Advertisement

Transnational Feminism for Reproductive Justice

  • Sheela Saravanan
Chapter

Abstract

Assisted reproductive technologies have provided a wide range of choices and opportunities for people to have children using genetics of their choice (either their own genetics or others). These technologies can also be used in ways that are harmful to communities with lower access to resources and power. An analytical framework using stratified reproduction in the context of surrogacy in India reveals that some individuals gain reproductive empowerment at the cost of the health and even life of some other women based on inequalities. The reproductive rights framework is inadequate in understanding this stratification. Scholars and activists have rigorously engaged in debates and discourse through their writings regarding women’s agency and their broader social empowerment from a variety of critical perspectives especially keeping in view the structural inequalities social injustice in the commercial markets of reproductive labour, babies, and bodies. In recent years, several scholars have suggested the reproductive justice framework as a way forward towards understanding and addressing such social and global injustice (Mohapatra in Ann Health Law 21(1):191–200, 2012; Roberts in Signs 34(4):783–804, 2009; Jesudason and Kimport in Front J Women Stud 34(3):213–225, 2013; Luna and Luker in Ann Rev Law Soc Sci 9:327–352, 2013; Gupta in IJFAB Int J Fem Approaches Bioeth 5:25–51, 2012; Galpern, Presentation for SisterSong’s “Let’s Talk About Sex” Conference, Chicago, IL, 2007; Bailey in Hypatia 26:715–741, 2011; Fixmer-Oraiz in J Women Stud 34(3):126–163, 2013; West in Yale Law J 1394–1432, 2009; Gaard in Eth Environ 15(2):103–129, 2010; Donchin in Bioethics 24(7):323–332, 2010; Callahan and Roberts in Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1155, 1996; Dickenson in Bioethics 15(3):205–217, 2001). Building on this scholarship, I examine a possible strategic pathway to take this forward by drawing on the reproductive justice framework towards a transnational feminist solidarity that recognizes the intersectionality of structural social oppressions operating through historic systems of postcolonial and neocolonial domination.

Keywords

Transnational feminism Reproductive justice Intersectionality 

References

  1. ACRJ. 2005. A new vision for advancing our movement for reproductive health, reproductive rights and reproductive justice. Oakland, CA: Asian Communities for Reproductive Justice.Google Scholar
  2. Bailey, Alison. 2011. Reconceiving surrogacy: Toward a reproductive justice account of Indian surrogacy. Hypatia 26: 715–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Callahan, Joan C., and Dorothy E. Roberts. 1996. A feminist social justice approach to reproduction-assisting technologies: A case study on the limits of liberal theory. Faculty Scholarship. Paper 1155.Google Scholar
  4. Cherry, April L. 2014. The rise of the reproductive brothel in the global economy: Some thoughts on reproductive tourism, autonomy, and justice. 17 U. Pa. J.L. & Soc. Change 257: 269–271.Google Scholar
  5. Deomampo, Daisy. 2013. Transnational surrogacy in India: Interrogating power and women′s agency. Frontiers 34 (3): 167–188.Google Scholar
  6. Dickenson, Donna. 2001. Property and womens alienation from their own reproductive labour. Bioethics 15 (3): 205–217.Google Scholar
  7. Donchin, A. 2010. Reproductive tourism and the quest for global gender justice. Bioethics 24 (7): 323–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Court of Human Rights. 2017. Strasbourg. http://www.echr.coe.int/Pages/home.aspx?p=home.
  9. Fixmer-Oraiz, Natalie. 2013. Speaking of solidarity: Transnational gestational surrogacy and the rhetorics of reproductive (in)justice. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 34 (3): 126–163.Google Scholar
  10. Frankenberg, Ruth. 1993. White women, race matters: The social construction of whiteness, 304. University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gaard, Greta. 2010. Reproductive technology, or reproductive justice?: An ecofeminist, environmental justice perspective on the rhetoric of choice. Ethics & the Environment 15 (2), 103–129.Google Scholar
  12. Galpern, Emily, Mia Mingus, and Cara Page. 2007. Surviving ourselves: Unpacking reproductive justice, genetic technologies and eugenics. In Presentation for SisterSong’s “Let’s Talk About Sex” Conference, Chicago, IL, June 1, 2007.Google Scholar
  13. Ghimire, D.J., W.G. Axinn, S.T. Yabiku and A. Thoirnton. 2006. Social change, premarital nonfamily experience, and spouse choice in an arranged marriage society. American Journal of Sociology 111: 1181–1218.Google Scholar
  14. Grewal, I., and C. Kaplan. 1994. Scattered hegemonies: Post-modernity and transnational Feminists Practices. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gupta, J. 2012. Reproductive biocrossings: Indian egg donors and surrogates in the globalized fertility market. IJFAB: International Journal of Feminist Approaches to Bioethics 5: 25–51.Google Scholar
  16. Hampton, Tracy. 2010. Child marriage threatens girl’s health. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association 304 (5): 509–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jesudason, Sujatha, and Katrina Kimport. 2013. Decentering the individual and centering community: Using a reproductive justice methodology to examine the uses of reprogenetics. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 34 (3): 213–225.Google Scholar
  18. Klein, Renate. 2017. Surrogacy: A human rights violation. Melbourne: Spinifex Press.Google Scholar
  19. Langlois, A. 2009. Normative and theoretical foundations of human rights. In: Human rights: Politics and practise, ed. by M. Goodhart. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Luna, Zakiya, and Kristin Luker. 2013. Reproductive justice. Annual Review of Law and Social Science 9: 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Mackie, Vera. 2001. The language of globalization, transnationality and feminism. International Feminist Journal of Politics 3: 180–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mies, M., and V. Shiva. 1993. Ecofeminism. London: Zed.Google Scholar
  23. Mohanty, C.T. 1986. Under western eyes: Feminist scholarship and colonial discourses. Boundary 2 (12): 333–358.Google Scholar
  24. Mohanty, C.T. 2003. “Under western eyes” revisited: Feminist solidarity through anticapitalist struggles. Signs 28: 499–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mohapatra, Seema. 2012. Achieving reproductive justice in the international surrogacy market. Annals of Health Law 21 (1): 191–200.Google Scholar
  26. Okin, Susan Moller. 1998. Feminism, women’s human rights, and cultural differences. Hypatia 13: 32–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pande, A. 2014. Wombs in labor: Transnational commercial surrogacy in India, 252 p. New York: Columbia University Press. Google Scholar
  28. Roberts, Dorothy E. 2009. Race, gender, and genetic technologies: A new reproductive dystopia? Signs 34 (4): 783–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rothman, Barbara Katz. 1992. Reproductive technologies and surrogacy: A feminist perspective. Creighton Law Review 25: 1599–1616.Google Scholar
  30. Rudrappa, S. 2015. Discounted life: The price of global surrogacy. New York: New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. SAMA and S. Sharma. 2010. Can we see the baby bump. India: Surfilms.Google Scholar
  32. SAMA. 2012. Birthing a market: A study on commercial surrogacy. New Delhi: SAMA-Resource Group for Women and Health.Google Scholar
  33. Sangari, Kumkum. 2015. Solid liquid: A (trans)national reproductive formation. Tulika Books: New Delhi.Google Scholar
  34. Saravanan, S. 2010. Transnational surrogacy and objectification of gestational mothers. Economic and Political Weekly 45: 26–29.Google Scholar
  35. Saravanan, S. 2013. An ethnomethodological approach to examine exploitation in the context of capacity, trust and experience of commercial surrogacy in India. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 8: 10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Scheper-Hughes, N. 2000. The global traffic in human organs. Current Anthropology 41 (2): 191–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sunder Rajan, Rajeswari. 2000. Introduction: Feminism and the politics of resistance. Indian Journal of Gender Studies 7: 153–165.Google Scholar
  38. The Rome Petition. 2017. 2nd NGO European meeting on the abolition of surrogacy. 27th February. European Women’s Lobby: piazza di Monte Citorio, Rome.Google Scholar
  39. Vora, Kalindi. 2009. Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy. In special issue, Re-tooling subjectivities: Exploring the possible through feminist science studies. Subjectivities 28 (1).Google Scholar
  40. Weedon, Chris. 1999. Feminism, theory and the politics of difference. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  41. West, Robin. 2009. From choice to reproductive justice: De-constitutionalizing abortion rights. The Yale Law Journal 118: 1394–1432.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Anthropology, South Asia InstituteHeidelberg UniversityHeidelbergGermany

Personalised recommendations