Surrogate woman: Ethnography of biomedical imaging practices in Thailand
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This paper draws from medical anthropology’s approach to body and cross-border reproductive care. Using personal narratives and ethnographic observations, I examine how the lives of commercial surrogate woman have been constructed and depicted in the context of widespread concerns about Assisted Reproductive Technology and high anxiety maternity, in particular issues relating to the Marxist theory that the production of life concept known as the “womb” is a non-productive move to the Critical Theory Concept. I argue that maternity must be understood in ways that are contemporary and that the narrative’s woman undermines biomedical sensory.The study traces three important findings of surrogacy cases in Phetchabun. Frist, surrogates create lives through “artificial wombs” and “workin’ it”, a constellation of dynamic and biomedical knowledge including : obstetrical ultrasound which in practice cultivates the surrogates from becoming utilized biomedical technologies in unexpected ways; as well as clinical treatment practices and the subjective experiences of woman’s labor among surrogates. Second, In the three cases explored, views on rhetorical practices and bodily techniques as part of the everyday process of biomedical practices and conducts ethnical life when such a life is often deemed womb, foreign, otherness. Third, surrogates are often subjected, as a result of juggling globalized, “modern” opportunities and lifestyle on the one hand with local expectation and regulation on the other. I introduce the concept of irrelevance narrative as a mean of making sense of ethno-gender identity and how surrogates views the role of subjective in their practices of biomedicine.
Article Details
The articles featured in the Journal of Language and Culture (JLC) constitute academic works representing the viewpoints of the respective author(s). It is crucial to note that these opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board.
All articles published in JLC are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license grants permission for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided proper credit is given to the original author(s) and the source.
References
Braverman, A. M., & Corson, S. L. (1992). Characteristics of participants in a gestational carrier program. Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics, 9(4), 353–357.
Cussins, C. (1996). Ontological Choreography: Agency through Objectification in Infertility Clinics. Social Studies of Science, 26, (pp.576-610).
Cussins, C. (1998a) Producing reproduction: Techniques of normalization and naturalization in Infertility Clinics. In Reproducing Reproduction: Kinship, Power, and Technological Innovation. Sarah Franklin and Helena Ragone, (Eds.) (pp.66-101). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Ciccarelli, J. C. (1997). The surrogate mother: a post-birth follow-up. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58(3-B), 1522.
Ciccarelli, J. C., & Beckman, L. J. (2005). Navigating rough waters: An overview of psychological aspects of surrogacy. Journal of Social Issues, 61(1), 21–43.
Einwohner, J. (1989). Who becomes a surrogate: Personality characteristics.In J. Offerman Zuckerberg (Ed.), Gender in transition: A new frontier (pp.123-133). New York and London: Plenum Medical Book Company.
Faquhar, D. (1996). The other machine: Discourse and reproductive technologies. New York: Routledge.
Firestone, S. (1970). The dialectic of sex: The case for feminist revolution. New York: Morrow.
Franklin, S. (1995). Postmodern procreation: A cultural account of assisted reproduction. In F. Ginsburg and R.Rapp (Eds), Conceiving the New World Order: The Global Politics of Reproduction(pp.323-345). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Franklin, S. (2005a). Consent session data collection: Pilot exercise results’, findings. Presented at the Second Meeting of the UK Network of hES Cell Coordinators (hESCCO), Leeds 28-29 June.
Franklin, S. (2005b) Stem cells R Us: Emergent life forms and the global biological. In A. Ong & S. Collier (Eds) Global Assemblages: Technology, Politics and Ethics as Anthropological Problems (pp.59-78). New York and London: Blackwell.
Franklin, S. (2006a). Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells. Biosocieties, 1(1), pp.71-90.
Franklin, S. (2006b). The IVF-Stem cell interface. International Journal of Surgery 4(2), pp.86-90.
Greil, A. (2002). Infertile bodies: Medicalization, metaphor and agency. In Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies. M. C. Inhorn and F. V. Balen, (Eds). (pp.101-118). Berkeley: University of California Press.
Haraway, D. (1991). A cyborg manifesto: Science, technology and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books. (pp.149-182)
Haraway, D. (2004). The haraway reader. New York: Routledge.
Hibino, Y. and Shimazono, Y. (2013). Becoming a surrogate online: “Message board” surrogacy in Thailand. Asian Bioethics Review March, 5(1), pp.56-72.
Husserl, E. (1991). On the phenomenology of the consciousness of international time (1893-1917). J. B Brough, trans. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Ivry, T. (forthcoming). Pregnant with meaning: Conceptions of pregnancy in Japan and Israel. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Jadva, V., Murray, C., Lycett, E., MacCallum, F., & Golombok, S. (2003). Surrogacy: the experiences of surrogate mothers. Human Reproduction, 18(10), pp.2196-2204.
Kahn, S. M. (1997). Reproducing Jews: The social uses and cultural meanings of the new reproductive technologies. In Israel. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Anthropology, Harvard University.
Kanefield, L. (1999). The reparative motive in surrogate mothers. Adoption Quarterly, 2(4), pp.5-19.
Keyes, C. (1984). Mother or mistress but never a monk : Buddhist notions of female gender in rural Thailand. American Ethnologist, 11(2), pp.223-241.
Merleau-Ponty, M. (2003) Das Auge and der Geist. Philosophische Essays. Meiner, Hamburg.
Markens, S. (2007). Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Rogone H, The gift of life: Surrogate motherhood, gamete donationand construction of altruism. In R Cook, S D. Sclater, and F Kaganas, (Eds), Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives (p.210).
Ragone, H. (1994). Surrogate motherhood: Conception in the heart. Boulder: Westview Press.
Rao, R. (2003). Surrogacy law in the United States: The outcome of ambivalence. In F. Kaganas (Ed.), Surrogate motherhood: International perspectives (pp.23–35). Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Press.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). With child in mind: Studies of the personal encounter with infertility. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Samama, E. (2002). My womb, her baby: Motivations for surrogate motherhood as reflected in women’s narratives in Israel. M. A. thesis submitted to the Department. of Social Work. Jerusalem: Hebrew University.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1992). Death without weeping: The violence of everyday life in Brazil. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Scheper-Hughes, N. (1994). Embodied knowledge: Thinking with the body in critical medical anthropology. In Robert Borofsky Assessing Cultural Anthropology. New York: McGrow Hill. pp.229-242.
Stratherm, M. (2003). Still giving nature a helping hand?: A debate about technology and society, In R. Cook and S. D. Sclater (Eeds.), Surrogate Motherhood: International Perspectives (pp.281-297). Hart Publishing, Oxford.
Schwartz, L. L. (2003). Technological fragmentation and women’s empowerment: Surrogate motherhood. Israel. Women’s Studies Quarterly, 31(3 & 4), 11-34.
Schwartz, L. L. (2003b). The medicalization of ‘‘nature’’ in the ‘‘artificial body’’: surrogate motherhood. Israel Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 17(1), pp.78–98.
Schwartz, L. L (2006). The birth of a mother: Mythologies of surrogate motherhood in Israel. PhD. Dissertation. Department of Sociology and Anthropology. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schwartz, L. L. (2008).The social construction of surrogacy research: An anthropological critique of the psychosocial scholarship on surrogate motherhood Social Science & Medicine.
Warner, J. (2008). Outsourced wombs. The New York Times. Retrieve from http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/03/outsourced-wombs/#comments
Wearing, B. (1984). The ideology of motherhood. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Weiss, M. (1994). Conditional love: Parents’ attitudes toward handicapped children. Westport Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey.
Van Zyl, L., & van Niekerk, A. (2000). Interpretations, perspectives and intentions in surrogate motherhood. Journal of Medical Ethics, 26(5), pp.404-409.
Van Den Akker, O. (2003). Genetic and gestational surrogate mothers’experience of surrogacy. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology, 21(2), pp.145–161.
Vora, K. (2009). Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. Subjectivity, 28(1), pp.226-278.
Vutyavanich, T et al. (2011). Assisted Reproductive Technologies in Thailand: 201-2007 Results Generated from the ART Registry, Royal Thai College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Journal of Obstetricts and Gynaecology Research. 37(3),pp.234-244.