Skip to main content

Introduction: Defining the ‘Problem’: Perspectives on Infertility

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Abstract

This section introduction considers diverse definitions of infertility in different historical and disciplinary contexts. The chapters invite readers to consider the extent to which the ‘biological’ category of infertility has always been mediated by social and cultural concerns; how changing definitions have shaped ‘patient’ experience; how definitions shape the historical object of study; and some of the methodological problems which might be associated with researching the history of infertility. These chapters reflect on issues of perennial importance to the history of infertility, controversies which have not been resolved, and methodological problems which remain constant. They show that throughout past ages, individuals brought their own understandings – shaped by manifold social, cultural, and economic resources – to the experience of living with and attempting to overcome infertility. The section therefore builds on existing research on the history of infertility, but also interrogates the assumptions of this research, and opens out new possibilities for future histories.

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

Notes

  1. 1.

    Naomi Pfeffer, The Stork and the Syringe: A Political History of Reproductive Medicine (Cambridge, 1993), pp. 27–8.

  2. 2.

    Margarete Sandelowski and Sheryl de Lacey, ‘The Uses of a “Disease”: Infertility as Rhetorical Vehicle’, in Marcia C. Inhorn and Frank van Balen (eds), Infertility Around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London, 2002), pp. 34–5.

  3. 3.

    Sandelowski and de Lacey, ‘The Uses of a “Disease”’, pp. 34–5.

  4. 4.

    See entries for ‘barren’, ‘infertile’, ‘infertility’, ‘sterile’, and sterility’ in Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1989).

  5. 5.

    Margaret Marsh and Wanda Ronner, The Empty Cradle: Infertility in America from Colonial Times to the Present (Baltimore, MD, 1996), pp. 243–55; Rebecca Flemming, ‘The Invention of Infertility in the Classical Greek World: Medicine, Divinity, and Gender’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 87 (2013), pp. 567–8.

  6. 6.

    Donated semen must now be tested for HIV, which requires deep-freezing for the incubation period for HIV, thawing, and testing. This means that artificial insemination, if conducted via medical agencies rather than informal arrangements, is no longer a low-tech procedure. See Frank van Balen and Marcia C. Inhorn, ‘Introduction. Interpreting Infertility: A View from the Social Sciences’, in Marcia C. Inhorn and Frank van Balen (eds), Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies (Berkeley, Los Angeles, CA, and London, 2002), p. 16. On the development of ‘sperm banks’, see Simone B. Novaes, ‘Semen Banking and Artificial Insemination by Donor in France: Social and Medical Discourse’, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2:2 (February 1986).

  7. 7.

    See Tim Hitchcock, ‘Confronting the Digital, or How Academic History Writing Lost the Plot’, Cultural and Social History, 10:1 (March 2013).

  8. 8.

    Irina L.G. Todorova and Tatyana Kotzeva, ‘Social Discourses, Women’s Resistive Voices: Facing Involuntary Childlessness in Bulgaria’, Women’s Studies International Forum, 26:2 (2003), p. 144.

  9. 9.

    For an example of clinical debates, see J.D.F. Habbema, J. Collins, H. Leridon, J.L.H. Evers, B. Lunenfeld and E.R. teVelde, ‘Towards a Less Confusing Terminology in Reproductive Medicine: A Proposal’, Human Reproduction, 19 (2004); and C. Gnoth, E. Godehardt, P. Frank-Herrmann, K. Friol, Jürgen Tigges and G. Freundl, ‘Definition and Prevalence of Subfertility and Infertility’, Human Reproduction, 20:5 (2005).

  10. 10.

    American Society for Reproductive Medicine, ‘Definitions of Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss’, Fertility and Sterility, 90:5, Supplement (2008), p. S60. This definition has since been superseded. See American Society for Reproductive Medicine, ‘Definitions of Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Committee Opinion’, Fertility and Sterility, 99:1 (2013), p. 63.

  11. 11.

    Arthur L. Greil and Julia McQuillan, ‘“Trying” Times: Medicalization, Intent, and Ambiguity in the Definition of Infertility’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 24:2 (2010), pp. 140–1.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tracey Loughran .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Loughran, T., Davis, G. (2017). Introduction: Defining the ‘Problem’: Perspectives on Infertility. In: Davis, G., Loughran, T. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Infertility in History. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52080-7_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52080-7_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52079-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52080-7

  • eBook Packages: HistoryHistory (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics