Biomedicalizing kinship: Sperm banks and the creation of affinity-ties

Science as Culture

Volumn 14, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 237-264

  Mamo, Laura ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION; CLASSIFICATION; COMMODIFICATION; CONFIDENTIALITY; CULTURAL FACTOR; DECISION MAKING; DONOR; DONOR SELECTION; ECONOMICS; EMPIRICAL APPROACH; FAMILY; FAMILY SIZE; FEMALE; FEMINISM; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION; HEALTH CARE FACILITY; HEREDITY; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; LESBIAN; MALE; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SPERMATOZOON; UNITED STATES;

EMPIRICAL APPROACH; GENETICS AND REPRODUCTION;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COMMODIFICATION; CONFIDENTIALITY; CULTURAL CHARACTERISTICS; DONOR SELECTION; FAMILY; FEMALE; FEMINISM; HEREDITY; HOMOSEXUALITY, FEMALE; HUMANS; INSEMINATION, ARTIFICIAL, HETEROLOGOUS; INTERVIEWS; MALE; REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS; SAN FRANCISCO; SINGLE PERSON; SPERM BANKS; SPERMATOZOA; TISSUE DONORS; WOMEN;

EID: 33644899120     PISSN: 09505431     EISSN: 14701189     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/09505430500216833     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Agigian, A., 2004. Baby Steps:How Lesbian Alternative Insemination is Changing the World, Middletown, CT:Wesleyan University Press.
2. Akrich, M., 1995. “ User representations:practices, methods and sociology ”. In Managing Technology in Society:The Approach of Constructive Technology Assessment, Edited by:Rip, A., Misa, T. J., and Schot, J., 167–184. New York:Pinter/St. Martin's Press.
3. Becker, G., 2000. The Elusive Embryo:How Men and Women Approach New Reproductive Technologies, Berkeley:University of California Press.
4. Bernstein, M., and Reimann, R., 2001. Queer Families, Queer Politics:Challenging Culture and the State, Edited by:Bernstein, M., and Reimann, R., New York:Columbia University Press.
5. Bourdieu, P., 1979. Distinction:A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
6. Britt, E. C., 1998. Infertility as a medical problem:recasting feminist accounts of nature, science, and the law. Science as Culture, 7:265–280.
7. Bunge, R., and Sherman, J., 1954. Frozen human semen. Fertility and Sterility, 5:193–194.
8. Carsten, J., 2000. Cultures of Relatedness:New Approaches to the Study of Kinship, Edited by:Carsten, J., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
9. Carsten, J., 2004. After Kinship, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10. Casper, M. J., 1998. The Making of the Unborn Patient:A Social Anatomy of Fetal Surgery, New Brunswick, London, NJ:Rutgers University Press.
11. Casper, M. J., and Koenig, B., 1996. Reconfiguring nature and culture:intersections of medical anthropology and technoscience studies. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 10:523–536.
12. Charmaz, K., and Olesen, V., 1997. Ethnographic research in medical sociology:its foci and distinctive contributions. Sociological Methods and Research, 25:452–494.
13. Clarke, A. E., 1995. “ Modernity, postmodernity & reproductive processes ca. 1890–1990 or, ‘Mommy, where do cyborgs come from anyway?’ ”. In The Cyborg Handbook, Edited by:Gray, C. H., 139–156. New York:Routledge.
14. Clarke, A. E., and Fujimura, J. H., 1992. The Right Tools for the Job:At Work in Twentieth Century Life Sciences, Princeton:Princeton University Press.
15. Clarke, A. E., Shim, J., Mamo, L., Fosket, J. R., and Fishman, J. R., 2003. Biomedicalization:theorizing technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and US biomedicine. American Sociological Review, 68:161–194.
16. Cockburn, C., and Furst-Dilic, R., 1994. Bringing Technology Home:Gender and Technology in a Changing Europe, Philadelphia:Open University Press.
17. Collins, P. H., 1999. “ Will the real mother please stand up ”. In Revisioning Women, Health and Healing:Feminist, Cultural, and Technoscience Perspectives, Edited by:Clarke, A. E., and Olesen, V., 266–282. New York:Routledge.
18. Cowan, R. S., 1987. “ The consumption junction:a proposal for research strategies in the sociology of technology ”. In The Social Construction of Technological Systems:New Directions in the Sociology of History and Technology, Edited by:Bijker, W. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J., 261–280. Cambridge:The MIT Press.
19. Cussins, C., 1996. Ontological choreography—agency through objectification in infertility clinics. Social Studies of Science, 26:575–610.
20. Cussins, C. M., 1998. “ ‘Quit sniveling cryo-baby. We'll work out which one's your mama!’ ”. In Cyborg Babies:From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots, Edited by:Davis-Floyd, R., and Dumit, J., 40–66. New York and London:Routledge.
21. Dornin, R., 1998. Vol. 1998, Available at Cnn.com
22. Edwards, J., 2000. Born and Bred:Idioms of Kinship and New Reproductive Technologies in England, Oxford:Oxford University Press.
23. Ehrenreich, B., and Ehrenreich, J., 1971. The American Health Empire:Power, Profits, and Politics [a Health-Pac Book], New York:Vintage.
24. Franklin, S., 1995. Science as culture, cultures of science. Annual Review of Anthropology, 24:163–184.
25. Gibbon, S., 2002. Re-examining geneticization:family trees in breast cancer genetics. Science as Culture, 11:429–457.
26. Giddens, A., 1979. Central Problems in Social Theory, California:University of California Press.
27. Glaser, B. G., and Strauss, A., 1967. The Discovery of Grounded Theory, New York:Aldine de Gruyter.
28. Gray, C. H., Figueroa-Sarriera, H. J., and Mentor, S., 1995. The Cyborg Handbook, Edited by:Gray, C. H., Figueroa-Sarriera, H. J., and Mentor, S., New York:Routledge.
29. Gupta, A., and Ferguson, J., 1997. Anthropological Locations:Boundaries and Grounds of a Field Science, Berkeley:University of California Press.
30. Hanson, F., 2001. Donor insemination:eugenic and feminist implications. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 15:287–311.
31. Haraway, D., 1988. Situated knowledges:the science question in feminism and the privilege of the partial perspective. Feminist Studies, 14:575–600.
32. Haraway, D. J., 1985. Manifesto for cyborgs:science, technology, and socialist feminism in the 1980s. Socialist Review, 80:65–108.
33. Haraway, D. J., 1991. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women:The Reinvention of Nature, New York:Routledge.
34. Haraway, D. J., 1992. “ The promises of monsters:a regenerative politics for inappropriate/d others ”. In Cultural Studies, Edited by:Nelson, C., Treichler, P., and Grossberg, L., 295–337. New York:Routledge.
35. Haraway, D. J., 1997. Modest_Witness@ Second_Millennium.FemaleMan©_Meets_Onco Mouse:Feminism and Technoscience, New York:Routledge.
36. Hartouni, V., 1997. Cultural Conceptions:On Reproductive Technologies and the Remaking of Life, Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.
37. Hartouni, V., 1999. “ A study in reproductive technologies ”. In Revisioning Women, Health, and Healing, Edited by:Clarke, A. E., and Olesen, V. L., 254–265. New York and London:Routledge.
38. Hayden, C. P., 1995. Gender, genetics, and generation:reformulating biology in lesbian kinship. Cultural Anthropology, 10:41–63.
39. Hayles, K. N., 1999. How We Became Posthuman:Virtual Bodies in Cybernetics, Literature, and Informatics, Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
40. Herman, H. A., 1981. Improving Cattle by the Millions:NAAB and the Development and Worldwide Application of Artificial Insemination, Columbia and London:University of Missouri Press.
41. Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., 1996. Misunderstanding Science:The Public Reconstruction of Science and Technology, Edited by:Irwin, A., and Wynne, B., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
42. Jacob, M. C. K., and S C Maier, D., 1999. Lesbian couples as therapeutic donor insemination recipients:do they differ from other patients?. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 20:203–215.
43. Kaufert, P., 2000. Health policy and the new genetics. Social Science and Medicine, 51:821–829.
44. Latour, B., 2004. Politics of Nature:How to Bring the Sciences into Democracy, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
45. Lewin, E., 1993. Lesbian Mothers:Accounts of Gender in American Culture, Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
46. Lippman, A., 1992. Led (astray) by genetic maps:the cartography of the human genome and health care. Social Science and Medicine, 35:1469–1476.
47. Lock, M., and Kaufert, P. A., 1998. Pragmatic Women and Body Politics, Edited by:Lock, M., and Kaufert, P. A., New York:Cambridge University Press.
48. Lock, M., Young, A., and Cambrosio, A., 2000. Living and Working with the New Medical Technologies:Intersections of Inquiry, Edited by:Lock, M., Young, A., and Cambrosio, A., Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
49. Minow, M., 1998. “ Redefining families:who's in and who's out ”. In Families in the US:Kinship and Domestic Politics, Edited by:Hansen, K. V., and Garey, A. I., 7–19. Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
50. Modell, J. S., 1994. Kinship with Strangers:Adoption and Interpretations of Kinship in American Culture, Berkeley:University of California Press.
51. Moore, L. J., 1997. ‘It's like you use pots and pans to cook, it's the tool’:the technologies of safer sex. Science, Technology and Human Values, 22:343–471.
52. Moore, L. J., and Clarke, A. E., 2001. The traffic in cyberanatomies:sex/gender/sexuality in local and global formations. Body & Society, 7:57–96.
53. Murphy, J. S., 2001. “ Should lesbians count as infertile couples? Antilesbian discrimination in assisted reproduction ”. In Queer Families, Queer Politics:Challenging Culture and the State, Edited by:Bernstein, M., and Reimann, R., 182–200. New York:Columbia University Press.
54. Nelkin, D., and Lindee, S., 1995. The DNA Mystique:Genes as Cultural Icon, New York:WH Freeman and Company.
55. Oudshoorn, N., 2003. The Male Pill:Biography of a Technology in the Making, Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
56. Parkes, A. S., 1910. Marshall's Physiology of Reproduction, Edited by:Parkes, A. S., London:Longmans, Green.
57. Peterson, A., and Bunton, R., 2002. The New Genetics and the Public's Health, New York:Routledge.
58. Rapp, R., 1999. Testing Women, Testing the Fetus:The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America, New York:Routledge.
59. Reimann, R., 2001. “ Lesbian mothers at work ”. In Queer Families, Queer Politics:Challenging Culture and the State, Edited by:Bernstein, M., and Reimann, R., 254–271. New York:Columbia University Press.
60. Relman, A. S., 1980. The medical–industrial complex. New England Journal of Medicine, 303:963–970.
61. Rubin, G., 1975. “ The traffic in women ”. In Towards an Anthropology of Women, Edited by:Reiter, R. R., 157–210. New York:Monthly Review.
62. Scheib, J. E. R., Shaver, M., and Phillip, R., 2000. Choosing between anonymous and identity-release sperm donors:recipient and donor characteristics. Assisted Reproduction, 9:1–9.
63. Schmidt, M., and Moore, L. J., 1998. “ Constructing a ‘good catch’, picking a winner:the development of technosemen and the deconstruction of the monolithic male ”. In Cyborg Babies:From Techno-Sex to Techno-Tots, Edited by:Davis-Floyd, R., and Dumit, J., 21–39. New York and London:Routledge.
64. Schwartz, A. E., 1994. “ Taking the nature out of mother ”. In Representations of Motherhood, Edited by:Bassin, D., Honey, M., and Kaplan, M. M., 240Berkeley:University of California Press.
65. Scritchfield, S. A., 1989. “ The infertility enterprise:IVF and the technological construction of reproductive impairments ”. In Research in the Sociology of Health Care:A Research Annual, Edited by:Wertz, D. D., Vol. 8, 61–97. Greenwich:JAI Press.
66. Sherman, J. K., 1954. Freezing and freeze-drying of human spermatozoa. Fertility and Sterility, 5:357–371.
67. Sherman, J. K., 1979. “ Historical synopsis of human semen preservation ”. In Human Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation, Edited by:David, G., and Price, W., Paris:International Symposium on Artificial Insemination and Semen Preservation.
68. Strathern, M., 1992. Reproducing the Future:Essays on Anthropology, Kinship, and the New Reproductive Technologies, New York:Routledge.
69. Strathern, M., 1995. “ Displacing knowledge:technology and the consequences for kinship ”. In Conceiving the New World Order:The Global Politics of Reproduction, Edited by:Ginsburg, F. D., and Rapp, R., 346–364. Berkeley:University of California Press.
70. Strauss, A., 1987. Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists, Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
71. Strauss, A., and Corbin, J., 1990. Basics of Qualitative Research, Newbury Park, CA:Sage.
72. Sullivan, M., 2001. “ Alma mater:family ‘outings’ and the making of the modern other mother (MOM) ”. In Queer Families, Queer Politics:Challenging Culture and the State, Edited by:Bernstein, M., and Reimann, R., 231–253. New York:Columbia University Press.
73. Thompson, C., 2001. “ Strategic naturalization:kinship in an infertility clinic ”. In Relative Values:Reconfiguring Kinship Studies, Edited by:Franklin, S., and MacKinnon, S., 175–202. Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
74. Timmermans, S., 1999. Sudden Death and the Myth of CPR, Philadelphia:Temple University Press.
75. Timmermans, S., and Leiter, V., 2000. The redemption of Thalidomide:standardizing the risk of birth defects. Social Studies of Science, 30 (1):41–71.
76. Tober, D. M., 2001. Semen as gift, semen as goods:reproductive workers and the market in altruism. Body & Society, 7:137–160.
77. Traweek, S., 1988. Beantimes and Lifetimes:The World of High Energy Physicists, Cambridge:Harvard University Press.
78. Weston, K., 1991. Families We Choose:Lesbians, Gays, Kinship, New York:Columbia University Press.