No abstract

No abstract

Cross-border reproductive care has been thrust under the international spotlight by a series of recent scandals. These have prompted calls to develop more robust means of assessing the exploitative potential of such practices and the need for overarching and normative forms of national and international regulation. Allied theorisations of the emergence of forms of clinical labour have cast the outsourcing of reproductive services such as gamete donation and gestational surrogacy as artefacts of a wider neoliberalisation of service provision. These accounts share with many other narratives of neoliberalism a number of key assertions that relate to the presumed organisation of labour relations within this paradigm. This article critically engages with four assumptions implicit in these accounts: that clinical labourers constitute a largely homogeneous underclass of workers; that reproductive labour has been contractualised in ways that disembed it from wider social and communal relations; that contractualisation can provide protection for clinical labour lessening the need for formal regulatory oversight; and that the transnationalisation of reproductive service labour is largely unidirectional and characterised by a dynamic of provision in which ‘the rest’ services ‘the West’. Drawing on the first findings of a large-scale ethnographic research project into assisted reproduction in India I provide evidence to refute these assertions. In so doing the article demonstrates that while the outsourcing and contractualisation of reproductive labour may be embedded in a wider neoliberal paradigm these practices cannot be understood nor their impacts be fully assessed in isolation from their social and cultural contexts.

The globalisation of the world's economy and the creation of new flexible regimes of accumulation are necessarily generating new forms of corporate organisation. Increasingly, new economies and trade in mutable resources such as information, global finance, and genetic material are controlled not by conventional corporate elites but rather by constellations of disparate but highly influential actors linked together across an equally mutable regulatory landscape. With the aid of my recent research into the elite which controls global trade in genetic material as a case study, I begin to deconstruct conventional notions of what constitutes a corporate elite, positing in its place an alternative construction in which they are understood not as formally constituted, institutionally based entities, but rather as increasingly informal, hybridised, and invisible ‘elite networks’. I then consider some of the methodological issues which confront researchers investigating the constitution and behaviour of these elite networks. In so doing I reflect upon the role which processes such as luck, chance, and intuition play in determining the direction and outcome of research projects. I conclude with a discussion of some of the ethical tensions which surround issues of disclosure, textual representation, and attribution of sources.

The desire for genetically related children is driving an exponential rise in assisted reproductive service provision worldwide, including the Global South. In India, the number of ART (Assisted Reproductive Technology) clinics has more than doubled over the past three years. This expansion has been accompanied by a similarly explosive growth in populist narratives that assert that one of the services offered by such clinics, commercial gestational surrogacy (CGS), is a form of labour that is so exceptional(ly) exploitative it should be banned. Provocative headlines proclaiming that surrogates are ‘Renting their wombs’ and ‘Pimping their pregnancies’ fuel such assertions, suggesting that surrogates become reduced to mere wombs, vessels for carrying the offspring of entitled and wealthy foreigners. Although superficially compelling, such arguments fail to withstand detailed interrogation. Utilizing insights from anthropology, the history of science and law and bringing to bear the findings of extended fieldwork in Mumbai, Jaipur and Delhi, I critically analyse three assertions made in relation to surrogacy: that it is (i) a particularly intimate or invasive form of bodily exploitation; (ii) a uniquely sacralized form of affective labour and (iii) a uniquely generative form of labour. In arguing against exceptionalism, I contend that such practices cannot be adjudged through application of universal ethical principles and norms, but rather must take account of the complexity of the lived experience of all the participants, placed in their sociological and geographical contexts.