Full Ebook of Technologies of Reproduction Across The Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive Studies 1St Edition Victoria Boydell Online PDF All Chapter

Technologies of Reproduction Across
the Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive

Studies 1st Edition Victoria Boydell
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmeta.com/product/technologies-of-reproduction-across-the-lifecourse-ex
panding-reproductive-studies-1st-edition-victoria-boydell/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...
Atlas of Assisted Reproductive Technologies Surveen

Ghumman (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/atlas-of-assisted-reproductive-
technologies-surveen-ghumman-editor/
Biotechnologies Applied to Animal Reproduction Current

Trends and Practical Applications for Reproductive
Management 1st Edition Juan Carlos Gardón
https://ebookmeta.com/product/biotechnologies-applied-to-animal-
reproduction-current-trends-and-practical-applications-for-
reproductive-management-1st-edition-juan-carlos-gardon/
Racial Capitalism Cultural Studies and Marxism

Questions of Reproduction and Survival Gargi
Bhattacharyya
https://ebookmeta.com/product/racial-capitalism-cultural-studies-
and-marxism-questions-of-reproduction-and-survival-gargi-
bhattacharyya/
Mammalian Sexuality The Act of Mating and the Evolution

of Reproduction 1st Edition Dixson
https://ebookmeta.com/product/mammalian-sexuality-the-act-of-
mating-and-the-evolution-of-reproduction-1st-edition-dixson/
The Politics of Reproductive Ritual Jeffery M. Paige
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-politics-of-reproductive-
ritual-jeffery-m-paige/
Handbook of Genetic Diagnostic Technologies in

Reproductive Medicine : Improving Patient Success Rates
and Infant Health 2nd Edition Carlos Simón
https://ebookmeta.com/product/handbook-of-genetic-diagnostic-
technologies-in-reproductive-medicine-improving-patient-success-
rates-and-infant-health-2nd-edition-carlos-simon/
Reproduction and Development in Crustacea Reproduction

and Development in Aquatic Invertebrates 1st Edition
Pandian T J
https://ebookmeta.com/product/reproduction-and-development-in-
crustacea-reproduction-and-development-in-aquatic-
invertebrates-1st-edition-pandian-t-j/
The Unforgettables: Expanding the History of American

Art 1st Edition Charles C. Eldredge (Editor)
https://ebookmeta.com/product/the-unforgettables-expanding-the-
history-of-american-art-1st-edition-charles-c-eldredge-editor/
Assisted Reproduction Techniques Khaldoun Sharif
https://ebookmeta.com/product/assisted-reproduction-techniques-
khaldoun-sharif/
Technologies of Reproduction Across
the Lifecourse
Emerald Studies in Reproduction, Culture
and Society
Series Editors: Petra Nordqvist, Manchester University, UK and Nicky Hudson, De

Montfort University, UK
This book series brings together scholars from across the social sciences and
humanities who are working in the broad field of human reproduction. Repro-
duction is a growing field of interest in the United Kingdom and internationally,
and this series publishes work from across the lifecycle of reproduction addressing
issues such as conception, contraception, abortion, pregnancy, birth, infertility,
pre- and post-natal care, pre-natal screen and testing, IVF, prenatal genetic
diagnosis, mitochondrial donation, surrogacy, adoption, reproductive donation,
family-making and more. Books in this series will focus on the social, cultural,
material, legal, historical and political aspects of human reproduction, encour-
aging work from early career researchers as well as established scholars. The series
includes monographs, edited collections and shortform books (between 20 and
50,000 words). Contributors use the latest conceptual, methodological and
theoretical developments to enhance and develop current thinking about human
reproduction and its significance for understanding wider social practices and
processes.
Published Titles in This Series

Egg Freezing, Fertility and Reproductive Choice
Authored by Kylie Baldwin
The Cryopolitics of Reproduction on Ice: A New Scandinavian Ice Age
Authored by Charlotte Kroløkke, Thomas Søbirk Petersen, Janne Rothmar
Herrmann, Anna Sofie Bach, Stine Willum Adrian, Rune Klingenberg and Michael
Nebeling Petersen
Voluntary and Involuntary Childlessness
Edited by Natalie Sappleton
When Reproduction meets Ageing: The Science and Medicine of the Fertility
Decline
Authored by Nolwenn Bühler
Lived Realities of Solo Motherhood, Donor Conception and Medically Assisted
Reproduction
Authored by Tine Ravn
Surrogacy in Russia: An Ethnography of Reproductive Labour, Stratification and
Migration
Authored by Christina Weis
Reproductive Governance and Bodily Materiality: Flesh, Technologies, and
Knowledge
Edited by Corinna Sabrina Guerzoni and Claudia Mattalucci
Anti-Abortion Activism in the UK: Ultra-sacrificial Motherhood, Religion and
Reproductive Rights in the Public Sphere
Authored by Pam Lowe and Sarah-Jane Page
This page intentionally left blank
Technologies of Reproduction
Across the Lifecourse:
Expanding Reproductive
Studies
EDITED BY
VICTORIA BOYDELL
University of Essex, UK
And
KATHARINE DOW
University of Cambridge, UK
United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China

Emerald Publishing Limited
Howard House, Wagon Lane, Bingley BD16 1WA, UK
First edition 2022
Editorial matter and selection © 2022 Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow.
Individual chapters © 2022 The authors.
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited.
Reprints and permissions service

Contact: permissions@emeraldinsight.com
No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, transmitted in any form or
by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without either the
prior written permission of the publisher or a licence permitting restricted copying issued in the
UK by The Copyright Licensing Agency and in the USA by The Copyright Clearance Center.
Any opinions expressed in the chapters are those of the authors. Whilst Emerald makes every
effort to ensure the quality and accuracy of its content, Emerald makes no representation
implied or otherwise, as to the chapters’ suitability and application and disclaims any warranties,
express or implied, to their use.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
ISBN: 978-1-80071-734-3 (Print)

ISBN: 978-1-80071-733-6 (Online)
ISBN: 978-1-80071-735-0 (Epub)
Table of Contents
List of Tables and Figures xi
About the Contributors xiii
Foreword xvii
Rene Almeling
Acknowledgements xxi
Chapter 1 Introduction: Technologies of Reproduction

Across the Lifecourse 1
Katharine Dow and Victoria Boydell
Reflection One: Knowledge 21

Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow
Section One: Reproductive Technologies Across the

Lifecourse
Chapter 2 ‘I Feel Like Some Kind of Namoona’: Examining

Sterilisation in Women’s Abortion Trajectories in India 29
Rishita Nandagiri
Chapter 3 When Time Becomes Biological: Experiences of Age-

Related Infertility and Anticipation in Reproductive Medicine 49
Nolwenn Bühler
viii Table of Contents
Chapter 4 Delaying Menopause, Buying Time? Positioning Ovarian

Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation Technologies for
Delaying Menopause in the Context of Women’s Embodied
Reproductive Choice and Agency Across the Lifecourse 67
Susan Pickard
Chapter 5 Chronic Uncertainty and Modest Expectations:

Navigating Fertility Desires in the Context of Life With
Endometriosis 83
Nicky Hudson and Caroline Law
Reflection Two: Choice 101

Section Two: Lifecourses of Reproductive Technologies
Chapter 6 Contraceptive Futures? The Hormonal Body,

Populationism and Reproductive Justice in the Face of Climate
Change 109
Nayantara Sheoran Appleton
Chapter 7 Spectacular Reproduction Revealed: Genetic

Genealogy Testing as a Re(tro)productive Technology 131
Sallie Han
Chapter 8 Getting the Timing Right: Fertility Apps and the

Temporalities of Trying to Conceive 149
Josie Hamper
Chapter 9 Bio-Genetics and/at the Border: The Structural

Intimacies of LGBTQ Transnational Kinship 163
Sonja Mackenzie
Chapter 10 A Balancing Act: Situating Reproductive

Technologies Across Time in the UK 185
Victoria Boydell
Reflection Three: Relationality 203

Table of Contents ix
Section Three: Reading Across Reproductive Technologies
Chapter 11 ‘Well, She’s Entitled to Her Choice’: Negotiating

Technologies Amidst Anticipatory Futures of Reproductive
Potential 209
Ben Kasstan
Chapter 12 Men as Irrational Variables in Family Planning?

Understanding the Landscape, Technological Advancements, and
Extending Health Psychology Theories and Models 225
Amanda Wilson
Chapter 13 Inclusion, Exclusion, Anticipation: How the Politics of

Intimate Relationships Structure Innovation 247
Ryan Whitacre
Chapter 14 Integrating Reproductive and Nonreproductive

Technologies: Egg Freezing and Medical Abortion 261
Lucy van de Wiel
Afterword 285
List of Tables and Figures
Table 1. MOHFW’s Financial Incentives for Private

Facilities and NGOs. All in Indian Rupees
(INRs) (1 INR 5 0.014 USD) (MOHFW, 2016). 34
Table 2. Data on Vasectomies, Tubectomies and Abortions
in Karnataka (2017–2018). 36
Figure 1. Table 1: Evra Users (All-Subjects Treated) in
Studies 2004, 2003, 2002. 253
Figure 2. Table 3: Phase III Efficacy/Safety Studies.
Submitted to the European Medicines Association
in the New Drug Application for Evra. 254
About the Contributors
Professor Rene Almeling is Professor of Sociology at Yale University, where she

holds courtesy appointments in the Department of American Studies, the School
of Public Health and the School of Medicine. She is the author of GUYnecology:
The Missing Science of Men’s Reproductive Health (2020) and Sex Cells: The
Medical Market for Eggs and Sperm (2011). With Sebastian Mohr, she co-edited a
special issue on ‘Men, Masculinities, and Reproduction’ for NORMA: Interna-
tional Journal for Masculinity Studies (2020).
Dr Nayantara Sheoran Appleton is a Senior Lecturer at the interdisciplinary
Centre for Science in Society, Te Herenga Waka | Victoria University of
Wellington, Aotearoa New Zealand. Trained as a feminist medical anthropologist
and STS Scholar, her first project is a book manuscript titled Demographic
Desires: Emergency Contraceptive Pills and the (re)Imagined Family Planning
Project in Contemporary India. Her research interests are in the following areas:
Feminist Medical Anthropology and Science and Technology Studies (STS);
Cultural Studies and Media; Reproductive and Contraceptive Justice; Population
and Demographic Politics vis-à-vis climate change; Critical Kinship; Ethics and
Governance; Regenerative Medicine; Critical Science Communication; Immi-
grant and Indigenous Relations; and Qualitative Research Methods.
Dr Victoria Boydell is a Lecturer in Global Public Health at the University of
Essex and a research fellow at the Global Health Centre, the Geneva Graduate
Institute. Her research looks at the longer range social and cultural dynamics and
rights dimensions around reproductive technologies and health care, particularly
contraception. She has spent many years in the non-governmental sector working
in research around sexual and reproductive rights, including with the Interna-
tional Planned Parenthood Federation, UNWomen and the World Health
Organization. She has published widely in a number of journals including Bio-
Societies, Ethnos, Journal of Sex Research, BMC Women’s Health and the BMC
International Journal for Equity in Health.
Dr Nolwenn Bühler is an Anthropologist of biomedicine and health, specialised in
gender studies. She currently works as a Senior Researcher at the STSlab (UNIL)
and a research manager at Unisanté. Her research explores the contemporary
reconfigurations of public health in the era of ‘personalised health’. Since
November 2020, she is also leading the project SociocoViD (SNSF-PNR78,
xiv About the Contributors
Unisanté) and a project on chemical exposure in agriculture (FBM-UNIL (IHM).

Initially trained in nursing, she obtained her PhD from the University of Zurich,
where she dealt with the production of knowledge on reproductive ageing and the
role assisted reproductive technologies play in it. She also explored the ontological
and political effects of the medically assisted extension of fertility in Switzerland.
Her book When Reproduction Meets Ageing: The Science and Medicine of the
Fertility Decline was published in 2021.
Dr Katharine Dow is a Senior Research Associate in the Department of Sociology
and Deputy Director of the Reproductive Sociology Research Group (ReproSoc)
at the University of Cambridge. She specialises in public discourses around
reproduction and reproductive technologies and in intersections between repro-
duction and environmental concerns. She is the author of Making a Good Life: An
Ethnography of Nature, Ethics, and Reproduction (Princeton University Press,
2016).
Dr Josie Hamper is a postdoctoral researcher at Queen Mary, University of
London. Her work focuses on the personal and social implications of new
reproductive technologies. Her postdoctoral research explored patients’ experi-
ences of IVF and their perspectives on the introduction of new biomedical tech-
nologies in fertility treatment. This work was funded by the Wellcome Trust. Josie
completed her PhD research on women’s use of fertility and pregnancy apps in the
School of Geography, also at Queen Mary, and has published on reproductive
technologies, visual culture, parenting and relatedness.
Professor Sallie Han is Professor of Anthropology at the State University of New
York (SUNY) Oneonta. A specialist in the anthropology of reproduction, Pro-
fessor Han is the co-editor of The Routledge Handbook of Anthropology and
Reproduction (Routledge, 2021) and The Anthropology of the Fetus: Culture,
Society, and Biology (Berghahn Books, 2018), and the author of Pregnancy in
Practice: Expectation and Experience in the Contemporary United States
(Berghahn Books, 2013). Other major areas of interest include gender, kinship
and care. Her current and recent work includes projects on pregnancy and climate
change, and the Academic Carework initiative, which examines the challenges of
caregiving while pursuing careers in higher education. Han is a recipient of the
SUNY Chancellor’s Award for Excellence in Teaching.
Professor Nicky Hudson is a Medical Sociologist with particular expertise in the
social and cultural significance of reproduction, infertility and assisted repro-
ductive technologies. Her work also focuses on the sociology of chronic illness.
Uniting these themes is an emphasis on intersectionalities and questions of
individual-biomedicine-society relations. She has received funding for her work
from the Economic and Social Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, Founda-
tion for Sociology of Health and Illness and the National Institute for Health
Research. She leads the Centre for Reproduction Research, an interdisciplinary
centre of expertise dedicated to the production of scholarship on the social, cul-
tural and political aspects of human reproduction based in the Faculty of Health
and Life Sciences at De Montfort University.
About the Contributors xv
Dr Ben Kasstan is a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the Centre for Health, Law &
Society at the University of Bristol and is also affiliated with the Department of
Sociology & Anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. His research
explores the cultural politics of protection that emerge at the intersection of
health, religion and state. Ben’s recent monograph Making Bodies Kosher was
recently published with Berghahn in their series on Fertility, Reproduction &
Sexuality.
Dr Caroline Law is a Senior Research Fellow at Centre for Reproduction
Research, De Montfort University. Her research interests include endometriosis,
particularly the social and gendered aspects of the condition, the impact on
partners and relationships, and advancing healthcare for women. Her work takes
an applied focus seeking to advance understanding of the condition and its social
and psychological impacts, contribute to healthcare policy and enhance support
and information for women and couples. Her other research interests include
reproductive timing and ageing, particularly the timing of fatherhood, and men
and reproduction; and experiences of in/fertility and reproduction and changing
landscape of family formation and reproduction more broadly. She is a socio-
logist whose work primarily utilises qualitative methods.
Dr Sonja Mackenzie is Associate Professor in the Public Health Program at Santa
Clara University, USA. In 2021, Dr Mackenzie was Visiting Scholar with the
Department of Sociology in the Reproductive Sociology Research Group
(ReproSoc) at Cambridge University. Her scholarship lies at the intersections of
public health, sociology and gender and sexuality studies to analyse and intervene
in social and structural inequities in health among racial/ethnic and sexual and
gender minorities. Her current project examines the structural intimacies of
LGBTQ kinship as the conjoining of social structural patterns with intimate lives,
building on her 2013 book, Structural Intimacies: Sexual Stories in the Black
AIDS Epidemic. She is the author of numerous peer review publications and
public scholarship on social structural patterns of the US Black AIDS epidemic
and LGBTQ kinship and health.
Dr Rishita Nandagiri is an LSE100 Fellow at the London School of Economics
and Political Science (LSE). She is finishing her ESRC Postdoctoral Fellowship
(2020–2021) at the LSE’s Department of Methodology. Her research focuses on
abortion, reproductive (in) justice and reproductive governance in the Global
South. She serves on the International Union for the Scientific Study of Pop-
ulation’s Abortion Research Panel, and on the editorial advisory board of the
journal BMJ Sexual and Reproductive Health.
Professor Susan Pickard is Professor of Sociology in the Department of Sociol-
ogy, Social Policy and Criminology at the University of Liverpool, UK. Her
research interests lie in the fields of ageing, gender, sexuality, health and illness
and she has published widely in a number of journals including Sociology, British
Journal of Sociology, Sociology of Health & Illness and Ageing & Society. Her
latest book is Age, Gender and Sexuality Through the Lifecourse: The Girl in Time,
published by Routledge.
xvi About the Contributors
Dr Ryan Whitacre is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Global Health Centre

at the Graduate Institute, and a Visiting Fellow in the Center for Social Medicine
at UC Berkeley. Ryan defended his doctorate in Medical Anthropology at UC
Berkeley and UC San Francisco (2018), specialising in the anthropology of
clinical research, public health and pharmaceutical markets. Through multidis-
ciplinary enquiry and collaborative research, he aims to sharpen theory in medical
anthropology and improve practice in global public health. His work has been
supported by a fellowship from the US National Science Foundation, research
grants from the UC Berkeley, and project grants from the European Research
Council and Swiss National Science Foundation (PI: Nguyen VK).
Dr Lucy van de Wiel is a Lecturer at the Global Health and Social Medicine
department at King’s College London. She also is a member of the
Wellcome-funded Changing In/fertilities network hosted by the Reproductive
Sociology Research Group at the University of Cambridge. She is the author of
Freezing Fertility: Oocyte Cryopreservation and the Gender Politics of Aging
(NYU Press, 2020).
Dr Amanda Wilson is a Lecturer in Psychology at De Montfort University. She is
a public health psychologist, with expertise in engaging men in family planning
behaviours. To date she has explored men’s engagement from the perspectives of
men themselves, health services, nurse practitioners, training manuals, female
partners, male contraceptive methods and seminal constructs. She has also used
quantitative methods to explore large data sets to explain men’s use of vasectomy
services, including vasectomy reversals, and to explain men’s use of condoms,
spermicide and natural family planning. Dr Wilson has further worked with
collaborators in China around mental health of second infant delivery and the
implementation of the two-child policy, as well as the mediating factors of
post-partum depression in both mothers and fathers.
Foreword
There is sometimes a strange moment toward the end of a research project where
the main noun, the primary object of one’s analysis, begins to shimmer, starts to
feel unstable and seems as though it might actually slip out of view completely.
This happened to me as I was finishing my most recent book, GUYnecology
(2020), a history and sociology of why there has been so little attention to men’s
reproductive health. As I was writing the conclusion, a phrase I had used
throughout the book, and which I’ve encountered hundreds if not thousands of
times in the work of others – ‘reproductive body’ – suddenly seemed vague. More
than vague: thoroughly devoid of substantive meaning. What was, and is, a
reproductive body? Using ‘a’ as an article instead of ‘the’ in front of reproductive
body seems to open up the possibilities a bit, but does not begin to answer crucial
questions about which parts of whose bodies would one demarcate as specifically
(exclusively?) reproductive?
Reading through this marvelous collection of research essays edited by Vicky
Boydell and Katie Dow makes me think that this phenomenon, the feeling of
losing one’s grasp on precisely the thing you’ve just spent months or years
studying, can happen not only with particular research projects but with entire
fields. It appears to be happening at the moment in the social scientific study of
reproduction, as scholars train their attention on some of the core terms in the
field, raising questions about how they have been defined, what they include and
what they do not, and identifying the assumptions on which they are based. Far
from cause for concern, I think this process heralds the continuing growth and
expansion of a field, and it makes possible exciting new opportunities for thinking
about what comes next.
In the Introduction to this volume, Boydell and Dow argue for the integration
of research on reproductive technologies, noting that they are defining both
‘reproductive’ and ‘technologies’ in expansive ways. In doing so, they are building
on long-standing efforts by anthropologists, sociologists and historians to
examine the wide range of social, cultural and historical processes that shape
individual experiences of reproduction, which can include pregnancy, birth,
contraception, abortion and a wide array of reproductive technologies. Faye
Ginsburg and Rayna Rapp (1991) offered a powerfully generative label for
conceptualising these processes – the politics of reproduction – and the subsequent
outpouring of research provided the basis for my own working definition of
reproduction: ‘the biological and social process of having or not having children’
(Almeling, 2015, p. 430).
xviii Foreword
Boydell and Dow’s integrative framework takes up this approach to repro-

duction and enlivens it with empirically innovative studies of reproductive tech-
nologies. In particular, the essays in this volume illustrate the importance of
comparative research, such as comparisons of how individuals experience different
kinds of reproductive technologies (Kasstan; Van de Wiel; Whitacre) and com-
parisons of their experiences at different points in the lifecourse (Nandagiri; Boy-
dell). Indeed, Boydell and Dow’s emphasis on temporality ensures that scholars are
thinking longitudinally not only about the past and the present (Hudson and Law;
Han) but also how reproductive technologies figure into ‘anticipated futures’
(Buhler; Hamper; Pickard). Importantly, this volume expands beyond the experi-
ences of cis-women, the typical population researched by reproductive scholars, to
include men’s and LGBTQI people’s experiences of reproductive technologies
(Mackenzie; Wilson; Appleton). And like so many others working in the vibrant
politics-of-reproduction tradition, the editors and contributors to this volume
emphasise how the inner workings of governments and markets and biomedicine
have real consequences for the reproductive aspects of people’s everyday lives.
In essence, Boydell and Dow’s integrative approach to research on repro-
ductive technologies expands the viewscope well beyond the traditional ‘snap-
shot’, in which researchers concentrate on a single reproductive technology at a
particular point in time and place for one group of people. It makes possible new
questions about the relationship between processes that are usually considered
somewhat distinct, such as those around contraceptive and conceptive technolo-
gies. Going forward, there is an ongoing need to analyse how reproductive
technologies and reproductive processes more broadly, from the cellular to the
global, are shaped not only by gendered norms and beliefs but also by inequalities
rooted in racism and heteronormativity, as well as widely varying levels of eco-
nomic and educational resources across and within countries (e.g. Briggs, 2018;
Roberts, 1997; Ross & Solinger, 2017). In addition to several of the essays in this
volume that take an intersectional approach, I would also encourage readers to
seek out Natali Valdez and Daisy Deomampo’s (2019) excellent special issue of
Medical Anthropology on race, racism, and reproduction.
Of course, there will never be one correct, true-through-all-of-history answer to
questions such as what is a reproductive body or what is reproduction or what is
reproductive justice. Decades of social scientific and humanistic scholarship on
science and bodies, and especially research on processes surrounding gender, race,
sexuality, ability and their intersections, reveal that definitions, understandings,
and experiences of reproductive processes are rooted in particular times and
places and approaches, the latter of which can be academic, activist or neither.
The impossibility of objectivity is not a fact to mourn, but an invitation to
consider the full range of complexities in how knowledge is made and the uses to
which it can be put. It is a chance to deepen our understanding of the nouns we
work with, to examine the assumptions built into these seemingly straightforward
words and an opportunity to use such reflections to ask new questions.
Rene Almeling
New Haven, Connecticut
June 2021
Foreword xix
References
Almeling, R. (2015). Reproduction. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 423–442.
Almeling, R. (2020). GUYnecology: The missing science of men’s reproductive health.
Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Briggs, L. (2018). How all politics became reproductive politics: From welfare reform to
foreclosure to Trump. Oakland, CA: University of California Press.
Ginsburg, F., & Rapp, R. (1991). The politics of reproduction. Annual Review of
Anthropology, 20, 311–343.
Roberts, D. (1997). Killing the Black Body: Race, reproduction and the meaning of
liberty. New York, NY: Pantheon.
Ross, L., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Valdez, N., & Deomampo, D. (2019). Centering race and racism in reproduction.
Medical Anthropology, 38, 551–559.
Acknowledgements
We are fortunate to be part of this collective and collaborative effort to examine,

challenge and reflect on the fact that many people design, imagine and use
different technologies throughout their lifecourse, and to promote methodologies
aligned with a social and reproductive justice approach. First and foremost, we
would like to thank all the contributors for their partnership and their patience in
shaping this edited collection over an 18-month period. We are also grateful to the
people who participated in the original workshop in Geneva in November 2019
but who were not able to contribute chapters, namely Lisa Harris, Aditya
Bharadwaj, Ritu Sadana, Irene Maffi, Sezin Topçu and Marina Plesons. The
contributors have been generous with their time and their efforts to think together
through the political, social, economic, legal and cultural implications of repro-
ductive technologies as they are developed, distributed, used and imagined. You
have all exceeded our expectations for constructive collaboration.
This book would not have been possible without the help of many people. We
would like to thank Kim Chadwick who guided us through the publication
process and Nicky Hudson and Petra Nordqvist, the series editors, for their
encouragement for this project and for enriching our thinking across various
drafts. We are grateful to Rene Almeling for enthusiastically agreeing to write the
foreword and for her thoughtful reflections.
We are also grateful for our respective host institutions for their ongoing
support while we were coordinating this volume: the Global Health Centre,
Geneva Graduate Institute and the Reproductive Sociology Research Group
(ReproSoc), University of Cambridge. We would also like to thank the following
for funding support for the co-editors: the Brocher Foundation, University of
Cambridge Returning Carers’ Scheme and the Wellcome Trust Collaborative
Award, ‘Changing (In)Fertilities’ (grant 209829/Z/17/Z).
Chapter 1
Introduction: Technologies of Reproduction

Across the Lifecourse
Katharine Dow and Victoria Boydell
Abstract
This edited collection proposes an interdisciplinary and integrated approach
to the study of reproductive technologies (RTs), which reflects the fact that
many people use different technologies throughout their lifecourse and resists
the disciplinary siloing of research on these technologies. The ever-expanding
availability of RTs, the continued roll-out of ‘family planning’ and maternity
services across low- and middle-income settings and the rapid development
of the fertility industry mean that it is more likely than ever that individuals,
especially women and trans* people, will engage with more than one RT at
some point in their life. These multiple engagements with RTs will affect
users’ expectations and uptake, as well as the technologies’ availability,
commercial success, ethical status and social meanings. We offer this book as
part of a wider movement in the study of reproduction and RTs, which takes
inspiration from the reproductive justice framework to address forms of
exclusion, discrimination and stratification that are perpetuated in the
development and application of RTs and the ways in which they are studied
and theorised. Here, we introduce the project and outline the structure of the
book.
Keywords: Reproductive technologies; lifecourse; reproductive justice;

methodology; biomedicine; inequality
This book comes out of a workshop hosted on the picturesque Lake Geneva. By
those same shores, just over 200 years earlier, Mary Shelley conceived her most
famous novel, Frankenstein. Frankenstein emerged as a popular trope in early
public discussions of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) (Turney, 1998),
signifying an intense discomfort with ideas of ‘playing god’. It is fitting that both
Technologies of Reproduction Across the Lifecourse, 1–19

Copyright © 2022 Katharine Dow and Victoria Boydell
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-733-620221001
2 Katharine Dow and Victoria Boydell
Frankenstein and its technology of reviving the long-dead, in order to create new
lives, are (science) fictional, since much of the controversy around ARTs is based
in speculations about what might be done with them and how they could be put to
use in the ‘wrong’ hands, which still resonate with Shelley’s warning to her readers
about tinkering with natural forces. Shelley could be described as one of the
earliest theorists of reproductive technologies (RTs). Like many social scientists
studying RTs, she used the example of Dr Frankenstein and his Creature as a lens
to examine broader social and political currents and to warn about what happens
when those with dubious goals and few scruples are given power over life and
death. Frankenstein is not anti-technology or anti-science: Shelley makes it clear
that technologies are anthropogenic, and so humans must take responsibility for
their use, and the meanings and values that drive those uses.
Two centuries after Frankenstein’s publication, both the facilitation and the
prevention of human reproduction are mediated through many technologies,
which may appear ‘ordinary’ or ‘extraordinary’ (Han, 2013), ‘low-’ or ‘high-tech’.
In this book, we draw on Rene Almeling’s helpful definition of reproduction as
‘the biological and social process of having or not having children’ (2015, p. 430);
we understand this to encompass conception, contraception, pre-conception care,
pregnancy, infertility, birth, abortion and neonatal and infant care. We use the
term ‘technology’ to include pharmaceuticals, devices, tools, digital applications,
clinical and diagnostic procedures. Crucially, while ‘RT’ has often come to be a
shorthand for ARTs, we consider any technology that facilitates the biological and
social process of having or not having children, or which is imagined to do so, a RT.
In Frankenstein, Shelley draws on the Gothic genre to depict the destructive
power of those with wealth and position, arguing that political systems have the
capacity to victimise those who are empowered as well as those who are dis-
empowered, illustrated by the fates of Frankenstein and his Creature (Bennett,
1998). While we would modify this to take account of the fact that, while politics
has the capacity to corrupt all, its potential for violence is typically dispropor-
tionately aimed at the already disempowered, we do agree with Shelley’s focus on
the political, moral and social forces that drive technologies. Technologies are
shaped by the epistemic norms, cultural values, financial pressures and political
possibilities of the contexts in which they are developed and made available. The
cultural scripts of developers and promoters can make technologies (un)thinkable,
yet these precepts and values are not necessarily replicated in local practice or
individual experience and may in fact also be sites of creativity and resistance
(Beaudevin & Pordié, 2016; Cuboniks, 2018; Hardon & Moyer, 2014; Lewis,
2019; Sanabria, 2016; Sheoran, 2015). But, this is not a one-way process – we
agree with Lock and Nguyen (2018, p. 20) that ‘technologies should be under-
stood as both produced through culture and as productive of culture’.
We embrace a fairly broad definition of RT here – for example, the chapters
include genetic testing, Viagra and HIV medication – and we do so deliberately,
to provoke thinking about RTs that breaks down methodological assumptions
and disciplinary silos, as we will explain in this introductory chapter. We recog-
nise that focusing on RTs can provoke an assumption of a technologist bias, yet it
is our explicit intention to cover a range of quite ‘ordinary’ technologies alongside
Introduction: Technologies of Reproduction 3
the more high-tech. As Sallie Han’s chapter in this book shows, even apparently
playful RTs such as home genetic testing kits can have spectacular and upsetting
results, while as Sonja Mackenzie’s chapter shows something that is not usually
thought of as an RT like birth certificates, passports or borders can still be
enmeshed in questions of who counts as a parent. We also point out that medicine
and medical technologies play a role in a large number of people’s lives and RTs
are widely known and/or available (at least in theory) in high-, middle- and
low-income countries (Franklin, 2013; Wahlberg, 2016). Indeed, in many con-
texts, it is fair to say that RTs have become normalised to the extent that their use
is determined as a moral or cultural imperative (Franklin & Roberts, 2006;
Gammeltoft & Wahlberg, 2014; Murphy, 2017; Sandelowski, 1993; Russel,
Thompson, & Sobo, 2000; Solinger, 2001; Strathern, 1992; Wahlberg, 2008).
Reproduction is the result of series of ongoing decisions, made individually
and collaboratively, with more or less agency and with different levels of support.
This could be envisaged as a series of socio-ecological concentric circles that
surround an individual as they relate to reproduction and RTs at different points
in their lives. The immediate circle would be their everyday (and, in many cases,
long-term) relationships with partners, children, kin, friends, mentors and
co-workers. Thinking about this circle reminds us of an obvious point, though it is
often occluded by a focus on individuals in the discourse surrounding reproduc-
tive decision-making, that reproduction is relational. Another circle that surrounds
and shapes an individual’s reproductive life is technology itself, and the industries
and infrastructures that facilitate its use, availability and accessibility. Beyond
this, is the circle of culture and society, with its structures of political, economic
and moral power and its intersecting inequalities, and alongside this, public dis-
courses and media representations that contribute to the meanings and assumed
use(r)s of different RTs. Another further circle represents globalised and univer-
salising forces that help shape national and local contexts. This is particularly
evident if we consider global discourses and programmes around ‘family plan-
ning’, which are enshrined in many international agreements such as the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals.
The central tenet of this collection is that RTs are not imagined or experienced
in isolation by the people who use them. However, clinical, public health and even
social scientific research often reflects a parcelling out of reproduction into
specialist areas of biomedical intervention. Studies tend to be bound to specific
physiological events, technologies (particularly those that are more obviously
high-tech or novel) and people – namely cis, heterosexual women. Yet, with the
ever-expanding horizon of RT and the rapid development of the fertility industry,
the reality is that many individuals will engage with more than one RT at some
point in their life. Their differential access to and experience of one technology is
therefore likely to be shaped by their previous or concurrent experience with
another, and this will have effects on their expectations and uptake, as well as the
technologies’ availability, commercial success, ethical status, legal regulation and
social meaning. This point is poignantly illustrated by Sharmila Rudrappa’s
(2015) account of transnational surrogacy in India in the early twenty-first cen-
tury, in which the ubiquity of female sterilisation made relatively poor women’s
bodies ‘bioavailable’ (Colen, 1995) for surrogacy and built Indian medical pro-
fessionals’ expertise in obstetrical and gynaecological surgery (see also Nandagiri,
this volume), which we consider exemplary of an integrated account of RTs. As
Rudrappa puts it, ‘surrogacy in India cannot be understood outside the context of
population control programs. Markets in life – and surrogacy is a prime example
of such a market – have to be located in the larger medicotechnical interventions
that make certain bodies, specifically those of working-class Indian women, the
foundation for reproductive assembly lines’ (2015, pp. 10–11). In this example,
working-class Indian women’s bodies were intervened in to both curtail their own
fertility, which was deemed undesirable according to the logics of historical and
contemporary population control, and to facilitate the reproduction of middle-
and upper-class (and, at the time, typically white Global North) families who
accessed their reproductive capacity through financial means.
Studies of RTs have provided important empirical data about the social
meanings and personal experience of RTs in recent decades. Reproductive
scholars have also made substantial theoretical contributions to our under-
standings of gender, race, disability, sexuality, religion, nature, genetics, medicine,
ageing, kinship, marriage, adoption, parenting and much more. This book seeks
to encourage further reflection on what reproductive studies have achieved and
also what methodological, empirical and theoretical blind-spots have built up as
the field has developed. Building on interdisciplinary dialogue between sociology,
anthropology, history, epidemiology, gender studies, psychology, cultural studies
and public health, in this book, we identify overlaps and discontinuities both in
users’ experiences and analytical approaches to these technologies. The following
chapters explore the local dynamics surrounding RTs, their use and their effects,
alongside the broader interrelated logics that drive their production, promotion
and use. It also reflects on what the intended and unintended effects of our
methodologies for researching RTs are. In this introduction, we will draw on the
reproductive justice framework to explain why we think it is important to take an
integrated and comparative approach to the study of RTs, as well as to propose
how to build such an approach. However, our intention is to be more experi-
mental than didactic, so this book also serves as an invitation to encourage others
to take up and test these propositions, too.
The workshop in November 2019 was sponsored and hosted by the Fondation
Brocher in Switzerland, which promotes pluridisciplinary research on the ethical,
legal and social issues (ELSI) arising from new medical development and health
policies.1 The workshop brought together sociologists, anthropologists, gender
studies and science studies scholars, clinicians and public health professionals of
the World Health Organization. The participants spanned a range of career stages
and together represent a broad expertise in RTs and different methodological
approaches to their study. We had two days of traditional workshop format,
punctuated with refreshing views of Lake Geneva and mini Toblerones provided
by the Foundation. On the third day, we used creative and collaborative
approaches to identify our exact aims for the project and to consider what might
be the best contribution we could make to academic knowledge and even to policy
discussions. Many of the original workshop members agreed to contribute a
chapter to this book. We have also invited a handful of others to contribute, with
the aim of broadening and deepening the range of topics and experiences we
present here. For many of the contributors, this has been an opportunity to go
back to data they always wanted to do something with, but were unsure how to
do so, or to have the opportunity to draw comparative links between different
datasets, which has been a joyful process for us, as editors, to midwife. Around a
year after the original workshop, we held a further set of workshops – online, this
time, due to COVID-19 restrictions – in which authors were paired up as dis-
cussants on each other’s draft chapters. This allowed us both to provide in-depth
feedback to each author and to foster a sense of collective engagement with and
involvement in the book amongst the contributors.
This book focuses particularly on time, timing and temporality in people’s
engagements with RTs, proposing an approach to studying RTs that takes greater
account of the lifecourse. This is an attempt to get at the richness of people’s
experiences, whilst also trying to retain a sense of the complex, social, political,
economic, religious, moral and cultural forces that shape that experience – and
how they might shift over time and at particular historical moments. The chapters
in this collection aim to show the different temporalities at work in the operation
of RTs, including how different RTs come to make sense (or not) at different
points in individuals’ lifecourses; how technologies themselves have lifecourses,
which may reflect the current pre-occupations of (putative) users, and also the
state of technology and the broader socio-political and demographic concerns of
the time. Another aspect of this is the ways in which RTs themselves do and do
not work together across lifecourses – some technologies are imagined to com-
plement and extend each other, while others are thought to negate the need for or
replace others, while some technologies are used in ways that were not anticipated
by their developers or promoters. In this way, we take a relational approach to
time that considers how people relate to, with and over time.
In the remainder of this introduction, we explain in more detail what an
integrated approach to the study of RTs means and propose how it might be
achieved (see also Boydell & Dow, 2021). In the next two sections, we outline why
we think the reproductive justice framework is vital to the study of RTs and how
it is relevant to the integrated approach that we are proposing, before going on to
argue that we need to take account of the lifecourse of individuals, families and
technologies in order to fully understand RTs and the context in which they are
used (and refused). Focusing on the lifecourse – which we never imagine to be a
singular or universal experience – helps us to explicate the importance of time and
temporalities in the lives of RTs and their users and to consider how we might
extend and adapt our methodologies to reflect this; this point is taken up in the
following section. We end on a summary of the book’s structure, synthesised with
a description of some of the main themes from the chapters, to propose what an
integrated approach might look like. The empirical chapters are divided into three
parts, which will all also have their own short introductions in order to explore the
themes in a little more depth.
Reproductive Justice and Technologies of Reproduction

While, as many of the chapters in this collection show, individuals are constantly
exercising agency and resisting norms and political pressures, it is important to
recognise that reproductive decision-making is rarely, if ever, a free choice,
because everyone is constrained by the contexts in which they live, the relation-
ships of which they are part and, quite simply, by the availability of technologies
themselves. As the different examples in the chapters show, individual experiences
are situated within wider structures that determine different groups’ access to and
use of RTs, according to gender, race, sexuality, religion, disability or health
status and class. Importantly, access to RTs is not understood here as simply
whether one can afford or is legally allowed to use a technology, vitally important
as that is, but also encompasses the subtle ways in which some technologies
appear to be unthinkable or unsuitable for certain ‘types’ of people, according to
insidious beliefs about whose reproduction should be facilitated and whose cur-
tailed (Colen, 1995; Davis, 2019; Murphy, 2017; Roberts, 2017; Rudrappa, 2015;
Solinger, 2001).
Reproductive justice scholars and activists have criticised second-wave femi-
nists and reproductive rights campaigners for focusing on access to abortion at the
expense of considering other forms of reproductive injustice that people face, as
well as occluding the fact that access to any RT is determined by intersecting
inequalities based on race, class, sexuality and disability as well as gender.
Instead, they propose a three-part framework that is based in social justice: ‘(1)
the right not to have a child; (2) the right to have a child; and (3) the right to parent
children in safe and healthy environments’ (Ross & Solinger, 2017, p. 9). This
framework is vital for building a more representative picture of reproduction,
reproductive rights and the ways in which inequality and injustice determine
people’s ability to fulfil their sexual and reproductive desires. It is also highly
relevant for our project here. As Rishita Nandagiri points out in her chapter in
this collection, studies of encounters with RTs that are attentive to individual
experiences and local contexts, but which also take account of (trans)national and
historical circumstances, can ‘centre women’s lived realities in the interrogation of
power, making visible the mechanisms of injustice and the potential for activism
in the pursuit of reproductive freedom’ [p. 42].
Reproductive justice reminds us to take account of the complex contexts in
which reproduction does and does not take place and the part that technologies
play in upholding and/or circumventing those contexts. Treating RTs as singular
technologies or their use as isolated experiences is not only naı̈ve, but reproduces a
privileged view that is wilfully blind to the experiences of vast numbers of people
across the world who are subject to reproductive injustice. As noted, as well as
attending to the concentric circles that contextualise any reproductive experience,
in this book, we aim to pay particularly close attention to time. Reproductive
justice is a movement that looks both forward and back, exhorting scholars and
activists to remember the injustices of the past and how they structure the present,
but also to work towards a liberatory future. Reproductive justice comes out of a
particular set of experiences, specifically those of women of colour and Indigenous
women in the United States. It is a movement with its own lifecourse and we
should be careful about applying it to other contexts, especially in the cases of
those with relatively high levels of socio-economic privilege. Nonetheless, we feel
that the key principles are an apt analytical framework in many, if not all, con-
texts and that applying these principles across a range of settings is a way of
building solidarity between different movements for equality, social justice and
reproductive autonomy.
Reproduction and the Lifecourse

Following Rene Almeling’s (2015) call to re-conceptualise reproduction as ‘a
multi-layered biological and social process’, we propose applying a life-course
approach as a heuristic which places greater emphasis on time and historicity in
conceptualising lives and our encounters with different technologies. This also
accords with the three principles of reproductive justice outlined above, which
establish the point that different RTs make sense at different points in people’s
lifecourses, depending on whether conception is desired or not and on what
barriers might be in place to achieve this aim. RTs are encountered within specific
historical moments in which people’s lives unfold. For example, both reproduc-
tive justice activists and historians of medicine have shown how eugenic cam-
paigns and the early feminist movement worked together to facilitate access to
contraceptive technologies in the early twentieth century and how that determined
who was given access, under what conditions and to which technologies (Marks,
2001; Watkins, 2012). IVF, meanwhile, has become a ‘platform’ for a host of
biotechnological applications (Franklin, 2013), yet, at the time it was developed in
the late 1970s in the United Kingdom, it was presented as ‘controversial’, yet
rapidly accepted as a means for facilitating the natural desires of ‘respectable’
heterosexual couples to have children (Dow, 2018).
Historians and social scientists have shown that technologies have their own
histories and that these are often interlinked with other technologies’ successes
and failures (Hartmann, 1995; Oudshoorn, 2003; Solinger, 2001), while Rayna
Rapp (1999) notably characterised how early users of amniocentesis were put in
the position of being ‘moral pioneers’ and Charis Thompson (2005) characterised
the ‘ontological choreography’ of the first generation of intended parents using
ARTs. An idea that stubbornly persists throughout these different histories is the
assumption that women are primarily responsible for reproduction and its man-
agement and are therefore the main target for technological interventions
(Almeling, 2020; Inhorn, 2020; see Wilson, this volume). Relatedly, RTs have
been primarily envisaged as serving heterosexual (and in many cases, specifically
married) couples, though this seems likely to shift as increasing numbers of
LGBTQ 1 intended parents use RTs, thereby reshaping the technologies them-
selves, as well as inevitably provoking developers to explore new ‘markets’ (see
also Mackenzie, this volume).
Just as there is no universal lifecourse, reproducing and preventing repro-
duction each make sense at different times in people’s lives – and of course there
are many who never wish to reproduce at all. In studying people’s histories and
experiences, we must address the lived past and anticipated futures, but also how
early experiences set the stage for future ones. As this suggests, the lifecourse
might be seen as less a series of separate events and more as a cumulative process.
RTs themselves have a very limited focus on preventing or facilitating conception
(or ‘live birth’). This is also, understandably, the focus of those who develop,
administer and promote these technologies, or at least that is how they are pre-
sented (see van de Wiel, Whitacre this volume). But for (intended) parents,
conception, pregnancy and birth, or their prevention, are not isolated events, but
are a point on the lifecourse and a means towards a particular future – a live birth
is not the end of the story, but in many ways, the beginning; this is certainly the
case for the newborn child. This point also resonates with the third principle of
reproductive justice, which enshrines the right to raise and care for children in
healthy environments and here we also note our support for the argument put
forward by Charlotte Faircloth and Zeynep Gurtin (2017) to create more space
for dialogue between reproductive studies and parenting studies.
Lifecourses are made up of expectations, imaginaries and aspirations as well as
concrete experiences. Disruption and surprise are common experiences, often
associated with the use of technologies which can reveal new knowledge or make
the unexpected or previously impossible happen. In many of the chapters of this
book, engagements with RTs reflect and provoke ambivalence, uncertainty and
the recalibration of expectations in relation to the lifecourse. This relates also to
the ways in which public discourses and media representations play into positive
and negative valuations of different stages in the lifecourse, as illustrated by Susan
Pickard’s chapter in this volume on media discourses around menopause and its
biomedical management.
A lifecourse approach reminds us that individuals’ ideas, aspirations, identities
and relationships shift over time. Similarly, as noted, taking an integrated and
comparative approach brings out the relational dimensions of RT. Again, this is
revealed by focusing on how RTs relate to people’s imaginaries and experiences of
the(ir) lifecourse. Many studies of RTs offer insights into the ideologies and
practices of the nuclear family, and particularly the pressures it brings in relation
to expectations of balancing professional and domestic duties and living up to
aspirations of ‘good’ parenting, but, as many chapters here show, reproduction is
often a multigenerational affair. Focusing on conception and clinical encounters
can obscure this, so we encourage studies of reproduction that look beyond the
walls of the clinic or even the intended parents’ home and consider what part their
broader network of kin and other supporters plays in their reproductive imagi-
naries and realities. Furthermore, many studies of ART in the Global North focus
on infertility related to later childbearing, but for many people around the world,
secondary infertility is a pressing problem.
The array of RTs available to women (in particular – see Wilson, this volume)
over their lifecourse creates endless decisions and scrutiny for those decisions –
covering the clinic, the home, work, intimate relationships and leisure activities.
Many RTs are associated together in clinical practice, both explicitly and
implicitly – for example, foetal screening is often tied up with an assumption of
abortion following a positive result (Gammeltoft & Wahlberg, 2014; Rapp, 1999).
With a wide, and expanding, array of RTs on offer and as (high-)technology has
become a normalised aspect of reproduction, it is important to understand how
different RTs relate to each other over a person’s life, for example how
egg-freezing is tied into contraceptive use, pregnancy testing and ARTs and seems
to both extend fertility as well as assume (future) infertility, as explored in Kylie
Baldwin’s 2019 monograph in this book series (see also van de Wiel, 2020).
Focusing on the lifecourse draws attention to the multiple and competing
temporalities that we work with at different points in our lives. As the chapters by
Nolwenn Bühler, Josie Hamper and Susan Pickard show, past experiences and
bodily knowledge form a template for a particular reproductive trajectory and
future (Adams, Murphy, & Clarke, 2009). We live at a point in history in which
the hegemonic expectation is that people, conceptualised as individuals who can
make free choices, should manage their time and optimise their lifecourse through
diligent planning, facilitated wherever necessary by technologies. Yet, the reality
of this expectation, even for those with relatively high economic, social and cul-
tural capital, is a sense of uncertainty, failure and inability to control time, or to
synchronise demands that are, in fact, inherently contradictory. Reproductive
labour is still highly feminised, so the greater burden remains on women. This is
encapsulated in Victoria Boydell’s chapter, in which her research participants
express a longing for – but also, over time, scepticism about – the pursuit of
balance, despite having access to a panoply of RTs. It is also laid bare, as Nicky
Hudson and Caroline Law’s chapter shows, by the experiences of women with
endometriosis and the disruptions and altered expectations that this condition
presents for both their well-being and fertility.
LGBTQ 1 people’s experiences of using RTs underline the importance of time
and temporality in reproduction, whether in the case of LGBTQ 1 people’s
engagement with contraception (Walks, 2007), their shifting imaginaries about
the thinkability of becoming parents with new legal and medical possibilities
(Pralat, 2018), or, as Petra Nordqvist has shown, the role of grandparents in
lesbian parents’ reproductive trajectories (2014). While Lee Edelman (2004) has
helpfully drawn attention to the heteronormativity of ‘reproductive futurism’,
many LGBTQ 1 people are finding ways to use RTs to meet their needs, even
when their rights are not recognised in law or reflected in clinicians’ expectations
of a typical patient, and, as Sonja Mackenzie discusses in her chapter, not
necessarily in ways that reproduce heteronormative assumptions about repro-
duction, kinship, gender and parenting (see also Smietana, Thompson, & Twine,
2018).
This collection is not representative of the full range of reproductive experi-
ences or positionalities, but it does draw attention to some under-studied aspects
of reproductive life and, by showcasing the advantages of comparative and lon-
gitudinal research, it aims to suggest ways forward for the study of reproductive
technologies which are steeped in the realities of reproductive injustice and
stratification. At the same time, we wish to acknowledge the role that researchers’
own positionalities play in the study of RTs, from topic selection to the recruit-
ment of research participants, as well as how these are buttressed by the priorities
of funders, peer reviewers, institutions of higher education, supervisors and col-

leagues. However, in pushing for a more integrated approach, we wish to draw
attention not only to differences and exclusions but also to overlaps and potential
solidarities.
Technologies of Reproduction across the Lifecourse originates in our experi-
ences of having a foot in reproductive studies and a foot elsewhere. We met whilst
doing our PhDs together in social anthropology at the London School of Eco-
nomics, bonded by our shared interest in anthropology ‘at home’ and the
anthropology of reproduction, which was something of a niche concern in our
department at that time. Victoria Boydell was then also working in global health,
and continues to do so, for organisations including IPPF, UN agencies and pri-
vate foundations alongside pursuing academic research at the Graduate Institute
in Geneva. Katharine Dow has largely remained in academia, and currently
works as deputy director of the Reproductive Sociology Research Group at the
University of Cambridge, but has also worked beyond academia including in the
UK parliament.
This book, our second edited collection (see Dow & Boydell, 2018), marks
roughly a decade from when we were awarded our PhDs. In that period, we have
had time to reflect on reproductive studies then and now, as well as what came
before and what might persist into the future. We have seen different RTs come
and go, as Vicky’s chapter in this book illustrates. We have had daughters of our
own and so our personal experiences of RTs have expanded, too. While we are
both cis white, middle-class British citizens and therefore, like Mary Shelley, hold
a considerable amount of personal privilege, we have always approached repro-
duction somewhat from the margins, always motivated by questions of power,
rights and justice, trying to effect what Donna Haraway has described as the
‘double vision’ of situated knowledge (1997). In particular, this book represents
an attempt to put intersectional feminist methodologies into practice, by using the
resources available to us to create a collaborative, interdisciplinary and
non-hierarchical space in which the participants might share their expertise on
equal terms. In this book, we have tried to provide examples from the margins as
well as from more familiar ground; though as noted below, we are aware that this
book is by no means representative of the reproductive pluriverse. In particular,
while the contributions at the original workshop from which this book emerges
covered a fairly broad geographical area, the chapters in this book represent a
more limited range of contexts, with a number of them focusing on the United
Kingdom. As noted, this book is an invitation for others to take up the integrated
approach to studying RTs and so we look forward to seeing more examples from
many other parts of the world. Importantly, it should be clear that we do not
focus only on the margins in order to provide interesting examples of how some
people do things differently, helpful though that might be in terms of represen-
tation, but also to ask critical questions of normative practices and ideologies (see
also Wilson, 2018). Within this, while we encouraged all of the contributors to be
in conversation with reproductive justice in preparing their chapters, we have also
tried to enable a range of views and political standpoints to emerge from the
chapters included here.
Methodological Reflections
In addition to inviting reflection on the lifecourse of reproductive studies, this
book represents a methodological intervention, inviting scholars of reproduction
to consider how their own precepts about reproduction and technology shape how
they go about researching RTs, including in their specific choice of research
methods, topics and participants. While this book presents qualitative data, there
is no reason why more studies should not combine quantitative and qualitative
data, and in fact doing so might not only add richness to scholars’ accounts but
also allow for greater interdisciplinarity and collaboration and afford greater
opportunities to engage with different publics, including policy-makers. Scholars
of reproduction are very good at integrating textual and visual analysis alongside
data that capture lived experience (see Hamper, Bühler, this volume). This is
something we strongly encourage, both for the better sense this gives of the
contexts in which research participants are operating and in acknowledging the
important role that public discourses play in our understandings and experiences
of RTs (see Pickard, Hamper, this volume; see also Dow, 2016).
Thinking about the different RTs that a person might encounter in a lifetime
suggests the value of longitudinal research. This is illustrated by Victoria Boy-
dell’s chapter in the volume, which shows how much we can learn by revisiting
research participants at different points in their lives. Such a method (which is
rarely facilitated by research funding schemes) goes against the tendency, noted
earlier, for biomedical approaches to focus on conception alone, as well as
allowing for participants to reflect and comment on their own experiences over
time, which seems an important way of allowing for them to provide their own
insights both on their experiences and the contexts that have shaped them. One
way to get at the relationality of reproduction is to collect data not only from
individuals but also from the significant figures in their lives. This can be done
through couple interviews, as exemplified by the chapters by Nolwenn Bühler and
by Nicky Hudson and Caroline Law, or by focusing on the children who are born
through RTs and their parents, as Sallie Han and Sonja Mackenzie do in their
chapters. Such studies also help to mitigate the over-representation of women in
reproductive studies. As Ben Kasstan’s chapter shows, though, it is not only close
relatives who have a part in reproductive decision-making and practices but also a
range of professionals who support or restrict access to certain forms of health-
care; including them in data collection can help us to understand the different
perspectives and rationales that guide their actions and which guide patients’
decisions.
It is still quite rare to see studies of two or more RTs together, or of people who
use one RT alongside those who reject or are excluded from using it. This can be
captured by longitudinal research methods and/or comparative approaches. The
chapters in the third section of the book exemplify the value of this. For example,
both Ryan Whitacre’s and Lucy van de Wiel’s chapters are unusual that they
compare two RTs that are not commonly thought of as related and in their
attention to the development of RTs. Their chapters should prompt readers to
pause and consider the implications these insights provide for how we tend to
think about and conduct research on RTs. What makes an RT fitting to be

studied and what drives our assumptions about how specific RTs may or may not
be related to one another (see also Wilson, this volume, for how gender biases
shape research and development). On a different topic, but with some similar
aims, Nayantara Sheoran Appleton’s chapter plays with the different uses of
hormonal contraceptives and their constituent ingredients. While some chapters
show how different RTs might be used to facilitate the same kinds of goals,
Appleton shows how what is essentially the same material – synthetic hormones –
can be employed to effect radically different ends. This shows that technologies
can be used in ways that were not anticipated by their developers or other users;
this example also provides opportunities for reflecting on the broader assumptions
that accrete around certain technologies, their users and their reasons for using
them.
Structure of the Book

This edited collection is structured to model what we consider to be some char-
acteristic features of an integrated approach, which requires working at different
scales. Reproductive technologies, like any other technology, can be studied
across both temporal and spatial axes. In relation to time, the book’s first section
considers how RTs relate to individuals’ lifecourses and the ways in which
different RTs do, and do not, come into play at certain points and in relation to
people’s particular experiences and relationships. We also recognise that specific
RTs themselves have specific and inter-linked histories, genealogies and biogra-
phies and this is the focus of the second section. The final section is comparative
and considers the complex interactions between different RTs, their users and
providers, offering new perspectives on what particular RTs have in common and
where they diverge, in terms of their usage, promotion and development and their
social, ethical and political meanings. Each section is prefaced by a short reflec-
tion on a persistent theme in reproductive studies – knowledge, choice and rela-
tionality – which allows us to draw out further insights from each of the chapters.
The fact that most of the chapters could easily belong in more than one section of
the book is a strength because it shows, for us, the integrated approach at work.
The first section explores RTs within a person’s biography and examines how
different technologies intersect across lifecourses, as well as how lifecourses are
structured through reproduction and the use, or refusal, of RTs. This section
focuses on both empirical and discursive accounts of how RTs relate to individuals’
lifecourses. Reproduction and time are perhaps most obviously linked through
ideas about timing, planning and decision-making. Early behavioural theories of
contraceptive practice suggest linear change from individual intention formation to
enacting a behaviour, yet increasingly research shows that contraceptive decisions
are regularly revised with new experiences and knowledge. Over time, the experi-
ence of using contraception accrues and decisions are not based on a distant future,
but rather more immediate concerns (Downey, Arteaga, Villasen, & Gomez, 2017).
The meanings and values associated with contraceptives not only accrue over time
but are also influenced by knowledge and experiences of other contraceptive

methods as well as other RTs, whether it be abortion, egg freezing or medicalised
childbirth. This is reflected in Rishita Nandagiri’s chapter in this volume, which
examines both sterilisation and abortion experiences within women’s reproductive
lifecourse in India and reminds us that, as she puts it, ‘Reproductive
decision-making – to have a child, to not have one, to parent – are a series of
connected events and experiences occurring over a woman’s lifecourse’ [p. 31].
When we look at RTs across the lifecourse, the intersections and interactions
between gender, reproduction and age become clear. Susan Pickard’s chapter
homes in on the gendered structure of temporality that generates time anxiety and
age-related scrutiny of women. The fact that certain RTs are associated with
particular age groups reflects assumptions about how age, gender and repro-
duction (should) intersect. This seems to be driven by some implicit Goldilocks
principle, where all the conditions are ‘just right’ for reproduction, which propels
the development and consumption of a range of technologies and interventions
that works so as not to reproduce ‘too young’ or ‘too old’ (see also Bülher, 2015;
van de Wiel, 2014). These questions of timing are given further poignancy when
we consider the effects of chronic conditions which seem to pit personal well-being
against reproductive hopes. In their chapter, Hudson and Law make the impor-
tant point that studies of RTs have not paid as much attention to experiences of
chronic conditions as they might have. Drawing on research with couples whose
reproductive trajectories are shaped by the lived experience of endometriosis, they
examine how the constant uncertainty which participants described as charac-
teristic of this condition led them to approach RTs with low or modest expec-
tations. This contrasts with the hope and, in some cases, hype, that has tended to
surround ARTs since the late 1970s (Dow, 2017; Franklin, 1997; see also van de
Wiel, this volume). It also adds a further layer to our understanding of how
expectation, timing and ‘choice’ intersect with technology, begging questions
about who RTs are serving – and whose needs they overlook.
Looking at the interactions between different RTs across the lifecourse helps to
surface several rich analytical seams. Hudson and Law’s chapter also points to the
emotional effects of (in)fertility and of using RTs, barriers to access to particular
forms of healthcare, and the ways in which people come to embody different
temporalities point to the relationship between physical health and mental health.
As Josie Hamper states in her chapter in the second section, ‘[t]he lived experience
of pre-empting events in an unknown future often entail emotional registers of
anxiety and apprehension’ [p. 197]. This resonates with analyses of the anxious
pursuit of balance (Boydell, this volume) and Sallie Han’s account in this volume
of the shock of learning about one’s problematic origins and potential new
relations through a technology that is supposed to be fun.
The second section of the book focuses on histories of RTs themselves, and on
understanding how they are shaped by the specific contexts and constraints within
which they are operating, which may go well beyond what is typically considered
to be the reproductive sphere. Several notable efforts have been made to docu-
ment the lifecourse of specific RTs and how historical norms shape the conditions
for today’s technologies and practices, including Nelly Oudshoorn’s (2003) study
of the male contraceptive pill. Accounting for historical contexts helps us to better
trace how prevailing social norms have come into play in product design and
evolution. We need to take into account the historical contexts in which the
technologies become developed and used, and the social and temporal situated-
ness of individuals and their encounters with them (see also Whitacre, this
volume).
Nayantara Sheoran Appleton’s chapter, an examination of oral contraception
in different social and temporal settings, reveals a long-standing relationship
between concerns about population growth and averting environment crisis which
reproduces colonial agendas and cements gender binaries (Ojeda, Sasser, &
Lunstrum, 2020). Oral contraception has been mobilised at different times to
serve different agendas: from economic development, ‘sexual revolution’ and
‘empowerment’, to preventing poverty, war and climate crisis (Bashford, 2014).
Appleton’s account reminds us that technologies are not static. Many authors
have charted the trajectory of RTs from experimental techniques at the frontier of
science to becoming part of the standard-of-care (see Wahlberg, 2016). Clarke,
Shim, Mamo, Fosket, and Fishman (2003) have described the same trend in
biomedicine more generally, in that innovations from earlier eras become the
invisible infrastructure of the next. RTs may well move from ‘novelty to norm’
(Leavitt, 2006), but earlier generations of RTs are no less engineered nor less
significant in people’s lived experiences (see also Ross, 2018; Sanabria, 2016). Han
(2013) reminds us that RTs like sonograms moved from being spectacular in the
1960s to the mundane and expected routine care by the end of the century –
through those less ‘spectacular’ routine engagements individuals themselves
actively invite and incorporate capital and surveillance into their lives: gov-
ernmentality at its most forceful (see also Gammeltoft, 2014).
Sallie Han’s account of the role of commercial genetic testing and the secret
children of Dr Donald Cline in this volume illustrates how engagements with RTs
extend beyond the moment of use into the past and into the future, describing
how RTs can create kinship in hindsight. Hindsight works in other ways: several
chapters describe how RTs help to re-write the past, whether it is historical data
(Hamper, this volume) or re-classifying past relationships (Bühler, this volume).
The temporality of RTs is more than just anticipatory; it can enable a reworking
of the past to match the present or in service of the future.
The widespread acceptance of the genetic testing industry provides a window
onto the commercial forces surrounding RTs. Many of the ‘new’ RTs covered in
these pages are products of crafty repackaging of existing technology by com-
mercial bioscience. Josie Hamper’s account of fertility tracking with smartphone
apps in heterosexual women’s lives after contraception and before fertility treat-
ment speaks to how fertility tracking intersects with other RTs. These personal
accounts illustrate how bodies intersect with extended temporal registers of the
lifecourse that encompass historical archives of bodily data captured on the app,
which are then used to calculate, predict and anticipate the future, tied to wider
discourses of rationality and individual responsibility. Hamper connects the
contemporary self-monitoring techniques of fertility apps with a longer
established tradition of fertility awareness in women’s health, while Pickard

points out how Ovarian Tissue Cryopreservation and Transplantation is a
commercially viable spin-off from fertility preserving treatment for women
undergoing cancer treatment (see also van de Wiel, this volume). By looking at
the histories of technologies, we capture how they are re-fitted through processes
of digitisation, financialisation and commercialisation, and in doing so create new
possibilities for bodies, time, technologies and reproductive health advice.
Sonja Mackenzie’s chapter takes a broader approach to RTs, considering how
borders and the regimes that govern them act as RTs. Drawing on autoethnog-
raphy and building on her previous conceptualisation of structural intimacies
(Mackenzie, 2013), Mackenzie deftly reveals how borders reinforce hetero-
normative, patriarchal and white supremacist ‘bloodlines’ which constrain who
counts as family, a parent, at home and/or as ‘legal’. Mackenzie’s experience at
several reproductive frontiers reveals the assumptions and expectations embedded
in states’ formulations of relatedness and citizenship, as well as the acute vul-
nerabilities of ‘alternative’ forms of kinship and reproduction when they butt up
against highly conservative immigration policies.
Victoria Boydell’s longitudinal research with women using a range of RTs over
a ten-year period draws out the many ways that women invoke ‘balance’ when
talking about the different RTs they have engaged with in their lives, and how this
has shifted over time. Regardless of the RT under discussion, the references to
balance always related to bridging the public and private parts of themselves,
which has become associated with contemporary feminist ideals in which women
are expected to want, work for and have ‘it all’. Similarly, in the final section of
the book, we look at examples that compare different RTs and different people’s
use of the same technology. Comparison brings to light perspectives that can be
excluded or drowned out by an analytical focus on the experience of using specific
technologies. Through comparative methodologies, we can see how different
technologies are working together, how different technologies facilitate the same
goals and illustrate that, with so many technologies at play, the desires and
aspirations they seem to enable are far from straightforward. Several of the
chapters in this section also build on the points raised in earlier sections about the
financial and cultural logics that shape how RTs are developed and marketed.
Ben Kasstan’s chapter compares data from two religious (and ethnic) minority
groups in the United Kingdom, analysing how specific RTs may be used by
particular individuals and communities to effect anticipated future reproductive
potential. This comparative approach allows Kasstan to show the limits of the
discourse of choice in reproduction, in its inattention to the relationality of
reproduction and the situated constraints in which individuals operate – which
may reflect both the specificities of particular moral, religious and cultural
expectations about reproduction and gender roles, but also the difficulties of
living within a minoritised group within the United Kingdom’s ‘hostile environ-
ment’. Of course, it is not only religious and ethnic minorities who live with
structural constraints and other chapters in the book show the different forms this
can take, even for those with relatively greater privilege or apparent autonomy.
Amanda Wilson’s chapter addresses an important, and telling, lacuna in

reproductive studies, which is the relative invisibility of men. Wilson shows how
this has played out in the development of RTs, most of which continue to be
aimed at and practiced on female bodies and even when, as noted, reproduction is
a relational process. For example, Wilson describes how the invention of the
electron microscope has transformed how sperm is perceived, both literally and
figuratively. More sophisticated visual technologies improve and complexify sci-
entific understandings of sperm and therefore conception and (in)fertility, but
these new visions can also counter the gendered understandings of reproductive
substances’ form, movement and functionality, with consequences for where
future clinical interventions are targeted.
Ryan Whitacre and Lucy van de Wiel both trace how certain ideas and norms
cut across RTs, whether in their development or in practice. Whitacre examines
the histories of biomedical technologies and shows how their development has
been infused with ideas and ideologies of intimacy. Ideas about women, men,
babies, drugs and diagnostics converge in clinical research and propel products
out onto global pharmaceutical markets. Lucy van de Wiel takes two apparently
unrelated or contradictory RTs, egg freezing and abortion, and considers how
their similarities and differences illuminate contemporary reproductive politics
and the workings of the highly lucrative fertility industry. Her analysis reveals
how regimes of accumulation, risk and control intersect in what she calls repro-
ductive and non-reproductive technologies, as well as how the use of online
platforms in the provision of egg freezing start-ups and abortion telemedicine are
re-spatialising reproductive decision-making and practices.
Note
1. The participation of Katharine Dow was also supported by a Returning Carers
grant from the University of Cambridge, which supports those returning to work
after a period of parental or caring leave to participate in events and projects that
might benefit their career – so, in its way, a form of reproductive technology.
References
Adams, V., Murphy, M., & Clarke, A. (2009). Anticipation: Technoscience, life,
affect, temporality. Subjectivity, 28, 246–265. doi:10.1057/sub.2009.18
Almeling, R. (2015). Reproduction. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 423–442.
Almeling, R. (2020). Gunecology: The missing science of men’s reproductive health.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Baldwin, K. (2019). Egg freezing, fertility and reproductive choice: Negotiating
responsibility, hope and modern motherhood. London: Emerald Studies in Repro-
duction, Culture and Society.
Bashford, A. (2014). Global population: History, geopolitics, and life on earth. New
York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Beaudevin, C., & Pordié, L. (2016). Diversion and globalization in biomedical tech-
nologies. Medical Anthropology, 35(1), 1–4. doi:10.1080/01459740.2015.1090436
Bennett, B. T. (1998). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: An introduction. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press.
Boydell, V., & Dow, K. (2021, July 19). Adjusting the analytical aperture: Proposi-
tions for an integrated approach to the social study of reproductive technologies.
BioSocieties. doi:10.1057/s41292-021-00240-w
Bülher, N. (2015). Imagining the future of motherhood: The medically assisted
extension of fertility and the production of genealogical continuity. Sociologus,
65(1), 79–100.
Clarke, A., Shim, J. K., Mamo, L., Fosket, J. R., & Fishman, J. R. (2003).
Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S.
Biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68(2), 161–194.
Colen, S. (1995). Stratified reproduction and West Indian childcare workers and
employers in New York. In F. Ginsburg & R. Rapp (Eds.), Conceiving the new
world order: The global politics of reproduction (pp. 78–102). Berkeley and Los
Angeles, CA: University of California Press.
Cuboniks, L. (2018). The Xenofeminist manifesto. A politics for alienation. London:
Verso Books.
Davis, D. (2019). Reproductive injustice: Racism, pregnancy, and premature birth. New
York, NY: New York University Press.
Dow, K. (2016). Making a good life: An ethnography of nature, ethics, and repro-
duction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Dow, K. (2017). ‘The men who made the breakthrough’: How the British press rep-
resented Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards in 1978. Reproductive BioMedicine
and Society Online, 4, 59–67.
Dow, K. (2018). “Now she’s just an ordinary baby”: The birth of IVF in the British
press. Sociology, 53(2), 314–329.
Dow, K., & Boydell, V. (Eds.). (2018). Nature and ethics across geographical,
rhetorical and human borders. London: Routledge.
Downey, M. M., Arteaga, S., Villasen, E., & Gomez, A. N. (2017). More than a
destination: Contraceptive decision making as a journey. Women’s Health Issues,
27(5), 539–545.
Edelman, L. (2004). No future: Queer theory and the death drive. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Faircloth, C., & Gurtin, Z. (2017). Fertile connections: Thinking across assisted
reproductive technologies and parenting culture studies. Sociology, 52(5), 983–1000.
Franklin, S. (1997). Embodied progress: A cultural account of assisted conception.
London: Routledge.
Franklin, S. (2013). Conception through the looking glass: The paradox of IVF.
Reproductive BioMedicine Online, 27, 747–755.
Franklin, S., & Roberts, C. (2006). Born and made: An ethnography of preimplantation
genetic diagnosis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Gammeltoft, T. M. (2014). Haunting images: A cultural account of selective repro-
duction in Vietnam. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Gammeltoft, T. M., & Wahlberg, A. (2014). Selective reproductive technologies.
Annual Review of Anthropology, 43, 201.
Han, S. (2013). Pregnancy in practice: Expectation and experience in the contemporary
United States. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_

On coMouse™: Feminism and technoscience. New York, NY and London:
Routledge.
Hardon, A., & Moyer, E. (2014). Medical technologies: Flows, frictions and new
socialities. Anthropology & Medicine, 21(2), 107–112. doi:10.1080/13648470.2014.
924300
Hartmann, B. (2016 [1995]). Reproductive rights and wrongs: The global politics of
population control. Chicago: Haymarket Books.
Inhorn, M. C. (2020). Reproducing men in the twenty-first century: Emergement
masculinities, subjectivities, biosocialities, and technologies. NORMA, 15(3–4),
299–305. doi:10.1080/18902138.2020.1831157
Leavitt, S. (2006). ‘A private little revolution’: The home pregnancy test in American
culture. Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 80(2), 317–345.
Lewis, S. (2019). Full surrogacy now: Feminism against family. London: Verso Books.
Lock, M., & Nguyen, V. K. (2018). An anthropology of biomedicine. New York, NY:
Wiley-Blackwell.
Mackenzie, S. (2013). Structural intimacies: Sexual stories in the black AIDS epidemic.
New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Marks, L. (2001). Sexual chemistry: A history of the contraceptive pill. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Murphy, M. (2017). The economization of life. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Nordqvist, P. (2014). Bringing kinship into being: Connectedness, donor conception
and lesbian parenthood. Sociology, 48(2), 263–278. doi:10.1177/0038038513477936
Ojeda, D., Sasser, J. S., & Lunstrum, E. (2020). Malthus’s specter and the anthro-
pocene. Gender, Place & Culture, 27(3), 316–332. doi:10.1080/0966369X.2018.
1553858
Oudshoorn, N. (2003). The male pill: A biography of a technology in the making.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Pralat, R. (2018). More natural does not equal more normal: Lesbian, gay and
bisexual people’s views about different pathways to parenthood. Journal of Family
Issues, 39(18), 4179–4203.
Rapp, R. (1999). Testing women, testing the fetus: The social impact of amniocentesis in
America. London: Routledge.
Roberts, D. E. (2017). Killing the black body: Race, reproduction and the meaning of
liberty. New York, NY: Vintage Books.
Ross, E. (2018). Provisionally pregnant: Uncertainty and interpretive work in
accounts of home pregnancy testing. Health, 22(1), 87–105.
Ross, L. J., & Solinger, R. (2017). Reproductive justice: An introduction. Oakland, CA:
University of California Press.
Rudrappa, S. (2015). Discounted life: The price of global surrogacy in India. New
York, NY: New York University.
Russel, A., Thompson, M., & Sobo, E. (2000). Contraception across cultures: Tech-
nologies, choices, constraints. London: Routledge.
Sanabria, E. (2016). Plastic bodies: Sex hormones and menstrual suppression in Brazil.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Sandelowski, M. (1993). With child in mind: Studies of the personal encounter with
infertility. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Sheoran, N. (2015). ‘Stratified contraception’: Emergency contraceptive pills and

women’s differential experiences in contemporary India. Medical Anthropology,
34(3), 243–258. doi:10.1080/01459740.2014.922081
Smietana, M., Thompson, C., & Twine, F. W. (2018). Making and breaking
families–reading queer reproductions, stratified reproduction and reproductive
justice together. Reproductive BioMedicine and Society Online, 7, 112–130.
Solinger, R. (2001). Beggars and choosers: How the politics of choice shapes adoption,
abortion, and welfare in the United States. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
Strathern, M. (1992). After nature. English kinship in the late twentieth century.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, C. (2005). Making parents: Reproductive technologies and their ontological
choreography. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Turney, J. (1998). Frankenstein’s footsteps: Science, genetics and popular culture.
London: Yale University Press.
van de Wiel, L. (2014). For whom the clock ticks: Reproductive ageing and egg
freezing in Dutch and British News Media. Studies in the Maternal, 6(1), 1–28. doi:
10.16995/sim.4
van de Wiel, L. (2020). Freezing fertility: Oocyte cryopreservation and the gender
politics of ageing. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Wahlberg, A. (2008). Reproductive medicine and the concept of quality. Clinical
Ethics, 3(4), 189–193.
Wahlberg, A. (2016). The birth and routinization of IVF in China. Reproductive
Biomedicine & Society Online, 2, 128–135.
Walks, M. (2007). Breaking the silence: Infertility, motherhood, and queer culture.
Journal of the Motherhood Initiative for Research and Community Involvement,
9(2). Retrieved from https://jarm.journals.yorku.ca/index.php/jarm/article/view/
13808
Watkins, E. (2012). How the pill became a lifestyle drug: The pharmaceutical industry
and birth control in the United States since 1960. American Journal of Public
Health, 102(8), 1462–1472. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300706
Wilson, K. J. (2018). Others’ milk: The potential of exceptional breastfeeding. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Reflection One: Knowledge
Abstract
Here we provide a short reflection on the persistent theme of knowledge in
reproductive studies which allows us to draw out further insights from each
of the chapters.
Keywords: Knowledge; biomedical knowledge; situated knowledge;

embodied knowledge; reproductive technologies; reproductive studies
Early studies of (assisted) reproductive technologies (RTs) in the 1990s were

driven by a quest to understand the complex thought processes that informed
women’s decisions to utilise these technologies. This reflected a fear amongst some
feminists and others at the time that infertile women were being ‘duped’ into, as it
were, putting all their eggs in the basket of assisted reproduction (Franklin, 2001).
In fact, exemplary studies of that time, such as Sarah Franklin’s Embodied
Progress, showed the sophisticated ‘ontological choreography’, to use Charis
Thompson’s slightly later term, that patients put to work in navigating these
technologies and their desire to become parents, but also that these technologies
are always also about knowledge. As Marilyn Strathern (1992) has argued, RTs
‘literalise’ deep-seated cultural precepts about reproduction, kinship, inheritance,
genetics, identity, individuality, diversity and much more – all of which are also
matters of knowledge.
Many types of knowledge interact in the production and use of RTs. The
chapters in this section draw on the research and scholarship on varied ideologies
and knowledge systems surrounding RTs. These knowledge systems provide an
explanatory account of why things happen and a set of knowledge practices
around how one can intervene in and shape reproductive processes, often using
some combination of ordinary and extraordinary RTs (Han, 2013). The examples
presented in these chapters, which are united by an attention to how different
reproductive technologies interact across individuals’ lifecourses, point to various
knowledge systems at play and the complex ways that they intersect and interact.
Technologies of Reproduction Across the Lifecourse, 21–26

Copyright © 2022 Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow
Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited
doi:10.1108/978-1-80071-733-620221002
22 Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow
Three knowledge systems feature throughout these chapters: biomedical, sit-

uated and embodied – and these differ in the degree of codification surrounding
them and how recognised or reified they are by the actors concerned. Biomedical
knowledge, the most codified and reified of the lot, understands reproduction in
terms of universalised biology and gives a scientific explanatory account of why
things happen the way they do and how to go about resolving them. Within this
biomedical frame, reproduction can be examined by means of standardised
techniques and procedures which offer technological methods for ‘repairing’
‘abnormal’ bodies (Fausto-Sterling, 2000; Haraway, 1988; Martin, 2001).
Drawing on presumed universal laws and corresponding statistical constructs,
ideas of what is normal in biomedicine are tied to ideas about how things ought to
be. Expected outcomes are rooted in ideologies of a pure and fixed nature and
biology, which obscure the underlying assumptions that reproduce what counts as
normal or natural (Dow & Boydell, 2018). This authoritative framework shapes
the orientations and embedded practices of scientists and clinicians so much so
that it is a culture unto itself (Hahn, 1996). Within this explanatory model,
biology and biological facts have a privileged role (Franklin, 2001).
Early, and still highly influential, scholarship in reproductive studies, such as
the work of Rapp (1999) and Thompson (2005), provides vivid examples of how
women actively engage with medical language and practice to achieve their ends,
however ambivalent those might be. The chapters in this section are filled with
accounts of people interacting and engaging with biomedical knowledge and
practice, as well as practising it themselves. Biomedical rationales and ideas are
constantly in play – particularly around ideas of age-related infertility and
menopause (see chapters by Pickard and Bühler) and around what we think are
the desired outcomes of biomedical interventions (see Kasstan in this volume).
Biological facts are so imbued with authority and legitimacy that any exceptions
to these facts lead to further technological interventions which (re)make bodies,
rather than serious consideration of the ‘facts’ themselves (see Hamper and Han
in this volume).
Many RTs are first ‘known’ through public discourse and not through personal
experience (see Pickard, Bühler, and Han this volume; Dow, 2016). RTs have
often been described as a ‘lens’ onto broader social currents and in her chapter in
Section 2, Sallie Han proposes that ‘a concept of spectacle might offer a corrective
lens to examine how most of the rest of us understand reproductive technologies –
that is, how our encounters with extraordinary reproduction from a distance
might shape and inform our expectations and experiences of ordinary reproduc-
tion in our everyday lives’ [p. 132]. In her chapter, Susan Pickard’s analysis of
media representations of menopause focuses on tensions between the positive and
negative perceptions of menopause that are expressed in response to the com-
mercial provision of ovarian freezing techniques (OTCT, or ovarian tissue cryo-
preservation and transplantation) in the United Kingdom. She traces how the
biomedicalisation of menopause and the ability to optimise the ageing female
body occlude positive experiences associated with menopause in the public sphere.
In media accounts, there are two contrasting positions: on the one hand, there are
the benefits for childless women of extending their childbearing years, on the other
Reflection One: Knowledge 23
hand, there is a contrasting narrative of how these technological advances devalue

women’s ageing and the post-reproductive life stage, making it difficult to see
menopause in anything other than unfavourable terms, exposing the normative
assumptions in biomedical discourse and cultural formations of age, lifecourse
and gender. This raises parallels with Emily Martin’s (2001) analysis of
biomedical accounts of the female body from the 1990s.
In this collection, Josie Hamper explores fertility tracking with smartphone
apps – which are used to both facilitate and prevent conception, much like
‘natural’ family planning methods – in heterosexual women’s experiences of
trying to conceive. Hamper provides a powerful account of the attempts of
women attempting to align their bodies with biomedical parameters through the
‘push’ function of the app. Transforming bodies into digital data makes them
more valuable than other types of data such as embodied knowledge, as this kind
of knowledge more easily translates into biomedical epistemology. Fertility
tracking in the present creates data that, over time, constitute a digital archive of
the body through which reproductive opportunities (i.e., ovulation) are calcu-
lated, predicted and anticipated. Data have thus become a reproductive substance
and a reproductive technology in their own right (see also van de Wiel, 2019).
Alongside biomedical knowledge, many of the chapters in this collection detail
how knowledge, experience and meanings about reproduction and RTs are
informed by local cultural understandings, social roles and moral values. Such
knowledge reflects the knower’s particular perspectives, which are often shaped
and conditioned by their social positioning. This knowledge is more dispersed,
and filters how biomedical knowledge is interpreted and evaluated through peo-
ple’s own lenses and experiences (Greenhalgh, Howick, & Maskrey, 2014; Martin,
2001; Rapp, 1999; Timmermans & Berg, 2010). In this collection, we have
examples of how this situated knowledge is reflected in how RTs are developed
(see van de Wiel and Whitacre), in their media representations (Han and Pickard),
and in our ideas about who uses RTs and for what purposes (Kasstan, Nandigiri
and Sheoran Appleton).
Capturing situated knowledge (Haraway, 1988) does more than reflecting the
knower’s perspective; it demonstrates the importance of how social positioning
conditions knowledge and thereby helps us to better attend to the power relations
surrounding the knowledge practices of RTs. Rishita Nandagiri’s chapter in this
section examines the intersections between sterilisation and abortion within
women’s reproductive lifecourse in India. Drawing on reproductive justice, she
reminds us that ‘Reproductive decision-making – to have a child, to not have one,
to parent – is a series of connected events and experiences occurring over a
woman’s lifecourse’ [p. 31]. Examining the links between abortion and steri-
lisation, which are often treated as separate in women’s lived experiences, surfaces
the pervasiveness of reproductive stigma and shame in limiting fertilities and how
this manifests across the reproductive lifecourse.
Nicky Hudson and Caroline Law’s poignant account of the interactions of
women with chronic endometriosis with different RTs in the United Kingdom
foregrounds how embodied knowledge tempers biomedical knowledge. Endo-
metriosis is a common enough condition, yet there has been little work that
24 Victoria Boydell and Katharine Dow
considers the impact this chronic illness has on reproductive decision-making and
the ways RTs (contraceptive and conceptive) intersect with the medical and
surgical management of endometriosis. Drawing on the experiences of hetero-
sexual couples in the United kingdom, Hudson and Law show how the uncertain
and indeterminate character of endometriosis results in low expectations about
RTs with more modest future orientations. Like Hudson and Law, several
authors point to the more fluid knowledge of lived experience. This is knowledge
grounded in bodily experience, including sensory information and tacit skills
learnt through observation, imitation and practice. This knowledge encompasses
the uncertainties, ambiguities and messiness of everyday life.
Nolwenn Bühler’s ethnographic study on the effects of anticipation on Swiss
couples’ experiences and negotiations of age-related infertility and assisted
reproductive technologies (ARTs) brings to the fore the anticipatory dimension of
RTs, in which decisions in the present project forward onto future reproductive
decisions (Adams, Murphy, & Clarke, 2009), and this future-oriented temporality
is reflected across the collection. By contrasting biomedical practitioners’
accounts against those of couples engaging with assisted reproduction, Bühler
illustrates how ideas about lifecourse spurred by age-related infertility and ARTs
are reduced to a biologically defined temporality that co-exists uneasily with a
multiplication of uncertain, complex and resistant biologies which are known
through bodily experience. In Bühler’s account, women describe a vague feeling
or presentiment that something was not quite right before undergoing IVF. Her
analysis speaks to the ‘turn to matter’ of new materialisms, away from a
post-structuralist focus upon texts, ‘systems of thought’ and ‘discourses’ (Thanem
& Knights, 2019).
These chapters point to how several knowledge systems and practices rub up
against each other as part of a process of making sense of our bodies and man-
aging the tensions between lived bodily experiences and cultural meanings that
may be ‘written on the body’. Charis Thompson’s (2005) concepts of ontological
choreography and strategic naturalising continue to be helpful in understanding
how different orders of knowledge not only co-exist but also can create new
practices, identities, institutions and ways to reproduce. Ultimately, the chapters
in this section, along with others in this volume, show that biomedical, situated
and embodied knowledges work in interaction, each providing ways to (mis)
understand the other – and one’s own reproductive experiences and lifecourse.
In recent years, (in)fertility activists have called for greater fertility education
and awareness as a means to counter an apparent lack of knowledge amongst
women and other minoritised genders about age-related fertility decline (Harper,
2021; Harper et al., 2017). While education and awareness-raising are always
valuable, they need to be accompanied by forms of consciousness-raising, which
help people understand that the ‘choices’ that are apparently available to them are
constrained in ways which reflect both intersecting inequalities and long-standing
systems of authoritative knowledge, which have done little to engage seriously
with the experiences of those who do not fit the white, able-bodied, heterosexual
male norm of biomedical models. Resources are poured into high-tech treatments
like egg-freezing not only because they can help a small number of (relatively
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
üdvözölte. Mások azonban nyiltan megtagadtak vele minden
közösséget. Az egyik tanár, Hübenett, ugyanaz, aki annak idején
Ronda fiáról és annak erkölcsi züllöttségéről az osztály előtt
becsmérlőleg nyilatkozott, »lelki rondaságról«, jobban mondva
»posványról« beszélt a fiuknak.
Mostanában, alig lépett Ronda az iskolába, az egész diákság
orditani kezdett, de már az ügyeletes tanár se bánta és undorodva
nézett félre:
– Hü, micsoda lelki rondaság büzlik itten!
Az öreg professzor közeledett, a lárma lassacskán – Ronda
dühös pillantásai alatt – elült; utána Kieselsack állotta utját,
végigmérte és lassan, nyomatékosan vetette oda:
– Jobban mondva, posvány!
Ronda megborzongott és tovább suhant; Kieselsackot nem tudta
megcsipni.
Nem tudta többé megcsipni, érezte, sohase tudja.
Ertzumot és Lohmannt nemkülönben. Ő és három diákja
kölcsönösen szemet hunytak. Rondának azt is türnie kellett, hogy
Lohmann egyáltalán nem vett részt a munkában és ha felszólitotta,
szinészi hangon azt válaszolta, hogy »dolgozik«. Ronda Ertzummal
szemben is védtelen volt, aki egy darabig keservesen piszmogott,
aztán a szomszédja kezéből egyszerüen kitépte a dolgozatot s leirta.
Azt is némán kellett néznie, hogy Kieselsack a diákok feleletébe
mindenféle butaságot gagyogott bele; hangosan beszélt, minden ok
nélkül járkált az osztályban s óra közben sokszor verekedett.
Ha Ronda néhanapján elragadtatta magát a megszoritott zsarnok
pánikjától s a lázadókat a dutyiba zárta, még cifrább dolgok
történtek. Az osztály durrogott és puffogott, mint mikor az üvegből
egy dugót huznak ki, éljenzett, kuncogott és cuppantott. Erre Ronda
lóhalálában az ajtóhoz sietett és megint beengedte Kieselsackot. A
másik kettő kéretlenül is besompolygott, fenyegető és fitymáló
arccal.
Pár pillanatig Ronda kétségtelenül sokat boszankodott. De mit
használt ez nekik? Végül mégis csak ők voltak a legyőzöttek, akik
nem kapták meg Rózát. Nem Lohmann ült a müvésznő
öltözőjében… Ronda, mihelyt az iskola kapujába ért, lerázta magáról
a rossz kedvét és gondolatait Róza szürke kabátkájára irányitotta,
melyet el kellett hoznia a tisztitóból, vagy a bonbonokra, melyekkel
meg akarta lepni őnagyságát.
A gimnázium igazgatója ellenben nem hunyhatott szemet a
hetedik osztály botrányos viselkedése előtt. Rondát lehivatta az
igazgatói irodába és feltárta neki azt az erkölcsi züllést, melybe a
hetedik osztály hanyatthomlok belérohan. Azt mondta, nem is akarja
firtatni, honnan származik ez a fertőző anyag. Ha fiatalabb tanárról
lenne szó, okvetlenül meginditaná a vizsgálatot. Minthogy azonban a
kedves kolléga becsületben őszült meg, egyrészt maga is tudhatja,
mi okozza ezeket az állapotokat, másrészt pedig nem szabad
megfeledkeznie, hogy az intézet kebelében magának kell jópéldával
előljárni, hogy a tanulók általa jobbak és nemesebbek legyenek.
Ronda felelt:
– Igazgató ur! Az atheni Perikles – igen ám, ugy bizony – egykor
Aspasiát szerette.
Az igazgató ugy látta, hogy ez nem tartozik ide. Ronda pedig
folytatta:
– Én az egész életemet – jól jegyezzük meg – hiábavalónak
tartanám, hogyha a klasszikus ideálokról csak ugy beszélnék, mint
holmi dajkamesékről. A humanista tudósnak meg kell vetnie a
csőcselék erkölcsi előitéleteit.
Az igazgató ámult-bámult, elbocsátotta Rondát, de a dolog
szeget ütött a fejébe. Végül elhatározta, hogy senkinek se szól róla,
nehogy a botrány az iskola falai közül kiszivárogjon s az intézeten és
a tanári kar becsületén foltot ejtsen.
Ronda a gazdasszonyát – aki megütközött azon, hogy a
szinésznő odajár – diadalmas nyugalommal kényszeritette a ház
elhagyására, szegény nő hiába berzenkedett. Uj gazdasszonyul a
»Kék Angyal« egy facér cselédjét fogadta fel. Olyan szutykos volt,
mint egy mosogatórongy és egymás után fogadta a szobájába a
mészároslegényt, a kéményseprőt, a gázost és az egész utcát.
Egy sárgaarcu szabónő, aki Róza őnagyságának dolgozott,
mindig hidegen és foghegyről beszélt Rondával. Egy napon, mikor
nagyobb összegről nyujtott át számlát Rondának, végre föltátotta a
száját. Hallgassa csak meg a tanár ur, mit mondanak az emberek.
Nem röstelli? Ilyen korban – és egyáltalában. Ronda az aprópénzt
szó nélkül a bugyellárisába dugta és cihelődött. A félig nyitott ajtón
benevetett és kiméletesen mondta:
– Látom, jó asszony, hogy a szavait, valamint azt a pillanatot,
mikor szavait kiejtette, megbánta s attól fél, hogy ez a tulontul nyilt
fellépés, anyagi hátrányokat von maga után. Ezzel szemben
kijelenthetem, hogy önnek semmi oka a félelemre. A jövőben sem
pártolunk el öntől.
És elment.
Végül egy reggelen, midőn Ronda »Homeros igekötőiről« szóló
munkájának egyik hátulsó lapjára levelet irt Róza kisasszonynak,
kopogtak; fekete, ráncos ferencjózsefben és cilinderben belépett
Rindfleisch, a varga. Csakugy benézett ide s kezét a pocakjára téve,
elfogódottan mondta:
– Jó reggelt, tanár ur, csak arra szeretném kérni a tekintetes
tanár urat, engedje meg, hogy néhány kérdéssel fordulhassak
önhöz.
– Csak bátran! – mondta Ronda.
– Sokáig gondolkodtam rajta és most mégse megy könnyen. De
hát Isten nevében.
– Csak bátran, kezdje.
– Mert hát hogy ilyen csufságot hallok a tanár urról. Kigyót-békát
kiált az egész város a tekintetes tanár urra, ezt biztosan tetszik már
tudni. De az igazi keresztény ember nem hiszi el. Nem. De nem ám.
– Egyik fülemen be – mondta Ronda, hogy véget vessen a
vitának – és a másikon ki.
A varga zavartan forgatta a cilinderét és a földre nézett.
– Ugy a. Csakhogy az volt a rendölés, hogy én gyüjjek ide
figyelmeztetni a tekintetes tanár urat, hogy az Isten nem akarja.
– Mit nem akar? – kérdezte Ronda és lenézően mosolygott. –
Talán Frölich szinmüvésznő őnagyságát?
A varga a küldetése sulya alatt lihegett. Hosszu lötyögő arcai
mozogtak hegyes szakálla keretében.
– Már mondtam egyszer magának; tanár ur, – és itt a hangja
elsötétedett a titokzatosságtól – az Isten csak azért engedi azt…
– Hogy több angyala legyen a mennyországban. Jó, jó. Majd
meglátjuk, mit tehetünk.
Még mindig somolygott és az istenes vargát egyszerüen
kituszkolta az ajtón.
Ilyen biztosan és nagystilüen élt Ronda egy darabig, – egyszer
azonban szörnyü események történtek.
Egy mezei csősz följelentést tett, hogy Hühnengrabban az
ültetvényeket gonosz tettesek letiporták. Azon a vasárnapon, amikor
ez a gaztett történt, a csősz egy csomó fiatalemberrel találkozott az
országuton. Miután az állami ügyészség ebben az ügyben hosszabb
ideig hiába nyomozott, egy reggel megjelent maga a csősz az
igazgató oldalán a gimnázium előcsarnokában. A fiuk éppen
imádkoztak a diszteremben, az igazgató egy fejezetet olvasott fel a
bibliából, azután zsoltárt énekeltek és ezalatt a paraszt csősz az
igazgatói pódiumról mustrálta a gyülekezetet. Izgett-mozgott és a
kezefejével zavartan törülgette a homlokát. Végül lejött a pódiumról
és az igazgató vezetése mellett végigment a tanulók sorfalai között.
A csősz ugy viselkedett, mint az az ember, aki nagyon finom
társaságba kerül, senkit se látott és meghajolt Ertzum előtt, aki a
lábára lépett.
Mikor már minden remény meghiusult, hogy a gonosztevőt az
intézet kebelében megtalálják, az igazgató még egy utolsó kisérletet
tett. Még egy fejezetet olvasott fel a bibliából, azután annak a
meggyőződésének adott kifejezést, hogy ez legalább egy tanulónak
a lelkéhez szólt és bünbánatra lágyitotta, felébresztette a
lelkiismeretét és reméli, hogy az a tanuló lejön az igazgatói irodába,
hogy a büntársát feljelentse és az igazságszolgáltatásnak átadja. Ez
a tanuló, töredelmes vallomása jutalmaképpen, nemcsak hogy
büntetésben nem fog részesülni, hanem még pénzjutalmat is kap…
Ezzel vége volt az eljárásnak.
Három nappal később Ronda Titus-Livius-órát tartott a
hetedikben, de ez az elvetemült osztály lármázott és mással
foglalkozott s erre Ronda felpattant a dobogóról és orditani kezdett:
– Lohmann, ne olvasson a pad alatt, különben is majd
gondoskodom arról, hogy hamarosan kiszabaduljon az iskola
kötelékéből. Maga pedig, Kieselsack, folyton fütyürész itten. És
maga, Ertzum is – igen ám, ugy bizony – hovatovább majd otthon
komiszkodhatik. Ezt a három elvetemült fickót még azzal sem
akarom megtisztelni, hogy a dutyiba zárjam, mert még erre se
méltók, de igenis, mindent el fogok követni, hogy kitegyem innen a
szürüket s a maguk helyére kerüljenek, a közönséges tolvajok és
betörők közé. A tisztességes emberek társadalma kilöki önöket
magából, már nem sokáig rontják itt a levegőt.
Lohmann fölkelt és a homlokát ráncolva magyarázatot kért; de
Ronda siri hangja annyira telitve volt az önmagát emésztő
gyülölettel, az arca oly szörnyü fényben ragyogott a diadaltól, hogy
mindnyájan ugy érezték, vereséget szenvedtek. Lohmann
sajnálkozó vállvonással leült.
A következő tiz percben Lohmannt Kieselsackkal és Ertzummal
együtt az igazgató lehivatta magához. Mikor visszajöttek, tetetett
fitymálással jelentették ki, hogy a hühnengrabi esetről vallatták őket.
De a fiuk elhuzódtak tőlük. Kieselsack sugdolózott:
– Ki adhatott fel bennünket?
A másik kettő boszusan nézett a szemébe és hátat forditott neki.
Egy délelőtt, amikor is mind a hárman szabadságot kaptak,
rendőri bizottság kiséretében Hühnengrabba mentek és ott a tett
szinhelyére vezették őket. Itt aztán felismerte őket a csősz. A
nyomozás miatt több napig fel voltak mentve az előadások
látogatásától. Végül a járásbiróság tárgyalótermébe kerültek mint
vádlottak. A tanuk padján Ronda kuporgott epés, vitriolos mosollyal.
A teremben ott ült Breetpoot konzul és Lohmann konzul is és az
állami ügyész kénytelen volt meghajlással üdvözölni ezt a két
befolyásos urat. A főügyész törte a kezét, hogy Lohmann és a
barátja ostobául már régebben nem jelentkeztek. Akkor a
vádhatóság nem nyult volna a végső eszközökhöz. Azt hitték, hogy
csak olyan közönséges fickókról van szó, mint Kieselsack.
Az elnök megnyitotta a tárgyalást s megkérdezte a három
vádlottat, bünösnek érzik-e magukat? Kieselsack nyomban tagadott.
Pedig az igazgatójának is vallott s az előzetes vizsgálat alatt mindent
beismert. Az igazgató előlépett és tüzetesen ismertette az ügyet.
Meghiteltették.
– Az igazgató ur hazudott – szólt Kieselsack.
– De hisz az igazgató ur megesküdött rá.
– Ojjé, – mondta Kieselsack – akkor hazudott csak igazán.
Minden hidat elégetett maga mögött. Hisz ugyis kifelé állt a rudja.
Ezenfelül még csalódott is az emberekben való hitében, mert
ahelyett, hogy megkapta volna az igért jutalmat, a törvényszék elé
állitották.
Lohmann és Ertzum beismerték a tettüket.
– Nem én voltam – mekegett közben Kieselsack.
– Mi voltunk! – vallott Lohmann, akinek ez a cinkosság fölöttébb
kellemetlennek tetszett.
– Bocsánat – jegyezte meg Ertzum – én magam voltam.
– Kérem szépen, – szólt Lohmann s arca fáradt szigoruságot
tükrözött – határozottan ki kell jelentenem, hogy én is részes vagyok
e nyilvános köztulajdonnak – vagy minek – a megrongálásában.
Ertzum ismételte:
– Én rongáltam meg. Ez az igazság.
– Drágám, ne beszéljen itt össze-vissza – kérte Lohmann.
Ertzum replikázott:
– Ugyan-ugyan. Hisz nem is voltál ott. Azalatt együtt ültél…
– Kivel? – kérdezte az elnök.
– Senkivel – dadogta Ertzum és fülig elvörösödött.
– Valószinüleg Kieselsackkal – jegyezte meg Lohmann.
Az alügyész az ügyet szőrmentében akarta elintézni, ugy hogy a
vádat több emberre tolja s ezzel kevesebb essék Lohmann konzul
fiának és Breetpoot konzul gyámfiának a rovására. Figyelmeztette
Ertzumot, milyen nehezen hihető el állitólagos tette.
– A legerősebb ember se képes erre, hihetetlen, hogy ön maga
meg tudta tenni.
– Pedig ugy van – szólt Ertzum gőgösen és határozottan.
Az elnök felszólitotta őt és Lohmannt, nevezzék meg a többi
tettest is.
– Bizonyára egy lumpoló társaság járt ott – segitette őket az
elnök jóakaratuan. – Mondják meg, ki még a bünös, ezzel nagy
szolgálatot tesznek nekünk.
A vádlottak konokul hallgattak. A védelem itt hangsulyozta, hogy
ez a vádlottak nemes lelkéről tanuskodik. A két fiatal ember már az
előzetes vizsgálat alkalmával megállta a sarat, senki mást se akart
kompromittálni.
Kieselsack is megállta a sarat. De őt nem emlitették. Ő különben
is csak tartogatta az ütőkártyáját.
– Senki más nem volt ott? – ismételte az elnök.
– Senki – mondta Ertzum.
– Senki – mondta Lohmann.
– De igen – kiáltott Kieselsack, a jó diák éles hangján, aki
mindent tud. – Frölich szinésznő is ott volt.
Mindenki hallgatott s erre folytatta:
– Tulajdonképpen az ő kedvéért tettük tönkre a Hühnengrabot.
– Hazudik – mondta Ertzum a fogát csikorditva.
– Minden szava hazugság – egészitette ki Lohmann.
– Ez a szinigazság! – esküdözött Kieselsack. – Tessék
megkérdezni a tanár urat! Ő tudja legjobban.
A tanuk padja felé vigyorgott.
– Nem igaz tanár ur, hogy azon a vasárnap megszökött magától
Frölich szinésznő? Velünk reggelizett Hühnengrabban.
Mindenki Rondára nézett, aki zavartan feszengett, az állkapcsai
csattogtak.
– Az illető hölgy is önökkel volt? – kérdezte az egyik biró az
emberi kiváncsiság hangján a két vádlottat. A vádlottak vállat vontak.
De Ronda majdnem elfulladva sziszegte:
– A vesztébe rohan, nyomorult! Most, – igen ám, ugy bizony –
vége van.
– Ki az a hölgy? – kérdezte az alügyész a forma végett. Mert
minden jelenlevő tudott róla és Rondáról.
– Gonda tanár ur felvilágositással szolgálhat róla – szólt az elnök.
Ronda azt mondta, hogy Frölich kisasszony szinmüvésznő. Erre
az ügyész a szóbanforgó hölgy rögtöni megidéztetését
inditványozta, mert ki kell puhatolni, hogy vajjon a kérdéses deliktum
értelmi szerzője-e s egyáltalán mennyiben felelős érte. A biróság
ekképpen határozott s a szolgát nyomban utnak inditották.
Közben a fiatal ügyész, aki Lohmannt és Ertzumot védeni
próbálta, hallgatagon vizsgálta Ronda lelkiállapotát. Arra az
eredményre jutott, hogy most kell kibeszéltetni; s azt inditványozta,
hallgassák ki Gonda tanárt diákjainak, a három vádlottnak, általános
lelki és erkölcsi állapotára vonatkozóan. A biróság elfogadta az
inditványt. Az alügyész, aki attól félt, hogy kedvezőtlenül nyilatkozik
Breetpoot konzul gyámfiáról, valamint Lohmann konzul fiáról, hiába
próbálta ezt megakadályozni.
Mikor Ronda a korláthoz lépett, kacagtak.
Ronda szörnyen fel volt izgatva, pokoli düh torzitotta el arcát,
verejtékezett.
– Teljesen ki van zárva, – kezdte – hogy Frölich szinmüvésznő
részes legyen akár ebben az elvetemült gaztettben, akár pedig az
ocsmány kirándulásban.
Először maga mosakodott. Aztán még egyszer erősködött. Az
elnök ujra megszakitotta: mondja el véleményét három diákjáról.
Erre Ronda egyszerre orditani kezdett, karját felemelte, a hangja
vinnyogott, mintha falhoz szoritották volna és nem tudna szabadulni.
– Ezek a fiuk az emberiség szemetjei! Csak rájuk kell tekinteni:
ilyen a fegyházak söpredéke! Kezdettől fogva olyanok voltak már,
hogy nemcsak berzenkedtek a tanári fönhatóság ellen, de
tiltakoztak, lázadást prédikáltak ellene. Az agitációjuk már az egész
osztályt megmételyezte. Mindent elkövettek, forradalmi
összeesküvéseket rendeztek, csaltak, mindenféle ocsmány és
ordináré lázadást szitottak, mig végre idejutottak – jól jegyezzük
meg! – az utolsó állomásra. Rég megmondtam, hogy ide kerülnek…
És mint egy ördöngős a boszu sikolyával, fordult Frölich Róza
három lovagja felé:
– Nézzen a szemembe, Lohmann.
Mind a hármat leleplezte a biróság és a közönség előtt. Beszélt
Lohmann szerelmes verséről, arról, hogy Ertzum hogyan csuszott le
éjjel Thelander pap erkélyéről, arról, hogy Kieselsack mily
szemtelenül viselkedett egy a diákoknak tilos helyiségben. Kiköpte
azt is, hogy Ertzum nagybátyja is elhasalt, szólt a városi
arisztokrácia költekezéséről és egy züllött révhivatalnok
iszákosságáról, aki Kieselsack atyja volt.
A biróságot kellemetlenül érintette ez a rotyogó és fanatikusan
bugyborékoló harag. Az alügyész udvariasan és bocsánatkérően
Lohmann és Breetpoot konzul felé pillogatott. A fiatal védő gunyosan
és elégedetten vette tudomásul a teremben uralkodó közhangulatot.
Ronda ujjongott és toporzékolt.
Végül értésére adta az elnök, hogy a biróság ezek után teljesen
tisztában van, milyen viszony uralkodik a tanár és a tanulóifjuság
közt. Ronda fujt a dühtől, nem látott és nem hallott.
– Vajjon meddig fertőzik még ezek a sötét exisztenciák a levegőt,
meddig viseli még büneik mázsaterhét a türelmes föld? Még azt
merik mondani, hogy Frölich szinmüvésznő is részt vett parázna
orgiájukban. Valóban, még csak ez hiányzott, hogy Frölich
szinmüvésznő szüzi becsületébe is beletiporjanak!
Ezeket a szavakat olyan viharos derültség követte, hogy Ronda
majdnem összeesett. Mert a saját állitásaiban is kötve hitt. Tudván
tudta, hogy Frölich szinmüvésznő azon a vasárnap eltünt szeme elől
és Hühnengrabba ment. Még mást is tudott. Csak egy röpke
tekintetet vetett az eddig nem méltányolt körülményekre s majd hogy
elalélt. Róza sohase akart kirándulni vele. Mi miatt hozakodott elő
mindég ürügyekkel, hogy egyedül maradjon otthon?… Lohmann
miatt?…
Ujra Lohmannra ripakodott s odakiáltotta, hogy az arisztokrácia
már dögrováson van! De az elnök felszólitotta Rondát, menjen a
helyére és meghagyta, hogy vezessék elő az uj tanut, Frölich
kisasszonyt.
Mikor megjelent, moraj fogadta; az elnök a terem kiüritésével
fenyegetőzött. A hallgatóság lecsillapodott, mert a nő mindenkinek
tetszett. Szürke kosztümruhát viselt, rokonszenvesen elegáns volt,
egyszerüen fésülködött, középnagyságu kalapot tett a fejére, pár
strucctollal és csak diszkréten pirositotta ki magát.
Egy kis leány azt mondta a mamájának, hogy juj de szép néni.
Elfogulatlanul lépett a birák elé; az elnök könnyedén meghajolt
előtte. Az alügyész inditványára nem hiteltették meg, anélkül
hallgatták ki s a tanu rögtön beleegyező mosollyal jelentette ki, hogy
ott volt azon a kiránduláson. Kieselsack védője végre kirukkolt:
– Itt meg kell jegyeznem, hogy a három vádlott közül egyedül az
én védencem mondta meg az igazságot.
De senki se törődött Kieselsackkal.
Az alügyész ugy vélekedett, hogy itt a felbujtás ténye forog fenn
és a büntény, amelyet eddig a két fiatalember puszta galantériából
vállalt, teljes erővel a tanut, Frölich kisasszonyt terheli, aki az egész
bünténynek okozója és értelmi szerzője. Kieselsack védője
felhasználta ezt az alkalmat, hogy védencének – elismeri –
antipátikus fellépését teljesen megmagyarázza az a körülmény, hogy
fiatalember létére a tanu társadalmi osztályához tartozó romlott
nőkkel állott érintkezésben, akik csak a korrupciót terjesztik.
– Hogy mit csináltak Hühnengrabban, – mondta Róza félvállról –
azt nem tudom s nem is törődöm vele. Csak azt tudom – s ezt csak
azért mondom meg, mert az előbb ügyvéd ur korrupcióról beszélt –
hogy az emlitett vasárnap délután az egyik fiatal ur annak rendje és
módja szerint megkérte a kezemet s nagy sajnálatomra ki kellett őt
kosaraznom.
A hallgatóság nevetett és hitetlenül rázta a fejét. Róza vállat vont,
de nem nézett a vádlottakra. Ertzum vérvörösen mondta:
– A tanu igazat mondott.
– Köztem és a három diák közt – tette hozzá Róza – mindig uri
tónus uralkodott s az egész érintkezés puszta pajtáskodás volt.
Ezt a kijelentést Rondának szánta s egy gyors oldalpillantással
kereste őt.
– Ezzel ugyebár a tanu – szólt az alügyész – azt akarja állitani,
hogy az erkölcsi törvények határait semmiképpen se hágták át?
– Nono – mondta a nő s elhatározta, hogy öreg Rondájának
kerülőuton, a biróság utján orrára köti az igazságot. A sok
hókuszpókuszt már unalmasnak találta, – nono, – folytatta ezt éppen
nem mondhatnám. Hébe-hóba.
– Mit ért a tanu ezen, hogy hébe-hóba.
– Ezt az urat – szólt a nő és Kieselsackra mutatott, aki a terem
feszült figyelése közben az orrára bandsitott. Egyre
ellenszenvesebbé vált: most a szerencséje által is. Később
megpróbált tiltakozni ellene:
– Hazugság.
De az elnök elfordult tőle. Az elnök, mint mindenki, izgatott,
szabad, féktelen hangulatban volt. Lohmann, akit Rózának a
leleplezése, a barátja kikosaraztatását illetően, kellemetlenül érintett,
felhasználta az alkalmat, hogy könnyed és világfias hangon ezt
mondja:
– Ennek a hölgynek meg van a maga izlése. Kieselsackot
boldogitotta, de ezt csak most tudtam meg. Azt azonban régen és jól
tudom, hogy kivüle kit boldogit még őnagysága… Grófné azonban
az istennek se akar lenni. És nekem, aki soha tudni se akartam róla,
állandóan erősitgeti, hogy soha, de sohase kapom meg őt.
– Ugy bizony – mondta Róza s azt remélte, hogy Ronda ezt hallja
és megnyugszik. Mindnyájan nevettek. Az elnök hevesen rázkódott
a nevetéstől, egyik biró trombitálva fujta az orrát s a hasát fogta. A
vád képviselője kajánul összehuzta az ajkát, a védő szkeptikusan
viszolygott. Ertzum odasugta Lohmannak:
– Még Kieselsack-kal is, – hogy ezt is meg kellett tudnom. De
most végeztem vele.
– Hála Isten… Különben kinn vagyunk a vizből. Csak Ronda adja
meg az árát.
– De – sugta gyorsan Ertzum – ne beszélj közbe, hogyha
magamra veszem az egészet. Nekem ugyis ki kell maradnom, a
sajtóhoz kell fordulnom.
Ekkor az elnök kissé megnyugodva, immár atyai hangon
kilátásba helyezte a terem kiüritését. Aztán kijelentette, hogy a tanu
kihallgatása véget ért, mehet. Róza azonban a hallgatóság közé
vegyült. Nem tudta megérteni, hová tünhetett Ronda.
Ronda a viharos derültség elől lóhalálában futott el. Ugy ment,
mintha remegő gáton, fellegeken, parázsos vulkánon járna. Minden
széttört körülötte, szakadékokba rántotta őt: – mert már Frölich Róza
is »mással« foglalkozott! Lohmann és a többiek, akiket
legyőzötteknek és megsemmisülteknek tartott, nyomban feltüntek a
semmiből, mihelyt levette róluk a szemét. Róza nem átallotta
odaadni magát nekik. Kieselsackot bevallotta, Lohmannt még
tagadta. De Ronda már nem hitt neki. És roppant elcsodálkozott
ezen: Róza megbizhatatlannak mutatkozott. Máig, eddig a pillanatig
a lelki lelke volt, egy darab ő belőle; és egyszerre elszakitotta magát
tőle; Ronda látta, hogy vérzik a szakadás helye és nem értette a
dolgot. Minthogy sohase érintkezett emberekkel, eddig még nem
árulták el. Most ugy szenvedett, mint egy gyerek, mint a diákja,
Ertzum, akit a szinésznő megcsalt. Gyámoltalanul szenvedett,
otrombán és csodálkozva.
Hazament. A cselédje alig szólalt meg, Ronda felhördült és
kidobta őt az utcára. Aztán a szobájába ment, bezárta az ajtót, a
kerevetre feküdt és nyöszörgött. Elfogta a szemérem, felkelt,
elővette Homérosz igekötőiről szóló kéziratát. Megint rákönyökölt az
iróasztalára, amely jobb vállát – harminc éven át – fölfelé ránditotta.
De a kézirat hátulsó lapjain sorok voltak, amelyek a szinésznőre
vonatkoztak, néhol csak kis jegyzetek és célzások. Lapok is
hiányoztak: ezeket szórakozottságból elküldte hozzá. Látta, hogy a
munkakedvét egészen alárendelte neki, az akaratát már régóta csak
reá irányitotta és az élete minden célja összeesett vele. Mikor ezt
fölfedezte, visszavánszorgott a kerevet sarkába.
Öregeste volt már és a sötétségben megjelent előtte egy kacér,
szeszélyes, szines arc; és szorongva nézett föl rá. Mert észrevette,
hogy ez az arc minden, minden gyanunak tápot ad. Róza mindenki
lánya. Ronda tenyerét a vértől elöntött szegény arcára tapasztotta.
Kései érzékisége, – az az érzékiség, amely aszott testét lassu,
földalatti kisértésekkel, elrugaszkodott vágyakkal ölte, amely
hatalmasan és természetellenesen lobbadozott, amely az életét
megváltoztatta, a szellemét végletekre kapatta – most képekkel
gyötörte őt. Látta a nőt kék-angyalbéli szobájában, a vetkőző
gesztusait, a régi édes gesztusokat és csiklandó tekintetét. Most ez
a tekintet és ez a gesztus nem Rondának szólt, hanem másnak, –
Lohmannak.
… Ronda végignézte a jelenetet, egészen végignézte, a nő
táncolt és annál szilajabban táncolt, minél jobban zokogott Ronda a
kerevet sarkában.
XI.
Elment még az iskolába, az államfentartó szokás utolsó

maradékával, bár jól tudta, hogy kifelé áll a rudja. A tanárok ugy
határoztak, hogy most kivételesen csak körösztülnéznek rajta. A
tanári szobában mindenki ujságok mögé bujt, elment az asztaltól,
sarokba pökött, mikor Ronda leült gyakorlatot javitani. Az osztályban
mindhárman hiányoztak, Lohmann is, Ertzum is, Kieselsack is. A
többieket megvetette Ronda, nem is törődött velük. Néha sziszegve
félnapi karcerre itélte egyiket-másikat. Később azonban elfelejtette
utasitani a pedellust, hogy az itéletet végrehajtsa.
Künn az utcán csak ment, anélkül, hogy valakit látott volna, nem
hallotta sem a szitkot, sem a dicséretet, azt se vette észre, hogyha a
kocsisok visszatartották a lovaikat és az idegeneket figyelmessé
tették Rondára, mint a város nevezetességére. Amerre csak járt-kelt,
a pöréről beszéltek. A közvélemény szemében Ronda volt a vádlott
és a törvényszék előtt való fellépése szánalmat és haragot keltett.
Öregebb urak, legelső tanitványai, akiknek Ronda egy édes, az
időtől megaranyozott fiatalkori emlék volt, e pör hallatára
meghökkentek és rázták a fejüket.
– Ej, mi lett az öreg Rondából. Már ez mégse szép tőle.
– Tanárnak nem szabad igy viselkednie. Ez akarja nevelni a
fiatalságot? Hogy kikelt a kereskedők és a legelőkelőbb családok
ellen. És kérem, a törvényszék előtt.
– Vén szamár létére összeadja magát egy affélével és mindenki
tud róla. De már nyakán a hurok. A város intelligenciája tárgyalni
fogja az esetet és Breetpoot-tól tudom, hogy az iskolából is kiteszik a
szürit. Aztán elmehet a komédiásnéval zabot hegyezni.
– Már finum egy perszóna.
– A’ már igaz.
És az urak összenevettek, szemük bogarán kis szikra villódzott.
– De hogy állhatott össze ilyennel.
– Hja, mindig mondtam. Méltó a nevére: ronda volt, Ronda
marad.
Mások Ronda fiát emlegették, aki egyszer valami ledér
nőszeméllyel kódorgott a sétatéren. Mondogatták, hogy nem esik
messze az alma a fájától és Hübbenet tanár ur szavait idézgették,
aki az apa erkölcsi összeroppanását már eleve megjósolta. Szerinte
már azelőtt is volt Rondában sok embergyülölő, sunyi és gyanus
vonás s véleménye szerint csöppet sem csodálatos, hogy a
törvényszék előtt kikelt a város arisztokráciája ellen.
– Ezt a vén dögöt régen agyon kellett volna verni – mondta
Ronda közvetlen közelében az üzlete ajtajába támaszkodva Mayer,
a trafikos, aki Gonda tanár ur számláit mindig egy áthuzott R-rel
kezdte.
A »Café Central« bérlője reggel, mikor Ronda elosont a kávéház
előtt, igy szólt a söprögető pincérhez:
– Söpörjék ki ezt a ronda piszkot.
Voltak azonban elégedetlen polgárok, akik Ronda emancipációját
örömmel üdvözölték, fegyvertársul akarták megszerezni a mai
társadalmi rend ellen való küzdelmükre, gyülést hivtak össze,
köszönetet szavaztak neki, hogy oly bátran fellépett a város
kiváltságos heréivel szemben és neki magának is beszélnie kellett
volna. Mindenfelé éltették őt és számosan felkiáltottak:
– Az ilyen ember előtt le a kalappal.
Ronda nem is felelt az irott meghivókra. Küldöttségeiket zárt ajtó
fogadta. Csak ült egy helyben és gyülölettel, vágyódással és
haraggal Frölich szinmüvésznőre gondolt s arra, hogyan
kényszerithetné őt arra, hogy minél előbb szedje a sátorfáját s
menjen tovább a truppjával. Eszébe jutott, hogy ezt komoly találkáin
szigoruan megtiltotta neki. Bárcsak ne engedelmeskedett volna.
Most a nő garázdálkodott, bajt kevert és Ronda féktelen és maró
boszuvágyában lihegve kivánta, hogy Frölich Róza egy sötét
dutyiban végezze az életét.
Ronda egész nap óvatosan kerülte az utcákat, amelyeken
találkozni szokott vele. Csak éjjel osont abba a városrészbe, későn,
mikor a korcsmák elfüggönyözött ablakai mögött nem rémlettek a
tanárfejek árnyékrajzai. Akkor Ronda sunyin, ellenségesen, fanyar
vággyal hosszu sétát tett a hotel körül.
Egy alkalommal a homályból valaki kilépett és köszönt: Lohmann
volt. Ronda először visszatorpant és levegő után kapkodott. Aztán
szétterjesztette kezeit és mindkettővel Lohmann után kapott, aki
udvariasan kisiklott. Mikor magához tért, fujni kezdett, mint a veszett
macska:
– Még a szemem elé mer kerülni, maga elvetemült fráter! Itt kell
megfognom, Frölich szinmüvésznő lakása előtt! Már megint mással
foglalkozik.
– Biztositom, – mondta Lohmann szeliden – hogy téved a tanár
ur. Alaposan téved.
– Mi mást kereshet itt, maga léhütő!
– Sajnálom, de erről nem nyilatkozhatom. Csak azt mondhatom,
hogy ehhez önnek, tanár ur, semmi, de semmi köze.
– Összetiprom! – hördült fel Ronda és a szeme parázslott, mint a
mérges macskáé. – Vigyázzon, mert különben kirugatom az
iskolából…
– Ha ez örömet okoz önnek, tessék – mondta Lohmann, de már
nem akart csufolódni vele, inkább szánta őt és tovább ment, Ronda
fenyegetéseitől üldöztetve.
Egyáltalán nem akarta már bántani Rondát. Ma, mikor az egész
világ ellene kelt, szégyennek tartotta volna. Részvétet érzett az öreg
iránt, aki arról beszélt, hogy kicsapatja, hiszen Ronda elcsapatása
már el volt határozva; – részvétellel és holmi visszatartott
rokonszenvvel szemlélte e magányos világgyülölőt, aki
meggondolatlanul harcba keveredett mindenkivel; sajnálta az
érdekes anarchistát, aki most gubozódott ki…
Az, hogy Lohmannt örökösen Rózával gyanusitotta, szánalmas
és megható volt, egyben pedig tragikus és irónikus, hogy nem látta
az igazi okot, ami ide vezette. Lohmann a Kaiserstrasséből jött.
Breetpoot Dóra asszony ma este szülte meg a gyermekét. És
Lohmann névtelen gyöngédsége halkan a gyermekágya fölé hajolt.
Szive, gyümölcstelen és alázatosan duzzadó tüze arra vágyakozott,
hogy a kis remegő csecsemőt fölmelegitse, aki talán Knust ügyészé,
talán Gierschke hadnagy, talán Breetpoot konzul gyermeke…
Lohmann ma éjjel elment Breetpooték háza előtt és a zárt kaput
megcsókolta.
Pár nap mulva aztán elintéződtek a lebegő sorsok. Lohmann,
akinek az egész nem volt fontos, az iskolában maradhatott addig,
mig Angliába nem megy; rokonai sokkal befolyásosabbak voltak,
semhogy gondolni mertek volna az eltávolitására. Kieselsackot nem
a hühnengrabi eset miatt csapták ki; inkább azért, mert a
törvényszék előtt illetlenül viselkedett; legfőképpen pedig azért, mert
ő is, a szinésznő is beismerte, hogy viszonyuk volt, ami egy
hetedikeshez semmiképp se illik. Ertzum önként ment és egy
ujságnak kiszolgáltatta az eset adatait. Rondát pedig elcsapták.
Megengedték még neki, hogy őszig tanithasson. A tanitást
azonban az igazgató engedelmével rögtön beszüntette. Rondát egy
tétlen délutánján, mikor mint rendesen a kerevet sarkában
gubbasztott, meglátogatta Quittjens, a pap. A pap végignézte, hogy
zuhant bele, egyre mélyebben, a bünbe és a romlásba. Most, mikor
a földre ért, azon a véleményen volt, hogy a keresztényi szeretet
nevében valamit tenni is kell.
Szivarszónál elérzékenyedett Ronda szomoru sorsán, a
magányán és azon, hogy éppen a legelőkelőbbek üldözik. Ezt
senkise állja, ezen segiteni kell. Ha még lenne szegénynek valami
foglalkozása. Az elcsapatása betetőzte a szerencsétlenségét, most
már egészen átadta magát keserü gondolatainak… Nem, még nincs
minden veszve. A pap azt igérte, hogy valahogy befogadják az
előkelőbb körökbe, egy politikai egyesületbe, vagy egy
kuglizótársaságba. Csak ezen a módon remélhető, hogy Ronda
Isten és ember előtt megbánja eltévelyedését s jó utra tér, másként –
a papnak csak ez fájt – örökre eljátssza a lelke üdvösségét.
Ronda erre a füle botját se mozgatta. Ha már elvesztette Rózát,
semmi értelmét se látta annak, hogy cserébe bevegyék egy
kuglizótársaságba.
Erre a pap magasabb szempontokra hivatkozott. A diákokra
mutatott, akiket egy a nevelésükre hivatott közeg már az ifjuságnak
hajnalán megmételyezett. Ki nemcsak a hetedikeseket, a többieket
is megmételyezte; és nemcsak a gimnázium összes növendékeit, de
azokat is, akik a gimnázium falán kivül vannak, az összes volt
tanitványait, – szóval az egész várost. Ezek – és itt a pap hagyta,
hadd aludjon ki a szivarja – mind kételkedni fognak ifjukori
tanárjukba s a hitük is megrendül. Vajjon Ronda a lelkére vesz-e ily
sulyos vádakat? Kieselsack is szerencsétlenné vált és Ronda jól
tudja, ennek a diáknak a sorsa az ő lelkét is nyomja. Ez azonban
nem az egyedüli kár, amit egy ilyen hittől és erkölcstől
elrugaszkodottt ember okoz…
Ronda makacskodott. Kieselsack kicsapatásáról csak most
értesült; és fellobbant benne az öröm, hogy mindezt neki köszönheti.
Hogy rossz példával járt elől, hogy a romlást terjeszti a városban,
erre nem is gondolt. Itt uj perspektivák nyiltak a boszura s most is a
boszu ösztökélte. Piros foltok gyulladtak az arcán s magába
elmélyedve, lélegzet nélkül ráncigálta az arcán tenyésző gyér
szőrszálakat.
A pap félreértette őt s azt mondta, tudta, hogy Ronda szivére
veszi a dolgot. Be kell látnia, hogy hibás, különösen akkor, ha
számbavesszük, milyen teremtés miatt tette ki magát és másokat a
legkellemetlenebb zaklatásoknak.
Ronda megkérdezte a paptól, vajjon Frölich szinmüvésznőről
beszél-e.
Természetesen. A nyilvános tárgyaláson tett vallomása után csak
kinyilhatott már a szeme. A szerelem vak, – és itt a pap ujra
meggyujtotta a szivarját – ezt be kell ismernünk. Csak emlékezzék
vissza Ronda az egyetemi éveire, arra, amit Berlinben tapasztalt. Az
ember nincs fából, huhu, tudja, hányadán van az ilyen nőstényekkel.
Bizony nem érdemesek arra, hogy az ember értük kockára tegye a
saját és a mások exisztenciáját. Csak gondoljon Berlinre…
A pap boldogan mosolygott s már majdnem neki melegedett.
Ronda egyre nyugtalanabb lett, aztán hirtelenül félbeszakitotta. Csak
nem Frölich szinmüvésznőre céloz? A pap csodálkozott és bólintott.
Erre Ronda felpattant a kerevetről, fujt s tompán és fenyegetően
rikácsolt, mig a szájában habzó nyál a papra fröccsent.
– Ön megsértette Frölich Róza szinmüvésznőt. Ez a hölgy az én
védelmem alatt áll. Hagyja el, – egy-kettő! – hagyja el ezt a házat!
A pap a székével együtt visszahőkölt. Ronda ajtóhoz sietett és
kinyitotta. Mikor aztán a haragtól remegve még egyszer rátámadt, a
pap a székével együtt finom ivben kiröpült az ajtón. Ronda bezárta
az ajtót.
Még sokáig lihegett a szobában. Annyi bizonyos, hogy röviddel
ezelőtt maga is átkozta Frölich Rózát, ő is elitélte. De amihez
Rondának joga van, ahhoz még nincs joga a papnak. Róza mindenki
fölött áll, – egyedül és szüzen lebeg az egész emberiség fölött. Jó
volt, hogy igy Ronda megint tudatára ébredt a dolognak. Róza a
magánügye volt! Rajta ütöttek sebet, mikor Rózát bemocskolták! A
félelemtől felbizgatott zsarnoki dühe torkonragadta és meg kelett
támaszkodnia: mint akkor, mikor a közönség a nőjét a Kék
Angyalban kinevette. Kinevette a nőt, akit ő sajátkezüleg festett!
Fitymálták a müvészetét, amit némiképp ő maga öntött formába!
Azok a dolgok, amiket a nő Hühnengrabban müvelt, – igen ám, ugy

Full Ebook of Technologies of Reproduction Across The Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive Studies 1St Edition Victoria Boydell Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Full Ebook of Technologies of Reproduction Across The Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive Studies 1St Edition Victoria Boydell Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Full Ebook of Technologies of Reproduction Across The Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive Studies 1St Edition Victoria Boydell Online PDF All Chapter

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Technologies of Reproduction Across

the Lifecourse Expanding Reproductive

Atlas of Assisted Reproductive Technologies Surveen

Biotechnologies Applied to Animal Reproduction Current

Racial Capitalism Cultural Studies and Marxism

Mammalian Sexuality The Act of Mating and the Evolution

Handbook of Genetic Diagnostic Technologies in

Reproduction and Development in Crustacea Reproduction

The Unforgettables: Expanding the History of American

Assisted Reproduction Techniques Khaldoun Sharif

Series Editors: Petra Nordqvist, Manchester University, UK and Nicky Hudson, De

Published Titles in This Series

United Kingdom – North America – Japan – India – Malaysia – China

First edition 2022

Reprints and permissions service

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

ISBN: 978-1-80071-734-3 (Print)

List of Tables and Figures xi

About the Contributors xiii

Chapter 1 Introduction: Technologies of Reproduction

Reﬂection One: Knowledge 21

Section One: Reproductive Technologies Across the

Chapter 2 ‘I Feel Like Some Kind of Namoona’: Examining

Chapter 3 When Time Becomes Biological: Experiences of Age-

Chapter 4 Delaying Menopause, Buying Time? Positioning Ovarian

Chapter 5 Chronic Uncertainty and Modest Expectations:

Reﬂection Two: Choice 101

Section Two: Lifecourses of Reproductive Technologies

Chapter 6 Contraceptive Futures? The Hormonal Body,

Chapter 7 Spectacular Reproduction Revealed: Genetic

Chapter 8 Getting the Timing Right: Fertility Apps and the

Chapter 9 Bio-Genetics and/at the Border: The Structural

Chapter 10 A Balancing Act: Situating Reproductive

Reﬂection Three: Relationality 203

Section Three: Reading Across Reproductive Technologies

Chapter 11 ‘Well, She’s Entitled to Her Choice’: Negotiating

Chapter 12 Men as Irrational Variables in Family Planning?

Chapter 13 Inclusion, Exclusion, Anticipation: How the Politics of

Chapter 14 Integrating Reproductive and Nonreproductive

Table 1. MOHFW’s Financial Incentives for Private

Professor Rene Almeling is Professor of Sociology at Yale University, where she

Unisanté) and a project on chemical exposure in agriculture (FBM-UNIL (IHM).

Dr Ryan Whitacre is a Postdoctoral Research Fellow in the Global Health Centre

Boydell and Dow’s integrative framework takes up this approach to repro-

We are fortunate to be part of this collective and collaborative effort to examine,

Introduction: Technologies of Reproduction

Keywords: Reproductive technologies; lifecourse; reproductive justice;

Technologies of Reproduction Across the Lifecourse, 1–19

Reproductive Justice and Technologies of Reproduction

Reproduction and the Lifecourse

of funders, peer reviewers, institutions of higher education, supervisors and col-

think about and conduct research on RTs. What makes an RT ﬁtting to be

Structure of the Book

but are also inﬂuenced by knowledge and experiences of other contraceptive

established tradition of fertility awareness in women’s health, while Pickard

Amanda Wilson’s chapter addresses an important, and telling, lacuna in

Bennett, B. T. (1998). Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley: An introduction. Baltimore, MD:

Haraway, D. J. (1997). Modest Witness@Second_Millennium. FemaleMan©_Meets_