This article analyzes efforts to govern men’s reproduction in postwar India’s population control program from 1960 to 1977. It argues that the Indian state’s unconventional emphasis on men was linked to a gendered strand of social scientific research known as family planning communications and its investments in reframing reproductive control in behavioral terms. Communication scientists’ goal to understand the role of mass communications in shaping “reproductive decision-making” dovetailed with prevailing cultural ideologies of masculinity that readily associated men with economic rationality and calculative reasoning. Consequently, scientists cast Indian men as indispensable targets of behavioral interventions into reproduction due to their ostensible status as familial and social “decision-makers.” This reframing prompted Indian family planning officials to create novel interventions into men’s reproductive bodies and beliefs, exhorting them to use contraception and desire fewer children. The study thus offers new approaches for theorizing how men become framed as legitimate subjects of reproductive control.
AhluwahliaSanjam. 2008. Reproductive restraints: Birth control in India, 1877–1947. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
2.
AlmelingRene. 2015. Reproduction. Annual Review of Sociology41:423–42.
3.
AlmelingReneWaggonerMiranda. 2013. More and less than equal: How men factor into the reproductive equation. Gender & Society27 (6): 821–42.
4.
BashfordAlison. 2006. Medicine at the border: Disease, globalization and security, 1850 to the present. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BerelsonBernard. 1964. On family planning communication. Demography1 (1): 94–105.
6.
BogueDonald J.1962. Some tentative recommendations for a “sociologically correct” family planning communication and motivation program in India. In Research in family planning, edited by KiserClyde V.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BogueDonald J.1964. Hypotheses for family planning derived from recent and current experience in Asia. Studies in Family Planning1 (3): 6–9.
8.
BogueDonald J.RogersBerneyKlingerHarold. 1966. The Alabama clinic-plus-education program. In The rural South fertility experiments: Report number 1, edited by BogueDonald J.Chicago: Community and Family Study Center.
9.
BriggsLaura. 2002. Reproducing empire: Race, sex, science, and U.S. imperialism in Puerto Rico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
BuckinghamJane. 2006. Patient health vs. the health of the nation: Governmentality and the sterilization of leprosy sufferers in early post-colonial India. Social History of Medicine19 (3): 483–99.
11.
ChatterjeeNilanjanaRileyNancy E.2001. Planning an Indian modernity: The gendered politics of fertility control. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society26 (3): 811–45.
12.
ClarkeAdele E.1998. Disciplining reproduction: Modernity, American life sciences and the “problems of sex.”Berkeley: University of California Press.
13.
ClarkeAdele E.ShimJanet K.MamoLauraRuth FosketJenniferFishmanJennifer R.2003. Biomedicalization: Technoscientific transformations of health, illness, and U.S. biomedicine. American Sociological Review68 (2): 161–94.
14.
ConnellyMatthew. 2008. Fatal misconception: The struggle to control world population. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Belknap Press.
15.
ConradPeter. 1992. Medicalization and social control. American Sociological Review18:209–32.
16.
ConradPeterWaggonerMiranda. 2014. Medicalization. In The Wiley-Blackwell encyclopedia of health, illness, behavior, and society, edited by CockerhamWilliam C.DingwallRobertQuahStella. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell.
17.
DudgeonMatthew R.InhornMarcia C.2003. Gender, masculinity, and reproduction: Anthropological perspectives. International Journal of Men’s Health2 (1): 31–56.
18.
ForbesGeraldine. 1996. Women in modern India. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
19.
GandhiNanditaShahNandita. 1992. The issues at stake: Theory and practice in the contemporary women’s movement in India. New Delhi, India: Manohar.
20.
GinsburgFaye D.RappRayna eds. 1995. Conceiving the new world order: The global politics of reproduction. Berkeley: University of California Press.
21.
GlanderTimothy. 2000. Origins of mass communications research in the American Cold War: Educational effects and contemporary implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
GreenhalghSusan. 1996. The social construction of population science: An intellectual, institutional, and political history of twentieth-century demography. Comparative Studies in Society and History38:26–66.
23.
GutmannMatthew C.2007. Fixing men: Sex, birth control, and AIDS in Mexico. Berkeley: University of California Press.
24.
HalfonSaul. 2007. The Cairo consensus: Demographic surveys, women’s empowerment, and regime change in population policy. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
25.
HartmannBetsy. 1995. Reproductive rights and wrongs: The global politics of population control and contraceptive choice. New York: Harper and Row.
26.
HillReubenBackKurt W.StycosJ. Mayone. 1955. Family structure and fertility in Puerto Rico. Social Problems3 (2): 73–93.
27.
JainAnrudh K.1973. Marketing research in the Nirodh program. Studies in Family Planning4 (7): 184–90.
28.
KanaanehRhoda A.2002. Birthing the nation: Strategies of Palestinian women in Israel. Berkeley: University of California Press.
29.
KumarR.1973. Factors in the acceptance of family planning methods in rural Punjab. Indian Journal of Social Work33 (4): 331–35.
30.
McCannCarole R.2009. Malthusian men and demographic transitions: A case study of hegemonic masculinity in mid-twentieth-century population theory. Frontiers: A Journal of Women’s Studies30 (1): 142–71.
31.
MorganLynn M.RobertsElizabeth F. S.2012. Reproductive governance in Latin America. Anthropology & Medicine19 (2): 241–54.
32.
MukherjeeBishwa Nath. 1975. The role of husband-wife communication in family planning. Journal of Marriage and Family37 (3): 655–67.
33.
MurphyMichelle. 2012. Seizing the means of reproduction: Entanglements of feminism, health, and technoscience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
34.
NarainGovind. 1968. India: The family planning program since 1965. Studies in Family Planning1 (35): 1–12.
35.
OudshoornNelly. 2003. The male pill: A biography of a technology in the making. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
36.
Panel Discussion on Comparative Acceptability of Different Methods of Contraception. 1962. In Research in family planning, edited by KiserClyde V.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
ParryManon. 2013. Broadcasting birth control: Mass media and family planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
38.
PileJohn M.BarroneMark A.2009. Demographics of vasectomy—USA and international. Urologic Clinics of North America36 (3): 295–305.
39.
PoffenbergerThomas. 1968. Motivational aspects of resistance to family planning in an Indian village. Demography5 (2): 757–66.
40.
RainaB. L.BlakeRobert R.WeissEugene M.1967. India: A study in family planning communication, Meerut district. Studies in Family Planning1 (21): 1–5.
41.
RaoMohan. 2004. From population control to reproductive health: A Malthusian arithmetic. New Delhi, India: SAGE.
42.
RiessmanCatherine. 1983. Women and medicalization: A new perspective. Social Policy14 (1): 3–18.
43.
RiskaElianne. 2010. Gender and medicalization and biomedicalization theories. In Biomedicalization: Technoscience, health, and illness in the U.S., edited by ClarkeAdele E.MamoLauraRuth FosketJenniferFishmanJennifer R.ShimJanet K.Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
44.
RogersEverett. 1973. Communication strategies for family planning. New York: Free Press.
45.
RosenfeldDanaFairclothChristopher A.2006. Medicalized masculinities: The missing link? In Medicalized masculinities, edited by RosenfeldDanaFairclothChristopher A.Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
46.
RossJohn A.HuberDouglas H.1983. Acceptance and prevalence of vasectomy in developing countries. Studies in Family Planning14 (3): 67–73.
47.
Ross-SmithAnneKornbergerMartin. 2004. Gendered rationality? A genealogical exploration of the philosophical and sociological conceptions of rationality, masculinity and organization. Gender, Work and Organization11 (3): 280–305.
48.
StycosJ. Mayone. 1962. A critique of the traditional Planned Parenthood approach in underdeveloped areas. In Research in family planning, edited by KiserClyde V.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
49.
TakeshitaChikako. 2011. The global politics of the IUD: How science constructs contraceptive users and women’s bodies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
50.
TarloEmma. 2003. Unsettling memories: Narratives of the emergency in Delhi. Berkeley: University of California Press.
