Conclusion
With the dynamic interaction analysis, this research re-affirms that surrogates remain in Sen’s capability poverty: unconvertible portfolio of Bourdieu’s capital, even with the bridging of emotional capital. However, understanding how surrogates “both exert power and are subject to it (Deomampo 2013: 532)” is one thing, but to know how to target the issue is another. In the face of new Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill executed in 2020, the surrogates may be easily trapped in a “Faustian bargain (Wood, 2003)” – to stay poor to stay secure. How to overcome the so-called surrogacy-or-poverty moral dilemmas towards reproductive injustices (Bailey, 2000) is perhaps of the imperative for the current government. Although this research provides a novel ground in depicting surrogates’ living difficulties, more empirical evidence is needed to advance the current findings and better serve as the foundation for future government efforts.
References
Allison, Anne. 2012. Ordinary refugees: Social precarity and soul in 21st century Japan. Anthropological Quarterly , 345-370. Doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/41857246
Arvidsson, Anna, Polly Vauquline, Sara Johnsdotter, and Birgitta Essén. 2017. ”Surrogate mother–praiseworthy or stigmatized: a qualitative study on perceptions of surrogacy in Assam, India.” Global health action  10.: 1328890. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2017.1328890
Ashforth, Blake. E., & Glen E. Kreiner. 1999. “How can you do it?”: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of management Review24 (3), 413-434. Doi:https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1999.2202129
Bailey, Alison. 2011. “Reconceiving Surrogacy: Toward a Reproductive Justice Account of Indian Surrogacy,” Hypatia . Cambridge University Press, 26(4), pp. 715–741. Doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.2011.01168.x.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. La distinction: Critique sociale du jugement, Paris:1979); trans. R. Nice, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
——–. 1986. ‘Forms of Capital ’ in Richardson, J., Ed. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, Westport, CT: Greenwood, pp. 241–58
Cheng, Hui G., and Michael R. Phillips. 2014. ”Secondary analysis of existing data: opportunities and implementation.” Shanghai archives of psychiatry  26.6: 371.
Colen, Shellee. 1986. ”With Respect and Feelings”: Voices of West Indian Child Care Workers in New York City”. All American Women: Lines That Divide, Ties That Bind : 46–70.
Deomampo, Daisy. 2013. ‘Gendered Geographies of Reproductive Tourism’, Gender & Society , 27(4), pp. 514–537. Doi: 10.1177/0891243213486832
Deonandan, Raywat, Samantha Green, and Amanda Van Beinum. 2012. Ethical concerns for maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism. J Med Ethics: 12: 742–74. Doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2012-100551
Falquet Jule. 2008. De gré ou de forcé. Les femmes dans la mondialisation, vol. le genre du monde. Paris: La Dispute; Doi:https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.52103
Gooptu, Nandini. 2013. “Servile Sentinels of the City: Private Security Guards, Organized Informality, and Labour in Interactive Services in Globalized India,” International Review of Social History . Cambridge University Press, 58(1), pp. 9–38. Doi: 10.1017/S0020859012000788
Graeber, David. 2009. Direct action: An ethnography . AK press.
Hann, Chris, and Keith Hart. 2011. Market and Society . Cambridge University Press. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511581380
Harcourt, Wendy. 2009. Body politics in development: Critical debates in gender and development . Bloomsbury Publishing. Retrieved from Cadmus, European University Institute Research Repository, at:http://hdl.handle.net/1814/42247
Keller, Evelyn Fox, and Gertrude Scharff‐Goldhaber. 1987. Reflections on gender and science. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1119/1.15186
Kishor, Sunita, and Kamla Gupta. 2009. Gender equality and Women’s empowerment in India. National Family Health Survey (NFHS-3), India, 2005–06. International Institute for Population Sciences: Mumbai.
Mackenzie, Catriona, and Natalie Stoljar. 2000. Introduction: autonomy refigured. in C Mackenzie & N Stoljar (eds), Relational autonomy: Feminist perspectives on autonomy, agency, and the social self.  Oxford University Press, New York, USA, pp. 3-31.
Markens, Susan. 2007. Surrogate motherhood and the politics of reproduction . University of California Press. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520940970
Meyers, Diana T. 1987. Personal autonomy and the paradox of feminine socialization. Doi:https://www.jstor.org/stable/2026764
Millar, Kathleen M. 2014. ”The precarious present: Wageless labor and disrupted life in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.” Cultural Anthropology  29.1: 32-53. Doi:https://doi.org/10.14506/ca29.1.04
Nedelsky, Jannifer. 1989. Reconceiving autonomy: Sources, thoughts and possibilities. Yale JL & Feminism1 , 7.
Oliver, Kelly. 1989. “Marxism and Surrogacy,” Hypatia . Cambridge University Press, 4(3), pp. 95–115. doi: 10.1111/j.1527-2001.1989.tb00594.
Oppenheim, Carey and Harker, Lisa. 1996. Poverty: The Facts. London: Child Poverty Action Group.
Ortner, Sherry B. 1998. Identities: The hidden life of class. Journal of Anthropological Research54 (1), 1-17. Doi:http://www.jstor.org/stable/3631674.
Pande, Amrita. 2009a. ”“It may be her eggs but it’s my blood”: Surrogates and everyday forms of kinship in India.” Qualitative sociology  32.4 (2009): 379-397. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/s11133-009-9138-0
——–. 2009b. ”Not an ‘Angel’, not a ‘Whore’ Surrogates as ‘Dirty’ Workers in India.” Indian journal of gender studies  16.2: 141-173. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/097152150901600201
——–. 2010. ”Commercial surrogacy in India: Manufacturing a perfect mother-worker.” Signs: Journal of women in culture and society  35.4: 969-992. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1086/651043
——–. 2011. ”Transnational commercial surrogacy in India: gifts for global sisters?” Reproductive biomedicine online  23.5: 618-625. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.07.007
——–. 2014. Wombs in labor: transnational commercial surrogacy in India. New York: Columbia University Press; Doi:https://doi.org/10.7312/pand16990
Raz, Joseph. 1986. The morality of freedom . Clarendon Press.
Rapp Rayna. 2001. Gender, body, biomedicine: how some feminist concerns dragged reproduction to the center of social theory. Medical anthropology quarterly15 (4), 466–477. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1525/maq.2001.15.4.466
Reay, Diane. 2004. ”Gendering Bourdieu’s concepts of capital? Emotional capital, women and social class.” The sociological review  52.2_suppl: 57-74. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2005.00524.x
Roberts, Dorothy E. 1995. ”The genetic tie.” The University of Chicago Law Review  62.1: 209-273. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/1600134
Rohrer, John H., and Muzafer Sherif. 1951. Work and the self. In J. H. Rohrer & M. Sherif, Social psychology at the crossroads; the University of Oklahoma lectures in social psychology  (pp. 313–323). Harper.
Rozée, Virginie, Sayeed Unisa, and Elise de La Rochebrochard. 2020. The social paradoxes of commercial surrogacy in developing countries: India before the new law of 2018. BMC Women’s Health  20 234. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12905-020-01087-2
Rudrappa, Shamila. 2015. Discounted Life: The Price of Global Surrogacy in India. New York, USA: New York University Press. Doi:https://doi.org/10.18574/9781479877140
Sen, Amartya. 2014. Development as freedom (1999). The globalization and development reader: Perspectives on development and global change525 . Doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9781912281275
Söderström-Anttila, Viveca, Ulla-Britt Wennerholm, Anne Loft, Anja Pinborg, Kristiina Aittomäki, Liv Bente Romundstad, and Christina Bergh. 2016. ”Surrogacy: outcomes for surrogate mothers, children and the resulting families—a systematic review.” Human reproduction update  22.2: 260-276. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmv046
Standing, Guy. 2014. Understanding the precariat through labour and work. Development and change45 (5), 963-980. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12120
Teman, Elly. 2010. ”The last outpost of the nuclear family: A cultural critique of Israeli surrogacy policy.” Kin, gene, community: Reproductive technologies among Jewish Israelis : 107-122.
Thorbecke, Erik. 2008. Multidimensional poverty: conceptual and measurement issues. In The many dimensions of poverty  (pp. 3-19). Palgrave Macmillan, London. Doi:10.1057/9780230592407_1
Twine, France Winddance. 2012. Outsourcing the womb: Race, class and gestational surrogacy in a global market . Routledge. Doi:https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203834206
Vora, Kalindi. 2009. ”Indian transnational surrogacy and the commodification of vital energy.” Subjectivity  28.1: 266-278. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1057/sub.2009.14
Wood, Geof. 2003. Staying secure, staying poor: the “Faustian bargain”. World Development31 (3), 455-471. Doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0305-750X(02)00213-9
Zaloom, Caitlin. 2006. Out of the Pits: Traders and Technology from Chicago to London. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.