Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Stratified Reproduction

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
International Handbook on Gender and Demographic Processes

Part of the book series: International Handbooks of Population ((IHOP,volume 8))

Abstract

Stratified reproduction identifies the way that social and even biological reproduction is unevenly distributed across populations. In this chapter I discuss how reproduction is stratified, and briefly analyze some examples of such reproduction. I then use the lens of stratified reproduction to suggest how this field of work connects to demography. Stratified reproduction is important in its own right, maybe especially so in this day of increasing assisted reproductive technologies. But stratified reproduction is also “good to think with” and provides insights about the work of demography, particularly demography's assumptions about individuals, about choice, gender, and the neoliberal world.

Thanks to Jan Brunson for comments on this chapter. And to students, faculty, and staff at Pennsylvania State University for their feedback.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 349.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 449.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Many use the terms reproduction and fertility interchangeably, and certainly, they can cover the same territory. But fertility, at least in demography, is sometimes defined fairly narrowly. For example, the Population Reference Bureau provides this definition of fertility: “the actual reproductive performance of an individual, a couple, a group, or a population. See general fertility rate” (PRB n.d.). And the PRB glossary does not even define reproduction, suggesting how it it not often used in demography. It is partly to signal my intention to include elements outside the usual range of demographic research that I primarily use “reproduction” in this chapter, although my decision also comes because of the large literature (outside demography) that uses the term “reproduction” rather than “fertility.”

  2. 2.

    Drawing from Althusser and Gramsci, Inhorn defines ideologies in a useful way for this discussion, as “articulating principles that organize beliefs, behaviors and social relationships and influence the lived experiences and meaning making of thinking subjects” (Inhorn 1996: 19).

  3. 3.

    Because of the uncertainties, obstacles, and costs, Inhorn and Patrizio have argued against the phrase “fertility/reproductive tourism;” they argue such a term suggests an ease and casualness to a process and effort that is often intense and difficult (Inhorn and Patrizio 2009).

  4. 4.

    Declines in transnational adoptions are not always about fewer children who might be adopted but are often a result of a country’s determination to stop foreign adoptions and care for abandoned or orphaned children in their own country.

  5. 5.

    In intracytoplasmic sperm injection, a single sperm is injected into an egg and then the fertilized egg is implanted into the uterus.

  6. 6.

    In vitro fertilization, a commonly used form of ART.

  7. 7.

    Thus, the transnational adoption of a child from a poor to a rich country might allow that child a higher standard of living. But such adoption does not change the circumstances that made the child available for adoption in the first place.

  8. 8.

    The questions raised here are related to those discussed by Schröder-Butterfill et al. in their chapter in this volume (Chap. 17); they argue that survey data often misses the messiness and regular changes in family connections and support, and even how a family or household is defined.

  9. 9.

    Morgan and Roberts (2012: 241) define reproductive governance as “the mechanisms through which different historical configurations of actors – such as state, religious, and international financial institutions, NGOs, and social movements – use legislative controls, economic inducements, moral injunctions, direct coercion, and ethical incitements to produce, monitor, and control reproductive behaviours and population practices.”

References

  • Adams, V. (Ed.). (2016). Metrics: What counts in global health. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Almeling, R. (2007). Selling genes, selling gender: Egg agencies, sperm banks, and the medical market in genetic material. American Sociological Review, 72(3), 319–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Almeling, R. (2015). Reproduction. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 423–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anagnost, A. (2000). Scenes of misrecognition: Maternal citizenship in the age of transnational adoption. Positions, 8(2), 389–421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, F., & Fawcett, J. T. (1975). The value of children: A cross-national study. Washington, DC: Educational Resources Information Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, A. V. (2012). Misconception: Social class and infertility in America. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, S. (2010). Tough choices: Structural paternalism and the landscape of choice. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Berend, Z. (2012). The romance of surrogacy. Sociological Forum, 27(4), 913–936.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. (2003). Mother, child, race, nation: The visual iconography of rescue and the politics of transnational and transracial adoption. Gender & History, 15(2), 179–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. (2012). Somebody’s children: The politics of transracial and transnational adoption. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Briggs, L. (2017). How all politics became reproductive politics. University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brunson, J. (2016). Planning families in Nepal: Global and local projects of reproduction. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bulatao, R. (1975). The value of children, a cross-national study (Vol. 2: Philippines). Honolulu: East-West Center Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burnett, V. (2017). As Mexican state limits surrogacy, global system is further strained. New York Times, 23 March. Accessed at: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/23/world/americas/as-mexican-state-limits-surrogacy-global-system-is-further-strained.html?

  • California Cryobank. (n.d.). Online page: Sperm donor search. Accessed at: https://cryobank.com/search/. 19 Sept 2017.

  • Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (n.d.). Infertility, ARTs. Accessed at: https://www.cdc.gov/art/index.html

  • Children’s Bureau. (2015). Foster Care Statistics 2015. Accessed at: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubPDFs/foster.pdf

  • Colen, S. (1995). ‘Like a mother to them’: Stratified reproduction and West Indian child care workers and employers in New York. In F. Ginsberg & R. Rapp (Eds.), Conceiving the new world order (pp. 78–102). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (1987). The meaning of motherhood in black culture and black mother-daughter relationships. Sage, 4(92), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, N. (1997). Maid to order in Hong Kong: An ethnography of filipina workers. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Constable, N. (2014). Born out of place: Migrant mothers and the politics of international labor. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crary, D. (2017a). Foreign adoptions to US families continue their long decline. US News and World Report. 13 April. Accessed at: https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-04-13/foreign-adoptions-to-us-families-continue-their-long-decline

  • Crary, D. (2017b). As number of adoptions drops, many US agencies face increased strain. Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. 3 May. Accessed at: http://www.chicagolawbulletin.com/Archives/2017/05/03/US-adoptions-down-5-3-17

  • Cui, W. Y. (2010). Mother or nothing: the agony of infertility. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 88, 881–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daniels, C. R., & Heidt-Forsyth, E. (2012). Gendered eugenics and the problematic of free market reproductive technologies: sperm and egg donation in the United States. Signs: Journal Of Women In Culture & Society, 37(3), 719–747.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dorow, S. (2006). Racialized choices: Chinese adoption and the ‘White Noise’ of blackness. Critical Sociology, 32(2/3), 357–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dubinsky, K. (2010). Babies without borders: Adoption and migration across the Americas. New York: NYU Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ehrenreich, B., & Hochschild, A. R. (2002). Introduction. In B. Ehrenreich & A. R. Hochschild (Eds.), Global woman: Nannies, maids, and sex workers in the new economy (pp. 1–13). New York: Metropolitan Books (Henry Holt).

    Google Scholar 

  • Eng, D. (2003). Transnational adoption and queer diasporas. Social Text, 21(3), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Epp, A., & Velagaleti, S. (2014). Outsourcing parenthood? How families manage care assemblages using paid commercial services. Journal of Consumer Research, 41(4), 911–935.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, C. (2002). Inequality near and far: Adoption as seen from the Brazilian favelas. Law and Society Review, 36(2), 397–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fonseca, C. (2003). Patterns of shared parenthood among the Brazilian poor. Social Text 74: Transnational Adoption, 21(1), 111–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furman, F. (2017). Blog: Just like a family. Justlikeafamilyblog.com. Accessed at: https://justlikefamilyblog.com/

  • Gailey, C. (2010). Blue ribbon babies and labors of love: Race, class, and gender in US adoption practice. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gamburd, M. (2000). The kitchen spoon’s handle: Transnationalisms and Sri Lanka’s migrant housemaids. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, F., & Rapp, R. (Eds.). (1995). Conceiving the new world order. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsburg, F., & Rapp, R. (1991). The politics of reproduction. Annual Review of Anthropology, 20, 311–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greil, A. L., McQuillan, J., Shreffler, K. M., Johnson, K. M., & Slauson-Blevins, K. S. (2011). Race-ethnicity and medical services for infertility: Stratified reproduction in a population-based sample of U.S. women. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 52(4), 493–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, D. (2005). A brief history of neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hochschild, A. (2012). The outsourced self. New York: Henry Holt and Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoffman, L. W. (1975). The value of children to parents and the decrease in family size. Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 119(6), 430–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, N., Culley, L., Blyth, E., Norton, W., Rapport, F., & Pacey, A. (2011). Cross-border reproductive care: A review of the literature. Reproductive Biomedicine Online, 22, 673–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hughes Rinker, C. (2015). Creating neoliberal citizens in Morocco: Reproductive health, development policy, and popular Islamic beliefs. Medical Anthropology, 34(3), 226–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M. C. (1996). Infertility and patriarchy: The cultural politics of gender and family life in Egypt. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M. C. (2011). Globalization and gametes: Reproductive ‘tourism’, Islamic bioethics, and Middle Eastern modernity. Anthropology & Medicine, 18(1), 87–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M. C. (2015). Cosmopolitan conceptions: IVF Sojourns in Global Dubai. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M. C., & Patrizio, P. (2009). Rethinking reproductive “tourism” as reproductive “exile”. Fertility and Sterility, 92(3), 904–906.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M. C., & Patrizio, P. (2015). Infertility around the globe: New thinking on gender, reproductive technologies, and global movements in the 21st century. Human Reproduction Update, 21(4), 411–426.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Inhorn, M., & Tremayne, S. (2016). Islam, assisted reproduction, and the bioethical aftermath. Journal Of Religion & Health, 55(2), 422–430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, J., & Placek, P. (2017). Adoption by the numbers. National Council for Adoption. Accessed at: https://www.adoptioncouncil.org/publications/2017/02/adoption-by-the-numbers

  • Klein, C. (2003). Cold war orientalism: Asia in the Middlebrow Imagination, 1945–1961. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leinaweaver, J. B. (2007). On moving children: The social implication of Andean child circulation. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 163–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leinaweaver, J. B. (2013). Adoptive migration: Raising Latinos in Spain. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • MacFaquhar, L. (2017, August 7 & 14). When should a child be taken from his parents? New Yorker Magazine, 93(23), 36–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann, S. (2015). White child, black nanny. Saturday Evening Post, 287(6), 44–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalf, S. (2017). Neoliberalism: The idea that swallowed the world. The Guardian 18 August. Accessed at: https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/aug/18/neoliberalism-the-idea-that-changed-the-world

  • Mishtal, J. (2012). Irrational non-reproduction? The ‘dying nation’ and the postsocialist logics of declining motherhood in Poland. Anthropology & Medicine, 19(2), 153–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, L. M., & Roberts, E. F. (2012). Reproductive governance in Latin America. Anthropology & Medicine, 19(2), 241–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, M. (2012). Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Nahman, M. (2016). Reproductive tourism: Through the anthropological ‘reproscope’. Annual Review of Anthropology, 45, 417–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, A. T., & Briggs, L. (2003). The culture of poverty, crack babies, and welfare cheats. Social Text, 21(3.) 76), 39–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pande, A. (2010). “At Least I Am Not Sleeping with Anyone”: Resisting the stigma of commercial surrogacy in India. Feminist Studies, 36(2), 292–312.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parreñas, R. (2001). Transgressing the nation-state: The partial citizenship and “(imagined) global community” of migrant Filipina domestic workers. Signs, 26(4), 1129–1154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parreñas, R. (2005). Children of global migration: Transnational families and gendered woes. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parreñas, R. (2008). The force of domesticity: Filipina migrants and globalization. New York: NYU Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pate, S. J. (2014). From orphan to adoptee: US empire and genealogies of korean adoption. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • PRB. (n.d.). Glossary of demographic terms. Accessed at: http://www.prb.org/Publications/Lesson-Plans/Glossary.aspx

  • Rapp, R. (2001). Gender, body, biomedicine: How some feminist concerns dragged reproduction to the center of social theory. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15(4), 466–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repo, J. (2016). Gender equality as biopolitical governmentality in a neoliberal European Union. Social Politics, 23(2), 307–328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, N. E. (1997). American adoptions of Chinese girls: The socio-political matrices of individual decisions. Women’s Studies International Forum, 20(1), 87–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Riley, N. E., & Van Vleet, K. (2012). Making families through adoption. Los Angeles: Sage Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (1998). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction, and the meaning of liberty. New York: Vintage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2002). Shattered bonds: The color of child welfare. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. E. (2008). The racial geography of child welfare: Toward a new research paradigm. Child Welfare, 87(2), 125–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. E. (2009). Race, gender, and genetic technologies: A new reproductive dystopia? Signs, 34(4), 783–804.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, D. (2012). Child protection as surveillance of African American families. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law, 36(4), 426–437.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romei, V. (2016). Intercountry adoption of children falls sharply. Financial Times. December 6. Accessed at: https://www.ft.com/content/eb32208a-b625-11e6-ba85-95d1533d9a62

  • Ross, L., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Selman, P. (2009). The movement of children for international adoption: Developments and trends in receiving states and states of origin, 1998–2004. In D. Marre & L. Briggs (Eds.), International adoption: Global inequalities and the circulation of children (pp. 32–51). New York: NYU Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Shang, X. Y. (2008). The role of extended families in child care and protection: The case of rural China. International Journal of Social Welfare, 17(3), 204–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sheoran, N., Deomampo, D., & Van Hollen, C. (2015). Extending theory, rupturing boundaries: Reproduction, health, and medicine beyond North-South binaries. Medical Anthropology, 34(3), 185–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Silverstein, M., & Cong, Z. (2013). Grandparenting in rural China. Generations, 37(1), 46–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, H. D. (2014). ‘The World’s Back Womb?’: Commercial surrogacy and infertility inequalities in India. American Anthropologist, 116(4), 824–828.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smolin, D. (2013). The corrupting influence of the United States on a vulnerable intercountry adoption system: A guide for stakeholders, Hague and non-Hague nations, NGOs, and concerned parties. Utah Law Review, 4(15), 81–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solinger, R. (1992). Wake up little Susie: Single pregnancy and race before Roe v. Wade. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solinger, R. (2001). Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption, abortion, and welfare. New York: Hill and Wang.

    Google Scholar 

  • Span, P. (2018, Feb 2). If immigrants are pushed out, who will care for the elderly? New York Times. Accessed at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/02/health/illegal-immigrants-caregivers.html

  • Spar, D. (2006). The baby business. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stack, C. (1972). Black kindreds: Parenthood and personal kindreds among urban blacks. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 3(2), 194–206.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stack, C. (1975). All our kin. New York: Harper.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, R. J., Chatters, L. M., & Celious, A. (2003). Extended family households among Black Americans. African American Research Perspectives, 9(1), 133–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist. (2016). Babies without borders. The Economist 6 August. Accessed at: https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21703369-hundreds-thousands-children-languish-orphanages-adopting-them-should-be-made

  • U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Quick facts: United States. Accessed at: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216

  • Uffalussy, J. (2014). The cost of IVF. Forbes Magazine. 6 Feb. Accessed at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/learnvest/2014/02/06/the-cost-of-ivf-4-things-i-learned-while-battling-infertility/#63fd875624dd

  • Van Vleet, K. (2008). Performing kinship: Narrative, gender, and the intimacies of power in the Andes. Austin: University of Texas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voight, K., & Brown, S. (2013). International adoptions in decline as number of orphans grows. CNN 13 Sept. Accessed at: http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/world/international-adoption-main-story-decline/index.html

  • Whittaker, A. (2015). Technology, biopolitics, rationalities and choices: Recent studies of reproduction. Medical Anthropology, 54, 259–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wolf, M. (1972). Women and the family in Rural Taiwan. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wulczyn, F., & Lery, B. (2007). Racial disparities in foster care admissions. Chapin Hall Center for Children: University of Chicago. Accessed at: http://www.chapinhall.org/sites/default/files/old_reports/399.pdf

  • Wulczyn, F., Gibbons, R., Snowden, R., & Lery, B. (2013). Poverty, social disadvantage and the black/white placement gap. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 65–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yngvesson, B. (2002). Placing the ‘Gift Child’ in transnational adoption. Law & Society Review, 36(2), 227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, ME, USA

    Nancy E. Riley

Authors
  1. Nancy E. Riley
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nancy E. Riley .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Maine, USA

    Nancy E. Riley

  2. Department of Anthropology, University of Hawai’i at Mānoa, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA

    Jan Brunson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Riley, N.E. (2018). Stratified Reproduction. In: Riley, N., Brunson, J. (eds) International Handbook on Gender and Demographic Processes. International Handbooks of Population, vol 8. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1290-1_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1290-1_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1288-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1290-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation