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
Review , 24 (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 & Feminism , 1 , 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 Research , 54 (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 quarterly , 15 (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
change , 525 . 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 change , 45 (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 Development , 31 (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.