“Infertility, or inability to conceive, is a problem of global proportions, affecting between 8 and 12 percent of couples worldwide.” (Inhorn, 2003; 1837). Introduction of New Reproductive Technologies brought new hopes and dreams for infertile couples as well as new contradictions and social dilemmas.
In case of new reproductive technologies, money and power are the leading rules of defining motherhood and motherhood becomes a class issue. Defining motherhood creates “naturalization” of one mother and “denaturalization” of the other, as one of them becomes partial citizen (Schrauwers, 2005; “The New (non) Reproductive Technologies”). Organizations are responsible for creating partial citizens, egg donors and surrogate mothers for becoming ones. However we need not to blame participants as the problem is far more complicated than a women’s choice to become or not to become an egg donor or surrogate mother, as it is clearly seen in the commercial vs. altruistic surrogacy contradiction dealing with appropriate gender norms.

Clinics with new reproductive technologies provide many services; IVF (in vitro fertilization) and Gestational surrogacy are two of them. It is necessary to define them in order to proceed and understand dilemmas of defining motherhood. “Gestational surrogacy means that eggs from one women are fertilized with her partners sperm (occasionally, donor eggs or sperm are used in place of gametes of one partner from the paying patient couple) and then transferred to the uterus of a different woman who gestates the pregnancy,” (Thompson, 2001; 178) and becomes gestational surrogate. Wikipedia encyclopedia provides definitions of two major types of contracted motherhood in surrogacy: The first one is a partial or genetic contracted motherhood, in which the surrogate is impregnated with the sperm of the commissioning male, (usually through artificial insemination). In these cases, the surrogate mother is both the genetic and gestational mother of the child. The second one is complete or gestational contracted motherhood using in vitro fertilization (IVF). The Intended Parents produce an embryo that can then be transplanted into the surrogate mother for her to gestate and give birth to after nine months. In gestational contracted motherhood the contracted mother makes no genetic contribution to the child, however she is the child’s birth mother.

IVF or in vitro fertilization is a technique in which egg cells are fertilized outside the mother's body in cases where conception is difficult or impossible through normal intercourse. In brief, the process involves removing ova from the woman's body and letting sperm fertilize them in a fluid medium. The fertilized eggs are then transferred to the womens uterus where normal development occurs. IVF is used commonly when the father's sperm count is low or the mother's fallopian tubes are blocked. (Wikipedia encyclopedia).

Second most important issue that needs to be analyzed is the motherhood itself. A concept of motherhood in dealing with NRT is far from Universal as different societies have different norms. Major contradictions can be find when comparing different societies such as Australia, Egypt and Western countries, especialy United States. In case of Australia “ … adoption legislation … defines the birth mother as the legal mother regardless of the origin of the embryo or ovum.” (Anleu,1992; 32). At the opposite end is the inverse definition of motherhood in Egypt. It is strictly based on genes and genetic inheritence, no IVF donor is allowed. “Islamic doctrine prohibits also legal adoption for the same reason it disallows IVF donation practices- namely, lack of biological connection and inheritence” (Inhorn, 2003;1847). “ Different situation prevails in the United States, (where) there has been little governmental debate on surrogacy … the legal status or enforcibility of surrogacy contracts is unclear.” (Anleu,1992;36). The issue of surrogacy in US is mostly guided by money, in short, those who pay are those who will get the baby. The motherhood is unclear but what is clear is that none of these societies “allows” more than two biological parents and this is where the dillema begins with NRT. As Shalyn Roach Anleu mentiones in her article , “usualy it is assumed that a child’s genetic mother, birth, legal, and social mothers are the same person, but when surrogacy involves in vitro fertilization a child can have four mothers: different women can provide ovum, gestate the embryo and give birth, be defined in law as having maternity rights and obligatons, and provide parenting.” How then is motherhood constructed ?
Money are a basic need in todays society, even though they do not belong to the primary needs of human beings, they are necessary for our survival and shape our lives significantly. They construct social classes and so citizen rights. It is clearly seen in NRT, when “ ‘naturilization ‘ ” of one mother creates ‘denaturalization’ of the other, as one of them looses her citizen rights to motherhood and so becomes a partial citizen” (Schrauwers,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies). Motherhood becomes a class issue. It is logical when considering the the price of surrogacy services, which is roughly $30, 000 (Schrauwer,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies), that these services are not for everyone. Drawing upon example from Egypt, it is beneficial to talk about why do Egyptian women consider NRT option. As Marcia C.Inhorn explains, “in such high- fertility settings, where children are highly desired and parenthood is culturally mandatory, infertility is a socially unacceptable condition, leading most infertile couples on a relentless ‘quest for conception’ that may eventually involve resort to NRT.” One other reason is also, as already mentioted, the restriction to adoption. Women have clearly defined roles within societies as mothers. Some women are even seen dangerous, “suspected of harming others’ children through their uncontrollable envy and casting of the evil eye” (Inhorn,2003;1842). It is understud why then they turn to NRT, but as in United States so in Egypt, the access to NRT is a class issue. An article by Marcia C.Inhorn, “Global infertility and the globalization of new reproductive technologies: illustration from Egypt” clearly indicates these inequalities:

Without question , the NRTs are absolutely unaffordable for most poor and even middle-class infertile Egyptians, even though they may be aware and highly desirous of such treatments. The women patients who present to IVF clinics today tend to be highly educated professionals, who are employed as doctors, lawyers, architects, engineers, accountants, bankers, professors, tourism officials , and even movie stars. (1845-1846)
In other words, the author states, “the IVF scene in Egypt has become extremely class based and exclusionary, the arena of a handful of elite doctors and their high- class patients”. Motherhood is suppose to be about love and carrying, not about money,but as we can see, it is about money in the first place, as not evryone is allowed to the same oppurtunities of being a mother.

Motherhood is seen as “natural” for women and with this assumption also come many other expectations of women, as can be seen in public versus private or nature versus culture divide. Women place is at home, taking care of family, breastfeeding children and cooking meals for their husbands, which is not necessarily a bad picture, as long as it does not interfere with womens choice of being one or not being one, as it often does. Understanding of gender norms and expectations brings understanding of the commercial versus altruistic surrogacy contraversion. Why is there different media approach to these two issues? Why is one treated with respect and sympathy and the other as deviant and unacceptable? Gender norms provide at least a part of the answer.
Gender norms relate to presentation of self, marriage, maternity, sexuality, and occupational choice and define and limit the roles and behaviour considered appropriate for women. Commercial surrogacy contracts are designed deviant because they are deemed to contravene gender norms that specify women’s place in the private sphere of the family, not the competitive marketplace emphasizing purposive rationality and impersonality.In contrast, altruistic surrogacy conforms to pervasive expectations of women’s roles and does not threaten the conjugal family, as long as altruistic arrangements occur only between family members or close friends. (Anleu,1992; 32)

Gender norms are deeply rooted in the history of human kind, at least in the history of West. Women are not suppose to become pregnant for money, but for love, however it is “acceptable” to be able to buy babies, because in the end there will be an appropriate nuclear family at least on the surface. Excuces are always created in order to confirm to these assuptions, as the payment is often characterized as payment for services not for the baby. How different are then the commercial and altruistic surrogacy or should we ask, how similar? Sharyn Roach Anleu in her article argues that they are not different,as in both cases women are exploited and used as she explains: “Differences between commercial and altruistic arrangements reflect process of interpretation, definition, and deviance designation, rather than an obejctive describtion.”

In the case of Egypt, as already mentioned , the gender norms are even more powerful than in the West, where the motherhood is mandatory. “… Islamically inspired pronatalism and public support for woman’s domesticity become more and more pronounced in Egypt…” (Inhorn,2003;1843). Gender norms not only restrict womens movement, they define motherhood and try to create natural relationships from already ambiguous relations in order to fit the “normality”, however at the same time they create “partial citizens” and only put aveneer on nuclear family in the end, which is not a nuclear family at all.
Govermentality through the pastoral method in infertility clinics creates power relations, as it able to define relational versus custodial stages of motherhood (Schrauwer,2005; “New (non) Reproductive Technologies”). A power of governmenatlity, a power of institutions is used in West to define the motherhood as natural for those who pay. The folowing paragraph taken from Sharyn Roach Anleu article,from page 34, allows to understand the great unequalities of creating motherhood through the pastoral method:
General view that assumes that genetic links, not social factors are essential to both maternal feelings and the development of a child’s identity are used in many cases. Yet, when the birth mother is also a genetic mother, these arguments are ussually reversed in order to undermine her claims to the child. In those cases it is argued that the male’s partner’s sperm and payment of money constitute legitimate access to the baby and that the commissioning woman’s maternal claims derive from marriage to him. More difficulties arise when donor ova from a third women are used. Here the commissioning woman’s claim to maternity rights is through marriage as the wife of genetic father(if his sperm are used); the birth mother is again denied rights in the child. In contrast when donated ova are used without surrogacy, the birthing mother is considered to have full rights in the child by virtue of the pregnancy and birth experience.

The case of Mary Beth Whitehead , which was highly publicized is a “good”’ example to draw upon, where the power of institution was guided with principles of governmentality, where mental health professionals were able to define not only motherhood but also pathology and principal rights of human beings in order to please those who pay. Article “Social Construction of Mary Beth Whithead” by Michelle Harrison describes a case of surrogate mother Marry Beth Whitehead. She was not only a birth mother, but also a genetic mother, as her ova was fertilized by commisioning’s couple husband’s( Mr. Stern) sperm.After she gave a birth to the baby, she refused to give it up and that’s when a long history of court attendance begun. How is the power of institution prelevant to these case? As I qoute from Michelle Harrison, “ the premise underlying the use of mental health experts is that their testimony is both scientific and objective. However, mental health beliefs exist within context of culture at large. Prelevant beliefs about mental health reflect class and gender biases…”. To illustrate: “When Mary Beth Whitehead did poorly on a test, it was considered a sign of psychopathology; when the Sterns did poorly it was considered either irrelevant or a sign of anxiety.” (Harrison,1987;304). This example clearly illustrates that definition of motherhood is shaped by power of institutions and governmentality to confirm the parentage to those who pay.

In conclusion, dealing with new reproductive technologies motherhood is not a Universal issue, as different societies hold different norms. In case of Australia only the birth mother is the legitimate mother, in contrast , the Egyptian society defines mother only by genetic relations, and lastly in case of Western societies, the mothers are those who pay. Dealing with these dichotomies, it can be argued that motherhood is defined through money, as a motherhood is a class issue, through power, as pastoral method and governmentality is used to define appropriate parents; and also through gender norms that label altruistic surrogacy as “acceptable” in contrast with unnaceptable commercial surrogacy, because altruistic surrogacy does not violate appropriate gender norms and does not threaten a nuclear family. The motherhood is suppose to be about love, not money, but even if the commercial surrogacy was completely banned, the motherhood would still be about money,as it is not accesible to everyone. As we learned, new reproductive technologies can create more than two biological parents. What are the implications? “Naturalization” of one mother and “denaturalization” of the other, as one of them becomes a partial citizen and looses her rights to the baby (Schrauwer, 2005; “New Reproductive Technologies”). In case of new reproductive technologies, money and power define motherhood not love.
WORD COUNT: 2 246

	Tento článok bol vytlačený zo stránky https://referaty.centrum.sk

Social construction of Family