges and universities. So, we can say it was a similar story in the UK and retrospectively without considering any past situations. The teachers in the field did communicate both nationally and internationally. Then they also involved in the debate about what women’s studies was and could be. The first national women’s studies conference took place in the UK in 1976. The scholars of women’s studies were often found beyond the academy such as in the newsletters, at conferences and generally used to connect with same-minded thinkers. Their research will further prove that feminist activists and theorists did set a solid era to gain women’s existence in a male dominated society and later this this got elaboration and constructive analysis though the theories of gender development.

Keywords: Gender; Sex; Feminism; Women’s Studies; Theories of Gender Development

Introduction

For detecting gender differences women’s studies played a very prime role. And then the segments of gender development theories eventually let us know about how the differences happens between male and female sex. To prove that fact first of all I would like to discuss about women’s studies and their roles to present women both at home and in their job areas. Such as in the fields of government, non-government jobs, political field, and economic sector. In many of the women’s studies there have been included consciousness raising (CR) component. Formal characteristics of academic study, particularly the teacher-student relationship and assessment were kept under scrutiny and other means of teaching and assessment than formal lecture or seminar, were experimented with. Women’s studies mainly resided in English, history and sociology and sometimes separated individuals working within a general male- oriented curriculum. After the emergence of women’s studies, it has been the work of scholars across the disciplines into one center or as the main area of MA or undergrad degrees. So, this area did develop a crystal-clear identity rather than casting a critical eye over the traditional disciplines like other male- oriented subjects. In this way it can be said that women’s studies could become more broad and specific without the contestation of knowledge under patriarchy and allow assessing the value of something again such as knowledge, art and experience that had originated the basis of women’s lives where the more important thing is, this study is still centered around the social sciences, arts and humanities rather than physical sciences such as engineering and medicine. But the ramification of women’s studies raised as the core practices and prejudices of the latter and under scrutiny. Women’s studies basically suggest a degree or study of empowerment for feminist knowledge. It has always two directions. One is within the disciplines where the critique sometimes said that men too are gendered beings. Such as the arising out of men’s pro-feminist politics, therefore begun to develop in 1980s. A body of knowledge and theorizing that men as men. Consequently, books on men and masculinity proliferated in 1990s and introduced men’s studies as a specialist area of academic focus. Secondly, gender studies is seen by many to open up field of women’s studies beyond its beginning in the politics of women’s liberation movement.

Then at the same time women’s studies and men’s studies became established as a specialized areas of academic inquiry broader theoretical developments begun to undermine their rationale. In postmodern and post structuralism approaches, the idea of women and men are discrete and categories that is challenged. The individual status of both groups called men and women are argued in a great way over time, space and also culture. Hence there is not huge justification for the use of the collective nouns. On the other hands, post-structuralism says women and men are considered as representation and these nouns called women and men achieved through performance and repetition than real entities. These two types of theoretical approaches have had a great impact on feminism. Women’s and men’s studies.

Also, these theories have been a main driver of increased notion of diversity and difference. In gender studies, the concept of gender inequality transcends not only between genders but within genders such as class, sexuality, ethnicity, age, disability, nationality, and religion and citizenship status. This is the reason about women and men’s studies which known as the contested terms. Though gender issue developed as a complex, multi-faceted and multidisciplinary area, where the women studies advocates that, the rise of gender studies usually make women as invisible in the study of masculinity or male/female relations. The existing sense about the fact of women’s studies continue towards social inequality that has been destroyed utterly and as a result DE politicization happens out of controversy and political violence. Some feel that women’s studies has lost its confidence and way. They also feel that gender studies consider as a weaker sign, hence feminist knowledge has been controlled by the reformed academy. Women’s studies have had accept that the rigid model of women do prohibit and declare inequality where gender studies is the best way of addressing this concern. In this 21st century there are number of characteristics about gender studies that remains in existence such as multi and inter-disciplinary gender studies that got profound impact on other contemporary theory and attitudes for generating knowledge and constellation method. Secondly, gender studies constitute by the methods of texts, knowledge and theorizing on and about gender. Gender studies not only confined within social, arts and humanity disciplines but also centered in the mainstream disciplines widely and enthusiastically embraced by students. Thirdly, feminism remains the core issue reason for the study of gender relation. The feminism reminds us about women as a group who were wrongly presented in both the public sphere and in the real natures. As we know gender relations continue to change so for this reason feminism as a political ideology will also be changed and find new arenas to explore. Gender studies will continue to change since the academic institutions themselves have changed noticeably in the last 30 years and in Britain, the shifting ideas of university polytechnic has had an impact on the development of women’s studies from 1992. The certain increasing numbers of students were women, and also many women studies academics now the first generation to be educated in gender as students. That means women are ahead than men in this area of study called gender studies. They are in the same way correspondingly distant from heady politics and campus activism of 1960s and 1970s.

Here we can say challenges can be made from within the institution from a gendered perspective but gender studies remain dependent upon the academy for survival and for the support of feminist and gender-related research. Therefore, it is to be said that gender studies is a complex, multi-faced topic and where feminist perspectives remain the prominent thing. This branch of study is known as an academic specialism and across a range of disciplines and knowledge boundaries. So, this is not fix or straight forward but evolve during the period of writing and remains with issues of more recent and current concern. Gender studies identify about the positioning of Western industrial societies which is Britain where the white, middle class feminists working within the discipline of sociology. To detect the concepts of gender studies we got to know about come concepts such as psychoanalytical, feminism, post modernism, queer theory and cyborg. And also gender studies refers to the off-used terms such as identity politics, backlash and equality.

To sum up we can say, gender studies remain as a vibrant and productive academic activity and its effects continue to change in a broader way people think about themselves.

Universally it’s decided that women are entitled to expecting and giving nutrition to their progeny, hence they have limitations to have children. Thus, women aspire to have limited number of progenies to keep extreme level of genes and in the end they reproduce. While on the other sides, men are not sure about their parenthood because they are uncertain to identify the name of biological father of their offspring. According to Buss, Larsen, Westen, and Semmelroth (1992), further, it has to be said that, for explaining the gender differences in mate likeliness and antagonism, evolutionary theories have been used to describe gender distinctions in jealousy and also according to Alexander, Eals and Silverman (1992), sextyped toy preferences and spatial abilities have been emphasized. Since this world is known as the kingdom of male’s dominance everywhere such as at home and outside of home. They are always motivated to be more energetic and resilient than females. So, to have this type of quality society named that as spatial ability by which males are encourage to do hunting, other types of manly tasks whereas females are confined to take care of their children at home. To present the worldwide phenomenon about identifying females and males Alexander (2003) remarked that females are entitled to play or buy with feminine toys while males are likely to prefer masculine toys. Behind this Alexander gave logics that to choose masculine toys make males more masculine and teach them to do hunting successfully. Also, for him this successful hunting leads towards the visual system of males to be more perfect to track the spatial motions of objects that describe about boys’ desired objects like cars. In contrary, according to Alexander (2003) for females, the society and as a whole the world has decided to forage for food and take care of their offspring. This leads women to be highly demotivated and make them sensitive for grabbing the objects like dolls and warm colors.

Gender identity to recognize Sex Differences

From the very stage of life gender identity started to shape and is not reversible by age 4. Though the accurate reason of gender identity become unidentifiable. Biological, psychological and social variables explicitly motivate the procedure. A toddler’s gender identity got interacted through genetics, prenatal and postnatal hormones which create differences in the brain and the reproductive organs as well as socialization also interact to mold a child’s gender identity. All these differences actually happened though physiological processes and eventually got interact with social-learning influences to form a clear gender identity for children and gradually to the adults.

Psychological and social influences on gender identity

Gender identity is basically originated from chromosomal presence and physical appearance. But this origination of gender identity doesn’t explain that psychological influences got missing. Socialization is one of the salient branches which helps a child to learn norms and roles which has created by society for male and female. Also plays important role in the establishment of a male and female child’s sense of maleness and femaleness. When a female child learns she is a female and raised as a female then that child believes she is a female, whether on the other hands the situation is vice versa for a male. When a male child has been told that he is a male and raised as a male then tat male child firmly believes he is a male. The most noticeable example of notify the gender identity lies when parents trace their children’s sex at first when a child give birth according to their genitals. To handle children, parents prefer to handle their female child less aggressively than their male child. By witnessing this type of activity, children get to understand or develop a crystal-clear realization whether they are female or male child. As well as they become habituated to a strong desire for adopting gender‐appropriate mannerisms and attributes. This kind of realization usually happens with the age of 2 according to many scholars. We can say that biology sets the stage, but children’s attachment and interaction with social environments and surroundings basically identify the nature of gender identity.

Gender roles to identify Men and Women’s Behaviors

Gender roles exhibit both the cultural and personal phenomenon. These roles purposefully determine how males and females do talk, think, get dressed and interact within the sphere of society. These gender schemas are firmly weaved cognitive outlines about the meaning of masculinity and femininity. Also, the several socializing agents for example, educators, peers, dramas, movies, television, music, books and religion teach and reinforce gender roles throughout a child’s whole life time. Most probably parents showed great influence in the time of their children’s young age. After doing the minute research about adults and parents’ mentality towards their children, it can be said that adult consider and treat female and male infants more politely. Parents do this type of behaviors to their young children themselves. There is one tradition about pampering and teaching children for fathers and mothers. For instance, fathers usually teach boys and also give them teaching how to fix and build things, while on the other hands, mothers teach girls how to cook, sew and keep house clean. By observing all these things, children get to know about their parents’ approval when they face gender expectations, therefore embrace the culturally accepted the traditional roles. These conventional lessons are hugely reinforced by the most familiar socializing agents, for example ‘media”. In other ways, it is to be noted that, to learn gender roles always happen within the social spheres and with the values and teachings of parents and society that breed the generations through children.

Theories of gender development

In my earlier discussion I have mentioned that gender is socially learned phenomenon but didn’t add what are the process actually look like. Through our spontaneous interactions, usually socialization happens, therefore this interaction is not as simple as it may look like. To analyze how the socialization occurs through interactions, gender theorists proposed five different theories of gender development.

Psychodynamic

Psychodynamic is the first and foremost theory which has got its origin in the work of Viennese Psychoanalyst, Sigmund Freud. This psychodynamic theory give emphasis on the role of the family, especially towards the mother specifically, as predominantly in forming one’s gender identity. Generally, all boys and girls form their identity in relation to that of their mother. As we know girls are actually like their mothers and biologically, they consider themselves as connected her. Because girls are like their mothers biologically, they see themselves as connected to her. Because on the other sides, boys are biologically distinct or separate from their mother, they construct their gender identity in contrast to their mother. Boys usually resembles with their father more than mother.

Symbolic interactionism

Communication is the significant branch to identify gender development. Symbolic Interactionism (George Herbert Mead) is the one which basically concentrate towards the issue of communication. Although this branch has been evolved specifically to understand gender development and it has particular credibility. As it has to be said here that, gender has been learned through communication in cultural spheres. To comprehend the main messages of gender transformation, and whole activity of gender development, communication plays the vital role. For example, when teenage girls have been advised to sit straight and also have been told that, if the sit like that then they look like a lady and on the other sides, boys are considered as gentlemen who open doors for others. In this way girls and boys learn how to be gendered and divided themselves into the sections of masculine and feminine through several words (symbols) and have been told by others which we call interaction.

Social learning

Thirdly, the gender development theorist has presented the social learning theory which is based on outward inspirational factors and do argue about children’s way of receiving positive reinforcement that they are inspired to continue their specific attribute. In this way children receive punishment which detect the signals of disapproval and get the order to stop that behavior for which they were getting disapproval. In terms of receiving reward or positive approval in gender development means that children get praise when they are involved in culturally accurate gender displays and punishment. The notion of aggressiveness always matches with the boys and it has been established in society and boys usually get acceptance or people say boys will be boys, because they got unique attitude than girls. But for girl’s aggressiveness is somehow not acceptable and they have been throwing it out to their section of repository while boys have permission to show their aggressiveness in every way. Therefore, we can see boys and girls both have their own ways of learning different meanings of aggressiveness which is relate to their gender development.

Cognitive learning

From the previous theory which is social learning theory we got to know that it is based on external rewards and punishment, but cognitive learning theory is something different because this theory establishes children’s gender development at their own extent. Kohlberg presented that children get to know their gender identity when they are at the age of three but can’t see properly if their age become fixed is not up to the level of five or seven. This model of Kohlberg provides children a set of experienced or spoken rules about attaching to the social or cultural interactions. For doing so they can able to arrange much of their attributes and also of others. Thus, they look for role models to emulate maleness or femaleness as they grow older.

Standpoint

Standpoint is the last but not the least section of understanding gender development according to the gender development theorists. In my earlier discussion I have discussed how important is the role of culture in comprehending gender. Standpoint theory give the vital place to the issue of culture for realizing gender development. Race and class are two important identity makers which is salient to understand the gender in the process of identity formation according to the theorists Collins and Harding. The fact is that, culture and many other sections are organized hierarchically. For instance, some people do have more capital and cultural advantages than others. The most prominent example of showing the dominant culture, we can talk about the culture of supreme cultural aspects of USA. They have well-educated, upper middle-class Caucasian male who usually gets more sociopolitical privileges than the working class African American female. To understand the upper middle-class families, here the theory of standpoint plays one of the vital roles. In this way it’s almost sure that different people get different type of scopes and chances according to the standpoints. They gradually grow for observing and knowing themselves in an accurate and specific ways. For instance, we can see that in middle class family’s children are growing with the concept of attending college, and they also hear from other people about the moving place of them. But this kind of saying is anyhow different than the saying about going to university. So here we can take this as a norm where children perhaps grow up with the thinking of that university. According to the standpoint that exhibits less accessibility of university attendance. But in contrast with this, the children of elite class families will be asked about the league of school where they should attend. In of all these branches, children begin to construct their identity and roles in the society according to the norms, values and scopes donated by the specific standpoint.

Conclusion

Feminists were the ones who actually showed about gender disparity and presented gender as an important aspect to analyze. Thus, the impact of feminism came to the branch of gender studies, especially to the women’s studies. And through their analysis about male and female sex we got to know the differences between them and how they are surviving differently at their home and work place unlike the male members. Gender originated and explored mainly by feminist sociologists. They have portrayed gender as a crucial aspect of research from the year 1970. Feminist sociologists were keeping the utmost oath to make the people understand that to what extent the issue of gender is predominated. According to them, gender is a set of all apparatus such as work, politics, law and other apparatus. Simultaneously, gender inequality has been an issue of rapidly growing apprehension. The word feminism came from the French word feminism in the 19th century. The medical term of feminism has been described as different ways such as feminization of male body or women with masculine traits.

The origin of feminism is derived from USA in the early part of 20th century. Basically, the term feminism alludes towards the notion to conceive the ideology about men and women’s right to appeal as equal human beings from perspectives of politics, and moral issues. This term makes us remember that men and women should be treated as equal where there will be no discrimination. However, as we know feminism is a dynamic term which has been used to run different types of movements since the last two decades and also the most active task of feminism was the notion to establish the vision of equality by implanting it through law and culture. Feminism soon became understood to identify a political viewpoint of someone committed to change the social position of women. “Since then the term has taken on the sense of one who believes that women are subjugated because of their sex and that women deserve at least formal equality in the eyes of the law” [1]. Hence the feminist writers and activists shared their desire to imagine a world where women will be able to identify their potentiality as an individual person. But simultaneously women needed to think or keep in their mind that, they had no legal identity as individuals, literally unidentifiable. Therefore, all feminists agree that women suffer social and or material inequalities simply because of their biological identity and are committed to challenge this but the means by which such challenges might be made are many and various. Feminists agree on the central fact of women’s subordination, most feminists regard feminism’s heterogeneity as a sign of healthy debate. As a liberal feminist, Mary Wollstonecraft remarked, “it is argued that if men and women are educated equally, then it follows that they will get equal access to society” [1]. For feminists, revolution is the only answer to all the injustice by men upon women. In feminism there are some diverse branches and they often don’t agree on the significance of equality. Individual feminists are those who think equality should remain under laws which are entitled to provide respect the people and property of entire human beings just the same of secondary features, for example sex, race and ethnicity. Another branch of feminism that is known as radical feminism, for them equality means socioeconomic equality. So, in this section it’s all about power and wealth that are established by convention through society for erasing the historical advantages of men. These two branches of feminism prove the extreme activities within the movement. Within western society two women called Olympe de Gouges and Mary Wollstonecraft who were the pioneers to issue the rights of women during the 18th century.

They stood against the laws that made women as subordinate entity of men. Another set of historical circumstance created by an organized American feminism which has been originated abolitionist movement during the 1830s. Abolitionism has been actually referred to the radical antislavery movement. After abolitionism there is another familiar section of feminism called Second Wave feminism. Second wave feminism aimed at reform rather than revolution. Furthermore, the rise of logical branches of feminism that advocate the traditional family and orthodox values to unsharpened the historical mission and goals of feminism. Culture actually form the scheme of the essential attributes which are acceptable for men and women, besides this culture also denote about what kind of attributes are between men and women. There is a resilient connection between gender identity and culture, since both are salient and continuously contribute both in the sphere of home and outside of home in the work place and in society. In spite of that there are some significant differences from one culture to another culture. In the area of labor division culture plays the important role, it symbolizes what types of jobs are suitable for men or women. For example, in society we can see the stereotyped ideas about men and women’s job sectors and also for other matters which do show how men are superior to women both at home and outside of home. Women are inferior to men in order to take any decision, they have less autonomy, no resources of their own also women have limited power to manage their actual place in their respective society and as well as at home. In Bangladesh there are some cultural barriers for women such as education and communication barriers, undernourishment and unsafe birth Practices, cultural practices based on religion, the notion of sharing different culture and religious faiths. Gender issue and supposition in a male dominated society.

Read More About this Article: https://biomedgrid.com/fulltext/volume2/the-impact-of-feminism-in-the-branch-of-women%E2%80%99s-studies.000603.php

For more about: Journals on Biomedical Science :Biomed Grid

#biomedgrid #Journals on Biomedical Imaging #Journals on Medical Microbiology #Journals on Medical Casereports #Journals on Medical drug and theraputics #Open Access journals on surgery

0 notes

bluewatsons · 4 years

Text

Ingvill Stuvøy, Troublesome reproduction: surrogacy under scrutiny, 7 Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online 33 (2018)

Abstract

In recent years, the emergence of transnational commercial surrogacy arrangements has prompted consideration of how and whether it is possible to bridge claims for reproductive rights from involuntarily childless couples and singles, many of whom historically have been excluded from reproduction, with the rights and well-being of the reproductive assisters. In this article, I suggest that a fruitful starting point for a conversation on how to tackle such a challenge is to examine the way in which surrogacy is conceptualized. Thus, I examine how scholars have queried surrogacy, asking how different conceptualizations of who this reproductive phenomenon concerns have led to the formulations of different types of ‘troubles’ of surrogacy. I delineate three different conceptualizations of surrogacy. Firstly, how surrogacy as a way to make parents has troubled scholars because of the conflation of reproduction with consumption, thereby making reproduction a matter of financial resource. Secondly, the trouble emerging when surrogacy is conceptualized as baby-making relates to how surrogacy turns babies and bodies into commodities. Thirdly, surrogacy understood as a phenomenon that concerns the women gestating and birthing the children has brought attention to issues of exploitation. These different formulations of trouble point towards tensions in the literature, while also offering reminders that surrogacy is not one thing alone; a finding that provides an opening for new forms of reproductive justice. This brings me to propose a rethinking of the notion of ‘reproductive assistance’, arguing in favour of moving away from substitution and transaction towards a relational being-together.

Introduction

In 2010, the word ‘surrogacy’ entered the Norwegian dictionary (‘surrogati’). The occasion for this linguistic innovation was the cross-border reproductive travels taken in increased numbers by Norwegian couples and singles, straight and gay, in order to access surrogacy in countries such as the USA and India (Førde, 2017, Stuvøy, 2018b). The word itself – ‘surrogacy’ – came to Norway from the English language. More specifically, it came from the USA, where surrogacy in its organized and commercial form emerged in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Spar, 2006). Thus, it was a travelling term, moving parallel to the Norwegian desiring-to-be parents' travels for reproductive opportunities not available in their home country. The new word supplemented the term ‘surrogate motherhood’ (‘surrogatmoderskap’), which had longer usage in Norwegian although not decidedly forming part of a Norwegian reproductive imaginary (cf. Melhuus, 2009: 150). Instead, ‘surrogate motherhood’ seemed to refer to something going on outside of Norway, involving women from other countries. The introduction of ‘surrogacy’ in the Norwegian language gives notice of a change in that regard. Attention is now seemingly moving from the motherhood at stake towards the parenthood in ‘the making’ (cf. Thompson, 2005) – and, more specifically, towards the Norwegian parenthood in the making. Surrogacy has ‘arrived’ in Norway (Stuvøy, 2018b), used now to describe the making of new Norwegian parents and babies.

The story of surrogacy's arrival in Norway serves here as an illustration of the situatedness – in time, space and concrete politics – of the conceptualizations of a phenomenon that, in the last decade, has been subject to increased attention across the world. It also works as a reminder of how different conceptualizations bring different people into the spotlight, and, as I will argue, also bring different types of trouble into view. Of concern to me in this article, the idea that situatedness affects the way in which a phenomenon is conceptualized gives opening to an examination of how surrogacy has been understood and who it has been seen to concern. Such an examination, I contend, may serve as a fruitful starting point for a conversation on how to ensure that new reproductive rights and opportunities for some, such as queer subjects previously shut out from reproductive imaginaries and possibilities, do not rest on the continuation of hierarchies of gender, race, nation and class. This seems particularly urgent as surrogacy has ‘gone global’, taking place across borders, and involving people differently and unevenly situated in geographic and social space (DasGupta and Dasgupta, 2014b, Førde, 2017, Pande, 2016, Twine, 2015).

In this article, I examine how scholars have queried surrogacy, with particular attention on the transnational version of surrogacy. A question of interest to me throughout the article is how different conceptualizations of surrogacy – and of who this reproductive phenomenon is seen to concern – have led to the formulations of different types of ‘troubles’ of surrogacy. The troubles of surrogacy first came to my attention while researching in the field and, more specifically, researching transnational surrogacy in the context of Norway. The ‘arrival’ of surrogacy in Norway did not take place without commotion; from 2010 onwards, surrogacy has been a topic of intense public debate. The debate revolved around issues such as the purchase of babies and rental of wombs; notions of parenthood and motherhood; gender equality; gay reproductive rights; and exploitation of poor(er) women in other countries (Andersen, 2013, Kroløkke, 2012, Nebeling Petersen et al., 2017, Stuvøy, 2016). As debaters compared surrogacy with prostitution – or the purchase of sex, which is criminalized in Norway – it was clear that surrogacy, particularly commercial surrogacy, was seen as a ‘troublesome’ way of making babies and becoming parents in Norway (cf. Kroløkke, 2012).

Notably, Norway is the only place where surrogacy has been problematized and considered to be what I refer to as ‘troublesome’. Studying surrogacy in Israel, Elly Teman (2010: 7) comments that while birth in itself is a ‘cultural anomaly’, surrogacy ‘represents an even more blatantly anomalous phenomenon’. From the US context, Heather Jacobson points to how commercial surrogacy represents a challenge to ‘the notion that our children and our families in general are separate from the market’ (Jacobson, 2016: 13). Similarly, in her early and by now seminal book on surrogate motherhood in the USA, Helena Ragoné comments on how this reproductive phenomenon raises ‘many questions about what constitutes motherhood, fatherhood, family, and kinship’ (Ragoné, 1994: 1). Such questions, one may argue, are not raised by surrogacy alone, but made topical by assisted reproductive technology (ART) more generally (Thompson, 2005). Correspondingly, surrogacy is not necessarily more troublesome than other types of reproduction or, as argued by Sophie Lewis (2018), other types of reproductive or gestational labour. Instead, my concern here is with what insights the troubles associated with surrogacy may offer in a quest to move beyond the seeming ‘stand-off’ between the reproductive rights of some and the well-being of those assisting them.

The articulation of surrogacy as troublesome in the Norwegian context, as described above, eventually led me to reflect upon the different troubles as they are posed in the scholarly literature on surrogacy. Much of what has been written on surrogacy has been written by feminist scholars and activists, for whom reproduction has long been a central concern. Correspondingly, ‘trouble’ has a particular feminist history, perhaps most famously captured by Judith Butler with her landmark book Gender trouble (2006, orig. 1990). Butler encourages a centering on the trouble as a way to bring into question that which is taken for granted and ‘open up the field of possibility’ (Butler, 2006: viii). This resonates with the message conveyed by Sara Ahmed (2010) through her figure of ‘the feminist killjoy’. Ahmed encourages feminists to embrace unhappiness – conceivable as a type of trouble – as a strategy of ‘heightening our awareness of what there is to be unhappy about’ and thereby ‘open up other ways of being’ (Ahmed, 2010: 592–593). This is also the errand of Donna Haraway (2016) who, in her most recent books, impels her readers to ‘stay with the trouble’. Haraway's own grappling with how to ‘make kin’ or ‘oddkin’ illustrates alternative ways of thinking reproduction. Additionally, as noted by Lewis (2018: 221), Haraway's alternative kinmaking allows for consideration of what a call for reproductive justice (Luna and Luker, 2013, Silliman et al., 2004) might imply in the context of surrogacy. Inspired by these theorizations of trouble, I find the troubles of surrogacy to be of value as a reminder of tensions and discontinuity, of what there is to be unhappy about, and to render visible what alternative ways – and new forms of reproductive justice – there might be.

Thus, throughout this article, I pay attention to surrogacy as a type of troublesome reproduction, trying to bring into view how scholars are bothered by different things in relation to surrogacy, depending on who this reproductive phenomenon is seen to concern. I start by delineating how the scholarship on surrogacy is situated in time, space and politics. Thereafter, I go through the types of trouble emerging if surrogacy is understood, respectively, as a way to become parents; as a way babies come into being; and, finally, as the provision of reproductive assistance. Finally, in the conclusion, I spell out the tensions between the different types of trouble, and what to gain from having these different tensions and troubles in mind. I argue here that the troubles serve as a reminder that surrogacy is not one thing alone; a finding that gives opening to alternative ways to think and configure contemporary reproduction. Attempting to render visible such alternative ways, I propose a relational rather than substitutional and transactional conceptualization of surrogacy, and of the assistance implied in a phenomenon such as surrogacy – or surrogate motherhood, if one prefers.

A scholarship situated in time, space and feminist politics

In my own case, it was transnational surrogacy – involving Norwegian desiring-to-be parents and surrogate mothers from other countries – that first brought this reproductive phenomenon referred to as ‘surrogacy’ to my attention. Transnational surrogacy is, it should be noted, a phenomenon that emerged only recently; one that has caught the attention of the media and the academic field only within the last decade, from approximately 2006 (Markens, 2012, Pande, 2014). Surrogacy as a phenomenon, however, has a longer history, both culturally and within the scholarly literature. Surrogacy has been dated back to biblical times and situated alongside historical phenomena such as wet nursing (Spar, 2006), as well as slavery; the contemporary version of surrogacy has been described as representing the ‘afterlife’ of chattel slavery (Weinbaum, 2013), noting the historic continuance of what is currently unfolding.

The scholarly assessment of surrogacy also has its particular history. This history is specific to place, as much surrogacy scholarship has, until a decade ago, come out of the Euro-American context (cf. Pande, 2011: 618) and, in particular, the US context. In the three decades of scholarly attention devoted to surrogacy, surrogacy has proven to be a phenomenon that bridges concerns of scholars from a wide range of disciplines and geopolitical contexts. In particular, it has drawn the attention of feminist scholars and activists. The feminist assessment of surrogacy has been diverse and far from uniform, reflecting different historical periods, theoretical and disciplinary commitments, and critical projects.

Early feminist responses to surrogacy were mainly formulated in the USA in the 1980s, and were often critical and dismissive of this new reproductive phenomenon. Feminist scholars critically queried surrogacy, and saw its commercial variety as an instance of reproductive prostitution or the trafficking of women and babies, and part of a broader patriarchal and capitalist system in which men were seeking control over women's bodies (Dworkin, 1983, Raymond, 1989, Rothman, 1988). Often representative of a radical feminist position,1 these scholars and activists were markedly ‘anti’ in their approach to surrogacy and ART more generally. In Laura Briggs' words, they ‘saw in reprotech a male, technocratic effort to harness and control women's reproductive capacity for eugenic and oppressive ends’ (Briggs, 2010: 361). In this early assessment of surrogacy, then, surrogacy at once illustrated broader ‘troubles’ associated with ART and made these troubles more pronounced.

Into the 1990s and 2000s, more empirical social research about surrogacy emerged, led by a renewed attention within anthropology to kinship in the wake of ART (Franklin, 1997, Franklin and Ragoné, 1998, Strathern, 1992). As argued in a review by Markens (2012: 1746), the emphasis was now more on the contradictions inherent in the phenomenon. In this period, surrogacy was, like ART more generally, seen as simultaneously subverting and reinforcing gender norms, family ideals and ideas of motherhood (Goslinga-Roy, 2000, Ragoné, 1994, Roberts, 1998, Thompson, 1998, Thompson, 2005).

The divergent feminist assessments of surrogacy in these different historical periods can be understood as reflecting a more general divergence between so-called second- and third-wave feminists, as suggested by Charis Thompson (2005) in her review of feminist approaches to ART. With transnational surrogacy entering the scene in the mid-2000s, however, some of the earlier dismissal – and trouble – of surrogacy from the so-called second wave of feminism has re-emerged (Ekman, 2010, Ekman et al., 2017, Klein, 2017). The recent calls for a politics of abolition may illustrate a historical development in which, as Aditya Bharadwaj comments, ‘[w]hat seemed plausible in 1985 has become an empirical reality’ (Bharadwaj, 2012: 149). Bharadwaj draws a line from what radical feminist Gena Corea foresaw in 1985 as a dystopic future of American outsourcing of surrogacy to Mexico, akin to how American companies at the time were already outsourcing industrial labour to Mexico, to present-day transnational surrogacy arrangements in low-income countries.

Transnational surrogacy has not only caused new debate on a feminist politics of reproduction (Ekman et al., 2017, Lewis, 2017), but has also led to empirical research being undertaken in new and multiple places by scholars from a wide range of countries. Transnational surrogacy has served as an illustration of the geography of contemporary reproduction (Deomampo, 2013, Schurr, 2018), reflecting a broader scholarly interest in the global dissemination and local appropriation of ART (Inhorn, 2003, Melhuus, 2009). Scholars have noted the significance of the institutionalization of surrogacy within a market context (Nadimpally and Venkatachalam, 2016, Sama, 2012, Spar, 2006) and to the role of the state, governance and regulation (Knecht et al., 2012, Mitra et al., 2018), including different legal models, such as commercial and altruistic versions of surrogacy (Allan, 2017, Horsey and Sheldon, 2012). The transnational version of surrogacy has also prompted an increased emphasis on (bio)capitalist and post-colonial analyses to help understand the outsourcing of pregnancy to women located in another, often low-cost, country and the mechanisms of stratification upon which this outsourcing rests (Bharadwaj, 2012, DasGupta and Dasgupta, 2014b, Deomampo, 2016, Pande, 2014, Rudrappa, 2015, Twine, 2015, Vora, 2015, Whittaker and Speier, 2010). These formulations situate surrogacy firmly within broader developments, while also, I contend, pointing to different types of trouble of surrogacy.

Surrogacy and the making of (troublesome) parents

Surrogacy – as both a word and a phenomenon – arrived in Norway as a new way to become parents. As such, the Norwegian story of surrogacy at the onset of this article reflects how this reproductive phenomenon makes new parents, a point succinctly made by Thompson in her seminal book, Making Parents (Thompson, 2005). Notably, the particular way of making parents in surrogacy has troubled its observers for how parenthood is reformulated into a matter of choice, consumption2 and privilege, while also demonstrating lack of privilege.

Surrogacy and ART more generally have prompted scholars to examine understandings of kinship and parenthood, such as questions of what makes someone a parent and others not (Deomampo, 2015, Majumdar, 2017). Surrogacy has been referred to as a reproductive arrangement in which ‘nothing guarantees one's status as the parent: not eggs, sperm, womb, or breast milk’ (Pande, 2014: 143), and where what ‘we’ thought was certain, namely motherhood – mater semper certa est – no longer is (cf. Gruenbaum, 2012). This calls for a designation of who the parents are, as captured in Thompson's (2005) widely disseminated idea of ‘ontological choreography’, in which things of different ontological order – such as intentions, sperm, ova and, also, money – are strategically choreographed to confirm kinship and make parents.

Among the first to theorize parenthood in the context of surrogacy, Marilyn Strathern (1998) once contended that surrogacy is culturally challenging due to what it does to the notion of ‘real parent’. With the mother no longer being defined as the one who gives birth, Strathern comments on a ‘merging of purchasing power and biological identity’ (Strathern, 1998: 203) in the popular attempts of giving foundation to parental claims. Thus, Strathern indicates concerns that have preoccupied – and troubled – scholars in relation to surrogacy, such as the tendency that parenthood is becoming a matter of consumption (Strathern, 1992).

On that note, scholars have pointed to how ‘individuals, frequently from the West, take up a flexible consumer position […] to fulfil their dreams of parenthood’ (Kroløkke et al., 2016: 7). In the quote, the role of the consumer is one assumed and performed by individuals, who consciously act – and ‘go global’ by crossing borders – to make their dreams come true. As such, the quote echoes theorizations of reproductive or fertility tourism (Bergmann, 2011, Deomampo, 2013, Kroløkke, 2016, Speier, 2016), presenting the reproductive travelling involved in transnational surrogacy as short term and consumption oriented, and also somewhat carefree and effortless.

While the notion of tourism and the idea of a flexible consumer position both draw attention to individual reproductive practices, scholars have also been careful to position this practice within larger structural and ideological developments. The consumption involved in surrogacy has been theorized as the result of structural constraints that give inter alia gay men few other reproductive opportunities than those available in the market (Lewin, 2013). Additionally, the existence of surrogacy – particularly its commercial version – has been seen to reflect a market frontier on the move, resulting in a market that plays an ever more central role in people's intimate and reproductive lives (Hochschild, 2011).

In terms of ideological developments, Strathern commented in the 1990s on the reconceptualization of infertility as a problem solved through consumption, writing that ‘[t]hose who seek assistance, we are told, are better thought of not as the disabled seeking alleviation or the sick seeking remedy – analogies that also come to mind – but as customers seeking services’ (Strathern, 1992: 35). To Strathern, this reflected what she referred to as the ‘enterprise culture’. Strathern's point can be read as parallel to more recent theorizations of neoliberal ideological configurations of the self, demanding the infertile individual to take personal responsibility, and to be entrepreneurial and agentic in order to alleviate their infertility (Kroløkke and Pant, 2012, Nebeling Petersen et al., 2017).

The neoliberal demand on the desiring-to-be parent to be agentic also implies a reconceptualization of reproductive choice, as Charlotte Kroløkke and Saumya Pant (2012) comment. Instead of a liberation from state control over women's reproduction, reproductive choice now refers to individualistic behavioural and lifestyle choices (Ibid.). Again, there is an echo back to Strathern's theorization of parenthood and reproductive choice in the wake of ART, where she noted that ‘procreation can now be thought about as subject to personal preference and choice in a way that has never before been conceivable’ (Strathern, 1992: 34). While reproductive choice has long been a central feminist issue, it seems now to be an obligation to make choices in order to reproduce, such as the choice of trying ART if one does not conceive the conventional way (Franklin, 1997), or travel abroad for surrogacy if this appears to be the best opportunity to reproduce (Kroløkke and Pant, 2012).

The demand to carry out reproductive choices also extends to queer subjects, who are increasingly becoming culturally intelligible as potential parents (Nebeling Petersen, 2012), with surrogacy being a ‘game changer’ for gay men in that regard (Nebeling Petersen, 2018). The language of choice has been prominent among lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer scholars, through notions such as ‘families of choice’ (Weeks et al., 2001, Weston, 1991). Increasingly, however, questions are being raised concerning the types of queer families that are being made through surrogacy (Smietana, 2016), the demand on queer people to be agentic in order to reproduce (Riggs and Due, 2013), and the role of consumption in queer people's paths to parenthood (Mamo, 2013).

The trouble with consumption in the context of reproduction is inter alia that parenthood is becoming a matter of purchasing power, as noted earlier in the quote by Strathern. In transnational surrogacy arrangements in particular, the privilege, mobility and emotionality of the Western desiring-to-be parents (Gondouin, 2014, Kroløkke et al., 2016, Kroløkke and Madsen, 2014) stand up in sharp contrast to the often poor(er), Non-Western women assisting the parents (DasGupta and Dasgupta, 2014a, Deomampo, 2013, Pande, 2011, Rudrappa and Collins, 2015). Thus, one of the troubles of surrogacy as a way of making parents is that it reiterates patterns of ‘stratified reproduction’ (cf. Colen, 1990). This pattern is also perceptible in domestic surrogacy; even if the class and race disparities tend to be smaller, surrogacy arrangements in the USA are founded on the surrogate mother's lower socio-economic status (Smietana, 2017).

Queer scholars have noted, however, that privilege and non-privilege is not only an issue in the relation between desiring-to-be parents and surrogate mothers, but also a matter structured by the privileging of heterosexuality (Nebeling Petersen, 2018, Riggs and Due, 2013). Thus, the trouble at stake is not only that of privileged desiring-to-be parents but also a ‘reproductive vulnerability’ produced by one's location outside the norm of heterosexual reproduction (Riggs and Due, 2013), affecting both queers and infertile straight couples whose ways of having babies set them apart from the norm. This brings into question the relevance of talking about choice in a situation which may be conceived of as a ‘reproductive disruption’ (Becker, 1994, Inhorn, 2007). Thinking in terms of, for instance, disruption rather than choice, an opening is made to explore what it is that happens when reproduction is problematized (Inhorn, 2007: iv), and how alternative reproductive practices and parental projects are normalized (Smietana, 2016, Thompson, 2005). A move away from a choice rhetoric allows, moreover, for claims for reproductive justice (Luna and Luker, 2013, Silliman et al., 2004), and a perspective on how the privileging of the reproduction of some people, by governments as well as markets, is interconnected with the marginalization of the reproduction of others (cf. Luna and Luker, 2013: 345).

Surrogacy as baby-making and the trouble of commodification

Surrogacy is a way of making babies; a circumstance that positions the children as someone whose ‘best interests’ may be at stake in this reproductive phenomenon (cf. Crawshaw et al., 2017). Admittedly, less attention has been devoted to the children in surrogacy (cf. Davies, 2017, Riggs and Due, 2017). Psychological studies of the well-being of children born through surrogacy have been undertaken (e.g. Golombok et al., 2006, Jadva et al., 2012, Jadva and Imrie, 2013) with the objective of evaluating the psychological development and well-being of surrogacy-born children, the children of the surrogate mothers, and the relationships between surrogacy parties. One of the main findings of those studies has been that children born through altruistic surrogacy in the UK have been following what psychologists consider a normative development and well-being. Additionally, there has been scholarly consideration of the legal status and risks facing children in transnational surrogacy arrangements, being born in one country with the intention of living their future life in another (Crockin, 2013, Darling, 2017). Much attention, from sociological, anthropological and interdisciplinary perspectives, has also been devoted to the potential trouble of making babies and bodies into commodities, bought and sold in markets.

In an early commentary on commercial surrogacy within the US context, commodification scholar Margaret Jane Radin (1994) labelled surrogacy as ‘baby-selling’ and expressed her concerns for what it means to view children as commodities that can be bought and sold. Her argument was that baby-selling ‘impinges on personhood’, pointing to how it ‘equates your whole self to a dollar value’ (Radin, 1994: 145).

In Radin's work and other commodification scholarship, surrogacy has emerged with some frequency as an example – or even ‘the’ example – of commodification (Phillips, 2013, Sandel, 1998, Satz, 2010, Sharp, 2000). Radin's early concerns for baby-selling have also been echoed in more contemporary assessments of surrogacy, as noted in the title of a recent edited volume, Babies for sale? (Davies, 2017). Additionally, more general concerns for commodification have been recurring, as scholars have pointed to the commodification of procreation (Sandel, 1998), motherhood (Kroløkke et al., 2010), the womb (Hewitson, 2014), women's reproductive bodies (Phillips, 2013, Sharp, 2000, Whittaker and Speier, 2010) and the vital energy produced by the surrogate mothers (Vora, 2009). This taps into broader discussions of commodification of the body and its parts (Scheper-Hughes and Wacquant, 2002). This topic has received increased attention in recent years, following biotechnological developments that have made it possible to extract body parts that could not be reached previously, such as eggs, but also to profit from body parts that could not formally be put to use, such as human tissue and the human genome (Dickenson, 2007, Franklin and Lock, 2003, Waldby and Cooper, 2010).

Commodification reflects a process of making persons (subjects) into commodities (objects) (Radin and Sunder, 2010: 8) or, alternatively, making something conventionally thought of as outside the market into commodities with a price. This latter aspect is noted by Sharmila Rudrappa, who situates surrogacy within a ‘market in life’, which she defines ‘as the emergent commodification of life processes that had previously not been incorporated into the market’ (Rudrappa, 2015: 9). Similarly, Arlie Hochschild refers to surrogacy as ‘the ultimate expression […] of a world of ‘everything for sale” (Hochschild, 2011: 22), referring to a market expanding its territory. Accordingly, commodification may be seen as denoting a process where the limits of the market are at stake, including its moral limits (cf. Sandel, 2012, Satz, 2010); the idea being that the limits of the market are being removed as children are becoming central to the exchanges of the market.

In past years, there has been a broader interest among scholars regarding what it means that children are increasingly acquired and conceived in markets (Goodwin, 2010, Schurr, 2018, Spar, 2006). Economist Deborah Spar has described markets in babies, together comprising ‘the baby business’, which is, as she notes, ‘alive, well, and growing’ (Spar, 2006: 196). Within this broader baby business, Spar also locates an emerging market for surrogacy. The surrogacy market, Spar explains, emerged in the USA from the late 1970s to early 1980s, before it developed into a global market in the early 2000s, moving into new countries (Nadimpally and Venkatachalam, 2016, Sama, 2012). This global development notwithstanding, the epicentre of the surrogacy market is said to remain in the USA (Jacobson, 2016, Spar, 2006).

While the surrogacy market has a recent history, baby markets, as such, are nothing new, as Carolyn Schurr (2018: 2) notes in a recent review of the economic geographies of reproduction. Correspondingly, Michele Bratcher Goodwin (2010) draws links between the long-established adoption market and the markets currently developing around ART, such as the surrogacy market. She comments, moreover, that markets in babies within the USA stretch back to the selling of children into slavery, denoting thereby the potential trouble of markets in babies.

This troubling aspect of baby-selling has been countered by an idea of the ‘priceless child’, famously coined by Vivana Zelizer (1985). Zelizer studied how a change in the value of children in the early 20th century in the USA caused a market in babies to evolve. Despite this development of a baby market, Zelizer argues that the sentimental value of children ‘serves as a bulwark against the market’ (Zelizer, 1985: 211). The idea that the priceless child works as a limit to the market is also present in Thompson's work. Her argument is that the fertility markets developing around ART are purposefully configured in ways that preserve the ideal of the priceless child, as the consumers are being charged for ‘a chance to overcome fertility’ (Thompson, 2005: 255) and not made to pay for a child (Stuvøy, 2018a). In such an assessment of the markets in which babies are acquired, these markets are not first and foremost displaying how the limits of the market are disappearing, as noted above. Instead, it is precisely because these markets do not put a price on the child, but still allow people to have a child, that baby markets function.

It has also been noted that surrogacy needs not result in a commodification process to which one should object, depending on whether surrogacy is taking place within an explicitly commercial context or an altruistic one (Phillips, 2013: 96). Whilst much scholarly attention has been devoted to commercial surrogacy, the presence of altruistic surrogacy models in countries such as the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and recently also India, may be seen as disturbing the commodification argument against surrogacy as the child emerges not as a commodity but as a gift. The preference for altruistic surrogacy has, however, been problematized by scholars who have pointed to the gendered character (Almeling, 2011, Tober, 2001) and potentially disempowering effects (Gupta, 2006, Pande, 2014, Ruparelia, 2007) of the language of the gift, with the resulting disregard of women's labour (Rudrappa, 2017). Additionally, research on surrogacy in the USA has demonstrated how gift and commodity exchange tend to overlap (Berend, 2016, Jacobson, 2016, Ragoné, 1994), with narratives of gift-giving and relatedness facilitating commodification (Smietana, 2017). Such findings indicate that it is difficult to make a clear-cut division between commodification and non-commodification, as also seen in broader bioeconomies (Dow, 2016b, Mamo, 2007).

More explicit challenges to the idea of surrogacy as commodification have also been voiced, arguing that such a theorization rests on ideas of ‘separate spheres and hostile domains’ (Zelizer, 2011) that corrupt one another. As such, the commodification scholarship is seen as taking for granted that the particular and historically-specific limits of the market are worth defending. This is noted in the title of Sophie Lewis' article ‘Defending intimacy against what?’, where Lewis problematizes how feminist critics of surrogacy make commodification rather than capitalism their point of attack. Lewis' argument is that when viewed as a matter of commodification, surrogacy as a type of labour that is exploited in the name of profit and accumulation is ignored. Lewis' critique thereby moves attention away from the children and towards those doing the labour, namely the surrogate mothers. This is also where I turn next.

Surrogate motherhood and the trouble of exploitation

At its appearance in the 1980s, what I thus far have referred to as ‘surrogacy’ was commonly referred to in the scholarly literature by the term ‘surrogate motherhood’ (Andrews, 1988, Arditti et al., 1984, Ragoné, 1994). ‘Surrogate motherhood’ reflects an understanding of this phenomenon as representing a new type of motherhood emerging in the wake of ART – and, as such, a new role to which women could dedicate themselves. More critically, this phenomenon represented new ways in which women's reproductive bodies and labour were on the line. A recurring topic – and trouble – in the assessment of this new type of ‘motherhood’ has been the question of exploitation. As British social anthropologist Katharine Dow (2016a) comments in a blog post, ‘surrogate motherhood has a bad rep’, and ‘with the growth of an international surrogacy industry over the past two decades, worries over surrogacy's fundamentally exploitative character have only intensified’.

One dimension of exploitation in the context of surrogacy is what may be understood as an inherent exploitation, one related to the very idea of having someone give birth to a child on behalf of someone else, who are to parent the child. This is noted inter alia in the analytical parallels drawn and discussed between surrogacy and slavery (Allen, 1990, Twine, 2015, Weinbaum, 2013), reflecting concerns about the historical continuity between contemporary commercial surrogacy arrangements and the exploitation of Black women's reproductivity and the denial of Black kinship under US slavery. More frequent are the comparisons made between surrogacy and prostitution. In their early assessment of surrogacy, Corea (1985) and Dworkin (1983) famously drew dystopic imaginaries of ‘reproductive brothels’, wherein women's reproductive capacities are sold and used by others, akin to how women's capacities for sex are sold in (sexual) brothels. More recently, Swedish feminist writer and activist Kajsa Ekis Ekman (2010) has argued that both prostitution and surrogacy alienate women from their own bodies – and the products of their own bodies – as sex and pregnancy are put on sale, and pleasure and babies are ‘produced’ to please others. In these depictions, it is not labour performed by a ‘free’ worker, but instead women sold as commodities (cf. Cherry, 2014), with exploitation linked to a patriarchal social order working as a structural force that makes commercial surrogacy possible.

Commenting on the prostitution analogy, transnational surrogacy scholar Amrita Pande argues that we need to place surrogacy ‘within the continuum of reproductive labor, with sex work, care work, and other intimate forms of labor’ (Pande, 2014: 186) in our examination of how exploitation is at stake in transnational surrogacy arrangements. This introduces a second assessment of exploitation in the context of surrogacy; this time related to labour, the valuation of this labour and the conditions for those doing the labour. The turn to labour can be understood as an attempt at moving beyond discussions over commodification, and instead focusing on the surrogate mothers' efforts and conditions. Moreover, it reflects a Marxist feminist analysis of surrogacy and of capitalist relations of (re)production.

In her much-acclaimed ethnography Wombs in labor. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India, Pande (2014) insists on analysing surrogacy as labour in order to capture how this is, at once, an activity done to earn an income and the process of childbirth. Her conceptualization of surrogacy as a type of embodied labour is a way of bypassing gendered dichotomies rendering reproductive labour incomprehensible as waged labour. As such, there is an echo from Pande's work to earlier feminist work troubling problematizing how reproductive labour has been rendered invisible and not considered ‘proper’ labour under capitalism (Federici, 2012, Glenn, 2010, Wærness, 1975).

Notably, the emergence of ART has both enabled and altered this embodied, reproductive labour, creating a new form of ‘biomedical’ or ‘clinical labour’, which implies not only the centrality of the body, but also the worker's compliance with medical regimes (Waldby and Cooper, 2010: 59). Scholars have also emphasized the role of globalization and how transnational surrogacy rehearses a by now familiar gendered and racialized pattern of outsourcing from the global north to the global south (Rudrappa, 2010, Rudrappa, 2015, Twine, 2015, Vora, 2015). On that note, Rudrappa (2015) draws comparisons between surrogacy and work in the textile factory, a known site for feminized outsourced labour. She shows how the garment industry and its assembly line are linked to surrogacy not only in abstract means, but also as a recruitment site for surrogacy: functioning as ‘the main conduit to the reproductive assembly line’ (Rudrappa, 2012: 23). Correspondingly, Kalindi Vora (2015) compares the labour done by Indian surrogate mothers to the labour done at call centres and within the information technology sector, both being prototypical sites of outsourcing from the global north to India.

In both Vora's and Rudrappa's comparisons of surrogacy with other types of outsourced labour, there seems to be a move away from Pande's emphasis on the embodied character of surrogacy. Instead, Rudrappa theorizes the labour in surrogacy as a type of intimate labour (cf. Boris and Parreñas, 2010), referring to ‘the paid employment involved in forging, maintaining, and managing interpersonal ties by tending to the bodily needs and wants of care recipients’ (Rudrappa, 2015, p. 13, emphasis added). In the case of Vora's conceptualization, the labour is simultaneously biological and affective (see also Schurr and Militz, 2018, Siegl, 2018). Not only (re)producing babies for others, the labour performed by these women ‘supports life’ in other parts of the world.

From this, a third dimension of exploitation may be distilled, namely the potential exploitation by desiring-to-be parents of their reproductive assisters and of these assisters' vulnerability (Ballantyne, 2014). No longer the relation between capitalist and worker as in labour analyses, attention is drawn here to the interpersonal and stratified relation between desiring-to-be parents and the surrogate mothers, and to the relation between the rich consumers in the market and the poor (re)producers.

Conclusion: from substitution to a relational being-together

In this article, I have examined how surrogacy has been understood within the scholarly literature, and how different conceptualizations bring into view different stakeholders, as well as different types of trouble. The purpose of such an examination has been to contribute to a conversation on how new reproductive opportunities such as surrogacy can be configured in ways that avoid reproducing social inequalities and dominance (cf. Luna and Luker, 2013). Paying attention to the troubles of surrogacy as they are posed in the literature is of importance to gain awareness of what there is about this reproductive phenomenon and the ways it is organized that ‘we’ – as feminists, scholars, activists or fellow living beings – should be unhappy about, to recall Ahmed's proposition with which I started this article.

Throughout the article, I have displayed different formulations of trouble: commodification and marketization; exploitation and stratification; and a conflation of reproductive choice with consumer choice, with choice emerging more as a demand on the individual than a liberation from state control. These different formulations of trouble give notice of tensions between different conceptualizations of surrogacy. Part of this tension relates to the existence of different models of surrogacy. Much of the trouble of surrogacy is ascribed to its commercial model – and the trouble is exacerbated when surrogacy is both commercial and transnational. The trouble is not exclusively about commercialization, however. Gendered and racialized notions of (reproductive) labour, self-sacrifice and emotion management, as well as ideological configurations of ‘choice’, are also part of the trouble, making the altruistic model of surrogacy not necessarily what it takes to avoid trouble and unhappiness (cf. Rudrappa, 2017).

The tensions may also be read as reflecting a history and politics of feminist theorizing. Thompson has argued that feminist theorizing and ART, including surrogacy, have walked hand in hand over the last few decades, as ‘reproductive technologies have been performed as the perfect feminist text’, combining ‘the economic, technical, rhetorical, personal, legal, and political elements through which phases and conflicts of recent feminism have been articulated’ (Thompson, 2005: 56). The different theoretical approaches of radical feminists, Marxist feminists, feminist scholars of neoliberalism and queer feminists provide different views on surrogacy and troubles. As a consequence, surrogacy is variously situated within patriarchal structures of domination, heteronormativity, capitalist labour exploitation and neoliberal marketization. Thus, the trouble of surrogacy is conceptualized differently depending on how the current social order is theorized.

A somewhat different reading of this tension is to conceive of it as a question of whether emphasis is put on the ‘new’ – on surrogacy as a challenge to the current social order – or on the ‘old’, where the distribution of labour in surrogacy exemplifies well-known patterns along lines of gender, race, class and nation. My own starting point was that surrogacy was new in Norway; it was, simultaneously, a new word in Norwegian and referencing a new reproductive opportunity and practice for Norwegian desiring-to-be parents. My interest in the change of terminology in Norway was what it reflected about our changing ideas of what surrogacy ‘is’. In that regard, the different troubles as they are posed in the surrogacy literature may work as a reminder that surrogacy is neither one thing nor is it affecting people in the same way regardless of time and space (see also Riggs and Due, 2013). This reminder, as I see it, indicates the shortcomings of conceptualizing surrogacy as an issue that alone concerns either desiring-to-be parents, babies or surrogate mothers.

Significantly, seeing the different troubles together may also work as a reminder of how surrogacy is neither about transgression of the social order alone, nor is it merely reproducing the same as what came before it (cf. Strathern, 1995, Thompson, 2005). In that space between new and old, there might also be an opening for alternative ways of being (cf. Ahmed, 2010) and an expanding field of possibilities (cf. Butler, 2006). More to the point in this case, there might be an opening for alternative ways of thinking and configuring surrogacy and contemporary reproduction that allow for new forms of reproductive justice.

Reproductive justice, as I use it here, refers to a call coming from ‘a justice-aimed movement that emphasizes intersecting social identities’ (Luna and Luker, 2013: 327), positing simultaneously the right not to have and to have children. Importantly, reproductive justice as a framework encourages ‘attention not just to choice, but to the endemic social, political, and economic inequalities among different communities which shape individuals’ abilities to access a good life’ (Rudrappa, 2015: 182). Additionally, reproductive justice may be read as a call to analyse the reproduction and well-being of different groups next to one another rather than as distinct issues (cf. Luna and Luker, 2013: 345). This call indicates the shortcomings of conceptualizing surrogacy as an issue that alone concerns either desiring-to-be parents, babies or surrogate mothers. Having reviewed different conceptualizations of surrogacy, and how each bring different people and troubles into view, throughout this paper, I wish to stress now the need to conceptualize surrogacy in a way that brings the relations at stake to the fore. Thus, as a final reflection, I will elaborate briefly on alternative ways to think and configure reproductive relations by focusing on the notion of assistance in the context of surrogacy. Doing this, I aim to contribute to the conversation initiated by Sophie Lewis in her 2018 article on international solidarity, reproductive justice and surrogacy.

Surrogacy as an assisted type of reproduction is conceivable as a type of ‘third-party reproduction’ (Blyth and Landau, 2004) or ‘collaborative reproduction’ (Thompson, 2005). These definitions draw attention to surrogacy as a reproductive arrangement, understood as an agreement between and joining together of different people with the ambition of making new people: the children. This arrangement involves desiring-to-be parents and also the women who ‘birth mothers’ (or parents) (Teman, 2010), ‘assist’ (Inhorn, 2010) or ‘support’ (Vora, 2015) others in their quest to become parents, or function as ‘substitutes’ (Strathern, 1998) or ‘supplements’ (Bharadwaj, 2012) to the parents-in-making. In my own work, I have referred to these women as ‘surrogate mothers’ (Stuvøy, 2018b)3; this being a linguistic construction with which I have sought to capture a sense of ambiguity with regard to these women's relation to the families, parents and children being made.

In thinking about the assistance provided by these women, it seems important to find a way to think across the intimate level of the family and the structural level of neoliberal capitalism. That is, to find a way to think in terms of reproductive relations. A way of doing that is to think of the role of these assisting women in the surrogacy arrangement through an analogy to the role of women and reproduction within capitalism. Like feminist economists have argued insistently, women and reproduction have historically constituted the ‘background conditions’ for production under capitalism (Fraser, 2014, Sassen, 2000). Correspondingly, the reproductive assisters could be seen as constituting the ‘background conditions’ for the family-making projects of involuntarily childless couples and singles. Akin to how the ‘economic’ foreground features [of capitalism] depend on the ‘non-economic’ background conditions' (Fraser, 2014: 65), the family depends on a (constitutive) outsider: the woman who carried and gave birth to the child(ren) of the family.

A challenge, as I see it, is to find ways of acknowledging the contribution of those assisting others as something more and other than a ‘background condition’ that needs to be erased for the parenthood of the ‘real’ parents to be legally acknowledged. Embracing the possibility of assisted reproduction requires that the assistance – and the assisters – are made visible and not relegated to a ‘hidden abode’ (cf. Marx in Fraser, 2014). What I would like to suggest here is to look for ways of thinking about this assistance in new ways. The ambition could be to move away from the notion of ‘surrogate’ in the meaning of substitution and supplementation towards a more relational being-together, thus expanding our ideas of family to include more categories of people (Lewis, 2018: 222). This would reflect more fully how children are made through collaborative efforts (cf. Thompson, 2005); efforts that include more than the conventional two biological parents.

Surrogacy framed as a relational being-together could, I suggest, counteract the troubles of surrogacy, such as commodification and exploitation, as it implies reciprocity beyond the market exchange. As such, it allows for an insistence on treating those providing the reproductive assistance as ‘full human beings’ (Rudrappa, 2015: 186), without requiring them to provide their labour as a gift. Not in any way a trouble-free proposition, it may promise a different type of happiness than one that seems to rely heavily on the perpetuation of existing social hierarchies and unequal distribution of power and money.

Notes

This anti-surrogacy, radical feminist position is often linked to FINRRAGE, which was ‘a loosely structured international women's network’ (Lewis, 2017: 102). People such as Raymond and Corea, referred to above, were both associated with FINRRAGE.

The element of consumption is most markedly present in commercial surrogacy, but altruistic surrogacy may also require the desiring-to-be parents to spend money. In my study of Norwegian desiring-to-be parents, those parents travelling to Canada – where surrogacy is altruistic – spent approximately 600,000 NOK, which is approximately US$ 80,000 at the current exchange rate. The money was spent on travelling, insurances, medical treatment, consulting services, and covering the surrogate mother's expenses.

Inspired by Derrida's (2016, orig. 1974) elaboration on the Heideggerian idea of sous rapture, I cross out ‘mother’ since the term ‘surrogate mother’ is inaccurate and potentially problematic for the gendered ideas it conveys about the reproductive labour performed (Pande, 2014). Yet, as the term ‘surrogate’ – or other common alternatives such as ‘gestational carrier’ – is no more accurate or politically responsible, the word ‘mother’ seems to be necessary and therefore remains legible.

References

Ahmed, S., 2010. Killing joy: Feminism and the history of happiness. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 35 (3), 571–594.

Allan, S., 2017. Governing transnational surrogacy practices: what role can national and international regulation play? In: Davies, M. (Ed.), Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy, human rights, and the politics of reproduction. Zed Books, London, pp. 344–375

Allen, A.L., 1990. Surrogacy, slavery and the ownership of life. Retrieved from. Faculty Scholarship http://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/faculty_scholarship/805/?utm_source=scholarship.law.upenn.edu%2Ffaculty_scholarship%2F805&utm_medium=PDF&utm_campaign=PDFCoverPages.

Almeling, R., 2011. Sex Cells: The Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles & London.

Andersen, U.C., 2013. Offerposisjonens paradoks–Offentlig debatt om surrogati. Tidsskr. Samfunnsfor. 54 (01), 31–62.

Andrews, L.B., 1988. Surrogate motherhood: the challenge for feminists. J. Law Med. Ethics 16 (1–2), 72–80.

Arditti, R., Klein, R.D., Minden, S. (Eds.), 1984. Test-tube women. What future for motherhood? Pandora Press, London

Ballantyne, A., 2014. Exploitation in cross-border reproductive care. Int. J. Fem. Approaches Bioeth. 7 (2), 75–99.

Becker, G., 1994. Metaphors in disrupted lives: Infertility and cultural constructions of continuity. Med. Anthropol. Q. 8 (4), 383–410.

Berend, Z., 2016. The Online World of Surrogacy. vol. 35. Berghahn Books.

Bergmann, S., 2011. Fertility tourism: circumventive routes that enable access to reproductive technologies and substances. Signs 36 (2), 280–289.

Bharadwaj, A., 2012. The other mother: supplementary wombs and the surrogate state in India. In: Knecht, M., Klotz, M., Beck, S. (Eds.), Reproductive Technologies as Global Form. Ethnographies of Knowledge, Practices, and Transnational Encounters. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt & New York.

Blyth, E., Landau, R. (Eds.), 2004. Third party assisted conception across cultures: social, legal and ethical perspectives. Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London and New York.

Boris, E., Parreñas, R.S., 2010. Intimate labors: Cultures, technologies, and the politics of care. Stanford University Press, Stanford.

Briggs, L., 2010. Reproductive technology: Of labor and markets. Fem. Stud. 36 (2), 359–374.

Butler, J., 2006. Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of gender. Routledge, New York.

Cherry, A.L., 2014. Rise of the Reproductive Brothel in the Global Economy: Some Thoughts on Reproductive Tourism, Autonomy, and Justice. Univ. Pa J. Law Soc. Change 17, 257.

Colen, S., 1990. Housekeeping for the green card: West Indian household workers, the state, and stratified reproduction in New York. At work in homes: Household workers in world perspective 3 pp. 89–118.

Corea, G., 1985. The mother machine. Reproductive technologies from artificial insemination to artificial wombs. Harper and Row, New York.

Crawshaw, M., Fronek, P., Blyth, E., Elvin, A., 2017. What are children's ‘best interests’ in international surrogacy? A social work perspective from the UK. In: Davies, M. (Ed.), Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy, human rights and the politics of reproduction. Zed Books, London, pp. 163–184.

Crockin, S.L., 2013. Growing families in a shrinking world: legal and ethical challenges in cross-border surrogacy. Reprod. BioMed. Online 27 (6), 733–741.

Darling, M.T., 2017. What about the children? Citizenship, nationality and the perils of statelessness. In: Davies, M. (Ed.), Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy, human rights and the politics of reproduction. Zed Books, London, pp. 185–203.

DasGupta, S., Dasgupta, S.D., 2014a. Business as Usual? The violence of reproductive trafficking in the Indian context. In: DasGupta, S., Dasgupta, S.D. (Eds.), Globalization and Transnational Surrogacy in India: Outsourcing Life. Lexington Books, Lanham, Boulder, New York, Toronto, Plymouth.

DasGupta, S., Dasgupta, S.D., 2014b. Globalization and transnational surrogacy in India: outsourcing life. Lexington Books.

Davies, M. (Ed.), 2017. Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy, human rights and the politics of reproduction. ZED Books, London.

Deomampo, D., 2013. Gendered Geographies of Reproductive Tourism. Gend. Soc. 27 (4), 514–537.

Deomampo, D., 2015. Defining Parents, Making Citizens: Nationality and Citizenship in Transnational Surrogacy. Med. Anthropol. 34 (3), 210–225.

Deomampo, D., 2016. Transnational Reproduction. Race, Kinship, and Commercial Surrogacy in India. NYU Press, New York.

Derrida, J. (2016). Of grammatology (G. C. Spivak, Trans.). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Dickenson, D., 2007. Property in the body: Feminist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Dow, K., 2016a. Can surrogacy every escape the taint of global exploitation?. Retrieved from. https://aeon.co/ideas/can-surrogacy-ever-escape-the-taint-of-global-exploitation?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=22756bbaa0-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_04_18&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-22756bbaa0-68880317

Dow, K., 2016b. Making a good life. An ethnography of nature, ethics, and reproduction. Princeton University Press, New Jersey & Oxfordshire.

Dworkin, A., 1983. Right-wing women: The politics of domesticated females. Perigee Books, New York.

Ekman, K.E., 2010. Varat och varan: prostitution, surrogatmödraskap och den delade människan (Being and Being Bought: Prostitution, surrogacy and the split self). Leopard Förlag, Stockholm.

Ekman, K.E., Hellerström, L., The Swedish Women's Lobby, 2017. A feminist no to surrogate motherhood. In: Davies, M. (Ed.), Babies for sale? Transnational surrogacy, human rights and the politics of reproduction. ZED, London.

Federici, S., 2012. Revolution at point zero: Housework, reproduction, and feminist struggle. PM Press, Oakland & New York.

Førde, K.E., 2017. Intimate Distance. Transnational Commercial Surrogacy in India. (Doctorate). University of Oslo, Oslo.

Franklin, S., 1997. Embodied progress: A cultural account of reproduction. Routledge, London.

Franklin, S., Lock, M. (Eds.), 2003. Remaking life and death. Toward an anthropology of the biosciences. School of American Research Press, Santa Fe.

Franklin, S., Ragoné, H., 1998. Reproducing reproduction: Kinship, power, and technological innovation. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

Fraser, N., 2014. Behind Marx's hidden abode. For an Expanded Conception of Capitalism. New Left Rev. (86), 55–72.

Glenn, E.N., 2010. Forced to care: Coercion and caregiving in America. Harvard University Press, Cambridge and London.

Golombok, S., MacCallum, F., Murray, C., Lycett, E., Jadva, V., 2006. Surrogacy families: parental functioning, parent–child relation- ships and children's psychological development at age 2. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 47 (2), 213–222.

Gondouin, J., 2014. Gay Fathers, Surrogate Mothers, and the Question of the Human. A Postcolonial Feminist Analysis of Emotions in Barn till varje pris? Lambda Nordice (3–4), 109–139.

Goodwin, M., 2010. Baby markets: Money and the new politics of creating families. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Goslinga-Roy, G.M., 2000. Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: An ethnographic perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies. Fem. Stud. 26 (1), 113–140.

Gruenbaum, D., 2012. Foreign Surrogate Motherhood: mater semper certa erat. Am. J. Comp. Law 60 (2), 475–505.

Gupta, J.A., 2006. Towards Transnational Feminisms. Some Reflections and Concerns in Relation to the Globalization of Reproductive Technologies. Eur. J. Women's Stud. 13 (1), 23–38.

Haraway, D., 2016. Staying with the trouble. Making kin in the Chthulucene. Duke University Press, Durham and London.

Hewitson, G., 2014. The Commodified Womb and Neoliberal Families. Rev. Radic. Polit. Econ. 46 (4), 489–495. https://doi.org/10.1177/0486613414537989.

Hochschild, A.R., 2011. Emotional Life on the Market Frontier. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37, 21–33.

Horsey, K., Sheldon, S., 2012. Still hazy after all these years: the law regulating surrogacy. Med. Law Rev. 20 (1), 67–89.

Inhorn, M.C., 2003. Local babies, global science: Gender, religion, and in vitro fertilization in Egypt. Routledge, New York and London.

Inhorn, M.C. (Ed.), 2007. Reproductive disruptions: Gender, technology, and biopolitics in the new millennium. Berghahn books, New York and London.

Inhorn, M.C., 2010. ‘Assisted’ motherhood in global Dubai: reproductive tourists and their helpers. The globalization of motherhood: Deconstructions and reconstructions of biology and care, pp. 180–202.

Jacobson, H., 2016. Labor of Love: Gestational Surrogacy and the Work of Making Babies. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London.

Jadva, V., Imrie, S., 2013. Children of surrogate mothers: psychological well-being, family relationships and experiences of surrogacy. Hum. Reprod. 29 (1), 90–96.

Jadva, V., Blake, L., Casey, P., Golombok, S., 2012. Surrogacy families 10 years on: relationship with the surrogate, decisions over disclosure and children's understanding of their surrogacy origins. Hum. Reprod. 27 (10), 3008–3013. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/des273.

Klein, R., 2017. Surrogacy: A Human Rights Violation. Spinifex, Victoria & Queensland, Australia.

Knecht, M., Beck, S., Klotz, M., 2012. Reproductive technologies as global form: ethnographies of knowledge, practices, and transna- tional encounters. Campus Verlag, Frankfurt and New York.

Kroløkke, C., 2012. From India with love: Troublesome citizens of fertility travel. Cult. Polit. 8 (2), 307–325.

Kroløkke, C., 2016. ART in the Sun: Assembling Fertility Tourism in the Caribbean. In: Kroløkke, C., Myong, L., Adrian, S.W., Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. (Eds.), Critical Kinship Studies. Rowman & Littlefield International, London & New York, pp. 149–166.

Kroløkke, C., Madsen, K.H., 2014. Moderskab (elser). Kvinder, Køn and Forskning 23 (1/2), 70–81.

Kroløkke, C., Pant, S., 2012. ‘I only need her uterus’: Neo-liberal Discourses on Transnational Surrogacy. Nord. J. Fem. Gend. Res. 20 (4), 233–248.

Kroløkke, C., Foss, K.A., Sandoval, J., 2010. The Commodification of Motherhood: Surrogacy as a Matter of Choice. In: Hayden, S., Hallstein, D.L.O.B. (Eds.), Contemplating maternity in an era of choice: Explorations into discourses of reproduction. Lexington Books, Plymouth, UK, pp. 95–114.

Kroløkke, C., Myong, L., Adrian, S.W., Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T., 2016. Critical Kinship Studies: Kinship (Trans)Formed. In: Kroløkke, C., Myong, L., Adrian, S.W., Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, T. (Eds.), Critical Kinship Studies. Rowman & Littlefield International, Ltd., London, pp. 1–12.

Lewin, E., 2013. Embracing Consumption: Making Sense of Gay Fathers' Strategies for Becoming Parents. Paper presented at the The Austin Summit on LGBT Families. University of Texas.

Lewis, S., 2017. Defending Intimacy against What? Limits of Antisurrogacy Feminisms. Signs J. Women Cult. Soc. 43 (1), 97–125.

Lewis, S., 2018. International Solidarity in reproductive justice: surrogacy and gender-inclusive polymaternalism. Gend. Place Cult. 25 (2), 207–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2018.1425286.

Luna, Z., Luker, K., 2013. Reproductive justice. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 9, 327–352.

Majumdar, A., 2017. Transnational Commercial Surrogacy and the (Un)making of Kin in India. Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

Mamo, L., 2007. Queering reproduction: Achieving pregnancy in the age of technoscience. Duke University Press.

Mamo, L., 2013. Queering the fertility clinic. J. Med. Humanit. 34 (2), 227–239.

Markens, S., 2012. The global reproductive health market: US media framings and public discourses about transnational surrogacy. Soc. Sci. Med. 74 (11), 1745–1753.

Melhuus, M., 2009. Conflicting notions of continuity and belonging: Assisted reproduction, law, and practices in Norway. Soc. Anal. 53 (3), 148–162.

Mitra, S., Schicktanz, S., Patel, T. (Eds.), 2018. Cross-Cultural Comparisons on Surrogacy and Egg Donation. Interdisciplinary Perspectives from India, Germany and Israel. Palgrave Macmillan.

Nadimpally, S., Venkatachalam, D., 2016. Marketing Reproduction: Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Commercial Surrogacy in India. Indian J. Gend. Stud. 23 (1), 87–104.

Nebeling Petersen, M., 2012. Somewhere, over the rainbow: biopolitiske rekonfigurationer af den homoseksuelle figur [biopolitical reconfigurations of the homosexual figure]. (Ph.D.). University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen.

Nebeling Petersen, M., 2018. Becoming Gay Fathers Through Trans- national Commercial Surrogacy. J. Fam. Issues 39 (3), 693–719. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513x16676859.

Nebeling Petersen, M., Kroløkke, C., Myong, L., 2017. Dad & daddy assemblage: Resuturing the nation through transnational surrogacy, homosexuality, and Norwegian exceptionalism. GLQ 23 (1), 83–112.

Pande, A., 2011. Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters? Reprod. BioMed. Online 23 (5), 618–625.

Pande, A., 2014. Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India. Columbia University Press, New York.

Pande, A., 2016. Global reproductive inequalities, neo-eugenics and commercial surrogacy in India. Curr. Sociol. 64 (2), 244–258.

Phillips, A., 2013. Our bodies, whose property? Princeton University Press, Princeton and Oxford

Radin, M.J., 1994. What, if Anything, Is Wrong with Baby Selling? Pас. Law J. 26, 135.

Radin, M.J., Sunder, M., 2010. Introduction: The Subject and Object of Commodification. In: Ertman, M.M., Williams, J.C. (Eds.), Rethinking Commodification. Cases and Readings in Law and Culture. vol. 20. New York University Press, New York and London, pp. 8–29.

Ragoné, H., 1994. Surrogate Motherhood. Conception in the Heart. Westview Press, Boulder, San Francisco & Oxford.

Raymond, J.G., 1989. The international traffic in women: Women used in systems of surrogacy and reproduction. Reprod. Genet. Eng. 2 (3).

Riggs, D.W., Due, C., 2013. Representations of reproductive citizenship and vulnerability in media reports of offshore surrogacy. Citizenship Stud. 17 (8), 956–969.

Riggs, D.W., Due, C., 2017. A Critical Approach to Surrogacy: Reproductive Desires and Demands. Routledge, London and New York.

Roberts, E.F., 1998. 'Native'Narratives of Connectedness: Surrogate Motherhood and Technology. Routledge, New York, pp. 193–211.

Rothman, B.K., 1988. Cheap labor: Sex, class, race—and ‘surrogacy’. Society 25 (3), 21–23.

Rudrappa, S., 2010. Making India the ‘mother destination’: Outsourcing labor to Indian surrogates. Res. Sociol. Work. 20, 253–285.

Rudrappa, S., 2012. India's reproductive assembly line. Contexts 11 (2), 22–27.

Rudrappa, S., 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York University Press, New York and London.

Rudrappa, S., 2017. Reproducing Dystopia: The Politics of Transnational Surrogacy in India, 2002–2015. Crit. Sociol. 1–15.

Rudrappa, S., Collins, C., 2015. Altruistic Agencies and Compassion- ate Consumers: Moral Framing of Transnational Surrogacy. Gend. Soc. 29 (6), 937–959.

Ruparelia, R., 2007. Giving Away the Gift of Life: Surrogacy and the Canadian Assisted Human Reproduction Act. Can. J. Fam. Law 23, 11.

Sama, 2012. Birthing A Market: A Study on Commercial Surrogacy (Retrieved from New Delhi).

Sandel, M.J., 1998. What money can't buy: the moral limits of markets. Tanner Lectures on Human Values 21 pp. 87–122.

Sandel, M.J., 2012. What money can't buy: the moral limits of markets. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York.

Sassen, S., 2000. Women's burden: counter-geographies of globalization and the feminization of survival. J. Int. Aff. 503–524.

Satz, D., 2010. Why some things should not be for sale: The moral limits of markets. Oxford University Press, Oxford and New York.

Scheper-Hughes, N., Wacquant, L., 2002. Commodifying bodies. vol. 7. Sage.

Schurr, C., 2018. The baby business booms: Economic geographies of assisted reproduction. Geogr. Compasse12395 https://doi.org/ 10.1111/gec3.12395.

Schurr, C., Militz, E., 2018. The affective economy of transnational surrogacy. Environ. Plan. A Econ. Space 50 (8), 1626–1645.

Sharp, L.A., 2000. The commodification of the body and its parts. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 287–328.

Siegl, V., 2018. Aligning the affective body. Commercial Surrogacy in Moscow and the Emotional Labour of Nastraivatsya. Tsantsa (23), 63–73.

Silliman, J.M., Fried, M.G., Ross, L., Gutiérrez, E.R., 2004. Undivided rights: Women of color organize for reproductive justice. South End Press, Cambridge.

Smietana, M., 2016. ‘Families Like We'd Always Known’? Spanish Gay Fathers' Normalization Narratives in Transnational Surrogacy. In: Lie, M., Lykke, N. (Eds.), Assisted Reproduction Across Borders: Feminist Perspectives on Normalizations, Disruptions and Transmissions. Routledge, New York and London, pp. 49–60.

Smietana, M., 2017. Affective De-Commodifying, Economic De-Kinning: Surrogates' and Gay Fathers' Narratives in U.S. Surrogacy. Sociol. Res. Online 22 (2), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.4312.

Spar, D.L., 2006. The baby business: How money, science, and politics drive the commerce of conception. Harvard Business Press, Boston.

Speier, A., 2016. Fertility Holidays: IVF Tourism and the Reproduction of Whiteness. New York University Press, New York.

Strathern, M., 1992. Reproducing the future: essays on anthropology, kinship and the new reproductive technologies. Manchester University Press, Manchester.

Strathern, M., 1995. Displacing knowledge: technology and the consequences for kinship. In: Ginsburg, F., Rapp, R. (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, pp. 346–363.

Strathern, M., 1998. Surrogates and substitutes: new practices for old? In: Good, J., Velody, I. (Eds.), The Politics of Postmodernity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 182–209

Stuvøy, I., 2016. Surrogati: Reproduksjon i globalt farvann. In: Ravn, M.N., Kristensen, G.K., Sørensen, S.Ø. (Eds.), Reproduksjon, kjønn og likestilling i dagens Norge. Fagbokforlaget, Oslo.

Stuvøy, I., 2018a. Accounting for the money-made parenthood of transnational surrogacy. In: Gurtin, Zeynep, Faircloth, Charlotte (Eds.), Anthropology & Medicine (Special issue on «Conceiving Contemporary Parenthood: Intentions, Expectations and Reproductive Assistance»).

Stuvøy, I., 2018b. Parenthood at a price: Accounting for the viability of transnational surrogacy. (Ph.D. Monograph). NTNU, Trondheim.

Teman, E., 2010. Birthing a mother: The surrogate body and the pregnant self. University of California Press, Berkeley, Los Angeles, and London.

Thompson, C., 1998. ‘Quit Snivelling, Cryo-Baby, We'll Work OUt Which One's Your Mama!’: Kinship in an infertility clinic. In: Davis-Floyd, R., Dumit, J. (Eds.), Cyborg Babies: From Techno- Sex to Techno-Tots. Routledge, New York and London, pp. 40–66.

Thompson, C., 2005. Making parents: the ontological choreography of reproductive technologies. MIT Press, Cambridge and London.

Tober, D.M., 2001. Semen as gift, semen as goods: reproductive workers and the market in altruism. Body Soc. 7 (2–3), 137–160.

Twine, F.W., 2015. Outsourcing the womb: Race, class and gestational surrogacy in a global market. Routledge, New York and London.

Vora, K., 2009. Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. Subjectivity 28 (1), 266–278.

Vora, K., 2015. Life support: Biocapital and the new history of outsourced labor. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis and London.

Wærness, K., 1975. Kvinners omsorgsarbeid i den ulønnete produksjon. (80). Levekårsundersøkelsen, Bergen.

Waldby, C., Cooper, M., 2010. From reproductive work to regenerative labour The female body and the stem cell industries. Fem. Theory 11 (1), 3–22.

Weeks, J., Heaphy, B., Donovan, C., 2001. Same sex intimacies: Families of choice and other life experiments. Routledge, London & New York.

Weinbaum, A.E., 2013. The Afterlife of Slavery and the Problem of Reproductive Freedom. Soc. Text 31 (2 115), 49–68.

Weston, K., 1991. Families we choose. Lesbians, gays, kinship. Columbia University Press, New York.

Whittaker, A., Speier, A., 2010. ‘Cycling overseas’: Care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med. Anthropol. 29 (4), 363–383.

Zelizer, V.A., 1985. Pricing the priceless child: The changing social value of children. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Zelizer, V.A., 2011. Economic lives: how culture shapes the economy. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

#surrogacy #human reproduction #surrogacy scholarship #assisted reproductive technology #feminist trouble #reproductive justice #parenthood #commodification #feminism #inequality

0 notes