Received: from localhost (gimenez@localhost) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.8.5/8.8.4/CNS-4.1p-nh) with SMTP id JAA28510; Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:04:43 -0600 (MDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 09:04:40 -0600 (MDT) From: Martha Gimenez To: Francis Bartlett cc: PROGRESSIVE POPULATION NETWORK Subject: Re: Fwd: RE: A different approach In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Fri, 12 Jun 1998, Francis Bartlett wrote: > >Martha: > > > >This morning's news included an item concerning the successful attempt of > >a gay couple, by two men, to have a baby girl, to say the least a bizarre > >event in the light of human history. This was accomplished by fertilizing > >a donated egg by one of the men and through the powers of a surrogate > >mother who carried the egg to full term successfully. > > > >The point of this exercise in my view is another example of mankind's > >inability to recognize his willing contribution to increasing the numbers > >of people on this earth willy nilly against all natural constraints. This I would say, instead, that this instance illustrates a) the strength of pronatalist ideologies in this society b) that these ideologies affect men and women whatever their sexual preference or orientation might be (lesbian couples also want children) c) that changes in the forces of reproduction (to use Marx's concept that sees technology embedded always in social relations) produce changes in the relations of reproduction and a separation between relations of procreation and social relations of reproduction. those of you interested in the theoretical analysis of these issues can retrieve my article "The Mode of Reproduction in Transition: A Marxist-Feminist Analysis of the Effects of Reproductive Technologies." published in GENDER & SOCIETY (Fall, 1991). > >is done without any thought about the finite character of earth and the > >limitless ability of man to procreate. In no other realm of the natural > >world can any specie in the whole kingdom live under the same conditions > >and man seems unwilling to recognize any responsibility for keeping his > >own actions within those same limits with his "intelligence". It seems > >that here in America the "leader" of the world with all the capabilities > >we have developed this is one area where we have been completely remiss > >and set an unworthy example for everyone.. Sociel science views about ourselves and the social world in which we live take time to become diffused in the consciousness of the average person so that most individual's motives do not include awareness of the social consequences of behavior. Furthermore, reproduction is bound up so tightly with identity and self-worth (this is why pronatalism is so difficult to challenge) and so many people lead lives of alienated labor and "quiet desperation" within which childbearing is perhaps the major source of self-realization and happiness that as long as these conditions prevail, pronatalism will continue to prevail also. > > > >Any serious effort to stem the rising tide of humanity can hardly prevail > >if a society like this in America can support the thwarting of natural > >constraints on procreation and in addition do little that is effective in > >establishing a rationally based "taboo, of olden times, against large > >families" across the breadth of the culture. The ramifications associated > >with this society's acquiescence to two males having a child go beyond the > >limits of human capabilities, The magnitude of this problem cannot be > >underestimated and certainly begs for stretching the minds of men beyond > >anything they have tackled previously. These matters border on the > >transcedental and must be so recognized. There are no "natural constraints" on population any longer except in the abstract sense. Humans live in the context of institutions and it is these institutions which shape the so-called constraints. To deal with population growth and understand population issues effectively we must engage in historically specific analyses rather than resorting to "natural" explanations. I wonder what other members of PPN think about these technologies and their social effects. Martha *************** Martha E. Gimenez Department of Sociology University of Colorado at Boulder http://csf.colorado.edu/gimenez/ ********************