Advertisement

The Discursive Landscape

  • Sandra P. González-Santos
Chapter

Abstract

The Discursive Landscape explores how assisted reproduction was presented in the media and in other discursive spaces (e.g. trade shows, public spaces, and patient information sessions). The guiding questions are: As assisted reproduction presented as offering an advantage over adoption? Was it depicted as too complex to use? Were its outcomes made observable? Did it articulate with established cultural values and gender roles? The chapter concludes that, in the discursive landscape analysed, assisted reproduction is constructed as a highly successful solution to infertility, as an acceptable way to perform motherhood, and as a series of technologies that are capable of imitating nature while also going beyond it and solving problems nature cannot. These framings help make assisted reproduction a usable commodity.

References

  1. Abusief, M., Hornstein, M., & Jain, T. (2007). Assessment of United States fertility clinic websites according to the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM)/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) guidelines. Fertility and Sterility, 87(1), 88–92.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.05.073.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahedo, A. (2017, December 12). Más de 7 millones de personas visitan la Basílica de Guadalupe. El Universal. Retrieved from https://www.eluniversal.com.mx/metropoli/cdmx/mas-de-7-millones-de-personas-visitan-la-basilica-de-guadalupe.
  3. Albury, R. (1999). The politics of reproduction: Beyond the slogans. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  4. Arranz-Lara, L. (2001). El deseo de maternidad en pacientes sujetas a tratamientos de reproducción asistida: una propuesta de psicoterapia. Perinatol Reprod Hum, 15(2), 6.Google Scholar
  5. Asakura, H. (2005). Cambios en significados de la maternidad: la emergencia de nuevas identidades femeninas. Un estudio de caso: mujeres profesionistas de clase media en la Ciudad de México. In M. Torres (Ed.), Nuevas maternidades y derechos reproductivos (pp. 33–59). México: El Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  6. Barbey, C. (2017). Evidence of biased advertising in the case of social egg freezing. The New Bioethics, 23(3), 195–209.  https://doi.org/10.1080/20502877.2017.1396033.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Basten, S. (2010). Television and fertility. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research, XLV, 67–82.Google Scholar
  8. Beard, L. J. (2003). Whose life in the mirror?: Examining three Mexican telenovelas as cultural and commercial products. Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, 22, 73–88.Google Scholar
  9. Becker, G., Butler, A., & Nachtigall, R. D. (2005). Redemblance talk: A challenge from parents whose children were conceived with donor gametes in the US. Social Science and Medicine, 61, 1300–1309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bharadwaj, A. (2000). How some Indian baby makers are made: Media narratives and assisted conception in India. Anthropology & Medicine, 7(1), 63–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Çalışkan, K., & Callon, M. (2009). Economication, part 1: Shifting attention from the economy towards processes of economization. Economy and Society, 38(3), 369–398.  https://doi.org/10.1080/03085140903020580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carreño-Meléndez, J., Morales-Carmona, F., Sánchez-Bravo, C., González-Campillo, G., & Martínez-Ramírez, S. (2003). En parejas estériles por factor masculino y femenino. Perinatol Reprod Hum, 17(2), 11.Google Scholar
  13. Cerón, R. (2007, March 1). La ciencia vence a la infertilidad. El Universal. Section: Salud.Google Scholar
  14. Chávez-Courtois, M. L. (2004). Presencia de esterlidad: Actores o sujetos en la actualidad. Escuela Nacional de Antropología e Historia (ENAH). Cuicuilco, 11(31), 1–17.Google Scholar
  15. Crisp, R. (1987). Persuasive advertising, autonomy, and the creation of desire. Journal of Business Ethics, 6(5), 413–418.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00382898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. De Saille, S. (2017). Knowledge as resistance: The feminist international network of resistance to reproductive and genetic engineering. London: Palgrave Macmillan (Imprint).Google Scholar
  17. Dyer, A. R. (1997). Ethics, advertising, and assisted reproduction: The goals and methods of advertising. Women’s Health Issues, 7(3), 143–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Finkler, K. (1994). Women in pain: Gender and morbidity in Mexico. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flores Palacios, M. L., & Sánchez Santana, A. G. (2006). Capítulo 11. Estereotipos demográficos y ocupacionales de la mujer y el hombre en la televisión mexicana. In Anuario de Investigación de la Comunicación CONEICC XIII (pp. 257–271). Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ana_Gaspar4/publication/27392963_Rehacer_el_tejido_de_Penelope_mujeres_y_reproduccion_de_la_emigracion/links/53ee50850cf23733e80c528e.pdf#page=257.
  20. Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress: A cultural account of assisted conception. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Franklin, S. (2014). Analogic return: The reproductive life of conceptuality. Theory, Culture & Society, 31(2–3), 243–261.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0263276413510953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Franklin, S., Lury, C., & Stacey, J. (2000). Global nature, global culture. Sage: London.Google Scholar
  23. González-Santos, S. P. (2011). The sociocultural aspects of assisted reproduction in Mexico (Doctoral, University of Sussex). Retrieved from http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/7081/.
  24. Hables Gray, C. (2002). Cyborg citizen. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Hawkins, J. (2013). Selling art: An empirical assessment of advertising on fertility clinics’ websites. Indiana Law Journal, 88(4), 1148–1179.Google Scholar
  26. Hawkins, J. (2017). Exploiting advertising. Law & Contemporary Problems, 80(3), 43–71.Google Scholar
  27. Lewkowicz, E. (2015). Cinderella’s having a ball: Humoring Mexico’s “ugly” TV formula. Feminist Media Studies, 15(2), 271–286.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.924980.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Madeira, J. L. (2013). Selling art or selling out?: A response to selling art—An empirical assessment of advertising on fertility clinics’ websites. Indiana Law Journal, 88(4), 1181–1185.Google Scholar
  29. Maher, J. (2014). Something else besides a father: Reproductive technology in recent Hollywood film. Feminist Media Studies, 14(5), 853–867.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2013.831369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Michelle, C. (2007). “Human clones talk about their lives”: Media representations of assisted reproductive and biogenetic technologies. Media, Culture & Society, 29(4), 639–663.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443707078425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Mulkay, M. (1994a). Science and family in the great embryo debate. Sociology, 28(3), 699–715.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038594028003004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulkay, M. (1994b). The Triumph of the pre-embryo: Interpretations of the human embryo in parliamentary debate over embryo research. Social Studies of Science, 24(4), 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Napolitano, V. (2009). The Virgin of Guadalupe: A nexus of affect. La Virgen de Guadalupe: Un Point de Fusion Des Affects. Journal of Royal Anthropological Institute, 15(1), 96–112.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9655.2008.01532.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Nerlich, B., Johnson, S., & Clarke, D. D. (2003). The first ‘designer baby’: The role of narratives, cliche’s and metaphors in the year 2000 media debate. Science as Culture, 12(4), 471–498.  https://doi.org/10.1080/0950543032000150328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Neyer, G., & Bernardi, L. (2013, August). Feminist perspectives on motherhood and assisted reproduction. Paper presented at the XXVII International IUSSP Conference, Busan, Korea. Retrieved from http://iussp.org/sites/default/files/event_call_for_papers/IUSSP%20Neyer%20Bernadi%20-%20Reproduction%20updated.pdf.
  37. Orozco Gómez, G. (2006). La telenovela en México: ¿de una expresión cultural a un simple producto para la mercadotecnia? Comunicación y Sociedad (6), 11–35 (ISSN 0188-252X).Google Scholar
  38. Osborne-Thompson, H. (2014). Seriality and assisted reproductive technologies in celebrity reality television. Feminist Media Studies, 14(5), 877–880.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.952876.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Oudshoorn, N., & Pinch, T. (Eds.). (2003). How users matter: The co-construction of users and technologies. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  40. Pastor, M. (2010). El marianismo en México: una mirada a su larga duración. Cuicuilco, 17(48), 257–277.Google Scholar
  41. Phelan, J. (1996). Narrative as rhetoric: Technique, audiences, ethics, ideology. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
  42. Radin, M. J. (1987). Market-inalienability. Harvard Law Review, 100(8), 1849.  https://doi.org/10.2307/1341192.
  43. Roberts, E. F. S. (2006). God’s laboratory: Religious rationalities and modernity in Ecuadorian in vitro fertilization. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry, 30(4), 507–536.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-006-9037-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts, E. F. S. (2007). Extra embryos: The ethics of cryopreservation in Ecuador and elsewhere. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 181–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roberts, E. F. S. (2016). Resources and race: Assisted reproduction in Ecuador. Reproductive Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 47–53.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbms.2016.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Sánchez-Bringas, Á. (2005). Prácticas reproductivas en el Distrito Federal a finales del siglo XX. En M. Torres (Ed.), Nuevas maternidades y derechos reproductivos (pp. 33–59). México: Colegio de México.Google Scholar
  47. Shalev, S., & Lemish, D. (2012). Dynamic infertility. Feminist Media Studies, 12(3), 371–388.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2011.615627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Stephens, N., & Ruivenkamp, M. (2016). Promise and ontological ambiguity in the in vitro meat imagescape: From laboratory myotubes to the cultured burger. Science as Culture, 25(3), 327–355.  https://doi.org/10.1080/09505431.2016.1171836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tate, J. (2007). The good and bad women of telenovelas: How to tell them apart using a simple maternity test. Studies in Latin American Popular Culture, 26, 97–111.Google Scholar
  50. Viera Cherro, M. (2012). Inequidades múltiples y persistentes en el campo de la reproducción asistida. Revista de Antropología Social, 21.  https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_raso.2012.v21.40058.
  51. Viera Cherro, M. (2015). Sujetos y cuerpos asistidos Un análisis de la reproducción asistida en el Río de la Plata. Civitas - Revista de Ciências Sociais, 15(2), 350.  https://doi.org/10.15448/1984-7289.2015.2.17157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weihe Edge, B. (2014). Infertility on E! Assisted reproductive technologies and reality television. Feminist Media Studies, 14(5), 873–876.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14680777.2014.952875.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wentzell, E. A. (2013). Maturing masculinities: Aging, chronic illness, and Viagra in Mexico. Durham: Duke University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 109, 121–136.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sandra P. González-Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.Facultad de BioéticaUniversidad AnáhuacMexico CityMexico

Personalised recommendations