Impact Of Science And Technology On The Perception Of Importance Of Gender Roles Within Kinship

Reproduction is fundamental to all organisms, with humans no exception. Across species, reproduction is seen as natural occurring. However, humans are unique through their intervention with this previously natural process. No longer is production merely natural. Rather, technological developments enable kin to be produced artificially through assisted reproductive technologies (RT). Science, as a result of human technological development, holds a powerful and exclusive position; it can perpetuate or deconstruct traditional gender roles and kinship structures in society. This essay will argue science and technology (ST) simultaneously affirm and negate the importance of gender roles within kinship. This will be done through discussion of the discursive language surrounding reproduction, alongside the explosion of pioneering RT developments to produce kin.

ST affirm the importance of gender roles within kinship through the discourse, metaphors and loaded-language used to describe scientific facts of men and women. However, this language stems from the social and political contexts they are located in. The scientific language used to describe male and female reproductive processes are juxtaposed. Male reproductive physiology are presented as valuable and virulent, as men continuously reproduce fresh germ cells. In contrast, female byproducts are seen as ‘overstocked inventory’, degenerating through the female process of menstruation. Whilst male cells embark on a ‘remarkable mission’ to reach the egg, women’s are seen as wasteful, inferior and unproductive. This parallels the romanticized fairytale of Sleeping Beauty.

Women (and byproducts), are dormant and passive with no choice, dependent on male involvement to awaken with a ‘true love’s kiss’. Such language and metaphors exacerbate Ortner’s (1974) nature-culture divide; universally, females are interdependent and less worthwhile than males. For Arnold (2017) such scientific dogma is far from the biological truth. Whilst emphasis is placed on women and their egg’s dependence on male sperm, both die after a similar time. Similarly, whilst male and female products both depend on other bodily processes, eggs act femininely– as large and passive. Sperm, behave as masculine – small, active and strong in leading to conception. However many sperm fail to make it through the female’s reproductive tract. Thus, as wasteful as woman (Arnold). Rather reproduction involves equal involvement of the egg and the sperm, both active in reproduction. This male-orientated view of female reproductive processes was largely accepted under its adherence to the stereotypical roles of men and women.

Societal perceptions between reproduction and relevant social roles are reinforced through notions of reproduction and kinship by scientists with scientific authority. Significantly, Martin (1991) in her seminal work uncovers the only grounds for enthusiasm towards women’s biological and reproductive processes is their ability to bear children. This emphasizes the common belief that women, from birth are trained and should aspire to motherhood. Reproduction and the ability to bear offspring, is projected onto women as an essential female quality in a male dominated society. This emphasizes women’s existence for the purpose of reproducing and caring for offspring. Such conclusions drawn about male and female reproductive processes reflect preconceptions about male and female gender roles within kinship structures. This is also a form of Foucault’s (1991) disciplinary power. Those deviating from the norm, such as women not wanting children, or failing to reproduce, are defined abnormally and evaluated negatively by society and science. Contrastingly, feelings of women wanting many children are evaluated more favorably than women wanting a career. This is furthered by a quote from a surrogate woman, using the term ‘babysit for other’s children’ to describe her experience in the third person, passing along a production line to bear children and become fulfilled as a women.

Similarly, it is suggested that if one is a surrogate and asked by biological offspring ‘why the baby cannot live with our family?’, the best answer is to relate surrogacy to ‘babysitting’ for another family. However, infertility is not an individual problem, but a problem of the existing social structures and ideas that reinforce childbearing as essential to womanhood. Moreover, Martin (1991) proposes scientific descriptions of reproductive biology are heavily laden with existing cultural stereotype and definitions of what is means to be both male and female. In particular, scientific language mirrors the traditional belief that women and their biological processes are dependent and less worthy than men – as underscored by Ortner’s (1972) argument. The language to describe scientific reproductive facts, is consistent with the hierarchal organization and traditional roles attested to women.

Cultural ideas project and shape the way the scientific community describes the natural phenomenon of reproduction. This language adheres to a biological deterministic way of thinking about the stereotypical definitions of what constitutes female, and male. Women are trained, and prompted from birth to become mothers, with reproduction and the ability to bear offspring projected as an essential female quality. This emphasizes women’s existence for the sole purpose of reproducing and raising offspring. The assumptions that lie within scientific knowledge can be considered a form of techno-medical knowledge, as they are embedded with values and meanings of what constitutes a man and a women. These natural facts of women, are historically used justification for their social stratification from men. Up until now, physicians, who are more often male, have influenced framing of infertility problems. This has implications for how fertility is perceived by patients and society. For example, infertility is often framed in clinical terms with women the sole cause and recipient of infertility problems and solutions. This has led many to claim women’s association with nature, and lack of involvement with culture prevents their contribution to scientific knowledge. For Martin (1991), science is a cultural activity, thus associated with the male domain. Despite Martin (1991) commenting on this over two decades ago, such beliefs are still prevalent. As Alessandro Strumia in response to Donna Strickland being awarded the Nobel Prize, stated, “Physics was invented and built by men – it’s not by invitation. ”

In the future things may change with the shift to medical students now having a ratio of 50% being female and through increased recognition of women in science. Gardner and Grey (2016), similarly, note how science is framed by men to promote RT as a cure. Therefore, the production of scientific knowledge equates objectivity with masculinity as infertility problems are presented in a manner consistent with a male-orientated model of human nature and social reality. Women, however, are absent and negated by the medical language, described only as reproductive vehicles. These cultural attitudes are embedded in the scientific writings produced about men and women. Simultaneously, ST negate the importance of gender roles within kinship structures through the development of RT. RT enable gender diverse individuals, and women in the absence of a patriarchal figure to reproduce.

Consequently, the meaning of motherhood has been transformed into something that whilst previously referred to as a ‘fixed’ and specific kin, can now be partial as a result of ‘doing’. The use of language, significantly, is effective in establishing and disambiguating relations that emerge out of assisted reproduction. For RT to be successful, certain kinds of kin must be ‘foregrounded, re-crafted and minimized, ’ whilst others established through language to ensure couples utilizing treatment emerge as legitimate parent. Adjectives such as ‘surrogate’ and ‘biological’ precede the word mother to diminish the surrogate mother’s position as ‘prosthetic’, whilst evaluating the biological mother’s claim. The word ‘surrogate’ successfully associates this female with a non-parental status, marginalizing their authority within kinship structures and preventing claims over adultery or incest. As Collier and Yanagisako (1987) noted, nurturance sits at the nexus of the Euro-American construction of the nuclear family. However, whilst RT can negate gender roles, men, unsurprisingly, have a straightforward and simple term to describe their relationship with offspring as ‘father’. As a result of RT that enable women to bear offspring in the absence of the man, there is a direct challenge on the traditional patriarchal family.

For Ragoné (1994) the language used to describe surrogacy motherhood and RT is ‘symptomatic’ and reflects the dissolution of the American family. However, some blame the traditional family’s demise on women and their new freedom to access such technologies. This stems from the inherent assumption that women are encapsulated within the reproductive realm. Any variation from this traditional pattern, as happens with RT that removes men from the process, directly challenges existing social structures. Prior to RT, motherhood provided a natural model for the social construction of natural facts stemming from the influence of Euro-American kinship ideology emphasizes the centrality of biogenetic relatedness. However, in the context of surrogacy as a RT, the social and biological elements are separated. Nonetheless, for women as a whole, RT have given women reproductive freedom and reproductive agenc. The field of feminism as a whole, alongside Schneider (1968), have challenged the traditional nuclear construction. The inclusion of RT in society are of no exception to this deconstruction of the nuclear family; ‘there is a need to introduce rules over the use of RT against single, cohabiting women or lesbian couples to ensure the continued reliance and use of the heteronormative family as the basis of social organization’. However, feminists, are divided in enthusiasm over such RT, and in particular, a women’s ability to transgress beyond the natural realm. For infertile women, RT allow women to exercise their own reproductive fates. This is in line with the pro-choice ideology and open the door for women to actively choose motherhood or not.

The development of RT have enabled women to choose other roles aside from the maternal. Kinship and its subsequent relations are no longer clearly defined facts of life but must be retraced to include an expanding definition of reproduction. For feminists on this side of the argument, technology has the power to be innocuous, used for positive or negative ends, as technologies derive meaning from their social and political contexts. Nonetheless some feminists are unenthusiastic about the potential of RT seeing it as a form of medical violence, as the ‘last of the cottage industries is transported from the home and placed into the lab’. Reproduction is the result of men gaining sexual access to women. Assisted RT, for feminists such as Strickler (1992) further male access to women, limiting a woman’s reproductive agency. This stems from the sexologist belief of masochism where sexual pain is equated to sexual pleasure for women. For these individuals, RT operate on a similar basis that enable men to inflict pain — through medical interventions — on women to reproduce. However, this adheres to the outdated idea, Martin Luther-King expressed, ‘the more pain a woman suffers, the more she will love a child. ’ The medical experimentation applied towards women with RT are justified as helping her reproduce. However, they simultaneously grant physicians greater social control over women a RT is the product of male reality to allow male power over women. This usurps women’s procreative power as emphasis is placed on offspring, reducing women to fetal environments to carry children. These technologies work against women’s reproductive power, augmenting the rights of fathers.

Similarly, these extreme RT hinder a woman’s ability to perform any role aside from motherhood. Arguments in support of this are provided by Widge (2005), ‘fertility defines womanhood and womanhood is defined by a women’s capacity to be a mother. ’ This reinforces childbearing as essential to the definition of womanhood. For the structural feminists, this blocks alternative routes for women to achieve satisfaction. This sanctity of motherhood simultaneously reduces women to a breeder class, synonymous with ‘prostitution and commercial baby selling’. This view is expounded in The Handmaid’s Tale. The fact some surrogates readily embrace meaningful suffering for heroic reasons, noting that to die by childbirth is ‘the best way to die, ’ and ‘dying for a good cause, ’ confirming the social value and importance of motherhood. The interaction between scientific language used to describe men and women, and the construction of RT is powerful and reverberating. The two inform and influence each other. The way technology now gives reproductive choices affects ideas of kinship, to the extent that traditional kinship structures are becoming dissolute. Similarly, the way individuals think of kinship and their gender roles, affects the production of technologies to reinforce particular gender based notions of relatedness. To completely free kinship ideas from the heteronormative would require women and men to be homogenous; in constructing knowledge and creation of technologies themselves.