Complexities and Contingencies Conceptualised: Towards a Model of Reproductive Navigation

Abstract

Link to publication General rightsIt is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), other than for strictly personal, individual use, unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons). Disclaimer/Complaints regulationsIf you believe that digital publication of certain material infringes any of your rights or (privacy) interests, please let the Library know, stating your reasons. In case of a legitimate complaint, the Library will make the material inaccessible and/or remove it from the website. Please Ask the Library: http://uba.uva.nl/en/contact, or a letter to: Library of the University of Amsterdam, Secretariat, Singel 425, 1012 WP Amsterdam, The Netherlands. You will be contacted as soon as possible. Abstract Current international attention to reproductive health behaviour is inspired by a western celebration of individual rights, autonomous action and rational choice. A predominant idea is that individuals should be free to act in accordance with their reproductive intentions and that, in doing so, they will attain their desired (and quantifiable) fertility outcomes. Yet such a framework leads to a misrepresentation of the reproductive dynamics on the ground, because individual fertility intentions are often not a priori defined, decisions are often not the result of rational calculation and reproductive happenings do not exist in a social vacuum. This article provides sociocultural evidence for a different conceptualisation of reproductive health behaviour. On the basis of long-term anthropological fieldwork in the East Province of Cameroon, I will analyse the complexities of fertilityrelated decision-making. Two case studies from the field will show that reproductive happenings are often characterised by indeterminacy and contingency. In order to understand the complex ways in which women give direction to these uncertainties, I propose an encompassing framework of reproductive navigation that explicitly acknowledges the influence of sociality and corporeality on fertility aspirations and actions.

Identifying factors that influence pregnancy intentions: evidence from South Africa and Malawi

“…Qualitative research on childbearing decision making and fertility intentions in the UK and USA has begun to challenge the notion that fertility decisions are the result of conscious actions and that intended pregnancy is the goal of all women Wellings 2002, 2004;Esacove 2008). Work in developing-country settings has also begun to challenge notions of rationalitybased reproductive decision making, but data supporting this is more limited (Lasee and Becker 1997;Castle et al 1999;Johnson-Hanks 2005;Gipson and Hindin 2007;van der Sijpt 2014).…”

The making of ‘old eggs’: the science of reproductive ageing between fertility and anti-ageing technologies

“…Whilst the risk of increased pressure on women to anticipate their reproductive futures ( Martin, 2010 ), together with the illusory technological fix it promises, are to be criticized, the empowering dimension of egg freezing in enabling women to synchronize conflicting timescales is also stressed ( Goold and Savulescu, 2009 , Mertes and Pennings, 2011 , Rybak and Lieman, 2009 , Waldby, 2014 ). Although this literature discusses age very much in relation to ART and its impact on women’s ‘reproductive navigation’ ( van der Sijpt, 2014 ), studies engaging more directly with the biology of age-related fertility decline and the upstream traffic rendering fertility extension possible have been left out of the account. What happens when age enters the domain of reproduction?…”

Contexts of reproduction: Gender dynamics and unintended birth in sub‐Saharan Africa

“…Living arrangements frequently involve the co‐residence of three generations, and even when not co‐residing, people's lives are heavily influenced by extended kin, neighbors, and the community (Lloyd & Desai, 1992; Olopade, 2014). Ethnographic research in SSA provides overwhelming evidence of how women's reproductive options, decisions, and behavior are affected not only by their relation with the (potential) father of the child, but also by their position within a wider body of kinship relations (Cornwall, 2007; Doyle, 2013; Van der Sijpt, 2014). The position of the kin group in the community or neighborhood, the proximity and copresence of affinal relations, such as in‐laws and co‐wives, and the ties to others in the community are of major importance (Cornwall, 2007; Doyle, 2013; Van der Sijpt, 2014).…”

“…Ethnographic research in SSA provides overwhelming evidence of how women's reproductive options, decisions, and behavior are affected not only by their relation with the (potential) father of the child, but also by their position within a wider body of kinship relations (Cornwall, 2007; Doyle, 2013; Van der Sijpt, 2014). The position of the kin group in the community or neighborhood, the proximity and copresence of affinal relations, such as in‐laws and co‐wives, and the ties to others in the community are of major importance (Cornwall, 2007; Doyle, 2013; Van der Sijpt, 2014). What Watkins (1993, p. 561) has observed for breastfeeding may be considered significant for reproductive outcomes in general, “not only relatives in the back bedroom, but also significant others in women's networks, such as friends and neighbours outside the household, would have had forceful opinions that influenced the extent and duration of breastfeeding.” Socialization, social learning, and social pressure may explain such community level relationships (Bernardi & Klärner, 2014; Sear & Coall, 2011; Steenhof & Liefbroer, 2008).…”