The denial of motherhood and of the weight of genetics in the construction of kinship by egg donors
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.4000/12p52Keywords:
egg donation, motherhood, kinship relationships, genetics, SpainAbstract
This article is based on ethnographic research carried out between 2016 and 2019 that included interviews with 38 egg donors, and presents the study of a topic that concerns, in this case, Spanish egg donors: how they talk about the relationship they can have with children conceived thanks to their eggs. It analyzes the way in which these egg donors move between two interpretive registers of kinship relationships (one genetic and another more experiential/social), and the way in which these two registers impact their subjectivities.
Downloads
References
Almeling, Rene. 2011.Sex cells: the medical market for eggs and sperm. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ayala, Ariadna, Begoña Leyra, y Carla Cubillos. 2020. “Nuevas perspectivas para la investigación y la intervención en el ámbito de la reproducción asistida. Retos profesionales en clave internacional”. In Etnografía de los mercados reproductivos: Actores, instituciones, legislaciones, editado por A. M. Rivas Rivas y C. Álvarez Plaza, 397–450. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanch.
Bestard, Joan. 2004. “Kinship and the new genetics. The changing meaning of biogenetic substance”. Social Anthropology 12, nº 3: 253–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2004.tb00107.x.
Bestard, Joan, y Gemma Orobitg. 2009. “Le paradoxe du don anonyme. Signification des dons d’ovules dans les procréations médicalement assistées”. In Défis contemporains de la parenté, editado por E. Porqueres, 277–301. Paris: Éditions EHESS.
Blyth, Eric, Samantha Yee, y Amy K. T. Tsang. 2011. “‘They were my eggs; they were her babies’: known oocyte donors’ conceptualizations of their reproductive material”. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology Canada 33, nº 11: 1134–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1701-2163(16)35081-2
Bogino, Mercedes. 2020. “Maternidades en tensión. Entre la maternidad hegemónica, otras maternidades y no-maternidades”. Investigaciones Feministas 11, nº 1: 9–20. https://doi.org/10.5209/infe.64007
Borgstrømp, Marie B., Solveig S. Nygaard, Anne K. Danielsen, y Ulrik S. Kesmodel. 2019. “Exploring motivations, attitudes and experiences of oocyte donors: A qualitative study”. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 98: 1055–62.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 2013. “Comprender”. In La miseria del mundo, 1–15. Madrid: Akal.
Collier, Jane F., y Sylvia J. Yanagisako. 1987. Gender and kinship: Essays toward a unified analysis. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Carsten, Janet. 2000. Cultures of relatedness. New approaches to the study of kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carsten, Janet. 2004. After kinship. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511800382
Comisión Nacional de Reproducción Humana Asistida (CNHRA). 2018. Registro de Centros y Servicios de Reproducción Humana Asistida (RHA). Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad.
Comisión Europea. 2015. Economic landscapes of human tissues and cells for clinical application in the EU. Publications Office of the European Union. https://op.europa.eu/ en/publication-detail/-/publication/5a0fd429-4a4e-11e6-9c64-01aa75ed71a1
Courduriès, Jérôme, y Cathy Herbrand. 2014. “Gender, kinship and assisted reproductive technologies: Future directions”. Enfances, Familles, Génération 21: 28–56.
Crowe, Christine. 1985. “‘Women want it’: In-vitro fertilization and women’s motivations for participation”. Women's Studies International Forum 8, nº 6: 547–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/0277-5395(85)90092-5
Culley, Lorraine, Nicky Hudson, Frances Rapport, et al. 2011. “Crossing borders for fertility treatment: motivations, destinations and outcomes of UK fertility travellers”. Human Reproduction (Oxford, England) 26, nº 9: 2373–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der191
DBK. 2023. Centros de Reproducción Asistida. Observatorio Sectorial DBK, Informa. https://www.dbk.es/es/informes-especiales/centros-reproduccion-asistidao
Déchaux, Jean-Hugues. 2014. “Une autre manière de fabriquer de la parenté?”. Enfances, Familles, Génération 21. http://journals.openedition.org/efg/715
Devillard, Marie Jose, Adela Franzé, y Álvaro Pazos. 2012. “Apuntes metodológicos sobre la conversación en el trabajo etnográfico”. Política y Sociedad 49, nº 2: 353–69. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_POSO.2012.v49.n2.36512
Edwards, Jeanette. 2004. “Incorporating incest: Gamete, body and relation in assisted conception”. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 10, nº 4: 755–74.
Edwards, Jeanette. 2009a. “The matter in kinship”. In European Kinship in the Age of Biotechnology, editado por J. Edwards y C. Salazar, 1–18. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Edwards, Jeanette. 2009b. “La vie sociale du sang et des gènes”. In Défis contemporains de la parenté, editado por E. Porqueres, 303–26. Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes bEtudes en Sciences Sociales.
European IVF Monitoring Consortium (EIM), para la European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE); Christine Wyns, Christian De Geyter, Carlos Calhaz-Jorge, Michael S. Kupka, Tatiana Motrenko, Jacob Smeenk, Christina Bergh, Astrid Tandler-Schneider, Ilinca A. Rugescu, y Veerle Goossens. 2022. “ART in Europe, 2018: Results generated from European registries by ESHRE”. Human Reproduction Open 3. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac022
Fassin, Éric. 2002. “La nature de la maternité. Pour une anthropologie de la reproduction”. Journal des Anthropologues 88-89: 103–22.
Fine, Alain. 2001. “Pluriparentalités et système de filiation dans les sociétés occidentales”. In La pluriparentalité, editado por D. Le Gally y Y. Bettahar, 69–93. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Fine, Alain, y Anne Martial. 2010. “Vers une naturalisation de la filiation?”. Genèses 78: 121–34. https://doi.org/10.3917/gen.078.0121
Fonseca, Claudia. 2011. “The de-kinning of birthmothers: Reflections on maternity and being human”. Vibrant 8, nº 2: 307–38. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1809-43412011000 200014
Fortier, Corinne. 2009. “Quand la ressemblance fait la parenté”. En Défis contemporains de la parenté, editado por E. Porqueres, 251–74. Paris: Éditions de l’École des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales.
Franklin, Sarah. 2006. “Embryonic economies: The double reproductive value of stem cells”. Biosocieties 1, nº 1: 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1745855205040081
Franklin, Sarah. 2013a. Biological relatives. IVF, stem cells, and the future of kinship. Durham; London: Duke University Press.
Franklin, Sarah. 2013b. “From blood to genes? Rethinking consanguinity in the context of geneticization”. in Blood and kinship: Matter for metaphor from ancient Rome to the present, editado por C. H. Johnson, Bernd Jussen, David W. Sabean, and Simon Teuscher, 285–306. New York; Oxford: Berghahn Books.
Franklin, Sarah, y Susan McKinnon, eds. 2001. Relative Values: Reconfiguring Kinship Studies. Durham: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9780822383222
Gilman, Leah. 2020. “Tracing pathways of relatedness: How identity-release gamete donors negotiate biological (non-)parenthood”. Families, Relationships and Societies 9, nº 2: 235–51. https://doi.org/10.1332/204674319X15536817073756
Golombok, Susan, Jennifer Readings, Lucy Blake, et al. 2011. “Children conceived by gamete donation: Psychological adjustment and mother-child relationships at age 7”. Journal of Family Psychology 25, nº 2: 230–39. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022769
Graham, Susan, Vasanti Jadva, Tabitha Freeman, Kamal Ahuja, y Susan Golombok. 2016. “Being an identity-release donor: A qualitative study exploring the motivations, experiences and future expectations of current UK egg donors”. Human Fertility 19, nº 4: 230–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/14647273.2016.1221148
Gross, Martine, Julie Courduriès, y Alfonso De Federico. 2014. “Le recours à l’AMP dans les familles homoparentales: État des lieux. Résultats d’une enquête menée en 2012”. Socio-logos 9. http://journals.openedition.org/socio-logos/2870
Haraway, Donna. 1997. “The virtual speculum in the New World Order”. Feminist Review 55: 22–72. https://doi.org/10.1057/fr.1997.3
Hayden, Corinne P. 1995. “Gender, genetics and generation: Reformulating biology in lesbian kinship”. Cultural Anthropology 10, nº 1: 41–63. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780 470775981.ch7.
Herbrand, Cathy. 2008. Les normes familiales à l’épreuve du droit et des pratiques: Analyse de la parenté sociale et de la pluriparentalité homosexuelles. Bruxelles: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
Inhorn, Marcia. 2006. “Making Muslim Babies IVF and Gamete Donation in Sunni versus Shi’a Islam”. Culture, Medicine and Psychiatry 30: 427–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11013-006-9027-x
Jociles, María I. 2005. “La imposición de los puntos de vista durante la entrevista etnográfica”. Antropología portuguesa 22/23: 9–40.
Jociles, María I., y Cristina Charro. 2008. “Construcción de los roles paternos en los procesos de adopción internacional: El papel de las instituciones intermediarias”. Política y Sociedad 45, nº 2: 105–30.
Jociles, María I., y Ana M. Rivas. 2016. “Cambios en la concepción y representación del parentesco a raíz del uso de las técnicas de reproducción asistida con donante”. Ankulegi 20: 63–78.
Jociles, María I., Ana M. Rivas, y C. Álvarez. 2016. “Imágenes de los/las donantes en los relatos sobre los orígenes de los hijos/as”. In Revelaciones, filiaciones y biotecnologías. Una etnografía de la comunicación de los orígenes a los hijos e hijas concebidos mediante donación reproductiva, editado por M. I. Jociles, 119–81. Barcelona: Bellaterra.
Jociles, María I., Ana M. Rivas, y C. Álvarez. 2017. “Strategies to personalize and to depersonalize donors in parental narratives of children’s genetic/gestational origins (Spain)”. Suomen Antropologi 42, nº 4: 24–50.
Jociles, María I. 2020. “Supongo que si hubiera tenido pasta, no lo habría hecho: Motivaciones para donar óvulos e ideología del altruismo”. In Etnografía de los mercados reproductivos: Actores, instituciones, legislaciones, editado por A. M. Rivas y C. Álvarez, 35–93. Valencia: Tirant Lo Blanch.
Jociles, María I., Ana M. Rivas, y Ariadna Ayala. 2022. “Les représentations sociales des fournisseuses de gamètes en Espagne: Derrière le ‘don’ d’ovocyte, un travail invisibilisé et dévalorisé”. Enfances Familles Générations 38. http://journals.openedition.org/efg/ 12099
Kalampalikis, Nikos, Verena Haas, Nathalie Fieulaine, et al. 2010. “Enjeux psychosociaux du don de sperme: Le point de vue des couples”. Andrologie 20, nº 2: 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12610-010-0066-3
Kirkman, Maggie. 2003. “Egg and embryo donation and the meaning of motherhood”. Women & Health 38, nº 2: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1300/J013v38n02_01
Klotz, Maren. 2016. “Wayward relations: Novel searches of the donor-conceived for genetic kinship”. Medical Anthropology: Cross-Cultural Studies in Health and Illness 35, nº 1: 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1012615
Leckey, Robert. 2014. “Infiniment plus de choses dans la vie que dans la Loi: La reconnaissance des mères lesbiennes”. Droit et Société 86: 115–32. https://doi.org/10.3917/drs.086.0115
Miettinen, Anneli, Anna Rotkirch, Anu-Mari Suikkari, y Venla Söderström-Anttila. 2019. “Attitudes of anonymous and identity-release oocyte donors towards future contact with donor offspring”. Human Reproduction 34, nº 4: 672–78.
Mohr, Sebastian. 2015. “Living kinship trouble: Danish sperm donors’ narratives of relatedness”. Medical Anthropology 34, nº 5: 470–84.
https://doi.org/10.1080/01459740.2015.1008632
Nordqvist, Petra. 2014. “The drive for openness in donor conception: disclosure and the trouble with real life”. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 28, nº 3: 321–38. https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebu010
Orobitg, Gemma, y Carles Salazar. 2005. “The gift of motherhood: Egg donation in a Barcelona infertility clinic”. Ethnos 70, nº 1: 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00141840 500048532
Pande, Amrita. 2015. “Blood, sweat and dummy tummies: Kin labour and transnational surrogacy in India”. Anthropologica 57, nº 1: 53–62.
Parry, Bronwyn. 2018. “Surrogate labour: Exceptional for whom?” Economy and Society 47, nº 2: 214–33. https://doi.org/10.1080/03085147.2018.1487180
Porqueres, Enric. 2017. “Le corps reproductif globalisé: Questions de filiation et de parenté”. Ethnologie française 167, nº 3: 393–98. https://doi.org/10.3917/ethn.173.0393
Ragoné, Helena. 1996. “Chasing the blood tie. Surrogate mothers, adoptive mothers, and fathers”. American Ethnologist 23, nº 2: 352–65. https://doi.org/10.1525/ae.1996. 23.2.02a00090
Ragoné, Helena. 2000. “The gift of life: surrogate motherhood, gamete donation and constructions of altruism”. In Transformative motherhood: On giving and getting in a consumer culture, editado por L. Layne. New York: New York University Press.
Ramírez-Gálvez, María. 2014. “L’adoption d’enfants et le recours à la reproduction assistée interconnexions et déplacements”. Enfances Familles Générations 21. https://doi.org/10.7202/1025961ar
Rivas, Ana M., y María I. Jociles. 2020. “¿Ayuda o trabajo?: La perspectiva de las donantes de óvulos sobre su participación en la reproducción biológica”. In Etnografía de los mercados reproductivos: Actores, instituciones y legislaciones, editado por A. M. Rivas y C. Álvarez, 95–156. Valencia: Tirant lo Blanc.
Rivas, Ana M., María I. Jociles, y C. Álvarez. 2016. “Posicionamientos y actitudes ante la comunicación de los orígenes en las familias formadas mediante TRA-D”. In Revelaciones, filiaciones y biotecnologías. Una etnografía sobre la comunicación de los orígenes a los hijos e hijas concebidos mediante donación reproductiva, editado por M. I. Jociles, 37–68. Madrid: Trotta.
Rivas, Ana M., María I. Jociles, y Ariadna Ayala. 2021. “Le travail (re)productif des donneuses d’ovules en Espagne”. Enfances, Familles, Générations 38. http://journals. openedition.org/efg/12099.
Schneider, David M. 1984. A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.7203
Smietana, Marcin. 2017. “Affective de-commodifying, economic de-Kinning: Surrogates’ and gay fathers’ narratives in U.S. Surrogacy”. Sociological Research Online 22, nº 2: 163–175. https://doi.org/10.5153/sro.4312
Smietana, Marcin, Sharmila Rudrappa, y Christina Weis. 2021. “Moral frameworks of commercial surrogacy within the US, India and Russia”. Sexual and Reproductive Health Matters 29, nº 1: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/26410397.2021.1878674
Snowdon, Christine. 1994. “What makes a mother? Interviews with women involved in egg donation and surrogacy”. Birth 21: 77–84.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1992a. After nature: English kinship in the late twentieth century. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Strathern, Marilyn. 1992b. Reproducing the future: Essays on anthropology, kinship and the new reproduction technologies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Strauss, Anselm, y Juliet Corbin. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Teman, Elly. 2010. Birthing a mother. The surrogate body and the pregnant self. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Thompson, Charis. 2001. “Strategic naturalizing: Kinship in an infertility clinic”. In Relative values: Reconfiguring kinship studies, editado por S. Franklin y S. McKinnon, 175–202. Durham: Duke University Press.
White, Patricia. 2018. “Commercialization, altruism, clinical practice: Seeking Explanations for Egg and sperm donation in Spain and the UK”. Women’s Health Issues 28, nº 3: 239–50.
Yanagisako, Sylvia, y Carol Delaney. 1995. “Naturalizing power”. In Essays in feminist cultural analysis, coordinado por S. Yanagisako y C. Delaney, 1–22. New York; London: Routledge.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 María Isabel Jociles Rubio, Ariadna Ayala Rubio
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en
Creative Commons - Atribución- 4.0 Internacional - CC BY 4.0
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode.en
