Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Demonstration in Publication

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Knowledge as Resistance

  • 176 Accesses

Abstract

In this chapter, I explore the written output of the network as a plethora of interrelated struggles, ideas, theories and relationships, rather than specific, historically fixed ‘positions’, looking at the many books, articles, journals and other writings they produced. I end with a more specific examination of the kinds of expertise the women brought to FINRRAGE and developed within it, suggesting that this is an area of the study of activism which needs further development.

FINRRAGE really did make an intellectual contribution, it was not just making a noise. So I think our main thing was the intellectual part of it, the analysis, the scientific part of it. That’s why FINRRAGE will never die. It may go on hibernation, it may go on maybe we need life support. Some saline, you know? But I think it will never die. It will never die.

Farida Akhter, UBINIG-Bangladesh, interview 2

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 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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.

    Annette Burfoot , Britain/Canada, interviewed via Skype on 19 May 2010.

  2. 2.

    Ana Regina Gomes dos Reis, Brazil, interviewed in Sao Paolo, 7 March 2015.

  3. 3.

    Lublin (1998, 63), writing her history of the network, refers to both of these as FINRRAGE’s ‘virtual “bibles”’, which is not incorrect.

  4. 4.

    As of May 2017, The Mother Machine is listed on Google Scholar as having been cited 1004 times.

  5. 5.

    Gena Corea, USA, interviewed via Skype on 14 April 2017. Lebensborn refers to the Nazi programme which sought to increase the birth rate of children who were state-validated as ‘racially valuable’. Often born of unmarried women impregnated by SS soldiers, an unknown number of children were also taken from other countries and sent to Germany for adoption.

  6. 6.

    In addition to UBINIG’s continued work in the population policy arena and the loose network of South Asian groups it maintains, there have been international campaigns against contraceptives such as Depo-Provera, Norplant and Net-en, and against RU-486 in which FINRRAGE played a part. More recently, FINRRAGE Australia has also helped to organise campaigns against egg donation for science (See Hands Off Our Ovaries at handsoffourovaries.com), and commercial surrogacy (www.stopsurrogacynow.com). However, I am not certain that the participants in these various campaigns, although often the same people and organisations, consider themselves to be a distinct anti-NRT movement.

  7. 7.

    While Jyotsna Agnihotri Gupta considered the prediction ‘prophetic’ (interview, 13 September 2011), some aspects of Corea’s predictions have not materialised—for example, that poorer women would be sterilised before being used as breeders. Pande’s (2016) ethnographic work with ‘womb-mothers’ in India is an excellent examination of the real surrogacy industry, highlighting the complexities and paradoxes of a reproductive labour market in a country which otherwise goes to extensive lengths to keep women from breeding.

  8. 8.

    Ultimately, the New Jersey Supreme Court overruled a lower court decision that the contract was enforceable, on the grounds that New Jersey law prohibited the sale of a child (Merrick 1990). Whitehead’s parental rights were eventually restored, but as her daughter had been living with the father for several years by that time, reversing custody was deemed not to be in the best interests of the child.

  9. 9.

    The group included Elizabeth Kane, Mary Beth Whitehead, Alejandra Munoz, Patricia Foster and Nancy Barrass. Apart from Munoz, a Mexican woman who had been brought to the United States by family members for the express purpose of carrying their child, all had been contracted by wealthier strangers. All lost their custody battles to the commissioning fathers, although Whitehead and Munoz were granted visitation rights. Foster, Munoz and Whitehead also appeared as speakers at the launch of the National Coalition Against Surrogacy in 1987, which was covered by the cable news channel C-SPAN (and is still available at https://www.c-span.org/video/?57586-1/surrogate-mothers).

  10. 10.

    Satoko Nagaoki , Soshiren/Japan, interviewed in Tokyo on 26 August, 2010 and Azumi Tsuge, Finrrage-no-kai/ Japan, interviewed on 28 August 2010. Nagaoki also notes that their prior translation of Test Tube Women did not meet with anything near the same response.

  11. 11.

    Patricia Spallone, Britain, interviewed by phone on 8 September 2011.

  12. 12.

    Edwards (1980 in Spallone, 95) writes that in animal surrogacy , the routine procedure was to ‘discard’ the egg donor (i.e. kill the animal) once it had served its function. Spallone notes that all the other elements of the procedure remained the same in embryo transfer between women (one could also argue that the donor is in effect still ‘discarded’ as there is no follow-up after egg retrieval.)

  13. 13.

    Based on her initial research for Women as Wombs, Raymond went on to found the Coalition Against Trafficking of Women (CATW) , which has helped to uncover trafficking of babies of prostitutes, as well as women for the sex trade. Of doing this research she has said that ‘it is like working against nothing else that I have experienced. The industry has friends in high places… ’ (Raymond 2013, x).

  14. 14.

    In her overview of FINRRAGE’s work, Klein (2008) notes that Edwards was now warning that the hormone drugs used for superovulation were damaging more than half the eggs, and studies showed higher rates of medical problems in IVF children, yet with rare exceptions there were still no long-term follow-ups on the women who had taken the drugs.

  15. 15.

    Sarah Franklin , Britain, interviewed in London on 15 December 2011.

  16. 16.

    Ibid.

  17. 17.

    David Edge, who around this time was setting up the first British science studies unit at Edinburgh, described it as a desk with no books and no curriculum (Edge 1995).

  18. 18.

    Although not a member of FINRRAGE herself, McNeil also draws upon a number of works by FINRRAGE women in her introductory chapter, noting the shortcomings of an analysis based on rights, which too often obscured the kinds of social relations which governed pursuit of such rights.

  19. 19.

    Annette Burfoot, Britain/Canada, interviewed via Skype on 19 May 2010.

  20. 20.

    Ibid.

  21. 21.

    Aurelia Weikert, Austria, interviewed via Skype on 11 August 2010. The book was Schöne neue Männerwelt: Beiträge zu Gen-und Fortpflanzungstechnologien [Brave new world of men: Contributions to gene and reproduction technologies] (Weikert et al. 1987).

  22. 22.

    Lene Koch , Denmark , interviewed by phone on 11 September 2011. Koch’s paper on the difficulties feminists and women using IVF were having hearing each other’s arguments is one of the most cited papers from IRAGE (Koch 1990).

  23. 23.

    Renate Klein, letter to Phyllis Hall at Pergamon, 11 December 1986: FAN/JH/FIN 07/07.

  24. 24.

    Janice Raymond , letter to Corea, Hanmer, Klein and Rowland , 8 February 1987: FAN/JH/FIN 02/04/01.

  25. 25.

    Respectively, Jalna Hanmer, Britain, interview 1 (17 January 2008) and Annette Burfoot, Canada, interview on 19 May 2010.

  26. 26.

    Penny Bainbridge, Britain, interviewed in Leeds on 19 July 2011.

  27. 27.

    Jalna Hanmer, Britain, interviewed in Leeds 5 May 2010 (interview 3).

References

  • Akhter, F. (1988). The State of Contraceptive Technology in Bangladesh. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 1(2), 153–158.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhter, F. (1995). Resisting Norplant: Women’s Struggle in Bangladesh Against Coercion and Violence. Dhaka: Narigrantha Prabartana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Akhter, F. (2005). Depopulating Bangladesh: Essays on the Politics of Fertility (3rd ed.). Dhaka: Narigrantha Prabartana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditti, R., Klein, R., & Minden, S. (Eds.). (1984). Test-Tube Women: What Future for Motherhood? London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arksey, H. (1994). Expert and Lay Participation in the Construction of Medical Knowledge. Sociology of Health & Illness, 16(4), 448–468.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Birke, L. (1986). Women, Feminism and Biology: The Feminist Challenge. Brighton: Harvester.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boston Women’s Health Collective. (1973). Our Bodies, Ourselves. New York: Simon & Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bradish, P. (1987). From Genetic Counseling and Genetic Analysis, to Genetic Ideal and Genetic Fate. In P. Spallone & D. L. Steinberg (Eds.), Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress (pp. 94–101). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M., Fielden, K., & Scutt, J. A. (1990). New Frontiers or Old Recycled? New Reproductive Technologies as Primary Industry. In J. A. Scutt (Ed.), The Baby Machine: Reproductive Technology and the Commercialisation of Motherhood (pp. 77–107). London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bullard, L. (1987). Killing Us Softly: Toward a Feminist Analysis of Genetic Engineering. In P. Spallone & D. L. Steinberg (Eds.), Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress (pp. 110–119). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burfoot, A. (1988). A Review of the 3rd Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 1(1), 107–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burfoot, A. (1989). The Politics of Innovation: The Discovery, Dissemination and Regulation of In Vitro Fertilization in Britain. PhD, Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burfoot, A. (1990). The Normalisation of a New Reproductive Technology. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe, & S. Yearley (Eds.), The New Reproductive Technologies (pp. 58–73). Houndmills: The Macmillan Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Carson, R. (1962). Silent Spring. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S., & Taub, N. (Eds.). (1989). Reproductive Laws for the 1990s. Clifton: Humana Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, H. M., & Evans, R. (2007). Rethinking Expertise. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G. (1985a). The Mother Machine: Reproductive Technologies from Artificial Insemination to Artificial Wombs. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G. (1985b). The Reproductive Brothel. In G. Corea, R. Klein, J. Hanmer, H. B. Holmes, B. Hoskins, M. Kishwar, J. Raymond, R. Rowland, & R. Steinbacher (Eds.), Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women (pp. 38–51). London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G. (1989). Industrial Experimentation on “Surrogate” Mothers. In H. Patricia Hynes (Ed.), Reconstructing Babylon: Women and Technology (pp. 155–159). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corea, G., Klein, R., Hanmer, J., Holmes, H. B., Hoskins, B., Kishwar, M., Raymond, J., Rowland, R., & Steinbacher, R. (Eds.). (1985). Man-Made Women: How New Reproductive Technologies Affect Women. London: Hutchinson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corral, T. (1992). Eco 92 Through Women’s Eyes. Terra Femina, 1, 92–97.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, C. (1985). ‘Women Want It’: In-Vitro Fertilization and Women's Motivations for Participation. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8(6), 547–552.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowe, C. (1990). Whose Mind over Whose Matter? Women, In Vitro Fertilisation and the Development of Scientific Knowledge. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe, & S. Yearley (Eds.), The New Reproductive Technologies (pp. 27–57). Houndmills: The Macmillan Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, K. (2007). The Making of Our Bodies, Ourselves: How Feminism Travels Across Borders. Durham: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Degener, T. (1990). Female Self-Determination Between Feminist Claims and “Voluntary” Eugenics, Between “Rights” and Ethics. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 3(2), 87–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Donchin, A. (1996). Feminist Critiques of New Fertility Technologies: Implications for Social Policy. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 21(5), 475–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edge, D. (1995). Reinventing the Wheel. In S. Jasanoff, G. Markle, J. Petersen, & T. Pinch (Eds.), Handbook of Science and Technology Studies (pp. 3–23). Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, R., & Steptoe, P. (1980). A Matter of Life: The Sensational Story of the World’s First Test-Tube Baby. London: Sphere Books Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eyerman, R., & Jamison, A. (1991). Social Movements: A Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Feyerabend, E. (1989). Euthanasia in the Age of Genetic Engineering. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 2(3), 247–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M., & Asch, A. (1985). Review: Who Owns the Womb? The Women’s Review of Books, 2(8), 8–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (1990). Deconstructing ‘Desperateness’: The Social Construction of Infertility in Popular Representations of New Reproductive Technologies. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe, & S. Yearley (Eds.), The New Reproductive Technologies (pp. 200–229). Houndmills: The Macmillan Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Franklin, S., & McNeil, M. (1988). Reproductive Futures: Recent Literature and Current Feminist Debates on Reproductive Technologies. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 545–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frickel, S., & Gross, N. (2005). A General Theory of Scientific/Intellectual Movements. American Sociological Review, 70(2), 204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedan, B. (1963). The Feminine Mystique. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuller, S. (2002). Social Epistemology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemmings, C. (2005). Telling Feminist Stories. Feminist Theory, 6(2), 115–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmes, H. B. (1989). Hepatitis: Yet Another Risk of In Vitro Fertilization. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 2(1), 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humm, P. (1989). Waiting for a Child. In R. Klein (Ed.), Infertility: Women Speak Out About Their Experience of Reproductive Medicine (pp. 51–58). London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, H. P. (1987). A Paradigm for Regulation of the Biomedical Industry: Environmental Protection in the United States. In P. Spallone & D. L. Steinberg (Eds.), Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress (pp. 190–205). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hynes, H. P. (Ed.). (1989). Reconstructing Babylon: Women and Technology. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirejczyk, M. (1990). A Question of Meaning? Controversies About the New Reproductive Technologies in the Netherlands. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 3(1), 23–33.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. (Ed.). (1989a). Infertility: Women Speak Out About Their Experience of Reproductive Medicine. London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. (1989b). The Exploitation of a Desire: Women’s Experiences with in Vitro Fertilisation. Geelong: Women’s Studies Summer Institute, Deakin University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R. (2008). From Test-Tube Women to Bodies Without Women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 31(3), 157–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klein, R., & Rowland, R. (1988). Women as Test-Sites for Fertility Drugs: Clomiphene Citrate and Hormonal Cocktails. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 1(3), 251–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koch, L. (1990). IVF – An Irrational Choice? (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 3(3), 235–242.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koval, R. (1990). The Commercialisation of Reproductive Technology. In J. A. Scutt (Ed.), The Baby Machine: Reproductive Technology and the Commercialisation of Motherhood (pp. 108–134). London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, T. S. (1996). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (3rd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kurzman, C. (2008). Meaning Making in Social Movements. Anthropological Quarterly, 81(1), 17–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R., & Morgan, D. (2001). Human Fertilization and Embryology: Regulating the Reproductive Revolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippman, A. (1992). Mother Matters: A Fresh Look at Prenatal Genetic Testing. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 5(2), 141–154.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loveland, K. (2017). Feminism Against Neoliberalism: Theorising Biopolitics in Germany, 1978–1993. Gender & History, 29(1), 67–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lublin, N. (1998). Pandora’s Box : Feminism Confronts Reproductive Technology. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malpede, K. (1991). Notes on the Writing and Reception of the Stage Play ‘Better People’. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 4(2), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, L. (2007). Disarticulating Bellies: A Reproductive Glance. Cultural Review, 13(1), 187–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McNeil, M., Varcoe, I., & Yearley, S. (Eds.). (1990). The New Reproductive Technologies. Houndmills: The Macmillan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Melucci, A. (1985). The Symbolic Challenge of Contemporary Movements. Social Research, 789–816.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, J. (1990). The Case of Baby M. In D. Bartels, R. Priester, D. Vawter, & A. Caplan (Eds.), Beyond Baby M: Ethical Issues in New Reproductive Technologies (pp. 183–200). Clifton: Humana Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M. (1985). ‘Why Do We Need All This?’ A Call against Genetic Engineering and Reproductive Technology. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8(6), 553–560.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minden, S. (1985). Patriarchal Designs: The Genetic Engineering of Human Embryos. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8(6), 561–565.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulkay, M. J. (1997). The Embryo Research Debate: Science and the Politics of Reproduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, K. (1991). The Aftermath of the Cervical Cancer Inquiry in New Zealand: An Antipodal Aberration or Universal Struggle? (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 4(1), 31–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Napier, L. (1989). The Barren Desert Flourishes in Many Ways: From Infertility to in-Fertility. In R. Klein (Ed.), Infertility: Women Speak Out About Their Experience of Reproductive Medicine (pp. 188–197). London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Brien, M. (1990). Elly. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 3(2), 137–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pande, A. (2016). Global Reproductive Inequalities, Neo-Eugenics and Commercial Surrogacy in India. Current Sociology, 64(2), 244–258.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parsons, C. D. F. (1990). Drugs, Science and Ethics: Lessons from the Depo-Provera Story. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 3(2), 101–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petchesky, R. P. (2004). Fetal Images: The Power of Visual Culture in the Politics of Reproduction. In B. Bennett (Ed.), Abortion (pp. 263–292). Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. (1989). In the Matter of Baby M: Judged and Rejudged. In H. Patricia Hynes (Ed.), Reconstructing Babylon: Women and Technology (pp. 103–113). London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. G. (1993). Women as Wombs: Reproductive Technologies and the Battle over Women’s Freedom. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raymond, J. (2013). Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths About Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade. Washington, DC: Potomac Books.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roach, S. (1989). New Reproductive Technologies and Legal Reform. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 2(1), 11–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, R. (1985). A Child at Any Price?: An Overview of Issues in the Use of the New Reproductive Technologies, and the Threat to Women. Women’s Studies International Forum, 8(6), 539–546.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rowland, R. (1992). Living Laboratories: Women and Reproductive Technologies. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rutnam, R. (1991). IVF in Australia: Towards a Feminist Technology Assessment. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 4(2), 93–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sandelowski, M. (1990). Fault Lines: Infertility and Imperiled Sisterhood. Feminist Studies, 16(1), 33–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sawer, M. (2007). Australia: The Fall of the Femocrat. In J. Outshoorn & J. Kantola (Eds.), Changing State Feminism (pp. 20–40). London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schei, B. (1992). The Routine Use of Ultrasound in Antenatal Care: Is There a Hidden Agenda? (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 5(1), 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scutt, J. A. (Ed.). (1990). The Baby Machine: Reproductive Technology and the Commercialisation of Motherhood. London: Merlin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A. (1988). Integrating Infertility Crisis Counselling into Feminist Practice. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 1(1), 41–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Solomon, A. (1989). Infertility as Crisis: Coping, Surviving – And Thriving. In R. Klein (Ed.), Infertility: Women Speak Out About Their Experience of Reproductive Medicine (pp. 169–187). London: Pandora Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spallone, P. (1987). Reproductive Technology and the State: The Warnock Report and Its Clones. In P. Spallone & D. L. Steinberg (Eds.), Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress (pp. 166–183). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spallone, P. (1989). Beyond Conception: The New Politics of Reproduction. Granby: Bergin & Garvey Publishers.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Spallone, P. (1992). Generation Games: Genetic Engineering and the Future for Our Lives. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spallone, P., & Steinberg, D. L. (Eds.). (1987). Made to Order: The Myth of Reproductive and Genetic Progress. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanworth, M. D. (1987). Reproductive Technologies: Gender, Motherhood and Medicine. Cambridge: Polity.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, D. L. (1990). The Depersonalisation of Women Through the Administration of ‘In Vitro Fertilisation’. In M. McNeil, I. Varcoe, & S. Yearley (Eds.), The New Reproductive Technologies (pp. 74–122). Houndmills: The Macmillan Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Steinberg, D. L. (1997). Bodies in Glass: Genetics, Eugenics, Embryo Ethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, C. (2001). Fertile Ground: Feminists Theorise Infertility. In M. C. Inhorn & F. van Balen (Eds.), Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies (pp. 52–78). Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsuge, A., & Hong, H. (2011). Reconsidering Ethical Issues About “Voluntary Egg Donors” in Hwang’s Case in Global Context. New Genetics and Society, 30(3), 241–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uno, S. (1992). The Oral Contraceptive Pill in Japan. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 5(3), 253–256.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldschmidt, A. (1992a). “Éprouvette L'éprouvée” or “Test Tube Under Test,” an International Conference to Critically Assess Reproductive Engineering, Paris 28–29 June 1991. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 5(1), 75–77.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waldschmidt, A. (1992b). Against Selection of Human Life: People with Disabilities Oppose Genetic Counselling. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 5(2), 155–167.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. A. (1988). IVF and Women’s Interests: An Analysis of Feminist Concerns. Bioethics, 2(1), 37–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weikert, A., Riegler, J., & Trallori, L. (1987). Schöne Neue Männerwelt: Beiträge Zu Gen-Und Fortpflanzungstechnologien. Wein: Verlag für Gesellschaftskritik.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, E. (2001). Politics by Other Means: Feminism and Mainstream Science Studies. The Canadian Journal of Sociology/Cahiers canadiens de sociologie, 26(4), 535–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, U. (1988). New U.S. Know-How in Frankfurt: A ‘Surrogate Mother’ Agency. (Issues in) Reproductive and Genetic Engineering: Journal of International Feminist Analysis, 1(2), 205–207.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for the Study of the Human, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

    Stevienna de Saille

Authors
  1. Stevienna de Saille
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2017 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

de Saille, S. (2017). Demonstration in Publication. In: Knowledge as Resistance. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52727-1_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-52727-1_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-52726-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-52727-1

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation