This paper's purpose is to highlight key sociological issues, that come to light when `the body' becomes a theoretical site in reproductive genetics. By positioning the body as a central feature in this analysis, the paper: (1) describes how a mechanistic view of the body continues to be privileged in this discourse and the effects of this view; (2) examines how reproductive limits are practised on the gendered body through a feminised regime of reproductive asceticism and the discourse on shame; and (3) explores the social effects and limitations of reproductive genetics in relation to disability as a cultural representation of impaired bodies. The central assumptions concerning reproductive genetics are that it appears within surveillance medicine as part of a disciplinary process in society's creation of a genetic moral order, that it is mobilised by experts for the management of reproductive bodies and that it constructs a limited view of the body. Thus, the way reproductive genetics operates tends to hide the fact that what may appear as `defective genes' is a result of a body's interaction not only with the environment but also gendered social practices valorised by difference as well as rigid definitions of health and illness. The research is from a 1995-96 European study of experts interviewed in four countries.
Armstrong, D.1995. `The Rise of Surveillance Medicine'. Sociology of Health and Illness17:393-404.
2.
Barnes, C.1992. `Institutional Discrimination against Disabled People and the Campaign for Anti-discrimination Legislation'. Critical Social Policy12:5-22.
3.
Barnes, C. and Mercer, G. (eds.) 1996. Exploring the Divide, Illness and Disability. Leeds: The Disability Press.
4.
Barton, L. (eds.) 1996. Disability and Society: Emerging Issues and Insights. London: Longman.
5.
Bartky, S. L. 1990. Femininity and Domination. New York: Routledge.
6.
Beaulieu, A. and Lippman, A.1995. `Everything You Need to Know: How Women's Magazines Structure Prenatal Diagnosis for Women over 36'. Women and Health23:59-74.
7.
Birke, L. , Himmelweit, S. and Vines, G. (1992) `Detecting Genetic Diseases: Prenatal Screening and Its Problems', in G. Kirup and L. Smith Keller (eds.), Inventing Women: Science, Technology and Gender. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Open University Press.
8.
Bordo, S. 1993. Unbearable Weight: Feminism, Western Culture and the Body. Berkeley: University of California Press.
9.
Chappell, A. L.1994. `Disability, Discrimination and the Criminal Justice System'. Critical Social Policy14:19-33.
10.
Conrad, P.1997. `Public Eyes and Private Genes: Historical Frames, New Constructions and Social Problems'. Social Problems44:139-154.
11.
Corea, G. 1985. The Mother Machine. London: The Women's Press.
12.
Cowan, R. S. 1994. `Women's Roles in the History of Amniocentesis and Chorionic Villi Sampling', in K. Rothenberg and E. J. Thompson (eds.), Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Testing. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University Press.
13.
Davison, C. , Macintyre, S. and Davey Smith, G.1994. `The Potential Social Impact of Predictive Genetic Testing for Susceptibility to Common Chronic Diseases: A Review and Proposed Research Agenda'. Sociology of Health and Illness16:340-371.
14.
Dragonas, T. 1999. ` “Whose Fault Is It?” Shame and Guilt for the Genetic Defect', in E. Ettorre, A. Adams, P. Alderson, A. Aro, T. Dragonas, E. Hemminki, T. Tymstra, and W. Van de Hueval (eds.), Final Report of the European Union Project on the Development of Prenatal Screening in Europe: The Past, the Present and the Future. University of Helsinki: Finland.
15.
Ettorre, E. 1996. The New Genetics Discourse in Finland: Exploring Experts' Views within Surveillance Medicine. Helsinki: Suomen Kuntaliitto (Association of Finnish Metropolitan Authorities).
16.
Ettorre, E.1997. `The Complexities of Genetic Technologies: Unintended Consequences and Responsible Ethics'. Sosiaalilääketieteelinen Aikakauslehti (Journal of Finnish Social Medicine)34:257-267.
17.
Ettorre, E. 1999a. `A Comparative Study of Experts in Four European Countries', in E. Ettorre, A. Adams, P. Alderson, A. Aro, T. Dragonas, E. Hemminki, T. Tymstra and W. Van de Hueval (eds.), Final Report of the European Union Project on the Development of Prenatal Screening in Europe: The Past, the Present and the Future. University of Helsinki: Finland.
18.
Ettorre, E.1999b. `Experts as “Story Tellers” in Reproductive Genetics: Exploring Key Issues'. Sociology of Health and Illness21:539-559.
19.
Ettorre, E., Adams, E., Alderson, P., Aro, A., Dragonas, T., Hemminki, E., Tymstra, T. and Van de Hueval, W. 1997. Annual Activity Report of the European Union Project on the Development of Prenatal Screening in Europe: The Past, the Present and the Future. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.
20.
Farrant, W. 1985. `Who's for Amniocentesis? The Politics of Prenatal Screening', in H. Homans (ed.), The Sexual Politics of Reproduction. Aldershot: Gower.
21.
Featherstone, M. 1991. Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
22.
Finger, A. 1990. Past Due: A Story of Disability, Pregnancy and Birth. London: The Women's Press.
23.
Franklin, S. 1997. Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception. London: Routledge.
24.
Gilbert, N. and Mulkay, M. 1984. Opening Pandora's Box: A Sociological Analysis of Scientists' Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
25.
Hales, G. (eds.) 1996. Beyond Disability. London: Sage.
26.
Haraway, D. 1991. Simians, Cyborgs and Women. Routledge: New York.
27.
Hubbard, R.1985. `Genomania and Health'. American Scientist83:8-10.
28.
Hubbard, R.1986. `Eugenics and Prenatal Testing'. International Journal of Health Services16:227-242.
29.
Keith, L. and Morris, J.1995. `Easy Targets: A Disability Rights Perspective on the “Children as Carers” '. Critical Social Policy15:36-57.
30.
Kelly, M. P. and Field, D.1996. `Medical Sociology, Chronic Illness and the Body'. Sociology of Health and Illness18:241-257.
31.
Kerr, A. , Cunningham-Burley, S. and Amos, A.1997. `The New Genetics: Professionals' Discursive Boundaries'. Sociological Review45:297-303.
32.
Leder, D. 1992. `A Tale of Two Bodies: The Cartesian Corpse and the Lived Body', in D. Leder (ed.), The Body in Medical Thought and Practice. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
33.
Lippman, A. 1994. `The Genetic Construction of Prenatal Testing', in K. Rothenberg and E. J. Thomson (eds.), Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Testing. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
34.
Lorber, J. 1997. Gender and the Social Construction of Illness. London: Sage.
35.
Mahowald, M. B. 1994. `Reproductive Genetics and Gender Justice', in K. Rothenberg and E. J. Thomson (eds.), Women and Prenatal Testing: Facing the Challenges of Genetic Testing. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
36.
Martin, E.2nd edn., 1992. Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction. Boston, Mass.: Beacon Press.
37.
Morris, J. 1991. Pride Against Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability. London: Women's Press.
38.
Nelkin, D. and Lindee, M. S. 1995. `The Media-ted Gene: Stories of Gender and Race', in J. Terry and J. Urla (eds.), Deviant Bodies: Critical Perspectives on Difference in Science and Popular Cultures. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
39.
Oliver, M. 1996. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan.
40.
Parsons, E. and Atkinson, P.1993. `Genetic Risk and Reproduction'. Sociological Review41:679-706.
41.
Pinder, R.1995. `Bringing Back the Body Without the Blame? The Experience of Ill and Disabled People at Work'. Sociology of Health and Illness17:605-631.
42.
Press, N. and Browner, C. H.1997. `Why Women Say Yes to Prenatal Diagnosis'. Social Science and Medicine45:979-989.
43.
Purdy, L. 1996. Reproducing Persons: Issues in Feminist Bioethics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
44.
Rothman, B. K.new edn., 1993. The Tentative Pregnancy: How Amniocentesis Changes the Experience of Motherhood. New York: Norton.
45.
Rothman, B.K.1995. `Of Maps and Imaginations: Sociology Confronts the Genome'. Social Problems42:1-10.
46.
Shakespeare, T.1995. `Back to the Future? New Genetics and Disabled People'. Critical Social Policy15:22-35.
47.
Shildrick, M. 1997. Leaky Bodies and Boundaries: Feminism, Postmodernism and (Bio)ethics. London: Routledge.
48.
Shilling, C. 1993. The Body and Social Theory. London: Sage.
49.
Shilling, C.1997. `The Undersocialised Conception of the (Embodied) Agent in Modern Sociology'. Sociology31:737-754.
50.
Steinberg, D. L. 1997. Bodies in Glass: Genetics, Eugenics, Embryo Ethics. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
51.
Thomas, C.1997. `The Baby and the Bath Water: Disabled Women and Motherhood in Social Context'. Sociology of Health and Illness19:622-643.
52.
Turner, B. 1992. Regulating Bodies: Essays in Medical Sociology, London: Routledge.
53.
Ward, C. M.1994. `An Ethical and Legal Perspective on Foetal Surgery'. British Journal of Plastic Surgery47:411-418.
54.
Wendell, S. 1992. `Toward a Feminist Theory of Disability', in H. B. Holmes and L. Purdy (eds.), Feminist Perspectives in Medical Ethics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
55.
Wertz, D. C. and Fletcher, J. C.1993. `Prenatal Diagnosis and Sex Selection in 19 Nations'. Social Science and Medicine37:1359-1366.
56.
Williams, S.1998. ` “Capitalising” on Emotions? Rethinking the Inequalitites in Health Debate'. Sociology32:121-139.
