Ta en oiko mi en dimo is a popular Greek proverb meaning that whatever happens at household [oikos] should not be exposed into public [dimos]. In the Greek cultural context sexuality, reproduction, family relations belong to the realm of private domesticity. In this paper we trace the way women and men in Greece resituate themselves towards their reproductive desires and decisions, towards medicalized reproduction and towards each other, when in the context of involuntary childlessness, infertility and ART use, reproduction moves outside the body and the private sphere of the household and becomes part of the public sphere exemplified in state laws, doctor's decisions, hospital laboratories, IVF forums.
Drawing from the research project (In)FERCIT and based on 130 semi-structured interviews of both women and men the paper explores the shifts related to parenting, the imagining and making of a family, the couple, in the context of neoliberal reproductive potentialities. Which relationships and practices change through the ongoing challenges of infertility and the experience of ART? What is kept within the couple and what is shared with others (family members, friends, strangers, experts)? What is the significance of reproductive socialities in managing the demands of infertility within an ever-increasing intensification of parenthood? How does this challenging context reinforces or weakens the couple's relationship, their reproductive agency and desire? Finally we explore how proper parenthood but also proper partnerhood are constructed in Greece following local demands regarding family making and localized medicalization of reproduction.
ABATZOGLOUG, ManolopoulosS, PapaligouraZ, and SkoulikaA, (2006) (Eds.) Prosegiseis tis ipovoithoumenis anaparagogis [Approaches of assisted reproduction]. Thessaloniki: University Studio Press.
2.
APPLER, (1987) Mothers and Medicine: A Social History of Infant Feeding 1890-1950.Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
ATHANASIOUA, (2006) ‘Bloodlines: Performing the body of the “demos”, reckoning the time of the “ethnos”’, Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 24, p. 229–256.
4.
ATHANASIOUA, (2014) To ethniko soma se katastasi ektaktis anagis: I dimografiki politiki tis zois kai ta oria tou politikou in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Politikes kathimerinotitas: Sinoro, soma kai idiotita tou politi stin Ellada [Politics of everyday life: Border, body and citizenship in Greece], p. 455–484, Athens: Alexandria.
5.
BIRENBAUM-CARMELID, and InhornM. C, (2009) (Eds.) Assisting Reproduction, Testing Genes. Global Encounters with New Biotechnologies.New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
6.
BONACCORSO?, (2009) Conceiving Kinship. Assisted Conception, Procreation and Family in Southern Europe.New York-Oxford: Berghahn.
7.
CANELLF, (1990), ‘Concepts of parenthood: The Warnock Report, the Gillick debate and modern myths’,American Ethnologist17(4), p. 667–686.
8.
CARSTENJ, (2004) After kinship.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
CHATJOULIA, (2013) ‘Anaparagogi kai kanonikotita. Biopolitikes eleghou kai anaparagogikes stratigikes – I periptosi tis Thalassemias’ [Reproduction and normality. Biopolitics of control and reproductive strategies. The case of Thalassaemia] in Kantsa V (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio.
11.
Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography], p. 201–232Athens: Alexandria.
12.
CHATJOULIA, (2014a) ‘Biokoinonikotita: Mia nea politiki tis diaforas. I periptosi tis Thalassemias’ [Biosociality: A new politics of difference] in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Politikes tis kathimerinotitas. Sinoro, soma kai Idiotita tou Politi stin Ellada [Politics of everyday life. Border, Body and Citizenship in Greece], p. 289–318. Athens: Alexandria.
13.
CHATJOULIA, (2014b) ‘I anadisi tou bioiatrikou somatos kai i empeiria tis bioiatrikopoiisis’ [The emergence of the biomedical body and the experience of biomedicalization] in AlexiasG, TzanakisM, and ChatjouliA (Eds.) Soma ipo epitirisi. Ithikes kai politikes syndiloseis tis iatrikis tehnologias kai tis iatrikis frontidas [Body under surveillance. Ethical and political connotations of medical technology and medical care], p. 143–180. Athens: Pedio.
14.
CHATJOULIA, DaskalakiI, and KantsaV, (2015) Out of Body, Out of Home: Assisted Reproduction, Gender and Family in Greece,Athens: Alexandria.
15.
CHRONAKIM, (2015) ‘Experiences, uses, and significations of the home as a birth territory in a town in central Greece’. International Journal of Childbirth5(2)
16.
DE MOUZONJ. (2010) ‘Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2006: Results generated from European registers by ESHRE’, Human Reproduction, Vol. 25, Issue (8), p. 1851–1862.
17.
EDWARDSJ, and SalazarC, (2009) (Eds.) European Kinship in the Age of Biotechnology.New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
18.
FOUCAULTM, (1990). The History of Sexuality, Volume I: An Introduction. Robert Hurley, trans. New York: Vintage.
19.
FOUCAULTM, (1997) Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the Collège de France, 1975-1976.New York, NY: St. Martin's Press.
20.
FOUCAULTM, (1998) The History of Sexuality Vol. 1: The Will to Knowledge.London: Penguin.
21.
FOUNTEDAKIK, (2007) Anthropopini anaparagogi kai astiki evthini [Human reproduction and medical liability]. Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoula.
22.
FRANKLINS, (1993) ‘Postmodern procreation: Representing reproductive practice’,Science as Culture3(4): p. 522–561.
23.
FRANKLINS, (1995) ‘Postmodern procreation: a cultural account of assisted reproduction’ in GinsburgF. D., and RappR. (Eds.), Conceiving the New World Order, p. 323–345. Berkley: University of California Press.
24.
FRANKLINS, (1996) ‘Fetal ultrasound imaging and the production of authoritative knowledge in Greece’, Medical Anthropology Quarterly, Vol. 15, Issue (2), p. 157–175.
25.
FRANKLINS, (1997) Embodied Progress: A Cultural Account of Assisted Conception.London-New York: Routledge.
26.
FRANKLINS, and RagonéH, (1998) Reproducing Reproduction. Kinship, Power and Technological Innovation.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
27.
GILLIESV, (2009) ‘Understandings and experiences of involved fathering in the United Kingdom: exploring classed dimensions’,The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 624, p. 49–60. [doi: 10.1891/2156-5287.5.2.71]
28.
GINSBURGF, RappR, (1991) ‘The politics of reproduction’, Annual Review of Anthropology20, p. 311–43.
29.
GINSBURGF, RappR, (1995) Conceiving the New World Order. The Global Politics of Reproduction.Berkley: University of California Press.
30.
GEORGESN. (1996) ‘Abortion policy and practice in Greece’. Social Science and Medicine42(4), p. 509–516.
31.
GEORGESN. (2008) Bodies of Knowledge. The Medicalization of Reproduction in Greece.Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
32.
GEORGESN. (2013) ‘Mia paremvasi san oles tis alles: Diaforopoiimena noimata tis kaisarikis tomis’ [An interversion as all the others: Differentiated meanings of Caesarean section] in Kantsa V (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio.
33.
Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography], p. 233–258Athens: Alexandria.
34.
GEORGESN. (2014) ‘Odigos stin egimosini: Simvoules eidikon gia thn syghroni ellinida mitera’ [Guide to pregnancy: Expert advice to the modern Greek woman] in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Politikes tis kathimerinotitas. Sinoro, soma kai idiotita tou politi stin Ellada [Politics of everyday life. Border, Body and Citizenship in Greece], p. 289–318. Athens: Alexandria.
35.
HALKIASA, (1998) ‘Give birth for Greece! Abortion and nation in letters to the editor of the mainstream Greek press’. Journal of Modern Greek Studies, Vol. 16, Issue (1), p. 111–38.
36.
HALKIASA, (2004) The empty cradle of democracy. Sex, abortion and nationalism in modern Greece.Durham - London: Duke University Press.
37.
HAYDENC, (1995) ‘Gender, genetics, and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship’,Cultural Anthropology10(1), p. 41–63.
38.
INHORNM. C, (1994) The Quest for Conception: Gender, infertility, and Egyptian medical traditions.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
39.
INHORNM. C, (1995) Infertility and Patriarchy.?The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt.Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
40.
INHORNM. C, (2000) ‘Missing motherhood: Infertility, technology, and poverty in Egyptian women's lives’ in RagonéH., and WinddanceT (Eds.) Ideologies and Technologies of Motherhood: Race, class, sexuality, nationalism, p. 139–168. New York: Routledge.
41.
INHORNM. C, (2007) Reproductive Disruptions. Gender, Technology, and Bipolitics in the New Millennium.New York - Oxford: Berghahn.
42.
INHORNM. C, (2012) ‘Why me? Male infertility and responsibility in the Middle East’. Men and Masculinities16(1): p. 49–70.
43.
INHORNM. C, and van BalenF (2002) (Eds.) Infertility around the Globe. New Thinking on Childlessness, Gender, and Reproductive Technologies.California: University of California Press.
44.
INHORNM. C, Tjmhj-ThomsenT, and GoldbergH, (2009) (Eds.) Reconceiving the Second Sex: Men. Masculinity, and Reproduction.New York and Oxford: Berghahn.
45.
KANTSAV, (2006) ‘Oikogeniakes ipotheseis. Mitrotita kai omofiles erotikes scheseis’ [Family matters. Motherhood and same-sex relationships] in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Peripeteies tis eterotitas. I paragogi tis politismikis diaforas sti simerini Ellada [Adventures of alterity. The production of cultural difference in contemporary Greece], p. 355–381. Athens: Alexandria.
46.
KANTSAV, (2011) ‘“Late”, “early”, “never”: Time, gender and technology in assisted reproduction’. In MoravecM., Motherhood Online, p. 200–201. Cambridge Scholars Publishing:Newcastle.
47.
KANTSAV, (2013a) I mitrotita sto proskinio.
48.
Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography] (Eds.). Athens: Alexandria.
49.
KANTSAV, (2013b) ‘Eisagogi. I mitrotita os anthropologiki emmoni’ [Introduction. ?otherhood as anthropological persistence] in KantsaV (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio.
50.
Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography], p. 17–34. Athens: Alexandria. [doi: 10.4324/9780203414965]
51.
KANTSAV, (2013c), ‘Arga, noris, pote. Xronos kai siggeneia’ [Late, early, never. Time and kinship] in KantsaV (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio.
52.
Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography] (Eds.), p. 315–326. Athens: Alexandria.
53.
KANTSAV, (2014a), ‘Gamilies diekdikiseis: Orates politikes, atheates paradohes’ [Marriage claims: Visible politics, invisible assumptions] in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Politikes kathimerinotitas: Sinoro, soma kai idiotita tou politi stin Ellada [Politics of everyday life: Border, body and citizenship in Greece] (Eds.), p. 501–524. Athens: Alexandria.
54.
KANTSAV, (2014b), ‘Prosferontas elpida: Technologies somatos stin iatrika ipovoithoumeni ananparagogi’ [Giving hope: Body technologies in medically assisted reproduction] in AlexiasG, TzanakisM, and ChatjouliA (Eds.) Soma ipo epitirisi: Ithikes kai politikes sindiloseis tis iatrikis technologias kai tis kinonikis frontidas [Body under surveillance: Ethical and political connotations of medical technology and social care] (Eds.), p. 181–206. Athens: Pedio.
55.
KONRADM, (2005) Nameless Relations. Anonymity, Melanesia and Reproductive Gift Exchange between British Ova Donors and Recipients.New York and Oxford: Berghahn. [doi: 10.1177/0002716209334295]
56.
KOTZABASSIA, (2003) Dikaioma sti mitrotita kai texniti gonimopoiisi: Ena politiko zitima [Right to Motherhood and artificial reproduction: A political issue]. Thessaloniki: Paratiritis.
57.
KOTZABASSIA, (2015) ‘Children without kinship affiliation: the infringement of the preconditions of assisted reproduction and its consequences’ in KantsaV (Eds.) Metavallomenes sheseis. Singeneia kai iatrikos ipovoithoumeni anaparagogi [Changing relations. Kinship and Medically Assisted Reproduction], p. 69–78. Athens, (In)FERCIT produced by Alexandria Publ. [in Greek].
58.
KOUNOYERI-MANOLEDAKISE, (2005) Texniti gonimopoiisi kai oikogeneiako dikaio. I eidiki elliniki nomothesia. Nomos 3089/2002 kai 3305/2005 [Artificial insemination and Family Law. Special Greek legislation: Laws 3089/2002 and 3305/2005]. Athens: Sakkoulas.
59.
KOUNOYERI-MANOLEDAKISE, (2015) ‘Objective and subjective possibilities of the law on assisted reproduction’KantsaV (Eds.) Metavallomenes sheseis. Singeneia kai iatrikos ipovoithoumeni anaparagogi [Changing relations. Kinship and Medically Assisted Reproduction], p. 107–119. Athens, (In)FERCIT produced by Alexandria Publ. [in Greek].
60.
KRIARI-CATRANISI, (2003) ‘Human assisted procreation and human rights – The Greek response to the felt necessities of the time’, European Journal of Health Law10, p. 271–279.
61.
KUPERA, (2005) The Reinvention of Primitive Society. Transformations of a Myth.New York: Routledge.
62.
LEEE, (2014) Parenting Culture Studies.Basingstoke and NewYork: Palgrave Macmillan.
63.
LEFKARITESM P, (1992) ‘The sociocultural implications of modernizing childbirth among Greek women on the island of Rhodes’. Medical Anthropology13: p. 385–412.
64.
LEWINE, (1993) Lesbians Mothers. Accounts of Gender in American Culture.Ithaca New York: Cornell University Press.
65.
LEWINE, 2009, Gay Fatherhood. Narratives of Family and Citizenship in America.Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.
66.
LEVINEN, (2008) ‘Alternative kinship, marriage and reproduction’. Annual review of Anthropology37, p. 375–389.
67.
LOCKM, and KaufertP A, (1998) Pragmatic Women and Body Politics.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
68.
LOIZOSP, and PapataxiarchisE, (1991a), Contested Identities: Gender and Kinship in Modern Greece.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
69.
LOIZOSP, and PapataxiarchisE, (1991b) ‘Introduction: Gender and kinship in marriage and alternative contexts’ in LoizosP, and PapataxiarchisE (Eds.) Contested identities: Gender and Kinship in Modern Greece, p. 3–25. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
70.
MARTINE, (1987) The Woman in the Body: A Cultural Analysis of Reproduction.Boston: Bea- con Press.
71.
MILAPIDOUM, (2011), Somatiki akeraiotita kai ipovoithoumeni anaparagogi. I poiniki evthini sto plaisio tis therapevtikis agogis [Physical integrity and assisted reproduction. Criminal responsibility in the context of treatment]. Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas. [doi: 10.1215/9780822386049]
72.
NOVASC, (2006) ‘The political economy of hope: patients’ organizations, science and biovalue’. BioSocieties, 1(3): p. 289–305.
73.
PAPADOPOULOUL, (2015) ‘Is there a ‘right’ to reproduce through MAR techniques?’ in KantsaV, PapadopoulouL, ZaniniG (Eds.) (In)Fertile Citizens. Anthropological and Legal Challenges of Assisted Reproduction Technologies, p. 39–52. Athens: (In)FERCIT produced by Alexandria Publ.?
74.
PAPATAXIARCHISE, (2013) ‘Shaping modern times in the Greek family’ in DiallaA., MaronitiN. (eds), State, Economy, Society (19th-20th centuries), p. 216–244. Athens: Metaichmio.
75.
PAPATAXIARCHISE, (2014) ‘Ekremeis diafores: Sinoro, soma kai ethnopolitismiki ipokeimenikotita stin kathimerini praxi kai politiki’ [Pending differences: Border, body and national/cultural subjectivity in everyday praxis and politics] in PapataxiarchisE (Eds.), Politikes kathimerinotitas: Sinoro, soma kai idiotita tou politi stin Ellada [Politics of everyday life: Border, body and citizenship in Greece], p. 17–80. Athens: Alexandria.
76.
PAXSONH, (2002) ‘Rationilizing sex: Family planning and the making of modren lovers in urban Greece’. American Ethnologist29(2): p. 307–334.
77.
PAXSONH, (2003) ‘With or against nature? IVF, gender and reproductive agency in Athens, Greece’. Social Science & Medicine, Vol, 56, p. 1853–1866.
78.
PAXSONH, (2004) Making Modern Mothers: Ethics and Family Planning in Urban Greece.Berkley: University of California Press.
79.
PAXSONH, (2006) ‘Reproduction as spiritual kin work: Orthodoxy, IVF and the moral economy of motherhood in Greece’. Culture, Medicine & Psychiatry, Vol. 30, Issue (4), p, 481–505.
80.
PLUMMERK, (2001) ‘The Square of Intimate Citizenship’, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 5(6), p. 237–255.
81.
PLUMMERK, (2003) Intimate Citizenship: Private Decisions and Public Dialogues. Culture.Seattle: University of Washington Press.
82.
RABINOWP, (1996) ‘Artificiality and enlightenment: From sociobiology to biosociality’ in RabinowP (Eds.) Essays on the Anthropology of Reason.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
83.
RAGONÉH, (1994) Surrogate Motherhood: Conception in the Heart.Boulder, CO: Westview Press. [doi: 10.1177/1097184X12468098]
84.
RAPPR, (1987) ‘Moral pioneers: women, men and fetuses on the frontier of reproductive technology’. Women and Health13(1-2): p. 101–116.
85.
RAPPR, (1988) ‘The power of positive diagnosis: medical and maternal discourses on amniocentesis’, in MichaelsonK. (Eds.) Childbirth in America, p. 103–116. Massachusetts: Bergin and Garvey.
86.
RAPPR, (1991) ‘Moral pioneers. Women, men and fetuses on a frontier of reproductive technology’ in di LeonardoM (Eds.) Gender at the Crossroads of Knowledge: Feminist Anthropology in the Postmodern Era, p. 383–395. California: University of California Press.
87.
RAPPR, (1999) Testing Women, Testing the Fetus: The Social Impact of Amniocentesis in America.New York: Routledge.
88.
ROSEN, (2007), The Politics of Life Itself. Biomedicine, Power, and Subjectivity in the Twenty-First-Century.Princeton: Princeton University Press.
89.
STEWARTK A, (1997) ‘Review of Marcia Inhorn, Infertility and Patriarchy: The Cultural Politics of Gender and Family Life in Egypt.’Women's Studies International Forum, Vol. 20, Issue (1): p. 184.
90.
STRATHERNM, (1992a) After Nature. English Kinship in the Late Twentieth Century.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
91.
STRATHERNM, (1992b) Reproducing the Future: Anthropology, Kinship and the New Reproductive Technologies.Manchester: Manchester University Press.
92.
STRATHERNM, (1995) ‘Displacing knowledge: Technologies and the consequences for kinship’ in GinsburgF., and RappR. (Eds.), Conceiving the New World Order, p. 346–363. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.
93.
STRATHERNM, (2005) Kinship, Law and the Unexpected. Relatives are Always a Surprise.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
94.
TAUSSIGK.-S, HoyerK, and HelmreichS, (2013) ‘The anthropology of potentiality in biomedicine. An introduction to Supplewment 7’,Current Antyhropology54(7), p. 3–14
95.
THOMSONC, (2005) Making Parents. The Ontological Choreography of Reproductive Technologies.Cambridge Massachusetts: MIT Press.
96.
TRAKAD, (2013) ‘I mitrotita os maieftiki diadiakasia’ [Motherhood as maieutics process] in KantsaV (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio. Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography], p. 327–340. Athens: Alexandria.
97.
TROKANAST, (2011) Anthropini anaparagogi. I idiotiki avtonomia kai ta oria tis [Human reproduction. Private autonomy and its limits].Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoula. Trokanas,
98.
VLACHOUTSIKOUC, and Teazi-AntonakopoulouI, (2013) ‘Exatomikefsi ton paidion stin agalia tis oikogenias: Miteres se dialogo me mia atomistiki ideologia anatrofis se mesoastiko proastio tis Athinas’ [Children's individualization in the arms of family: Mothers in dialogue with an individualistic ideology about upbringing in a middle class Athenian suburb]. in KantsaV (Eds.) I mitrotita sto proskinio. Sighrones erevnes stin elliniki ethnografia [Motherhood in the forefront. Recent research in Greek ethnography], p. 91–114. Athens: Alexandria.
