Contemporary medical imaging technologies produce images on the level of human cells. As a result of such images, egg and sperm cells have become well-known artefacts of popular culture. Medical imaging technology has transformed these gametes from invisible matter integrated in biological processes within the body to identifiable objects. The visualisation of egg and sperm cells has literally lifted the process of human reproduction out of the female body and made the gametes appear as protagonists in the story of human reproduction. The article argues that visualisation of the gametes and the central role they play in contemporary imaginations of reproduction may offer vital contributions to the rather rapid acceptance and normalisation of assisted reproduction.
BurriRVDumitJ (2008) Social studies of scientific imaging and visualization. In: HackettEJ. (eds) The Handbook of Science and Technology Studies, 3rd edn.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 299–317.
5.
DudenB (1993) Disembodying Women. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
6.
DumitJ (2004) Picturing Personhood: Brain Scans and Biomedical Identity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
EllingsæterA-LJensenA-MLieM (2013) The Social Meaning of Children and Fertility Change in Europe. London and New York: Routledge.
8.
EngeliI (2009) The challenges of abortion and assisted reproductive technologies policies in Europe. Comparative European Politics7: 56–74.
9.
FranklinS (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London and New York: Routledge.
10.
FranklinS (2000) Life itself: Global nature and the genetic imaginary. In: FranklinSLuryCStaceyJ, Global Nature, Global Culture. London: Sage, pp. 188–227.
11.
FranklinS (2013) Biological Relatives: IVF, Stem Cells, and the Future of Kinship. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
12.
GiddensA (1991) Modernity and Self-identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Cambridge: Polity Press.
13.
HarawayD (1991) Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. London: Free Association Books.
14.
HarawayD (1997) Modest_Witness@Second_Millennium: Feminism and Technoscience. New York and London: Routledge.
15.
InhornMVan BalenF (eds) (2002) Infertility around the Globe: New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
16.
JohansenA (2013) Awarding images, celebrating science: The aesthetics and aestheticisation of scientific images in the Wellcome Image Awards. In: AukrustK (ed.) Assigning Cultural Values. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, pp 29–50.
17.
JordanovaL (1989) Sexual Visions: Images of Gender in Science and Medicine between the Eighteenth and Twentieth Centuries. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
18.
JoyceK (2005) Appealing images: MRI and the production of authoritative knowledge. Social Studies of Science35(3): 437–462.
19.
KellerEF (2002) Making Sense of Life: Explaining Biological Development with Models, Metaphors, and Machines. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20.
KroløkkeC (2012) From India with love: Troublesome citizens of fertility travel. Cultural Politics8(2): 307–325.
21.
LandeckerH (2007) Culturing Life: How Cells Became Technologies. Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
22.
LarsenT (2010) Acts of entification. The emergence of thinghood in social life. In: RapportN (ed.) Human Nature as Capacity: Transcending Discourse and Classification. New York and Oxford: Berghahn, pp. 154–178.
23.
LieM (2012) Reproductive images: The autonomous cell. Science as Culture21(4): 475–496.
24.
LieMSørensenKH (eds) (1996) Making Technology our Own? Domesticating Technology into Everyday Life. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
25.
LieMRavnMNSpilkerK (2011) Reproductive imaginations: Stories of egg and sperm. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research19(4): 231–248.
26.
LynchM (1985) Discipline and the material form of images: An analysis of scientific visibility. Social Studies of Science15: 37–66.
27.
LynchMWoolgarS (eds) (1990) Representation in Scientific Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28.
MartinE (1991) The egg and the sperm. How science has constructed a romance based on stereotypical male-female roles. SIGNS16(3): 485–501.
29.
MartinE (1992) Body narratives: body boundaries. In: GrossbergL. (eds) Cultural Studies. London: Routledge, pp. 409–419.
30.
MelhuusM (2012) Problems of Conception: Issues of Law, Biotechnology, Individuals and Kinship. New York: Berghahn Books.
31.
NilssonL. (1977) A Child is Born. London: Faber and Faber.
32.
PandeA (2011) Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: Gifts for global sisters?Reproductive Biomedicine Online23: 613–625.
33.
PauwelsL (2006) A theoretical framework for assessing visual representational practices in knowledge building and science communications. In: PauwelsL (ed.) Visual Cultures of Science. Hanover, NH: Dartmouth College Press, pp 1-25.
34.
PetcheskyRP (1987) Fetal images: The power of visual culture in the politics of reproduction. Feminist Studies13(2): 263–292.
35.
RavnMN (2005) A matter of free choice? Some structural and cultural influences on the decision to have or not to have children in Norway. In: DouglassCB (ed.) Barren States. The Population ‘Implosion’ in Europe. Oxford and New York: Berg, pp 29–47.
36.
RavnMN (2009) Substances of the body: Blood, genes and personhood. In: BauerSWahlbergA (eds) Contested Categories: Life Sciences in Society. Farnham: Ashgate, pp. 31–48.
37.
RijckeSBeaulieuA (2007) Essay review: Taking a good look at why scientific images don’t speak for themselves. Theory Psychology17(5): 733–742.
38.
SilverstoneR (2006) Domesticating domestication. Reflections on the life of a concept. In: BerkerT. (eds) Domestication of Media and Technology. Maidenhead: Open University Press, pp. 229–248.
39.
SilverstoneRHirschE (eds) (1994) Consuming Technologies: Media and Information in Domestic Spaces. London: Routledge.
40.
SolbergB (2010) Hun er deres forelder [She is their parent]. Aftenposten morgen, kronikk, 13October.
41.
SpilkerK (2008) Assistert slektskap. Biopolitikk i reproduksjonsteknologienes tidsalder [Assisted kinship: Biopolitics in the age of ARTs]. PhD dissertation, NTNU, Trondheim.
42.
SpilkerKLieM (2007) Gender and bioethics intertwined: Egg donation within the context of equal opportunities. European Journal of Women’s Studies14(4): 327–340.
43.
SturkenMCartwrightL (2001) Practices of Looking: An Introduction to Visual Culture. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
44.
TemanE (2010) Birthing a Mother. Berkeley: University of California Press.
45.
ThompsonC (2005) Making Parents: The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
TreichlerPACartwrightLPenleyC (eds) (1998) The Visible Woman: Imaging, Technologies, Gender, and Science. New York and London: New York University Press.
47.
Van DijckJ (2005) The Transparent Body: A Cultural Analysis of Medical Imaging. Seattle and London: University of Washington Press.
48.
WaldbyCMitchellR (2006) Tissue Economies: Blood, Organs, and Cell Lines in Late Capitalism. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
