Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 53–60 | Cite as

Socializing the public: invoking Hannah Arendt’s critique of modernity to evaluate reproductive technologies

Scientific Contribution

Abstract

The article examines the writings of one of the most influential political philosophers, Hannah Arendt, and specifically focuses on her views regarding the distinction between the private and the public and the transformation of the public to the social by modernity. Arendt’s theory of human activity and critique of modernity are explored to critically evaluate the social contributions and implications of reproductive technologies especially where the use of such technologies is most dominant within Western societies. Focusing on empirical studies on new reproductive technologies in Israel, it is argued, powerfully demonstrates Arendt’s theory, and broadens the perspectives through which society should evaluate these new technologies towards a more reflective understanding of its current laws and policies and their affect on women more generally.

Keywords

Reproductive technologies Hannah Arendt Reproductive health law and policy Israel 

References

  1. Amir, D., and O. Benjamin. 1997. Defining encounters: Who are the women entitled to join the Israeli collective? Women’s Studies International Forum 20(5–6): 639–650.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benhabib, Seyla. 1996. The reluctant modernism of Hannah Arendt. Thousand Oaks, London & New Delhi: Sage Publications Ltd.Google Scholar
  3. Birenbaum-Carmeli, D., and M. Dirnfeld. 2008. In vitro fertilisation policy in Israel and women’s perspectives: The more the batter? Reproductive Health Matters 16(31): 182–191.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Canovan, Margaret. 1992. Hannah Arendt: A reinterpretation of her political thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2010. National Vital Statistic System. Death rates by 10-year age groups: US and each state 19992007. Available: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/mortality/gmwk23r.htm. 30 Dec 2010.
  6. Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel. 2010. Mortality Rates per 1000 Residents by Age, Religion and Sex. Statistical abstract of Israel, 2010 no. 61. Available: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/shnaton/text_search_eng_new.html?CYear=2010&Vol=61&input=mortality. 30 Dec 2010.
  7. Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel, Patterns of fertility in 2005 (28.8.06). Available at: http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_template.html?hodaa=200601184. (in Hebrew).
  8. Central Bureau of Statistics of Israel, Patterns of fertility in 2007 (16.11.08). Available at http://www.cbs.gov.il/reader/newhodaot/hodaa_template.html?hodaa=200801231. (in Hebrew).
  9. Cohen, Jean L. 1997. Rethinking privacy: Autonomy, identity, and the abortion controversy. In Public and private in thought and in practice: Perspectives on a grand dichotomy, eds. J. Weintraub, and K. Kumar, 133–165. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Curtis, Kimberley F. 1995. Hannah Arendt, feminist theorizing and the debate over new reproductive technologies. Polity 28(2): 159–187.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. D’entrèves, Maurizio Passerin. 1994. The political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. London & NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Department of Health. 2009. Abortions statistics: England and Wales: 2008, Table 3. Available: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Publications/PublicationsStatistics/DH_099285. 21 May 2009.
  13. Fiske, A.P. 1992. The four elementary forms of sociality: Framework for a unified theory of social relations. Psychological Review 4: 689–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Francis, H.W.S. 1982. Of gossips, eavesdroppers and peeping toms. Journal of Medical Ethics 8: 134–143.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harwood, K. 2007. The infertility treadmill: Feminist ethics, personal choice, and the use of reproductive technologies. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hashiloni-Dolev, Y. 2007. A life (Un)worthy of living. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.Google Scholar
  17. Hathaway, Feighanne, Esther Burns, and Harry Ostrer. 2009. Consumers’ desire towards current and prospective reproductive genetic testing. Journal of Genetic Counseling 18(2): 137–146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hegel, G.W.F. 2001. Philosophy of right. (trans: Dyde, S.W.). Kitchener, Ontario: Batoche Books Ltd.Google Scholar
  19. Heyd, David. 2009. Male or female we will create them: The ethics of sex selection for non-medical reasons. In Reprogen-ethics and the future of gender, ed. Frida Simonstein, 161–173. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Kahn, S.M. 2000. Reproducing Jews: A cultural account of assisted conception in Israel (Body, commodity, text). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Klawiter, Maren. 1990. Using Hannah Arendt and Heidegger to consider feminist thinking on women and reproductive/infertility technologies. Hypatia 5(3): 65–89.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kohn, Jerome. 2000. Freedom: The priority of the political. In The Cambridge companion to Hannah Arendt, 113–129. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kukla, R. 2005. Mass hysteria: Medicine, culture and mother’s bodies. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  24. Landau, R., R. Weissenberg, and I. Madgar. 2008. A child of “Hers”: Older single mothers and their children conceived through IVF with both egg and sperm donation. Fertility and Sterility 90(3): 576–583.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. MacKinnon, Catherine A. 1987. Feminism unmodified: Discourses on life and law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ministry of Health. 2009. Termination of pregnancies by law 19902008. Available: http://www.health.gov.il/pages/default.asp?maincat=2&catid=576&pageid=4944. 14 Dec 2009 (in Hebrew).
  27. O’Brien, Mary. 1981. The politics of reproduction. Boston, London & Henley: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  28. Offer, A. 2006. The challenge of affluence. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Office for National Statistics. 2010. Deaths: Age and sex, numbers and rates 1976 onwards (England and Wales). Available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/STATBASE/ssdataset.asp?vlnk=9552. 30 Dec 2010.
  30. Parnes, E. and A. Asch. 2000. Introduction. In Prenatal testing and disability rights, eds. Erik Parnes and Adrienne Asch, ix–xvi. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Pateman, C. 1983. Feminist critiques of the public/private dichotomy. In Public and private in social life, eds. S.I. Benn, and G.F. Gaus. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
  32. Pitkin, Hannah F. 1981. Justice: On relating private and public. Political Theory 9(3): 327–352.Google Scholar
  33. Pitkin, Hannah F. 1995. Conformism, housekeeping, and the attack of the blob: The origins of Hannah Arendt’s concept of the social. In Feminist interpretations of Hannah Arrendt, ed. Bonnie Honig, 51–81. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Population Reference Bureau. 2008. World population data sheet. Available at: http://www.prb.org/pdf08/08WPDS_Eng.pdf. Accessed on 5 Feb 2009.
  35. Raz, A. 2004. Important to test, important to support: Attitudes towards disability rights and prenatal diagnosis among leaders of support groups for genetic disorders in Israel. Social Science and Medicine 59(9): 1857–1866.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Remennick, L. 2000. Childless in the land of imperative motherhood: Stigma and coping among infertile Israeli women. Sex Roles 43: 821–841.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Remennick, L. 2006. The quest after the perfect baby: Why do Israeli women seek prenatal genetic testing? Sociology of Health & Illness 28(1): 21–53.Google Scholar
  38. Rich, Adrienne. 1979. Conditions for work: The common world of women. In On lies, secrets, and silence: Selected prose, 19661978, 204–214. New York: W.W. Norton.Google Scholar
  39. Robertson, John. 1994. Children of choice: Freedom and the new reproductive technologies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Rosato, J.L. 2004. The children of ART: Should the law protect them from harm? Utah Law Review 57: 110.Google Scholar
  41. Sennet, R. 1974. The fall of public man. New York, NY: Vintage Books.Google Scholar
  42. Shanley, M.L. 2001. Making babies, making families: What matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption and same-sex and unwed parents. Boston: Beacon Press.Google Scholar
  43. Sher, C., O. Romano-Zelekha, M. Green, and T. Shohat. 2003. Factors affecting performance of prenatal genetic testing by Israeli Jewish women. American Journal of Medical Genetics 120A: 418–422.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sperling, Daniel. 2008. Posthumous interest: Legal and ethical perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sperling, Daniel. 2009. From Iran to Latin America: Must prenatal diagnosis be provided with abortion for congenital abnormalities? American Journal of Bioethics 9(8): 61–63.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sperling, Daniel. 2010. Commanding the “be fruitful and multiply” directive: Reproductive ethics, law and policy in Israel. Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 19(3): 363–371.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sperling, D., and Y. Simon. 2010. Attitudes and policies regarding access to fertility are and assisted reproductive technologies in Israel. Reproductive Biomedicine Online 21(7): 854–861.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Weiss, Meira. 1994. Conditional love: Parents’s attitudes toward handicapped children. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publications.Google Scholar
  49. Weissenberg, R., R. Landau, and I. Madgar. 2007. Older single mothers assisted by sperm donation and their children. Human Reproduction 22(10): 2784–2791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Hebrew University of JerusalemJerusalemIsrael

Personalised recommendations