Ova Donation and Symbols of Sub - Konrad, Monica

Ova Donation and Symbols of Substance: Some Variations on the Theme of Sex, Gender and
the Partible Body

Author(s): Monica Konrad
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 643-
667
Published by: Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3034826 .
Accessed: 14/03/2013 00:20
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Royal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve
and extend access to The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
OVA DONATION AND SYMBOLS OF SUBSTANCE:
SOME VARIATIONS ON THE THEME OF SEX, GENDER
AND THE PARTIBLE BODY
MONICA KONRAD
Goldsmiths
College, ofLondon
University
This articleconsidersthe value of femalereproductive substanceas exteriorized and

extracorporeal bodvDarts.Women'saccountsofdonating theirovato infertile
recipientsare
exploredwithintht -ontext ofcontemporary bio-medicaldiscourseon assistedconception
in Britain.Contrarytopredominant assumptions
oftheWestern modeloftheautonomous
and boundedindividual, it is arguedthatdonors,as procreative
agents,enactformsof
relatednessas thesociality
ofanonymity.
Westerndiscourses of science and reproductivemedicine are engaged at the

presentmoment in an expansivetechnologyof geneticanthropomorphology.
Cells and genes, as human body parts,are being mapped, writtenup and
fetishizedas thoughtheyhavea claimto personhoodand ought,as such,to enter
the legal domain as nature-endowed,rights-bearing entities.There are appar-
entlysuch thingsas gaygenes,quiescentcells,orphanedembryos,and so on. The
anthropologist comingto thislanguageforthefirsttimemaynot onlywonderat
the kindsof translationstakingplace betweenobject and subject,and between
thebiologicaland thecultural,but how indeedsuch 'persons'maythemselvesbe
worldsof kinshipin thehumanbody.'I wantto givethisthoughta quite specific
inflectionby unravellingherea fewsequences of bodilyexchange.
tocirculate
Preparing David Schneider
Some thirtyyears ago when Schneider (1968) analysedAmericankinship,he
categorizedformsof relatednessin termsof how the order of natureand the
orderof law could be mediatedby the centralsymbolof consanguinealblood.
'Blood' in thisaccountwas synonymouswithbio-geneticsubstance,which was
also interchangeable with the notion of a bio-geneticrelationship;the general
premissbeingthat'kinshipis thebiogeneticfactsofnature'(1980: 24). My focus
in thisarticleis on aspectsofhumanreproductionin thecontextof local concep-
tionsof Britishparenthood;workwhich has drawnme closerto the realization
thatit is necessary,at leastin the Britishcontext,to talkabout the substanceof
blood in a ratherdifferent way- througha more invisible,literallyun-nameable
of
trajectory body parts and persons (see Konrad 1996). If I make here what
Inst.(N.S.) 4, 643-667
J.Roy.anthrop.

644 MONICA KONRAD
seems a partial,somewhatquizzical returnto the notion of 'enduringdiffuse

solidarity'(Schneider 1980: 50-4), it is less to rekindleparticularsentimentsas
certainnorms,which Schneiderdefinesas the 'code forconduct',than it is to
elaborateupon theradicalremarkthat'itis in [this]relationto blood thatwe may
perhapsfindthe fundamentalimpetusforall the symbolicelaboration,at the
outset,on the relationsbetweenthesexes' (Heritier-Auge1989a: 298). It is only
fromcertainhistoricaland cross-culturalperspectives, though,thatmybroader
pointsabout gender,agencyand the imaginarymayappearto derivesome legit-
imacyas criticalreflections on ART (an acronymin currentpopularand medical
usage forthe term'assistedreproductivetechnology'),power and bodilytrans-
formation.
Sixteenth-and seventeenth-century Westernphysicianssuch as Ambroise
Pare may have speculatedthatwomen could turninto men should theirrepro-
ductiveorgansaccidentallyfallout fromthe hiddenand interiorspaces of their
bodies; and,as Laqueur (1992) argues,such speculationsfittheWestern'one-sex'
model of the femalebody's inferiorand imperfectinversionof quintessential
male form.Laqueur's historiography of Westernconstructsof sex is a featof
analysis.For one, itshows thatgender,as thesymbolizationof permeablebodies
and body parts, did have its place in the worlds of ancient, medieval and
Renaissancebiology (cf.WalkerBynum 1991; cf Hillman & Mazzio 1997). A
simple leap in a fieldacrossa ditch,say,and out could springa newlyvisibleset
ofgenitalia:fromovariesto testicles,girlwould turnintoboy,daughterintoson.2
Surgeons, the clergy and philosophersof the day - themselvesapparently
veritablemen - could indeed concurthatsuch was thewayofthehuman body's
naturaldesigns.Here thenis a systemofthinkingthatshowsup an incipientfolk
modelling of human reproductivebody partsas cross-transferable attributes.
There is recognition,in otherwords,thatthe categoryof the personmaybe the
materialofcorporealtransgression and transformation. And all too in a moment's
hap of a stride!
But equally significantly, Laqueur's textworks impressivelyas a theoretical
ethnography of sex; it drawsextensivelyupon a richrangeof primarysources,
siftingcopious original detail while trackingback and forthbetween local
examplesto piece together'evidence' forthe author'scentralclaim thatsex, at
leastas we know itin theWesttoday,is a relatively new invention.It is onlywith
modernityand theemergencein theeighteenthand nineteenthcenturiesofwhat
Laqueur identifiesas the 'two-sexmodel' of male/femaleincommensurability,
thatbiologycomes to be seen as thesourceofWesternnotionsofmasculinity and
femininity. Historically,differentiations of genderanalysedin termsof a 'one-
sex' model of hierarchypreceded differentiation by sex,3and this, Laqueur
stresses,oughtto be significant because it allows us to see how in the world of
one-sex ('this Androgynalconditionin Man' [see Laqueur 1986: 13]), human
bodies were farless fixedand constrainedby categoriesof sexual or biological
difference thantheycame to be fromthe eighteenthcenturyonwards.But what
should happen,though,to theentiremoraland discursiveorderconstituting this
'invention'were in factwomen's 'displaced' organsor reproductivesubstance
not the biological cause of an accidentaland arbitrary sex inversion?4Let us
suppose that 'female' reproductivesubstancecame to be outside of women's
bodies, neitherby chance nor as the involuntaryflow of menstrualblood
'regulating'women's bodies (Heritier-Auge1989b, but as chosen courses of

MONICA KONRAD 645
action.What kindof model of 'sex' could thenbe invokedto make thesekindsof

exteriorizationsculturallymeaningful?
Such questionsare not withoutcontemporary relevance,as my fieldworkin
Britainwithdonorsof ova suggests(Konrad 1996). Ova donorsarewomen who
choose to make theirreproductivesubstanceinto exteriorized,extracorporeal
body parts.They usuallydo so with the expressaim of helpingotherwomen,
who are medicallydiagnosedas infertile, to conceivea child.However,as I want
to argue, makingparts of themselvesinto substancefor others is, for many
donors, much more than simplya medical means of circumventinganother
woman's infertility. Takingmetaphorsfrommainstreambiomedicaldiscourses,
some donorswill claim thattheseexteriorizedbody parts,as thedetached partsof
theiranonymized persons,constitute'giftsof life'to others.5
The ways in which a personmakes particularkindsof social relationsin the
contextofgift-exchange has been a focalpointofinquiryin anthropologicalliter-
aturesinceMauss's writing(1925) on reciprocity. If mythinkinghas been influ-
enced particularlyby recent Melanesian work on local conceptions of
personhood,substanceand exchange- to pick at randomfromsaythe work of
Battaglia(1992), Mimica (1988), Wagner(1991), Weiner(1995) - it is because I
see in some of thisliteraturethepossibilityof drawing,notwithoutreservations,
some comparisonswith my Britishethnography. This seemsto be the case in so
faras these(and other)anthropologists explorethedifferent ways,and themany
different societiesand languagegroups makingup the richnessof Melanesia,
wherebypersons,as corporeal kinds of identities,may be thoughtto comprise
multiplebodies and bodyparts.
Strathern's(1988) cross-regionalsynthesisof 'Melanesia', and ethnographic
analysisof the Hageners of the WesternHighlands of Papua New Guinea,
developsthe originalargumentthatbesidesfacilitating certainsocial connexions
between persons, 'gifts'also create detachmentsor certainkinds of discon-
nexionsofpersonsfrompersons.Certainkindsofrelationsaretherelatednessof
making social separationsfrom out of the substance of oneself and others
(Strathern1988: 191-224). Whereas for Mauss 'persons' had engaged in gift
exchangebecause of theirsocial statusas the moral representatives of groups,
Strathern convincingly shows how the Hagenersmakethemselvesinto'distinct'
kindsof personsas theyaccrue forthemselves,in the processof giftexchange,
certainsymbolicand social statuses.Key to thistwistis the insightregardingthe
realizationof the personas 'partible'.This termis deployedby the authoras an
analyticconstructto denotehow persons,as agents,can detachfrom,and attach
to themselves,partsof theirown and otherpersons'bodies.
Strathernbuilds on this notion of 'partibility'to formulatea conceptionof
agencyin termsof how Melanesian personscan act because of the way thata
'person'standsfora 'locus ofrelationships'. In thesense thatpersons'capabilities
revealthe social relationsofwhichtheyare composed,social relationsrevealthe
personstheyproduce (cf.Marriott1976; Wagner1991). There is an important
temporal dimension to this, for every relation contains within it its own
outcome,which is a previousrelationshipin a transformed state(Strathern1988:
173, 241). In thissense,actionscount as the substitutionof one relationshipby
another.For the Hageners,power is not about exertingcontrolover others,but
refersratherto the drawingout of internalcapacitiesand to the way thatthe
effectofinteraction on theinnerpersoncomes to be registered in or on thebody.

646 MONICA KONRAD
The categoryofthebodyis thusapprehendedas registering the effectsof others'

motivationsand intentionsbecause it is composed of the specifichistorical
actionsof others(1988: 132).
To considerthe value of exteriorizedbody partsas formsof agencyin the
Britishcontext,I wantto discusstheproblemofwhethercross-cultural compar-
isonsofpersonsas 'partible'can be establishedsimplyon accountofhow persons
arethoughtto actto makepartsofthemselvesdetachablein thesedifferent social
contexts.To do so, I consider the analyticdistinctivenessof the construct
'partibility' paceLaqueur and somewhatcounterintuitively,
by'retrieving', certain
featuresof an older model ofWesternbeliefsabout bodyparts.This becomes an
initialbasis fromwhich I thinkit is possible to begin to make cross-cultural
comparisonsand contrastsabout the agencyof'partible'persons in termsthat
can accommodate,as well as effectively challenge,thethesisofWestern'individ-
ualism' (Burridge 1979). Following Delaney's work on Turkishsymbols of
procreation(1986; 1991) and itstrenchantcritiqueof the 'monogenetic'bias of
Westernfolkmodels of human reproduction,thisanalysisreconsiderssome of
theassumptionsunderpinningWestern modelsofthesex/gender system(Collier
& Yanagisako 1987; Errington1990; MacCormack & Strathern1980; Moore
1994; Rubin 1975), though in termsthat address women's own accounts of
femaleprocreativeagencyand identity. This is discussedthroughoutas women's
narrativesofgenderingoogenesis;thatis,how women thinktheyare involvedin
practicesof generationon the one hand, as well as how theyimagineand care
abouthow theiractions,as subjectiveembodimentsofpower,are likelyto impact
upon others.
A focus on the ways certaininformants thoughttheygenderedand engen-
deredoogenesisis partlya replyto Schneider's(1980) assumptionthatAmerican
symbolsof kinshipfall into two discreteand normativerealms: the order of
natureand theorderof law.It is also a criticalreflectionupon thelimitsofrecent
work in feministanthropologywhich has sought to re-orientthe 'facts' of
kinship supporting'the genealogical unityof mankind' (Schneider 1984) in
termsthatrecognizethe 'mutuallyunified'linkagesbetweenthe constructsof
genderand kinship(Collier & Yanagisako1987; Yanagisako& Delaney 1995).
Based upon examplesfrommyfieldwork, I put the late 'David Schneider'intoa
relationof criticalexchange between 'Laqueur' and 'Strathern'who, for the
purposeofthisanalysis
only,themselves totransform
begin intoimaginary,
thatis,substi-
tutivefigureheads
offorms The aim of such social circulations,no less
ofrelatedness.
my wilful commitmentto the possibilityof such transformations, have their
beginningsin my informants' own imaginingsof an alternativeexchangeorder
of persons and relations.These need to be contextualizedfirstthroughthe
of 'Laqueur'.
'fungibility'
Concoctions frombloodintoimperfect
ofgender: semen
Anthropologists have long been interestedin studyingthe knowledgeclaimsof
non-Western culturesas thesefindexpressionin certainfolkbeliefsconcerning
procreation,conceptionand parturition(see Franklin1997: 17-72). But since it
is Western-trainedanthropologistswho have tended to export,at least until
a highlyparticularizedmodel of sex - one thatassumed thatbiology
recently,
could provideuniversalexplanationof processesof human reproduction- the

MONICA KONRAD 647
disciplinewould do well to reflecton a trailof ignoranceblazingfromWestern

representations of theseputativelyirreducible'facts'of sex.
When Regnierde Graaflooked down his microscopein 1672 to marvelat his
discoveryof the ovarianfollicle,he was also to arguewhat in factbecame the
standard Renaissance view of female reproductivephysiology.Ovulation
occurredonlyas a resultof coitus,he suggested,whichby itsverynaturehad to
be immenselypleasurableto the woman: 'if those partsof the pudendum [the
clitorisand the labia] had not been suppliedwith such delightfulsensationsof
pleasure and of such greatlove, no woman would be willingto undertakefor
herselfsuch a troublesomepregnancyof nine months'.6Female sexualitywas
thena discourseabout the factsof naturein the sense thatwhatwas takento be
the obvious troubleof workingat pregnancyreceiveditsculturalrecognitionat
the same time as the genderingof 'female'body partsinvalidatedthe crimeof
rape.In otherwords,the notionof non-spontaneousovulationunderscoredthe
explicitlypolitical'fact'that'a woman cannotconceiveunless she doth consent'
(Laqueur 1992: 161-2).
As versionsof 'pre-scientific'knowledge,these'misconceptions'were bound
up withthe problemthatde Graaf,like Galen beforehim,had been at a loss to
workout a sexuallyspecificvocabularyforthe descriptionofwomen's anatomy.
De Graaf's ovarianfollicleswere, afterall, discoveriesthathis peers imagined
confirmedthepresenceoffemale As Laqueur (1986: 2) remarks:'For two
testicles.
millenniathe organthatbythe earlynineteenthcenturyhad become virtuallya
synecdocheforwomen had no name of its own'. Withvon Baer's discoveryof
ova some two centuriesafterde Graaf,theencodingof masculinity/femininity is
takenas equivalentto the human body partsthemselves,both in the sense that
woman is herovary,and in the sense thattheovaryis takento representthevery
essence of femininity. Such views were summed up, forexample,in the mid-
nineteenthcenturyby the French physicianAchilles Chereau: propter solum
ovariummulier estid quodest- it is onlybecause of the ovarythatwoman is what
she is' (Laqueur 1986: 27). Laqueur's historiography sets out to accountforthe
epistemologicalshiftsinvolvedin thistransition, inquiringintowhat itwas that
had held togetherthe namelessnessof sexual difference,only to give way
eventuallyto a hardeningofmetaphoricalassociations:theemergenceofa synec-
dochal logic of persons and body parts.7One explanationis that between
Aristotle,Galen and Chereau therecirculatesan ideologyof sexual difference
that had been concocted,actuallyvery literally, as a persuasiveand enduring
theoryof blood.
ForAristotleand Galen, advocatesoftheone-sexmodel of humanbodyform,
the categoriesof 'female' and 'male' derivedtheirmeaning froma theoryof
blood thatencompasseda set of folkbeliefsconcerninghuman procreationand
generativeagency.Based on the male-definedprinciple of perfection- an
aesthetictypifiedby degreesof heat,and embodied as thecorporealprocessesof
cookingblood - thistheoryof generationequated human reproductiveorgans
and gameteswith the 'residues',the excess products,of the alimentarysystem.
Aristotle'sargumenthad been thatthebodycontinuestheprocessofcooking,of
'coction' (pepsis)afterfood is consumed (thisact being equated withthe feature
distinguishing between human beings and animals) and that'residues' would
remainafterthe various stagesof processingnutrimenthad takenplace in the
body.Semen, milkand menstrualblood were all such typesof residualmatter,

648 MONICA KONRAD
theremaindersofconcoctedblood,thougheach ofthesesubstanceswas believed

to have been cooked to a different degree,by a differentheat. As the foam
(aphrodes) of the blood, semen representedthe most whitenedsubstanceof all
since it had undergonethemostintenseformof cookingwithinthe male repro-
ductivebody; itwas themostdigested,most'civilized'formof the body's blood
and food.8
Menstrual blood and mother's milk, by comparison, were regarded as
substances of a less final, less complete and thereforeinferiorconcoction.
Whateverblood women could 'heat up' in theircapacityas 'lesser' and colder
human beings,thissubstance,in the femalebody,could onlyeverachievesocial
value as women's embodimentsof 'imperfectsemen'.
Blood in this schema functioned,then, as the metaphoricalelaborationof
differential,genderedeconomiesof nutrition.This is significant because it is the
beginningof the notionthata feedingrelationshipexistsin naturebetweenthe
motherand childas biologicaldyad,somethingthatwas fundamentalto theearly
kinshiptheoristsofthelatenineteenthcentury. But blood is also heresomething
much more than a naturalfoundationformaternity and vitalnurturance.The
substanceofblood was also bound up symbolically withthemetaphoricalnotion
that the body possessed innate powers to convertbodily fluids: one set of
substances,it was thought,could turneasilyinto anotherset of substancesas
thesetravelledwithintheinteriorized spacesofthehumanbody.Laqueur depicts
thisas a physiologyof fluxand corporealopenness.
Ancientmedicinebequeathedto the Renaissancea physiology of fluxand corporeal
one inwhichblood,mother's
openness, milk,andsemenwerefungiblefluids, ofthe
products
Thus,notonlycouldwomenturnintomen ... but
body'spowerto concoctitsnutriment.
couldturn
bodilyfluids intooneanother
easily (Laqueur1986:8, emphasisadded).
So howeverinequitablyand preposterously sexed such bodies came to be in

nature,they were nonetheless remarkablefor their powerful capacities for
effecting'natural' kinds of transformation.'Male' and 'female' were not just
permeableaspects of the person; these categoriesdenoted also intracorporeal
processesof bodilychangethatdependedon the conversionand re-channelling
of reproductive,that is, sexual, substances.To cook blood, then, involved a
particularmaterializationof substance as fungible,though it is importantto
rememberthat this was simultaneouslya 'concoction' of gender as artefact,
namelythe makingup of the 'story'of an ontologyof hierarchybetween the
sexes.9
From here itwas not too greata leap to forgethe difference
betweenova and
sperm in termsof active/passive distinctionsof 'male' movement(form) and
'female'reception(matter).Today,notionsofmalenessand masculinity continue
to be inscribedas physiologicalattributeswith referenceto certainmedical
notions,for instance,that sperm are active and have a 'mission' or 'perilous
journey' to undertake;thattheyactivatethe developmentalprogrammeof the
egg by reachingintothe deep recessesof thevagina;thatas the embodimentof
the stereotypical'heroic warrior',sperm are designed to penetratethe zona
pellucida, the extracellularmatrix that surrounds the growing oocyte and
ovulated egg (see Martin 1991). Ova, by contrast,are mainlyrepresentedin
medicaldiscourseas passiveobjectsthatdo not move orjourney in themselves;
theyaresimplysweptalongthedisembodiedwoman's fallopiantubes.This same

MONICA KONRAD 649
set of male/female,active/passive dichotomiesworks to similarmetaphorical

effectin the associationof spermwith ceaseless male productivity
and energy,
and the beliefthatova productionis inferiorto spermatogenesisbecause it is a
processthatis alreadyfinishedat birth.10
Fromovumintoova:cooking
at theclinic
Of the manyironiesbesettinghuman reproductivetechnology, one surelymust
be thatinfertility
treatments are not alwaysintendedforthe infertile. In the case
of ova donation,it is generallywomen who alreadyhave givenbirthsome time
in the pastwho receivea course of ovulatorydrugsto make themyetmorefertile.
For to be more fertilein thisparticularcontext- at leastfromthe pointof view
of donorsis aboutpreparing the body as a siteof agency,about preparingto act
foroneselfas well as forothers.
Women who decide to go ahead with donation inevitablyfind themselves
participating in a complex medical regimeof corporealpreparation,regulation
and bodily change. The treatmentconsistsof highlyinterventionary processes
wherebywhat is assumed to be a naturallyoccurringbalance of chemical
substanceswithinthe body requiresconversion.It is thesenew balanceswhich
mustbe carefullyattendedto and 'contained'by severalco-'bodies': the person
of the donor,forinstance,is (located) in the 'body' of the clinic and is 'repro-
duced' manytimesoveras theultrasoundscansrecordper millimetretheextent
of herfollicular(interiorized)growth."I mentionthesepointsbecausewomen's
narrativesabout donationdifferin significant ways fromthe 'expert'or profes-
sionalaccountselaboratedbymedics.To beginto contextualizethesedifferences
as co-existingdiscourses,I provideherejusta briefdetailingof some ofthe most
salientfeaturesof the treatment procedure.
One week beforedonorswould be due to begintheirperiods,theycommence
a 10-14 daypre-menstrual courseof thedrugBuserelinwhichmustbe sniffedat
four hourly intervalseach day. Buserelin is a drug designed to suppress the
production of the reproductivehormones known as follicle stimulating
hormone (FSH) and luteinizinghormone (LH) which normallystimulatethe
growthof ovarian follicles.Medics explain the desired effectof hormonal
suppressionby referringto this course of sniffingas the 'switchingoff' of
women's spontaneous(thatis, 'natural')ovulation,an actionalso referredto in
medical texts as pituitary'down-regulation'.Such suppressionof the usual
processesof hormonalactivityis also a processof extracting what is seen to be
'natural'fromthe body.Medics referto 'switchedoff' bodies as kindsof 'clean
slates',thoughtheyusuallyrefrainfromsaying,at least directly, thatBuserelin
ingestionsimulatesanothersupposedly'spontaneous'body: the natural'end' of
a woman's reproductivefertility, otherwiseassociatedin Westernmedical and
populardiscoursewiththe 'female'menopause.12
The time following'down-regulation'is known as 'ovulationinduction',or
'superovulation',and its successfulcourse depends on so-called 'controlled
ovarianhyperstimulation'. As usuallyonlyone ovum becomes fullymaturein a
woman's menstrualcycle,partof the aim of in-vitrofertilization (IVF) treat-
ments - besides the actual technique of extra-corporealfertilization - is the
hormonalinductionofan extra,non-naturalgrowthofwhatmedicscall 'surplus'
or 'spare' ova. Practitioners
have a standardmedicalexplanationforthis: super-

650 MONICA KONRAD
ovulationis in theinterestsoftheova recipients,theyclaim,sincethegreaterthe

numberof matureova removedat anyone timefromone donor,thegreaterthe
and so of establishinga pregnancy.'3
chance of a successfulfertilization During
thistimeof inducedovulation,donorsare requiredto injectthemselveswith,or
to have administeredto them,concentrateddosages of syntheticoestrogen(the
drug'Pergonal'),colloquiallytermed'fertility injections'.Nurses saysuch things
as: 'we giveyou back the hormoneswe've takenaway' and 'we boost yourbody
to do more than usual'. Between 24-38 hours afterthe last Pergonalinjection
(day 13 of the menstrualcycleand thedaypriorto 'egg collection'),a finalintra-
muscularinjectionofhumanchorionicgonadotrophin('Profasi'drug)is admin-
istered.This mimicstheexpectedonsetofwhatwould otherwisebe the 'natural'
surgeofluteinizinghormonein thenearly-menstruating body,a hormonewhose
effectis to triggerthe simulativereleaseof the mostmatureovum froma single
ovarianfollicle.
Whereas the previous section on 'sex' and concoction foregroundedthe
symbolic dimensions of intracorporealprocesses, the production of bodily
reproductivesubstance at the fertility clinic depends quite literallyon real
corporealtransformations of one sortor another.14 An ovum becomes multiple
ova and multiplypooled15as theclinic'cooks' notjust one singlebodybut many
women's bodies simultaneously.Such transformations depend in parton the
clinicalbody's own corporealregulations,most notablywith regardto its own
attendanceto time.That is to say,theclinical'body' thatis themedicaltreatment
regimeis involvedin the 'cooking' of multipleovarianfolliclesas the transfor-
mationofspeeded-up intracorporeal growth.By first'switchingoff'women (the
clinical narrativeof down-regulatingthe body) and then controllingvery
preciselythe superovulatory phase of 'hyperstimulation', the medical event of
collectingova - known also as 'egg retrieval'- can be timedto occurjustbefore
such substancewould be released 'spontaneously'fromthe ovarianfolliclesof
donors' bodies. For the medical regime,and what I am describinghere as the
'procreative'body of the clinic, ova are productsof growththat need to be
'captured'so thattheyare not lostto Nature: theymustbe 'extracted'fromeach
donor, usually by ultrasound-guidedaspirationor by laparoscopic retrieval,
beforetheirdissolutionwould become apparentas thenaturalflowingsubstance
of menstrualblood.16
But members of the medical professionalso tend to convey their under-
standingsof the productionof multipleova growthby recourseto explanations
which emphasize how donors' bodies simultaneouslycopy and overridethe
course of 'nature'.This maybe seen as theirlocal versionof concoctinggender.
The idea thatwomen copyandtranscend'nature'(wheretheconstructof nature
is simplyflattenedby its coding as 'female' Jordanova1980; MacCormack &
Strathern1980]) is based on the notion thatsuperovulationis the displayof a
kindof 'superfemininity'. An ova donorbecomes 'more' ofa woman because she
takesinto her body increasedamountsof 'womanly'substance.What is repre-
sentedas thenaturalattribute offemalenessmaybe emphasizedbysimplyadding
morefemaleness(moreessentialattribute)to one's identity. This providesa clear
exampleof how bio-medicaldiscourserelieson a model of the human body as
constitutedfrom a unitary,single-sexedidentity.17 Accordingto this schema,
women who superovulatereplicatea biologicalmodel of theWestern-encoded
'female'bodyat thesame time,however,as theyeraseor detachfromthemselves

MONICA KONRAD 651
traces of womanhood (the model of producing the body as 'clean slate').

Accordingto this view, whetherwomen's bodies are regardedas sources of
substance-augmentation or substance-extraction,
female bodies are collapsed
discursivelyinto ones of naturalfemininity/innate
altruism.Having alternately
excessive then diminished amounts of substance is in both cases simply a
'residue'ofwhatwomen can quite naturally, accordingto Aristotle,claim to be.
Frombio-genetic
substance
intoanti-seed
For Schneider,as mentionedearlier,the biologicalelementsin the definitionof
kinship have the quality of symbols. Blood relativesare deemed to share
biogenetic substance as a symbol of unity,and this is symbolicallyinter-
changeablewiththesymbolof love,thenotionof the unificationof oppositesin
sexual intercourse.
Ova donors,however,saythatgivingotherwomen reproductivepartsof their
bodies entailsnothingobviouslysexual. They go furtherwhen theyclaim that
these donated body parts possess no inherentlybiological or bio-genetic
propertiesin themselves.Emma, forinstance,comments:
I don'tthinktheeggsaremine,they're
notsomething
physical
thatthey're
myeggs.I don't
eventhinkofthemas eggs.
Many women will make such commentsas: 'It's not the eggsthatare the actual
thing,they'renotlikea physicalthingthathavecome frommybody'. Sometimes
thisnotionis expressedas thoughova are not classifiableas a 'human' thing.A
fewwomen, forinstance,draw analogiesto non-humanspecies,referring, for
instance,to 'chicken'seggs',or they stresshow ova carryno particularly privi-
leged statusas a reproductivecapacityof thebody.Gill comments:'They'rejust
likea fingernail or something... they'rejust a normalpart,likeanyotherpart'.
Nonetheless,clinicalidioms have a way of leavingpowerful'deposits'in the
minds and imaginationsof most donors. Whereas this biomedical discourse
seeks to captureova beforetheyare 'lost' as non-transformed blood, women
transform thetimeofova donationintothesocial 'residue'ofa missedovulation.
The gendersymbolisminformingwomen's narrativesof procreativeagencyis
complex,contradictory and at timesconfusingas donors are not describingthe
kindsof corporealtransformations theyimaginetheymake in termsthatrelate
to clearand elaborate'master'discourses.
One wayin whichdonorsstartto developa morespecificvocabularyaboutthe
non-biologicalpropertiesof ova is in termsof ideas about themselvesdonating
means or a way of helpingothers.These narratives of assistancemainlyfocuson
how women perceivethemselvesto have social efficacybecause theyact as a
'method' or 'routine' of enablementon behalfof others.Where the medical
model sees hormonal regulation as the supplementationof substance to
women's bodies, women's narrativesof agencystressthe womb work theydo.
Gill goes on to describehow 'whatI did was almostlikea routine... I am more
of a method'.Women typicallydescribehow they'give a helpinghand', some
suggestingthatdonationis like missionarywork because help is given 'on the
frontline': theiractions ought to make a difference, theythink,because they
oughtto impactdirectlyon severallives.These ideas are women's renditionsof
whatitmeansto embodywithchoice theproductionand growthofmultipleova

652 MONICA KONRAD
in a condensedtimeperiod.'Giftsoflife'areofferednotbecause halfa 'genetical'

child is thoughtto be containedalreadyin the substancedonated,but as the
expectationthatrecipientswill 'finishoff' the growth,nurturanceand support
thatdonorsthemselvesonlyjustbegin(cf.Konrad 1996: 212-24).
Betty,forexample,talksabout how she 'startsthingsoff' as a kind of 'joint
effort'betweenherselfand the recipient.
She says:
betweenus because... I gavemyeggsto startthingsoff
I thinkthere'sgotto be something
andtheycontinuetheprocessso we'vesortofmadesomething even
that'sbeenajointeffort
thoughI didn'thavemuchtodo withit.Butwithout me,itwouldn'thavebeenpossible...
there'sgotto be something betweenus ... it'sjust... it'sthemost totrytoexplain
thing
peculiar
(emphasisadded).
a possibleconceptionis not informedby ideas of female

Betty'sidea of initiating
reproductivesubstancestandingin foractiveor passivedistinctionsthatdenote
otherwise'whole', distinctively sexed persons.As withso manyof thewomen I
met,she cannotquite put her fingeron how to identifythe 'something'thatis
the relationalitybetweenthem,and thiskind of diffuseness, as I am arguing,is
the formof the relatednessmakingup the connexion.
Holly also refusesto sexualizeher discourseso thatwhen she talksabout her
procreativerole,theworkofimpregnation is notreferred
to as somethingrooted
in a binary,biologically-basedsex difference.
and
I'vejust helpedpartof theprocessalong.I've sortof providedpartofthescaffolding
somebody themeansforthepregnancy
elseis buildingthetowerblock... I'vejustprovided
and as faras I'm concerned once myeggshavegone,thenthat'sfinebyme ... you know
they'vegoneandsomebodyelse hasthem... itwasjust an eggandI just helpedgetthem
startedoff...
OfPergonal sap:twoviewsofsourcing
andtree lIfe
As it happens, human menotrophingonadotropin('Pergonal') and human
chorionicgonadotrophin('Profasi') are synthetickinds of chemical 'residues'
made from the urinal excretionsof menopausal and pregnantwomen. As
purifiedconcentrations of 'natural'bodilysubstance,theseparticularexcretions
are also transformationsof others' clinics,partof the
prioragency.In the fertility
processofpreparingto donateinvolvesdonorsparticipating in theirown creative
consumptionof what hasalreadybeenotherwomen's reproductivepotential(cf
Strathern1988). Since these residuesstand in metonymically forthe different
momentsof women's collectivizedexperiencesof the femalereproductivelife
cycle,women donors are indirectlyconsumingthe symbolicpropertiesof the
processof womanhood. From this perspective,superovulationis the symbolic
mediationof timeas thisis embodied in the formof women's changingrepro-
ductive capacities;the hormonaldrugs are made up of 'the evidence' of past
conceptions(the extractions ofpregnantwomen's urine) and therecognitionof a
diminishingbiologicalagency(theextractions ofurinefrommenopausal women)."8
As the 'recipients'of multiplysourced substance produced exogenouslyby
severalnon-genetically relatedwomen,donorsthemselvesplaya partin making
the transferof ova into 'delayed' kinds of intergenerational conceptions (cf
Bourdieu 1977; Konrad1996: 184-90). Since the'return'thatdonorsmakein the

MONICA KONRAD 653
formoftheirexteriorizedsubstance(the donatedova) likewiseflowsin multiple

directionsto otheranonymizedwomen (the ova recipients),the originalsource
of such giftingdisappearsas one that is impossibleever finallyto trace. For
donors,at least,hereinliesthebeginningsofa non-possessivemodellingofthese
a-genetically'shared',anonymouslypooled, bodyparts.
One example of 'partible'bodies enactingwhat in a Westernidiom would
representa literaldetachmentof body parts,comes fromHerdt's (1981; 1984)
accountof semen inseminationamong the Sambia of the EasternHighlandsof
New Guinea. Men in thissocietydo notconsiderthemselvesas personsnaturally
endowedwithmale reproductivesubstance,and duringthe courseof childhood
and pubertymanyyearsmustbe spenttransforming 'male' childrenintomanly
men. Herdt describeshow thistakesplace duringthehighlysecretcultpractices
of male initiationand eroticsemen ingestionwhen oldermen,as itwere,'assist'
youngermale personsto preparethemselvesto become effective(heterosexual)
males; in otherwords,to makemenwho will be capableofreproducingnew sets
of affinalrelationswithwomen.
When Herdt notes how his male informantsthinkthatdrinkingthe sap of
treeswill replacethe substanceand strengththatmale initiatesas donors have
personallylost,he goes on to interpret such consumptivepracticeas 'thecreation
of newsemen thatflowsinto the societalpool of sperm' (1984: 196). Men are
participating,he suggests,in an indirectformofsemenexchangesincethecollec-
tivizedsubstanceof tree sap is the shared body of continuousenduringmale
strength. Embodied bymen as theirinternaltransformations ofingestedtreesap,
such substancecreatesvalue forthe way it circulatesin time as the collectively
'pooled' substanceby which generationsof men can recognize a continuing
relatedness.Sap as semen and semen as replenishablestrengthcreate and
maintainmalenessand masculinepersonhoodbecause theyare redirectedback
intothesocial regeneration of Sambia life:itis theseactsofredirection thatare the
productionof adultmen.
But thisaccountofindigenouspracticesofmale growthand nurturanceis also
the undersideof the same publicly'forgotten'factof Sambia culturallife:the
'hidden' realitythat men must find a way to deal with and overcome the
knowledgetheyquietlyembodyas 'male' infertility. The significant pointabout
juxtaposing these two versions of sourcing life is to show that a notion of
difference inheresnot in the'sex' ofthesubstanceitself,but in theway thatboth
groups of persons, ova donors and semen initiates,will receive exogenous
substancein the formof others'sociallycirculatingbodyparts.
'British'donors also happen to be concernedwith growthand nurturance,
thoughtheirdiscourseis not one of replenishment, nor is it in any meaningful
sense about sustainingthe verybasis of communitylife itself Many women
would talkabout how theywantedto takespecialcare of themselvesduringthe
timebeforedonation;manymodifiedtheirdiets,tookextravitaminsor tookcare
to avoid physicalover-exertion.Some drew explicitparallelswith how they
would usually'prepare'themselvesforconception,sayingalso thatalthoughthey
knewtheywere notpregnant,theynonethelesslikedto thinktheycould be. For
manyit did not matterthatthe bodilyeffectsof the drugscaused themto feel
swollen or to take on a bloated appearance; in fact,for some the pain and
discomfort ofthetreatment was an important partofdoingdonation.As kindsof
same-sex'pseudo-pregnancies', thesesimulationsaremorecomplicatedkindsof

654 MONICA KONRAD
gender transformationsthan one set of women embodying the 'female'

attributedcapacities for engenderinglife: conception,gestation,parturition,
lactation,nurturance.Insteadof ingestingplentifulamountsof oestrogenas the
very essence of femaleness(the biomedical model of superovulationas the
evidence of superfemininity), donors' pseudo-pregnanciesassume value as a
kindof imaginary'couvade' upon couvade; certainfeaturesof clinicaldiscourse
(for example, 'we give you back the hormones we've taken away') are re-
embodied as new culturalimageryallowing the idea of female reproductive
substanceto turnback,in a sense,upon itselfThis comes to be materializedas
the time when women transformtheirproductionsof multipleova into the
invisibilized'residue'of arrestedmenstrualflow.
blood
Fromova intodiverted
WhenAristotleconcoctedwomen's blood intotheimperfect substanceoffemale
semen,he also stabilizedthecategoryof lactatingmother.Her passiveproperties
ofvitalnourishmentwere seen to depend on thevitalproductionofre-directing
substancefromwomb to breast.Menstrualblood could be transformed without
too muchado intohumanmilkand thistookplace as theintracorporeal diversion
of one substanceintoanother.But whateverthe cookingmakingup thismodel
of substitutiveinterconvertibility, menstrualblood and human milk were not
conceivedas theresiduesofwomenacting as agents.
Substancetravelledwithinthe
bodyas a reflectionof the innatedifferences betweenthe male sexed and female
sexed bodies: each made a different versionof genderfromout of the primary
and objectivesubstanceof blood.
Now, ova donorsare busytransforming blood intothe concocted'derivative'
of substanceas action.'Female' matteris not constitutedas a new 'primary'or
base substancebut is the creativetimewhen the momentof arrest,of breaking
flow,is simultaneouslythe moment of new formsof relatedness.If donors
imaginetheyareable to simulatepregnancy bysuperovulating,theyalso turnthis
'production' into the creativeact of invisibilizingtheir menstrualsubstance.
Blood disappearstemporarilyas arrestedflow making these extracorporealized
diversionsa new source forthe creativerechannellingof women's reproductive
agency.Whereas the majorityof ethnographicdescriptionshave tended to
interpret local ideas about menstruation
in termsof the need to contain
women's
generativity as potentialsources of female pollution,19in the Britishcontext
discussed here,the non-materialization of menstrualblood fromthe bodies of
donorsis notassociatedwithnegativevalue bythesewomen,noris itsymbolized
as the interiorizedretentionof a containedsubstance.
One may recall thatin the one-sex model of gender,the principleof male
generationwas based on the factthatsemen,as theperfectconcoctionof blood,
was transformed intotheinvisiblenon-matterofbreath,theheavenlyelementof
pneuma.To have equated reproductivesubstancewiththeelementofbreath,one
mightsuppose thatone version of an indigenoustheoryof Westernpersons as
'partible'was alreadyin the making.20 Though of course not regardedforemost
as a kinshiptheorist,Aristotlewas himselfquite carefulto discounta physically
presentejaculatewithhis imageofspermworking,in Laqueur's words,'itsmagic
likean invisiblestreakof lightning'(Laqueur 1992: 141).
It is importantto see how thisrenderingof semen into invisiblenon-matter

MONICA KONRAD 655
(cf Sissa 1989) was a coveringoverof 'theproblem'thataccounthad to be made

of thefactthat- somehow or otherwithinthisontologicalschema of the natural
hierarchyof the sexes - male generativity startedwith the detachability
of male
substancefromthe male-definedbody.In otherwords,sense had to be made of
how male substanceand male sexualitycould be potent,the effectivecause,
outsideof men's physical bodies. When women detach ova as exteriorized
substance,theirnarratives ofgenerationand self-generativity are abouthow they
can make partsofthemselves into the value of a sociallycirculatingsubstanceas
certainkinds of redirected It is in this specificsense thatwomen
socialrelations.
describehow they,as itwere,imaginetheycan 'cook' blood.2'
Women
onwomen
cooking
blood:from tothesubstance
consanguinity ofanonymity
The blood women decide to 'cancel' is transformed into a lateralizedformof
relatednessmade fromout oftheextensiveness thatis their'person',whichI take
to be their intersubjectivized capacitiesto act as agents.As ova substance is
disseminatedin multipledirectionsto multiplenumbersofrecipients, and trans-
ferredto recipients'wombs accordingto the differenttemporalstagingsof
embryocryopreservation (see Konrad 1996: 230-47), donors and recipientsare
partakingcollectivelyin an exchangeorderofnon-genealogicalrelatedness.This
is both symbolizedby,and embodied materiallyas, the discursivesubstanceof
anonymity. The interiorized growthsofmultipleova thathavebecome theextra-
corporeal,exteriorizedcirculationsof donors as these persons' detachedbody
parts,is the simultaneous'gifting'of one kind of substanceto manydifferent,
non-genetically relatedrecipients.This is to say thatat anygiventimeafterthe
act of ova donation,thissubstancewill alwaysbe sharedacrossseveralbodies as
indirector generalizedkindsof relations(Konrad 1996: 150-82,264-73). In the
sense thatwhat circulatesbetweendonors and recipientsneverreturnsdirectly
to source- since anonymity is thetaboo ofreciprocity (Konrad 1996: ch. 2) - the
kinshipI describerecognizeswomen's (anonymized)interchangeability not as
an aspectof the stabilizationof the social system(cf.Levi-Strauss1969) but for
thewaythatwomen themselvescan maketheirprocreative powersintoan ovular
economyof intersubjective (cross-corporeal)agency.
Women cook blood not as the residueof 'biogeneticunity'(Schneider 1980:
101) but as a symbol of 'diffuseenduringsolidarity'that is theendingof the
relativizationof the kin bond (Schneider 1984: 173). When Schneiderdirects
criticismtowardsnineteenth-century theoristsfortheiradherenceto the'fact'of
blood ties, to Morgan's notion of the 'community'of blood, for instance,he
bolstersthepremissofthegenealogicalunityofmankindbysimplyrepeatingthe
old assumptionthat"'genealogicaldistance"is a crucialvariablein the strength
of the bond of kinship,and genealogicaldistanceis a measureof the magnitude
of the biological componentand hence the strengthof the bond' (Schneider
1984: 173). Women in myBritishethnography suggest,however,thatinsteadof
thinkingofa centralized(biological)ego fromwhichthingsradiateoutwardsand
to whichthingsand relationsare impelledto return,theconstructof'the person'
becomes sociallyprominentfor the relationsof supportthat the categoryof
'woman' is traversing.By makingblood contingent, vitaland in a sense magical,
donors not only (symbolically)contain inside their anonymized bodies the
imaginarypersonsof many(unknown)women - theyarethesemanypersonsas

656 MONICA KONRAD
a revisedschemaof 'sex'.
Perhapsit is possible to see the wish expressedby manyova donors to 'help
busloads ofwomen', to 'touch othermembersof the [recipientcouples'] family
and friends'as a discourseof relatedness,metonymicalextensionand symbolic
powernot too unlikeHerdt's interpretations of Sambianmen who feeltheycan
keep themselvesstrongby havingtheirsperm safelycontainedin manyboys.
The noviceswho ingestmale substancemaybe likened,Herdtremarks,to 'a sort
of magicalstringof semen depositoriesforone's substance,spreadthroughout
society'(Herdt: 1984: 192). But women donors' dispersedbody partsalso bear
some likeness to the medieval cultic practiceof relic venerationin Central
Europe and theenthusiasmforpracticesofbodilypartitionand permanencethat
characterizedthe high Middle Ages. WalkerBynum's (1991) studyon female
heresyand putrefaction
fertility, acknowledgesthegenerativepowerand prestige
thatcould be associatedwithspreadingout partsof the body as spatio-tempor-
alized extensionsoftheperson.22 The significant in theBritishcase has
difference
to do withthewaythatpartsofpersons,as detachedova,are imaginedbydonors
to assume value in the formof 'bodies' thatare neverfinallybounded or closed
offas 'a' singular,traceable,knowable,nameable (individual)person.
onwomen
Women blood:Gimitransactions
cooking ofsex
For the Gimi peoples of the EasternHighlands of New Guinea, malenessand
femalenessare the everlastingproblemof how the bodilypartsof personshave
to be contained,released and pushed out fromanother's body as this person's
redirectedflowof relatedness.Sustainingone's genderis a vitalpreconditionfor
lifeand cosmic regenerationitself,particularlyfromtheviewpointof thosewho
aspireto be 'men', forit is theywho depend on theassistanceof 'women' (those
particularbodies evidentlyable to give birthto new life) to help them achieve
theircontinuedexistenceas male-identified persons(Gillison 1980; 1993).
The problem,as Gillisonexplainsit,owes itsoriginsto the elaborationbythe
Gimi of the mythof women's primordialpossessionof flutes(symbolicpenes)
in the spiritworld of the forest.23Afterstealingthe flute(also woman's child)
fromhis sleepingsister,men ensurewomen are finallyexcluded,symbolically
'pushed out', fromforestspace forever;the loss of her 'flute-child'however,is,
men allege,also theblood ofthewoman's firstmenses.This bleedingofwomen,
say men, is reallythe substanceof 'a man's blood' - it is the blood of the penis,
or the blood fromher brothers'noses thatwoman hastaken(1993: 180, 183) as
the symbolicbirthof herfather'sdead child.
well as, significantly,
But,Gimi men - itwould appear- arewell awareofthepowertheyacquire in
beingable to witnessfor themselves women's menstrualflowas the 'fact'of blood
made into For them,it is the timetheycan embody
substance.
extracorporealized
the emotionalknowledge- as a certainrelinquishmentof fear- thatwomen's
parthenogenesisand reproductiveautonomyhave been thwarted.Since a girl's
'internalcontents'(Gillison 1980: 168) are derivedfromher father(her mythic
'firsthusband'),women fromchildhoodinvisiblycarryinsidethemselvesa non-
biological penis. The girl-child's/mother's penis is the synecdochical and
metaphoricalequivalentof her fatherand paternalancestors.As reproductive
substance that is exteriorized,menstrualblood is the makingvisible of the
formerlyinvisible,internalpenis that women found in themselves'sponta-

MONICA KONRAD 657
neously'.What forconventionalWesternimaginationwould be the evidenceof

'nature'- a girl'sinternalcontentsrepresenting her'sex organs'- is forthe Gimi
the time beforemen's need to steal flutesbecame evidentto themselvesand
materializedas thesymbolicsubstitutions of a particulargenderimagery. For the
Gimi, then, making reproductivesubstance exteriorizedmeans women no
longerhave thispower secretlyhiddenin theirbodies.
As Gillison shows, this knowledgehas social value, not least fromthe male
vantagepoint,since the restorationof women's 'phallic' power (a power which
Gillisonsignificantly refersto in termsofthe (re)possessionofflutes),threatensto
discontinuetheflowof social lifeand cosmic regeneration. It is, in otherwords,
the potentialdeathof men, formen fearthatiffluteswere to be (re)attachedto
women the male spiritcould no longertravel throughthe femalebody because it
would be 'closed' (c? Hirschon 1978). Trapped inside women's bodies, men
could no longerprovidetheirspiritsto fillthe clan reservoirof lifeforce;the
after-lifeworldoftheforest(kore)would cease as would thereproductionofnew
generationsofclan members.To avoid entrapment, men see thesymbolicroleof
theGimi femaleas therecyclingofthemalewherebywomen assistmen to move
between the forestworlds of (male) spirituality and the (female) domain of
mundanedomesticity(dusa). In otherwords,women are not to stop givinglife,
thoughtheymustnot be recognizedin theirown rightas self-generating. In line
with Strathern'smodel of partibility, to preserve Gimi (cosmic) life by
compellingprocreationis also the act of expellingfroma woman's bodyformer
relationshipsthat have 'grown' as previouslydeposited substance inside her.
When brideand groomhave sexual intercourse, the husband'ssemen is under-
stood to accumulate inside her body and push out the remainingtraces of
substance that her fatherhas leftas deposits of himself The woman's first
menstrualbleedingis thena substitutive processwherebymen know theyhave
exchangedbetween themselves(Gillison 1980: 168) the body of a particular
woman: 'the blood flows out along the path he [the husband] creates' (1980:
149).
It is possible to say then that,forthe Gimi, substanceis concocted as male
'residue' at the pointof establishingconjugal union: it is the woman's husband
thatwill make his father-in-law into a relatednessthathas to be remaindered.
The 'female'body of the Gimi woman is transformed intoa synecdochicsiteof
inter-malerivalry:pushingout male substancefromwomen's bodies is thefight
betweenmen to renew themselves(theirancestralline) throughthe bodies of
women, throughdaughtersand wives. Affinalrelatednessis partlybound up
with the need of the husbandto gain the upper hand over his wife'spatriline's
attemptsto renewtheirclan throughher.Gimi socialitymaybe seen thenas an
account of how to deal withthe co-existenceof multiplemale presencewithin
thefemalebody.In thissense,the mythof theflutesis thediscursiveattemptto
understandand resolvewhatare consideredbythe Gimi as competing claimsto a
particularperson, this being not unlike the way thatWesterndiscourses of
assistedconceptionpreoccupythemselveswiththeapparently moraldilemmaof
how competingclaimsto maternity byso-called'genetic','gestational'and 'birth'
mothersoughtto be resolved.The possessiveanalogycontinues.To the extent
thatGimi husbandswantto 'steal'women's invisibilizedbodyparts,theymaybe
seen as the synecdochicequivalent of the 'procreativebody' comprisingthe
medical practicesof the London fertility clinics: the 'body' that administers

658 MONICA KONRAD
superovulatorydrugs is 'the person' that attemptsto 'capture' women's ova

beforetheyare 'lost' as the flowof (non-transformed) menstrualblood (where
non-transformation, as I have suggested,is tantamountto the failureto re-direct
the course of blood).
As is the case with the 'British'donors, Gillison sees women's attemptsto
arresttheirmenstrualflowas certainactsof agency.Ifa Gimi man wantsto make
his wife thinkthather father,as (her) expelled substance,will become a more
forgottenperson, the implicitlysubversive 'blood songs' women sing to
themselvesanticipatewhat Gillison describesas women's desire to keep their
blood substancecontainedwithintheirbodies.This is no minorprocessof intra-
corporealizeddiversion.Gillison's account suggeststhat these songs express
women's vision of makingnew relationsof kinshipand social reproduction:
women would embody new worlds as subversivevirgins and avoid being
deprivedof theirinternally-created father-derived 'food'. What Gimi women
seem to wantis to forestallthe 'initial'transformation ofsemen intoblood; what
theydo is to 'concoct'theirblood as thedenialofproducinginternally a 'second'
semen. The re-directionof substanceconsistshere of avertingthe transfor-
mationof the relationand body substanceof the firstand mythichusband into
therelationand substanceofcontinuingsocialregeneration (Gillison 1980: 169).
As Gillisonherselfcomments,whatGimiwomen wantto oppose is theexchange
which men publiclyengineerin orderto stop the release,or emptyingout, of
theirbodies (1980: 168). 'Whereasmen exchangesistersin marriage,a woman
conducts- and mayrefuse- an exchangeofhusbandsatthelevelofsubstances within
herownbody'(1993: 190, emphasisadded).
WhereastheEnglish-speaking informants imagineova donationto be thetime
of arrestingblood as divertedflow,Gimi women's discourseof the fantasized
stateof parthenogenesisis about theirretentionof blood insidethe body.Both
formsof re-channellingsubstance and persons are based on the agency of
imaginingalteredconceptionsofrelatedness, thoughthisis notto saythatBritish
and Gimi women make fromthemselvessimilarkinds of 'partible'persons.
Likewise,both involvetransformations of cultureas different idioms of relat-
edness:in theone contextitis themanipulationoftechnologyas bothexogenous
and internalizedsubstance;in the other,it is the decision whetheror not to
participatein the maintenanceof spirituallife,theverybasis of the community
itself.24
tosex
Returning
I have suggestedso farthatwomen's own accountsof genderingoogenesis are
not premissed on the values of hierarchyand inequalitythat stabilized the
ancient model of sexual sameness; the thesis of female inversioncritically
analysedby Laqueur as the storyof theWesternmodel of 'one-sex' androgyny.
'Female' reproductivesubstance,as exteriorizedbody parts,is not imaginedby
donorsas substancewomen wantto concoctinto'perfectsemen',as thoughthey
were to become persons 'like' men, eitheras variantor copy25Transforming
donatingtime into one of a fantasizedparthenogenesis, the imaginarypseudo-
pregnanciesofwomen simulating'women' were caughtup rathercomplicatedly
with the way ova donors imaginedtheycould 'erase' femaleinteriorizedbody
of 'sex') into newlytransformed
parts(the biologicalinteriority 'clean slates'.I

MONICA KONRAD 659
have takenwomen's appropriationof thesemedical idioms as suggestiveof the

way women imaginetheycan reworkthemselvesas some kind of radical de-
sexingofthe self.26 Whilstnotinghow such differences departfromdescriptions
informingLaqueur's historiography, it has seemed nonetheless fruitfulto
considerhow a new foundationfor'sex' - one realizedin termsof attributing
value to the changingrelationshipbetween bodies and body parts- can be
extrapolated,ifonly partially, froman older,as it were 'home-sown' (Western)
model of cross-transferability. My point has been thatversionsof notions of
'partibility'and corporeal'permeability'are in some sense indigenousto the
Westerncanon of the human reproductivebody.27By criticallyretracingthe
substitutivetransformations and conflationsthathavetraditionally informedthe
synecdochiclogic of the categories'woman', 'body' and 'ova' in Westernpro-
creativediscourse, I have suggestedthat certainof these informantsappear
themselvesas variouskindsof materialand symbolically mediatingparts.
At a conceptuallevel, the value of ova as exteriorizedbody partshas been
identifiedas thatwhich is itselfin motion betweentwo models of the human
body: on the one hand,the 'fungible'one-sexmodel of theWesternbody made
frominterconvertible substancethat is liable to intracorporeal and also extra-
corporealcirculations,and on the otherhand, notionsof the Melanesian body
and body parts as the agency of so-called 'partible'persons. By introducing
tentativelinkagesto theMelanesian material,however,I havewantedto caution
againstwhat may be more misleadingthan helpfulgroundsforcross-cultural
analysis.Somewherebetween'Laqueur' and 'Strathern', I suggestthereare a set
of identitiesthatmay be roughlysketchedin as 'transilient'.28 This notion of
persons as 'transilient'is a conceptual move from a genealogicallydefined
kinshipbased on ostensiblyimmutablefactsof nature,to a kind of 'spiritual'
kinshipwhere connexionsand disconnexionsbetweenpersonsare to be recog-
nized as formsof extensionalrelatednessdispersedthroughmultiple (exteri-
orized) persons.These personscannotalwaysbe located,or even nameable,and,
most importantlyof all, do not have to be able to be grounded in specific,
discretelybounded persons.
One consequence of Schneider's privilegingof the so-called 'fixed' and
'distinctive'featuresof American kinship is that the changing, non-fixed
identitiesof 'the relativeas person' (1980: 114) are dismissed,even ignored.As a
result,the subsequentcritiqueby Schneider(1984) of the 'naturalization'and
genealogical'relativization'of the kin bond is indebtedto formsof relatedness
thatare indifferent to the subtleinterplayof class,age, gender,ethnicityand so
on, as theseconstitutemultiplemanifestations of personhood(see Yanagisako&
Delaney 1995). Insistingon the involuntary, objectiveand permanentstatusof
blood meansthatSchneider'scritiquepaysno heed to how thelocal,small-scale
or unarticulateddiscretionof thought,emotion and decision inevitablyinflu-
ences action in myriadways in the social world. However, the voices of my
informants, as theyhave appearedhere,are also not differentiated in termsof an
analysisof how class,gender,age and so on devolveintocomplexinterrelation-
ships in and betweenthe mindsand bodies of different persons.I have wanted
insteadto locate, in a verypreliminary way,elementsof power and agencyin
what I take to be an ethicalrealismof the imaginary.29 It is not by chance nor
simplyout of respectthatI keep as distinctive my informants' predispositionto
namelessness,findingin theirassumptionof anonymityexcitingconnexions

660 MONICA KONRAD
between action and relatednessthatcannot be reduced to the level of simple

misrecognition or obliviousnon-identity (cf Bourdieu 1977; Konrad 1996: 185-
9).
I have arguedthatwhen women transform arrestedblood into divertedova,
theysimultaneouslymake substanceintomulti-directional flowsof relatedness,
flowswhich I have elsewherereferredto as 'ova pathways'(Konrad 1996: 60).
Their language,however,is not framedby referencesto an essential('female')
fecundity, nor is it one thatrefersto originalacts of causation,generationand
impregnation. One exampleofpersonsas 'transilient' is apparentin thewaythat
impregnationand fertilizationmaterialize as transgenderedactivities.The
mechanismforagencydoes notdependhereon eliminatingor drawingout from
oneselfa priormultiplicity ofgenderedparts,contratheHagen model of agency
and itsgroundingin the difference between'same-sex'and 'cross-sex'relations
(cf.Strathern1988). At thepointof making'female'exteriorizedsubstanceinto
detachablepartsoftheself,fertility is transplantedbyova donorsacrossmultiple
bodies and embodied as formsofjoint or sharedreproductivelabour between
multiple procreativeagents irrespectiveof these participants''sex'. Part of
working the spells of in-vitrofertilization, of recognizingthis technology's
invitationto enchant,is that procreativesubstancesare seen to 'get mixed'
accordingto the different effortsof different procreativepartiesor partners.I
have suggestedthatdonationby exogenoussubstanceis a collectivizedcreation
in which many bodies come together,'mixing' various effortswith various
hopes.30
This relatesto one of the 'facts'of women's genderingof oogenesis: ova are
not synonymouswith 'female' reproductivebody parts when substance is
conceived as action; as the spatio-temporalizedcirculationsof transilient
persons.3"Women frommy fieldworksuggestthat body parts in themselves
cannot be indices for the gendered attributesof 'male'/'female',since the
constituentelementsof procreation- movement,generation,dispersalof seed,
receptionand containmentof substance- are not in themselvesfundamentally
sexed. Two observationsfollowdirectly.First,thereis no necessaryconnexion
between bodies or body partsand sex, and second, the symbolicencoding of
masculinity/femininity is not isomorphicwith the genderingof human body
parts.
Since thereis no necessaryconnexionbetweenbody partsand sex - the fact
thateithergendermaybe recognizedas procreatively activewithoutfallinginto
the discretecategoriesof male and female- the notionof personsas biological
entities made up of interiorizedand exteriorizeddifferencecannot have
relevancefor an understandingof how the body itselfis a source and site of
agency.Worlds exist inside bodies, I have wanted to show, in the sense that
kinshipis 'carried'in the human body irrespectiveof whetherthe giftrubric
appears as interiorizedformsof growth(Strathern'sanalysisof unmediated
relations) or as detached 'parts' of the person circulatingliterallyand/or
metaphoricallyas social influencebetweenpersons or transactors(Strathern's
analysisof mediatedrelations).32 This capacityfortransposability
is, I think,the
reallycriticalpoint in Strathern'sanalysisof 'partible'persons and gendered
'gifts'.To bringthe observationforwardsomewhat,I would saythatthepointis
notthatanonymity, as one metaphorfortheconstitution of'transilient'persons,
cannot be exchanged between the differentregions,between the West and

MONICA KONRAD 661
Melanesia. The significant pointis thatin theBritishcontext,thestressis noton

thesignificance of acquiringa particularitemofvalue - pig,Kula shell,stone-axe
blade or whatever- or givingparticularpartsof one's bodilypersonto particular
named recipients.Ova donors,in otherwords,needeffectno specific transaction.
What appearsas the agencyof thesedonorsdoes so as thevalue of multipleand
untraceablecirculationsof persons and body partsanonymizedas (an)other's
action,as a generalized,diffuserelatedness.These women's narratives are about
assistinga 'someone' (cf.Burridge1979), as well as how theytoo make up kinds
of 'any-bodies'beyond the parametersof 'sex', as well as beyondthe matterof
easyand fortuitouschance stridesbythe likesof Pare's GermainGarnier.
Conclusions
This auto-critiqueofWesternprocreationtheoryhas identifiedand describeda
modfted versionof the Westernmodel of the 'fungible'body of one-sex. Such
modificationshave also been the occasion fora post-Freudiantrajectory of how
women and wombs may'wander' as theproductionsof transilient agents.In its
turn,thesemodifications have opened up whatI hope is a freshconceptualspace
fora new vocabularyof humangenerationindependentof binarymodels of sex.
It has been shown how when 'British'women choose to 'cook' blood as certain
kinds of womb work, Westernassumptionsof a pre-determinedbiological
interioritycan no longerbe sensiblyencoded as the naturalfeaturesof a female
sexualizeddifference and femininity.Consequently,itwould seem thata critical
de-constructionof the mutual constitutionof 'gender' and 'kinship' as the
nature-based'residues'of sex (Collier &Yanagisako 1987) can no longerofferin
itselfthe operativebasis foran effectivefeministcritiqueof embodimentand
gendereddifference. Ifthewaymyinformants makeexteriorizedbodypartsinto
social value appearsto lend itselfto othertheoreticalformulationsof the 'non-
Western'personof 'partible'parts(cf.Strathern1988), such a line ofquestioning
has been myown attemptat a constructivediversionof sorts,since I have been
more interestedin 'retrieving'certainendogenous residuesof bodilyfluxand
change.By implication,I havealso wantedto show how thereis somethingamiss
in attempting to base such cross-cultural comparisonsof body partsaround the
notionof 'partibility', as thoughthisconstruct,like otherfavouritechestnutsin
social anthropology, could itselfbe held as an inter-cultural
and universally
valid
constant.33
Ultimatelythough,I hope thatto retrievetheseWesternized'residues'setsup
some vital clues forthe way in which certainfeaturesof someanthropological
constructions of Melanesian bodies appearat timesto look rathermore familiar
thantheirapparentexoticismotherwisesuggests.By connexion,such reasoning
should also show up the strangenessof a genetic fetishismthat heralds the
abstractionof 'persons', as though body partsin themselvescould ever have
meaningwithoutthe relationsand relatednessthatso maketheminto 'parts'.
NOTES
Fieldwork wascarried outbetween19924 atvariousin-vitro

fertilization
andassisted
conception
unitsin London.Interviews withova donorsand recipients
wereusuallycarriedoutin women's
homesthroughout theUK, and I am morethangrateful in theresearch
to all participants who
receivedthisrelative withsuchkindness
stranger I amgrateful
andhospitality. totheEconomicand

662 MONICA KONRAD
SocialResearchCouncilforfunding thisresearch and to theTrustees oftheAL Charitable Trust

fora grantenablingthe finalphasesof writingup. I shouldalso liketo thankOlivia Harris,
HenriettaMoore and MarilynStrathernfor offeringconstructivecriticismand much
encouragement.
I AfterHarrison(1992)thata conception ofproperty is necessarily a theory oftheperson.
2
Par6recounts thecaseofGermainGarnier whochangedsuddenly froma youngwomaninto
a manas she/he was crossing a ditchin field:'... as he was in thefieldsandwas ratherrobustly
chasinghisswine,whichweregoingintoa wheatfield,[and]finding a ditch,he wantedto cross
overit,andhavingleaped,atthatverymoment thegenitalia andthemalerodcametobe developed
in him,havingruptured theligaments bywhichtheyhad beenheldenclosed'(Ambroise Par6as
citedin Laqueur1986: 13). Montaigneobservedthatthetaleboretheaccompanying wisdom,
apparently thecontent ofwomen'sfolk-songs, 'nottostretch their[women's]legstoowideforfear
of becomingmales'(Laqueur1986: 13). WalkerBynum(1991) arguesthatthepermeability of
boundaries betweenthesexescanbe relatedtotheChristian traditionofrolereversal, inparticular
thebeliefthatitwassymbolically morefruitful formentoappearas 'inferior' meekwomensince
God redeemedthe'gentler' sex.
3'In terms ofthemillennial traditions ofWestern medicine, genitalscametomatter as themarks
ofsexualopposition onlylastweek'(Laqueur1992:22).
4 ForFreud, theanswerconsisted ofa further barbarization ofGreeketymology ['husterikos' -
of thewomb] since the aetiological basisof a wandering womb was ascribedto the passivity
characteristic ofallwomen'shysterical tendencies.
I Thisarticleandmythesison thetheoretical implications ofanonymous exchange relations for
anthropology drawupon myunderstanding of Britishattempts to regulatethefieldof assisted
reproduction byappealtothelegalprinciple ofanonymity. As formulated originally in 1984bythe
Warnock Committee's Reporton HumanFertilisation andEmbryology, anonymity provideslegal
protection to thedonorandminimizes thechanceof'intervention' or 'invasion'byan exogamous
'thirdparty'(thedonor)intotheconjugalunion(therecipient and herpartner). If as I suggest,
anonymity is a stepintotheimaginary, itis alsoa highly particularized discursive intervention that
cannotconnectup in anysimplewayto eithera giftor commodity logicof socialrelations and
formsofpower.
6 FromRegnier de Graaf,De mulierum organisgenerationi inservientibus, as citedin Laqueur
1992:182.Fortranslation, see Corner1943.
7'In a worldinwhichsciencewasincreasingly viewedas providing insight intothefundamental
truths ofcreation, inwhichnatureas manifested intheunassailable realityofbonesandorgans wastaken
tobe theonlyfoundation ofthemoralorder,a biologyofincommensurability becamethemeans
by whichsuch differences could be authoritatively represented' (Laqueur 1986:35,emphasis
added).
8 Coitusand sexualpleasure in theone-sexmodelare notconstrued primarily as a genital
occasion:genitaliarepresent simplythepointofrelease of such residues.Similarly, thewarmth
producedbyorgasmis takento be analogousto thewarmth brought aboutbyfood,wineor the
poweroftheimagination.
9 AlthoughGalenwenton to makea critiqueof Aristotle withhis 'two-seed'conception of
generation (thebeliefthatbothsexesproduced seedsnecessary fortheformation ofthefoetus), the
view thatonly the finalconcoction,the father'scontribution, countedas the real agentof
generation continued toholdsway, and'femalesemen',themother's contribution, continued tobe
associated withhernourishing, non-generative properties.
10 The medicalidea that,contrary to sperm,ova are notbeingconstantly producedby the
womanthroughout herreproductive life-cycleisorthodoxy. Medicscontendthatatbirthbabygirls
areequippedwitha finite supplyor'stock'ofaroundsevenmillionoogenia(egggermcells)which
simplycontinueto diminishin numberand degenerate in qualitythroughout therestof the
woman'slife-cycle. The contrary idea thatthe normalhumanmale maymanufacture several
hundredmillionspermperdayis,besidesanything else,a viewthatis nothelduniversally across
cultures. Herdt(1981;1994),forinstance, claimsthattheSambiaoftheEasternHighlands, Papua
New Guinea,do notconsider mentobe thenatural producers ofsemen.Malepersonsarethought
topossessa semenorgan(kerekukereku), butunlikethefertile femalemenstrual bloodorgan(tingu),
themaleorganis small,hardandemptyatbirth.
" In thisrespect, donating ovaisnotsomething thatwomencando entirely bythemselves, inthe
wayforinstancethatwomencan,iftheyso wish,self-inseminate in theprivacy of a bedroom.

MONICA KONRAD 663
Donors too need medical'assistance', thoughof a different kindfromthatwhichtheygiveto

recipients. The pointis relevantto the subsequentdiscussionof fantasized statesof pseudo-
pregnancy andparthenogenesis.
12 Thisbiomedical imagery of'cleanslates'is powerful becauseitunwittingly generates itsown
ambiguity as tohowthenatural foundation of'sex'ostensibly precedesandpredetermines gender.
'Nature'is something thatcan be drawnout frompersonsbothbecauseit can be interiorly
suppressed as naturalattribute andbecauseanovulatory persons,imaginedas bodiesof simulated
menopause, can be madefromthesesame'suppressed' bodies.The significant pointis thatonce
naturehasbeen'drawnout',a secondnature, in effect a simulation ofthefirst,repeatsandenacts
whatnon-assisted bodieswouldhavedone,onlynowtoexaggerated andalteredeffect.
13 In otherwords,the'extra'ova produced by thistreatment resultin moreembryosbeing
availableforembryotransfer and/orcryopreservation; fromtheclinic'sperspective, thissimply
improvesthechancesof theoverallpregnancy ratein termsof abstract statisticalrates,and,of
course,financial revenue.
14 The ironyis thatit takesa non-natural, 'assisted'formof reproduction to literalizethe
connexion.
15 'Pooling'is standard clinicalrhetoric forthecollection ofextracted ova as setsofgenetically
matched bodyparts/persons priortotheirdistribution betweenanonymized donorsandrecipients.
16 This discourse of 'retrieving' and 'capturing' ova derivesof coursefromthe languageof
controlandpossessionin whichbodiesand bodypartsrepresent scarceresources and sourcesof
intrinsic usefulness. Notionsofone bodyclaiming ownership inanother,oranalogiesofbodiesto
(cleanslates'areendemicto thewayWestern biomedical discoursegenerally assumesthathuman
bodiesare,in theirmostelementary form, biological entities thatcanbe reducedto passive,inert,
abstracted bodyparts,evenifat thesametimetheycan be (genetically) reified as rights-bearing
'persons'.
17 cf Moore (1994:819): 'Thereis a fundamental sensein which,outsidetheparameters and
spheresofinfluence ofthe[Western] biomedical discourse, sexdoesnotexist'.
18 Certainly notallwomenwouldtalkknowledgeably aboutthesourceandcomposition ofthese
drugs.Although clinicstendedto playdownthisaspectofdonation, somedonorshadwantedto
readthedetailedpharmaceutical literature producedby thedrugmanufacturers. Some women
mentioned theyhadalsogleanedinformation on thisfromthepopularpress.
19ButseeBuckleyandGottlieb's (1988)recent volumeon 'bloodmagic'whichisconstructively
criticalof theconsequencesof omitting fromethnographic accountswomen'sownnarratives of
menstruation and menopause, as it is also shrewdly anentiveto theambiguous, multivalent and
positivegendersymbolism invested in women'spowersof 'lifeforce'and menstrual taboos(see
especially Gottlieb1988).
20 Compare, forexample,de Coppet's(1981) analysis ofthe'Ar6'AresocietyofMalaitain the
SolomonIslandsin thecontext of thecontinuous workofmourning. Whataretakenas thekey
processes ofthesocialmanagement ofdeathcreateboththefoundations fornormative socialorder
in thesociety andarereflected intheinternal composition of'theperson'as livingsubstance made
up fromthethreedifferent elements ofthe'body'(rape),the'breath'(manomano) andthe'image'
(nunu).Thismutualinterdependence ofthesocialorderinthepowerofthecorporeal elementand
viceversa,meansthat'thesociety['Are'Are]buildsup itsown character ofpermanence through
therepeateddissolution intotheritualand exchangeprocessesof themainelementscomposing
eachindividual' (de Coppet1981:176).
21 I shouldemphasize I followherethemeaning outlinedin a previoussection, whereto cook
assumesmetaphorical valuein termsof processesof bodilyconversion (bothintracorporeal and
extracorporeal) andidentity transformation.
22Divisioncould be generative. Becausethepersonwas in some sensehis or herbody,the
multiplication ofholybodypartsseemedpregnant withpossibility.The heartofa kingor the
fingerofa virgin madetheearthwhereheorshewasburiedfertile withsaintly orroyalpower.
The greater thenumberofpartsandplacesinwhichnobleorholyfigures residedafter death,
thegreater thenumberof prayers theyreceived or evokedand themorefar-flung theirpresence
(Walker Bynum1991:280,emphasis added).
See alsoGeary1986;andcf Munn1992on 'fame'as socialcirculations of'intersubjective space-
time'(Konrad1996:150-4).
23Gillison'sworkanalysesthewaycertain idiomsoftheGimi'flutemyth'providethecontext
againstwhichflutes, as symbolic penes,doubleup in ritualactionas maleor femaletransferable

664 MONICA KONRAD
bodyparts.
24
Buttherethecomparisons muststop.I am certainly indebted to Gillison'sanalysis ofGimi
substitutive logicsformyunderstanding ofjust how realtheworldsinsidewomen'sbodiescan
potentially be. But I am also interested in thewaythattheimaginary investments accompanying
theexchanges ofmythic andrealflutes - as anaccountofthegendering ofsubstance - becomeboth
the informants' and the author'ssharednarratives of possession,reclamation and rightful
ownership. Thatis tosay,thesynecdochic andsubstitutive equivalents oftheGimiwoman's(non-
biological)penesare sketchedin as sentiments of loss,desiredand lamented, and presented in
termsofidiomsofappropriation, reappropriation andsymbolic castration.
25 Compareto critiques of theconceptual inadequacy oftheterm'genderreversal' as a means
fordescribing thewaysthatalternative genderdesignations cometobe embodied.See Bolin1996;
Butler1993;Herdt1994;Lang1996;Poole1996.
26 The fantasy is notoneof'repossessing' or 'reappropriating'women's'lost'phallicpower,as in
Gillison'sexegesisofGimisubstitutive replacements. Byextension, donorscouldneverbe persons
depletedof (ova) substance, as in Herdt'smodelof men'snecessary semeningestions. This point
relatesto a preliminary factof contextualized transilience: thatthe relationship betweenan
economyofphysiological flux/corporeal circulationsandgenderidentity appearsto confound the
verydistinction betweenthecategories 'male'and'female'.
27 In myview,this'return' to theone-sexthesisis fruitful and apt,especially in thelightof
Laqueur'sclaimthattheemergence ofa biologyofincommensurability betweenthesexesdidnot
altogether displacethepreviousmodelofmale/female interchangeable bodyparts.Followingthe
workofFoucault, Laqueur'sinsights aregermane: theshift fromgendertosexwasnotattributable
to contemporary advancesin scientific knowledge, butwas partof an epistemological moveto
establishNatureas thefoundation formoralorder:bodies themselvesdidnotchange,onlytherelationship
between theirvariousparts(Laqueur1986:12). One examplemightbe theWestern 'discovery' ofthe
fieldofembryology andthepremiss thathumanreproductive organsbeginfromoneandthesame
embryonic structure. Laqueur'spointis thatsucha viewcould havestrengthened thefoundations of
theone-sexmodel(see Laqueur1992:169).Thatthiscouldhavehadsignificant ramifications for
thehistorical courseofgendering personsis thisarticle'sulterior motive.
28 'Transilient'is definedas: 'extending acrossfromone pointof supportto another'(The
ConciseOxfordDictionary ofCurrent English, 4thedition,1951).On theconceptoftransilience
foranthropological critiquesofthe'bounded'individual, see alsoKonrad1996:273-7.
29 I wouldliketo acknowledge Battaglia'sinspiring workon aspectsofidentity and invisibility.
See, forinstance, hertreatment of property and ownership in thecontextof 'retaining' reality
(1994).
Gettingreal meansexamining the imaginary,as it is revealedand configured in social
in orderto determine
practice, thevalueof particular to peopleat particular
relationships
timesand places. Gettingreal is findingpointsof comparisonand contrastin these
It is grasping
contingencies. thepragmatism and imagination and feelings
peopleexhibit
1994:641).
(Battaglia
30
Procreative contributions may be definedas the chancesdifferent procreativepartners
('bodies') create(cf Edwards1993; Strathern 1992). Whatmattersis not simplythe factof
conception buttheefforts createdto conceive;thisis a discursive-materialgenealogy extending
from,at leastin theBritishpoliticalcontext, theinterventions of theapicalparent'body'of the
HumanFertilisation andEmbryology Authority(HFEA) through tothepartdissenting,partpliant
'offspring'thatarethelocalethicalsystems ofclinicsscatteredthroughouttheU.K The intimacy
afforded byanonymous socialityin theBritish contextis quitedifferent
frombondsofcloseness
fosteredbetweenAmerican maternal surrogates
andadoptive mothers,whomRagon6(1994:123-
8) describes as mergingstrategically'intoone'.
31 On the spatio-temporal aspectsof ART,exchangeand intersubjective agency,see further
Konrad1996:ch.5. I havebenefited greatly fromreading Munn's(1992)accountofsymbolic value
in thecontext oftheimaginary circulationsof'fame'in Gawa.
32 Thoughforms ofsocialregeneration intheBritishcontext do notfindan expressive
outletas
theritualisticperformance ofexchange andcannotbe saidtofunction
ceremonies, as themainstay
for legitimating social order,certainsimilarities with Melanesianformsof non-genetic
reproduction do appearworthyBut one can sayneitherthattheBritishsystemof kinshipis
predicated on exogamouswomenexchangebetweenpotentialenemies,as is the case forthe

MONICA KONRAD 665
Sambia,northatthemajority ofBritish folkwouldreadilyrecognizeritualistic as a way

cannibalism
of reproducing previoussocialrelations withthedeceased,as do theGimi.In otherwords,the
transferofgametesbetweenpersonsdoes notconstitute inthesamewayan axiomatic principleof
Britishsociallife.WhereasBritish women'sprocreative genderimagery andsymbolic associations
areimplicit knowledges and cannotbe saidto comprisein anywayan overtfeature ofwomen's
discourses,amongtheGimiand theSambitheritualofenacting kinshipin thebodyis a much
moreexplicit andgraphic realizationofpersonhood, eveniftheknowledge suchritual
legitimating
(knowledge Stratherntheorizes as theactionsofgenderitself)remains a somewhat silenced
secret,
formofpower.In theBritish context, I wouldsimplystressthatexamplesofwomentransferring
and ingesting substancewithinand acrossothers'bodiesare none the less real forthe quiet,
imaginary embodiments ofintersubjectivity kindsofreality.
as fantasized
33 cf Busby's(1997) comparison of permeableand partiblepersonsforSouth India and
Melanesiawhichworksovera seriesof contrastive differencesand comparisons betweenthe
regionsbasedon theimplicit assumption oftheanalyticdistinctivenessof theWesternbounded
individual.On a finerpoint,I havearguedthatsimply fortheHagen,SambiaandGimicasesalone,
therealreadyappearto be differences regardingtheway thatmultiplepartsof personscanbe
contained as relations
insidethemindsandbodiesofothers. FortheGimi,forexample, thereseem
tobe serious,ifonlyeverimplicitly-waged contestations
betweenwomenandmenas tohow,and
at whattimesof thelife-course, women'sbodiesshouldbe 'open' and capableof 'holding'one
man'ssemenoveranother man's'contributions'.
REFERENCES
Battaglia,D. 1992.The bodyin thegift:memory andforgetting in Sabarlmortuary exchange Am.

Ethnol. 19,3-18.
1994.Retaining reality:somepractical problems withobjectsas property. Man (N.S.) 29,
631-44.
Bolin,A. 1996.Traversing gender.In Gender reversals
andgender rituals
(ed.) S.P Ramet.London:
Routledge.
Bourdieu,P 1977.Outline ofa theoryofpractice.
Cambridge: Univ.Press.
Buckley, T. & A. Gottlieb1988.A critical appraisaloftheories ofmenstrual symbolism. In Blood
magic: theanthropology
ofmenstruation (eds)T. Buckley & A. Gottlieb.Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia
Press.
Burridge, K 1979.Someone, no-one: an essayonindividuality.
Princeton: Univ.Press.
Busby,C. 1997.Permeableand partiblepersons:a comparative analysisof genderand bodyin
SouthIndiaandMelanesia.J. R. anthrop.Inst.(N.S) 3, 261-78.
Butler,
J.1993.Bodiesthatmatter. London:Routledge.
Collier,J.F.& S. Yanagisako(eds) 1987.Gender andkinship:essaystoward a unified
analysis.Stanford:
Univ.Press.
Coppet,D. de 1981.The lifegiving death.In Mortality
andimmortality: theanthropologyandarchaeology
ofdeath(eds) S.C. Humphreys & H. King.London:AcademicPress.
Comer,G.W 1943.Essaysinbiology inhonor ofHerbertEvans.Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press.
Delaney,C. 1986.The meaningofpaternity andthevirgin birthdebate.Man (N.S.) 21,494-513.
1991.Theseedandthesoil:gender andcosmology in Turkish village
society.
Berkeley: Univ.of
California Press.
Edwards, J.etal. 1993.Technologiesofprocreation:
kinshipintheageofassisted conception.Manchester:
Univ.Press.
Errington, S. 1990.Recastingsex,gender, andpower:a theoretical andregional overview. In Power
anddiference: inislandSoutheast
gender Asia(eds)J.M.Atkinson & S. Errington. Stanford: Univ.
Press.
Franklin,S. 1997.Embodied a cultural
progress: ofassisted
account London:Routledge.
reproduction.
Galen1968.On theusefulnessofthepartsofthebody,vol.2 (trans.)M. May.Ithaca:CornellUniv.Press.
Geary,P 1986.Sacredcommodities: thecirculationofmedieval relics.In Thesociallifeofthings(ed.)
A. Appadurai. Cambridge: Univ.Press.
Gillison,G. 1980. Imagesof naturein Gimi thought.In Nature,culture andgender(eds) C.
MacCormack & M. Strathern.Cambridge: Univ.Press.
1993. Between cultureandfantasy: New GuineaHighlands mythology. Chicago:Univ. of

666 MONICA KONRAD
ChicagoPress.
Gottlieb,A. 1988. Menstrualcosmologyamongthe Beng of IvoryCoast. In Bloodmagic:the
anthropology ofmenstruation (eds) T. Buckley& A. Gottlieb. Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press.
Harrison, S. 1992.Ritualas intellectual property. Man (N.S.) 27,225-44.
Herdt,G. 1981.Guardians oftheflute: idioms ofmasculinity. NewYork:McGrawHill.
1984.Sementransactions in Sambiaculture. InRitualisedhomosexualityinMelanesia (ed.) G.
Herdt.Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press.
1994.Introduction: thirdsexesand thirdgenders.In Thirdsex,third gender: beyondsexual
dimorphism incultureandhistory (ed.) G. Herdt.New York:Zone Books.
H6ritier-Auge, F. 1989a.Olderwomen,stout-hearted women,womenofsubstance. In Fragments
fora history ofthehuman body, part3 (eds)M. Feheretal. New York:Zone Books.
1989b.Semenandblood.In Fragmentsfor a historyofthehuman body,part3 (eds) M. Feher
etal. New York:Zone Books.
Hillman,D. & C. Mazzio (eds) 1997.Thebody inparts.London:Routledge.
Hirschon,R. 1978.Open body/closed space:thetransformation of femalesexuality. In Defining
females: thenature ofwomen insociety (ed.) S. Ardener. Oxford:Berg.
Jordanova, L. 1980.Naturalfacts:a historical perspective on scienceandsexuality. In Nature,culture
andgender (eds) C. MacCormack & M. Strathern. Cambridge: Univ.Press.
Konrad,M. 1996. Anonymousexchangerelations:assistedconception betweendonorsand
recipients in theUnitedKingdom.Thesis,University ofLondon.
Lang,S. 1996.Thereis morethanjustwomenandmen.In Gender reversals
andgender rituals
(ed.)
S.P Ramet.London:Routledge.
Laqueur,T. 1986.Orgasm,generation, andthepoliticsofreproductive biology. Representations
14,
1-41.
1992.Making sex:body andgenderfrom theGreeks toFreud.Cambridge, MA: HarvardUniv.
Press.
Levi-Strauss, C. 1969.Theelementary structures ofkinship. Boston:BeaconPress.
MacCormack, C. & M. Strathern (eds) 1980.Nature, cultureandgender. Cambridge: Univ.Press.
Marriott, M. 1976.Hindutransactions: diversity withoutdualism.In Transaction andmeaning (ed.)
B. Kapferer. Philadelphia: ISHI Publications.
Martin,E. 1991. The egg and the sperm:how sciencehas constructed a romancebased on
stereotypical male-female roles.Signs16,495-501.
Mauss,M. 1990[1925].Thegift: theform andreasonfor exchangeinarchaicsocieties
(trans.)WD. Halls.
London:Routledge.
Mimica,J.1988.Intimations ofinfinity:themythopoeia oftheIqwaye system
counting andnumber. Oxford:
Berg.
Moore,H.L. 1994.Understanding sex and gender.In Companion encyclopediaofsocialanthropology
(ed.) T. Ingold.London:Routledge.
Munn,N. 1992.Thefame ofGawa:a symbolic study ofvaluetransformationin a Massim(PapuaNew
Guinea)society. London:Duke Univ.Press.
Par6,A. 1982.On monsters andmarvels (trans.)J.L.Pallister. Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress.
Poole,F.J.P1996.The procreative and ritualconstitution of female,maleand other.In Gender
reversals
andgender rituals
(ed.) S.P Ramet.London:Routledge.
Ragon6,H. 1994.Surrogate motherhood: conception intheheart. Boulder:Westview Press.
Rubin,G. 1975.The traffic in women:noteson the 'politicaleconomy'of sex. In Toward an
anthropologyofwomen (ed.) R. Reiter. New York:Monthly ReviewPress.
Schneider, D. 1968.American kinship. Chicago:Univ.ofChicagoPress.
1984.A critiqueofthestudy ofkinship. AnnArbor:Univ.ofMichiganPress.
Sissa,G. 1989.Subtlebodies.In Fragmentsfor a historyofthehuman body,part3 (eds) M. Feheretal.
New York:Zone Books.
Strathern, M. 1988.Thegender ofthegtft: problems withwomen andproblems withsocietyinMelanesia.
Berkeley: Univ.ofCalifornia Press.
1992. Reproducing thefuture:anthropology, kinshipand thenew reproductive technologies.
Manchester: Univ.Press.
Wagner, R. 1991.The fractal person.In Bigmenandgreat men:personifications
ofpowerinMelanesia
(eds) M. Godelier& M. Strathern. Cambridge: Univ.Press.
WalkerBynum,C. 1991.Fragmentation andredemption: essays ongenderandthehuman bodyinmedieval
religion.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

MONICA KONRAD 667
J.1995.Beyondthepossession
Weiner, principle: ofMassimexchange.
an energetics PactfStud.18,
128-37.
Yanagisako,
S. & C. Delaney(eds) 1995.Naturalising
power:
feminist
cultural
analysis.
New York:
Routledge.
Donationd'ovuleset symbolesde subsistance: quelquesvariations

sur
le themedu sexe,des relations
de genreet du corpsdivisible
Re'sume'
Cetarticleconsid&relavaleurde la substancereproductivefemelleen tantque parties
physiques
et extracorporelles.
exterioris6es Les r6citsde femmesqui ont donn6 leursovules a des
r6ceptrices
infertiles
sontexplor6s dansle contexte
du discoursbio-m6dical contemporain sur
la conceptionassist6een GrandeBretagne. Contrairement aux hypotheses pr6dominantes du
modeleoccidental de l'individu
autonomeetcirconscrit,il estavan?6que lesdonneuses, en tant
qu'agentsprocr6ateurs, en scenedesformes
mettent de relationsqui correspondentAla socialit6
de l'anonymat.
Department
ofAnthropology,
Goldsmiths
College,
NewCross,
London
SE14 6NW


Ova Donation and Symbols of Sub - Konrad, Monica

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ova Donation and Symbols of Sub - Konrad, Monica

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ova Donation and Symbols of Substance: Some Variations on the Theme of Sex, Gender and

the Partible Body

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

This articleconsidersthe value of femalereproductive substanceas exteriorized and

Westerndiscourses of science and reproductivemedicine are engaged at the

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

seems a partial,somewhatquizzical returnto the notion of 'enduringdiffuse

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

action.What kindof model of 'sex' could thenbe invokedto make thesekindsof

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

The categoryofthebodyis thusapprehendedas registering the effectsof others'

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

disciplinewould do well to reflecton a trailof ignoranceblazingfromWestern

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

theremaindersofconcoctedblood,thougheach ofthesesubstanceswas believed

So howeverinequitablyand preposterously sexed such bodies came to be in

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

set of male/female,active/passive dichotomiesworks to similarmetaphorical

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

ovulationis in theinterestsoftheova recipients,theyclaim,sincethegreaterthe

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

traces of womanhood (the model of producing the body as 'clean slate').

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

in a condensedtimeperiod.'Giftsoflife'areofferednotbecause halfa 'genetical'

a possibleconceptionis not informedby ideas of female

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

formoftheirexteriorizedsubstance(the donatedova) likewiseflowsin multiple

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

gender transformationsthan one set of women embodying the 'female'

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

(cf Sissa 1989) was a coveringoverof 'theproblem'thataccounthad to be made

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

neously'.What forconventionalWesternimaginationwould be the evidenceof

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

superovulatorydrugs is 'the person' that attemptsto 'capture' women's ova

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

have takenwomen's appropriationof thesemedical idioms as suggestiveof the

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

between action and relatednessthatcannot be reduced to the level of simple

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

Melanesia. The significant pointis thatin theBritishcontext,thestressis noton

Fieldwork wascarried outbetween19924 atvariousin-vitro

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

SocialResearchCouncilforfunding thisresearch and to theTrustees oftheAL Charitable Trust

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

Donors too need medical'assistance', thoughof a different kindfromthatwhichtheygiveto

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

Sambia,northatthemajority ofBritish folkwouldreadilyrecognizeritualistic as a way

Battaglia,D. 1992.The bodyin thegift:memory andforgetting in Sabarlmortuary exchange Am.

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

Donationd'ovuleset symbolesde subsistance: quelquesvariations

This content downloaded on Thu, 14 Mar 2013 00:20:43 AM

You might also like